Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.
Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".And you don't seem to understand our suggestion that you aren't as smart as you think you are.
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.Oh, we aren't suggesting that you lack understanding. We're saying it outright.
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.Why shouldn't the moon be right where calculations predict that it should be?Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
So your LEO plane must be same as the Moon orbit plane. If you blast off in the wrong direction, you will not arrive in the Moon orbit.
Second you must ensure that you arrive at the Moon orbit, when the Moon is there. The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days or so, i.e. it is moving all the time. If you blast off too early or late, you will arrive too early and too late.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?
Rocket science is not easy. I explain all at my web site.
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
Well, when you blast off from LEO you must first ensure that you are in the same plane as the Moon orbit. Space is 3D.
So your LEO plane must be same as the Moon orbit plane. If you blast off in the wrong direction, you will not arrive in the Moon orbit.
Second you must ensure that you arrive at the Moon orbit, when the Moon is there. The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days or so, i.e. it is moving all the time. If you blast off too early or late, you will arrive too early and too late.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?
Rocket science is not easy. I explain all at my web site.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
'Nuff said!
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.
I am an expert of collisions
But is he any good at avoiding collisions?I am an expert of collisions
No doubt.
But is he any good at avoiding collisions?I am an expert of collisions
No doubt.
Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.
I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .
So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?
And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?
Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
'Nuff said!
Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.
I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .
So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?
And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?
Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
I explained how to arrive at the moon when it is there. When you now aim at a point that is close to the moon then you avoid a collision. More details will come when I write the simulator.
What you do on the moon has literally nothing to do with the topic.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
'Nuff said!
Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
You definitely owe the boys at apollohoax.
Also I believe you know a lot about collisions. It's clear you have had one too many!
Maybe you had an experience similar to Inti? Sixty punches to the head!
No they don't.http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0
'Nuff said!
Exactly. If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?
You definitely owe the boys at apollohoax.
Also I believe you know a lot about collisions. It's clear you have had one too many!
Maybe you had an experience similar to Inti? Sixty punches to the head!
It seems all punches miss.
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"
A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).
Outer space is a little bit different from the sea. For starters, the spacecraft is attracted by the moon. Plus, you can predict movements very well as the only thing influencing the orbits is the (well-understood) force of gravity.Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Visit my website!!!!Thanks for that accurate translation. For a moment I had hoped that heiwa would actually read that.. But I guess that was foolish of me.
No. I read your post and replied. Now you have to explain how to arrive at the Moon when it is there ... and then how you avoid a collision.
I am an expert of collisions - http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm .
So how to avoid a Moon collision? You slow down? You turn? What do you do to enable a landing?
And what shall you do on the Moon after landing. Build a hotel. Plant strawberries?
Collisions between ships have nothing to do with orbital mechanics.
I explained how to arrive at the moon when it is there. When you now aim at a point that is close to the moon then you avoid a collision. More details will come when I write the simulator.
What you do on the moon has literally nothing to do with the topic.
It has. If both (space) crafts are moving, the probability is high that they will miss each other = no collision encounter = just a miss.
Do you know Mr. W Tell? He was Swiss and shot at an apple on the head of his son. You have to be clever hitting that apple. Now imagine Mr. Tell's son running with the apple on the head. Try to hit the apple then and tell me how you do it.
quite ;DIf you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"
A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).
Theres been quite a lot of speculation on that, to be fair.
Yeah I'm here for lolz.
I read your paper by the way, I couldn't see anything erroneous with it other than not mentioning the fact that the spacecraft's orbit would have the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system at it's foci. It is quite a large difference relative to Earth (over 4000km from the planet's centre), but I guess this would come under the 5th simplification about the Moon's gravity.
If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"
A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).
The apple thing: Easy - if he moves in a predictable pattern you calculate the time your arrow moves and see how much the child will move during that time. I did that. Just read the document.
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
I don't think you understood me. There is nothing to debunk. The only thing you did was fallaciously claim arguments from incredulity.
"The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on."
Yeah, and?
"No rockets can do it."
Got any calculations for that?
"The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable."
Uh, no. Orbital mechanics follow very repeatable and consistent laws of physics. I think you mean you can't predict any of it.
Yeah because to be fair you always back up your claims here with evidence. Oh wait, sorry, that's wrong. You literally never do that. You just make wild statements and pi,p your horrible website.If you find my rocket science is wrong, I'll pay you €1M. Isn't it generous?I looked at your site, but you don't actually have any rocket science to debunk. The only thing you managed to do was do crude Google searches and quote NASA given information, before saying "nonsense!"
A very good safeguard for that €1M, to be sure (assuming it even exists).
Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
Well, that depends on your engine and the fuel and the mass. I have explained how to calculate it, though.Please back up above with some copy/paste to debunk.
I don't think you understood me. There is nothing to debunk. The only thing you did was fallaciously claim arguments from incredulity.
"The extra force to get started out of Earth orbit must be applied at high speed in orbit at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on."
Yeah, and?
"No rockets can do it."
Got any calculations for that?
"The resulting trajectory and your location in it are always unpredictable."
Uh, no. Orbital mechanics follow very repeatable and consistent laws of physics. I think you mean you can't predict any of it.
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
But let's face it! You are orbiting Earth at a certain altitude and high speed and shall from there blast off with your space craft to say the Moon or planet Mars or asteroid Bennu.
For that a force must be applied at the right (1) time, (2) location, (3) direction, (4) duration, (5) strength and so on.
I have asked around and found noone to tell me how much fuel I need for just the first kick out of orbit.
But before I start to orbit Earth going anywhere, I must know how much fuel I need for the whole trip.That is why they do calculate it beforehand and not just launch a vessel and see where it goes.
I have recently asked the persons below about the fuel to be spent by their spacecraft OSIRIS-REx - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR - just now flying to Bennu:That is because they probably recognize you for the fraud you are
1. Dwayne Brown, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1726, dwayne.c.brown@nasa.gov
2. Laurie Cantillo, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 202-358-1077, laura.l.cantillo@nasa.gov
3. Nancy N. Jones, NAXA Office of Clownications, tel 301-286-0039, nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov
4. Erin Morton, Office of the Principal Clown, University of Arizona, tel 520-269-2493, morton@orex.lpl.arizona.edu
5. Gary Napier, Lockheed Martin Clownications, tel 303-971-4012, gary.p.napier@lmco.com
6. George Diller, NAXA's Kennedy Space Center Office of Clown Affairs, tel 321-861-7643, george.h.diller@nasa.gov
7. Shannon Ridinger, NAXA's Marshall Space Clown Center, tel 256-544-3774, Shannon.J.Ridinger@nasa.gov
No reply. Try yourself. The above persons are in charge of a valuable spacecraft going to Bennu and back ... but cannot inform how the fuel shall be used.
The spacecraft is right now speeding ahead of Earth around the Sun but ... September this year ... Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS-Rex will encounter each other one way or other and ... planet Earth will kick spacecraft OSIRIS-REx to Bennu ... without using any fuel at all!I am not surprised that you do not understand swing-by maneuvers.
MAGIC!
No, just a standard NASA trick since many years.
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
I seriously hope that you aren't the smartest person at your safety at sea company.I wonder if he's the only person at that company.
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.
Umm... You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.
It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
Umm... You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?
Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this.
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.
It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.
It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
That response does not qualify. You did not prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. If you had you would have won the €1M prize. Better luck next time.
My contest is still open.
Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
? I have of course enough money. Why do you make stupid comments like above? Are you on drugs? Offering me €1M. You sound sick!
It's a puzzle to me why you don't just prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon if it's so easy.
It is rocket science! I explain why at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm#RS
That response does not qualify. You did not prove it's impossible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. If you had you would have won the €1M prize. Better luck next time.
My contest is still open.
Hm, you really have to study my website http://heiwaco.tripod.com and what I write. I do not prove anything.
I just show that a spacecraft cannot carry the fuel with it for a manned space trip. Or that you cannot execute a trajectory in space after starting in orbit. And that any re-entry is impossibe, as you cannot find the location to start it. It is basic rocket science.
Therefore manned space trips are unsafe! People will get killed. Safety at sea is my biz. My contribution is safer ships. That I can prove.
He absolutely does not have the money.Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
Thank you for the flowers! :)Umm... You do realize that rocket science is why people can calculate trajectories to the moon, don't you?Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Kami pointed that out ;D ;D ;D
Heiwa, you don't have one million cents, we've been through this.
Stop encouraging Rayzor please.
No. It is of course invested. You sound jealous. Or sick. Or drunk. Or drugged. Why do you post stupid inventions like that? Do you know me? Have we met? Have you been to my bank? My broker?He absolutely does not have the money.Well, if it so simple just collect €1M at <> .
It's tough to believe you have an engineering degree when you make stupid comments like this. To try and help you understand the logical fallacy involved consider the following:
I say it is possible to accurately calculate a spacecraft's trajectory from the earth to the moon. I am offering €1M to anyone who can prove me wrong.
If you're so sure it's impossible why don't you collect €1M. Don't you want the money? ::) :P ::)
Okay, I will say this again.It's crazy right? He makes these wild accusations, posts this bizarre challenge and when people say, prove it, he accuses them of being crazy, or drunk etc. I honestly think he doesn't see how insane he sounds.
If you want anyone to take your challenge seriously you have to
a) prove that you can provide the offered money
b) appoint a neutral judge for the challenge
Until then you can not call it a challenge and it has not the slightest kind of validity.
Do those two things and I will try to win it, until then please stop rambling about it.
Okay, I will say this again.
If you want anyone to take your challenge seriously you have to
a) prove that you can provide the offered money
b) appoint a neutral judge for the challenge
Until then you can not call it a challenge and it has not the slightest kind of validity.
Do those two things and I will try to win it, until then please stop rambling about it.
If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him. Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂
I'm betting you "demonstrated" the same way you do everything else. That would be, showing no actual evidence and simply saying, but of course that's impossible.If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him. Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂
Yes, "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" is what the Swedish authorities called me, when I demonstrated that their M/S Estonia 1994 accident investigation published 1997 was full of lies and manipulated testimonies, etc, etc. It convinced media to ignore my findings. The authorities won! Their cover up was a success.
However, my website about it is still quite popular. Now the children or grandchildren of the victims study what really happened and ask me why. It is all explained at the site.
I'm betting you "demonstrated" the same way you do everything else. That would be, showing no actual evidence and simply saying, but of course that's impossible.If you read heiwa's signature line you will see, according to him, his governments opinion of him. Not sure if that qualifies as good standing.😂
Yes, "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" is what the Swedish authorities called me, when I demonstrated that their M/S Estonia 1994 accident investigation published 1997 was full of lies and manipulated testimonies, etc, etc. It convinced media to ignore my findings. The authorities won! Their cover up was a success.
However, my website about it is still quite popular. Now the children or grandchildren of the victims study what really happened and ask me why. It is all explained at the site.
😂😂😂
You are funny.
You just need to give us an inch.
(https://s18.postimg.org/4ceu1oiex/20161221_144323_1.jpg)
See, I could run a competition for a few k without anyone doubting I could pay. All anyone wants is proof you are willing and able to pay.
Strange. Free coffee. Friendly atmosphere. Help to assist explaining everything and filling in the application ...You forgot senile, biased, and proven liar judge that has been on record saying the challenge is unwinnable making it not a real challenge.
Strange. Free coffee. Friendly atmosphere. Help to assist explaining everything and filling in the application ...
Don't listen to these people Heiwa. They're all trying to rob you.I don't think it's a heart surgeon he needs, the problem's a little higher up.
Come to my place instead. I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.
Don't listen to these people Heiwa. They're all trying to rob you.
Come to my place instead. I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.
. . . this morning four miles jogging is followed by a swim in the sea nearby.
Don't listen to these people Heiwa. They're all trying to rob you.
Come to my place instead. I'm an amateur heart surgeon and I can fix any heart condition you have on the cheap.
Thanks. No risk! People are too stupid trying to rob me and my heart is fine, e.g. this morning four miles jogging is followed by a swim in the sea nearby.
I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:
https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en
Huh. So you tell people to their face that two events that horribly killed hundreds of thousands of their ancestors and destroyed two citites are fake and then you are surprised that they get upset? You must be a special kind of stupid. This is not even meant as an insult, but you really do seem to lack of basic common sense. A few examples:I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:
https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en
Well, to get a job at JAXA you must believe in NAXA:s Apollo hoax and as Japan is still occupied by US military 2017, it is better to shut up. However, no Japanese has won my Challenge. It is like the a-bomb. USA is very proud of having dropped two a-bombs on Japan killing 100 000's of Japs 1945 but, if you like me suggest, that it was all propaganda and that nobody died of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 and later, many Japanese get upset. Same at Fukushima 2011 and today 2017. 2011 the population was told that Fukushima would be dead for 1000 years but 2017 people are moving back. Radiation? It was all propaganda. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Huh. So you tell people to their face that two events that horribly killed hundreds of thousands of their ancestors and destroyed two citites are fake and then you are surprised that they get upset? You must be a special kind of stupid. This is not even meant as an insult, but you really do seem to lack of basic common sense. A few examples:I don't speak or read Japanese, and neither apparently does Google translate on some of these pages, but I can figure out enough to know that Japan knows how to get to the moon and insert something into orbit around it:
https://darts.isas.jaxa.jp/planet/odds/index.html.en
Well, to get a job at JAXA you must believe in NAXA:s Apollo hoax and as Japan is still occupied by US military 2017, it is better to shut up. However, no Japanese has won my Challenge. It is like the a-bomb. USA is very proud of having dropped two a-bombs on Japan killing 100 000's of Japs 1945 but, if you like me suggest, that it was all propaganda and that nobody died of radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 and later, many Japanese get upset. Same at Fukushima 2011 and today 2017. 2011 the population was told that Fukushima would be dead for 1000 years but 2017 people are moving back. Radiation? It was all propaganda. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
- Being surprised that the (i think it was swedish) government does not want the technology of nukes published openly, for every man to read and build his own little nuke
- Being surprised that the CEO of ESA and a few other people who have better things to do than discuss conspiracies do not respond to your emails
- Being surprised that the french government will not detonate a nuke near your hometown (this is my favorite, actually)
- The point above
For all those things the outcome could have been predicted, if you thought about that for 10 seconds. But somehow you did not. And I am wondering why. Maybe I can find it at your website.
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)
So you know this person in a professional capacity. Your profession being maritime safefety, and they may have accidentally killed dozens of people at sea. coincidense?Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
I only happened to know him through my job about safety at sea, where the objective is to minimize the risk of accidents by operating safe ships and following all safety rules.
In this case a stupid, strange accident happened but ... what really happened ... and who is really responsible ... and how to really improve safety at sea ... are questions that many refuse to answer. They, supported by media, think it is best to find a scape goat and forget the whole thing.
I have seen it before 1994 - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm .
What do you think? Do you think? What is 1+1? Do you know?
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)
Apparently a bit more than an accusation?
So you know this person in a professional capacity. Your profession being maritime safefety, and they may have accidentally killed dozens of people at sea. coincidense?Is it a question? Anyway, my friend is only accused of being a mass murderer. The judge will decide next month, if he is.I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.Why doesn't it surprise me that you would have a friend that's a mass murderer
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
I only happened to know him through my job about safety at sea, where the objective is to minimize the risk of accidents by operating safe ships and following all safety rules.
In this case a stupid, strange accident happened but ... what really happened ... and who is really responsible ... and how to really improve safety at sea ... are questions that many refuse to answer. They, supported by media, think it is best to find a scape goat and forget the whole thing.
I have seen it before 1994 - http://heiwaco.com/news.htm .
What do you think? Do you think? What is 1+1? Do you know?
😂😂
Do you really believe that a simple seaman on cruise ships goes around killing 27 passengers and 5 crew after a stupid accident? Before abandoning ship before everyone?
So he was convicted, not just accused. Again, I'm not surprisedI have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder)
Apparently a bit more than an accusation?
Another question? Anyway, my friend is appealing at the Supreme Court of Cassation at Rome/Italy and next month we will know the verdict. 16+ or 27 years in jail for mass murder or ... something else.
You really have to study the case at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Do you really believe that a simple seaman on cruise ships goes around killing 27 passengers and 5 crew after a stupid accident? Before abandoning ship before everyone?
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples.No, he was convicted of manslaughter, not murder. A friend would care enough to learn the difference.
He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.He may have been quite good at navigating ships at sea where there isn't much of anything to run into, but he didn't seem to very good at navigating ships closer to shore where there was a well known reef.
Evidently he has appealed.Of course he does. Everyone in prison considers themselves innocent.
He considers himself innocent ...
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
I have a friend that is accused of mass murder (32 victims) and many other, awful things and he has been sentenced to 16+ years for it (6 months/murder) to be spent in the worst prison in Italy, i.e. Naples. He was quite good at navigating ships at sea ... and something went wrong.
Evidently he has appealed.
He considers himself innocent ... and I agree. I describe the drama at http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
In order for the public not to forget this terrible event I also propose that the place of the crime - it is still available for a visit - becomes a muséum! http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Not an issue. We accept mass murderers on this site. Intikam is apparenrly responsible for plenty of deaths.
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ... and he jumped on the roof of a lifeboat. The underpaid, Asian hotel and restaurant staff - almost 1000 persons - had opened watertight doors, when evacuating the ship, water spread in the bottom and stability was lost ... and the ship sank partially on the rocks 50 m from shore.
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ...
I'm guessing he didn't go down with the ship?Correct, 14 January 2012 he thought a tug was coming to tow his stable, floating ship (but without electricity) to be repaired but ... suddenly the ship capsized ...
As an engineer, I am sure you understand you are missing a step or two, boats don't just "suddenly capsize" this is the way we build them, we design boats not to capsize, we design planes not to fall out of the sky and we design buildings not to collapse at free-fall, at least add in a single column failure or something.
You know as well as I that there had to be a sequence of structural and mechanical failures in order for a large boat to capsize.
It's not as simple as "it suddenly capsized" come on Heiwa.
The captain had every obligation to make sure he was the last one off that ship, he sounds like a coward to me.
So there was a massive hole in the hull?
Now this makes more sense.
The captain had every obligation to make sure he was the last one off that ship, he sounds like a coward to me.
The captain drove the ship onto the rocks.
Unlike Heiwa I have never been a dock worker so I am not an expert on hull design.
However, I do know that captains are not supposed to crash into continents.
I think that's on the first page of the manual.
Anyway, the last starboard ~50° turn starting at 21.39 hrs ending with a 'contact' at 21.45 hrs is a mystery.
IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavecchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner.Did the ship owner order the captain to run the ship into a reef?
And accidents happen all the time.This accident happened because the captain ordered the ship to go closer to shore than was safe.
Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavacchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.Yes, there was the suggestion that the captain wanted to make the cruise more interesting for his girlfriend. How much more interesting can you get than to run the ship into a reef?
Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavacchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
Well the captain is just an employee of the ship owner.Yes, and the ship owner hired the captain to safely navigate the ship.
And accidents happen.Accidents happen because someone screwed up.
To simply blame the captain for everything is too simple.That's why there are thorough investigations of these accidents: to determine who screwed up. Isn't that supposed to be your business?
It seems the ship was not seaworthy to start with...I don't know about that. It seemed pretty seaworthy before some idiot ran it into a reef.
Well, the ship owner hired a crew of 1100 to operate the ship, incl. some officers to navigate and some seamen to steer the ship. The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy. Accidents happens for many reasons and in this case the ship contacted a rock below water and a small leakage occurred. The ship didn't sink for it. No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians. It seems the ship sank when underpaid, non-Italian staff opened watertight doors during the panic and evacuation. Seaworthy ships are not permitted having such doors and must have a well trained crew ... responsibility of which is the ship owner. I am always paid by the ship owner doing my job and tell them things like above.Well the captain is just an employee of the ship owner.Yes, and the ship owner hired the captain to safely navigate the ship.And accidents happen.Accidents happen because someone screwed up.To simply blame the captain for everything is too simple.That's why there are thorough investigations of these accidents: to determine who screwed up. Isn't that supposed to be your business?It seems the ship was not seaworthy to start with...I don't know about that. It seemed pretty seaworthy before some idiot ran it into a reef.
The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy.
Well, the ship owner hired a crew of 1100 to operate the ship, incl. some officers to navigate and some seamen to steer the ship. The captain was aboard to keep the passengers and ship owner happy.So you're saying that the ship's captain is not in charge of the seamen who steer the ship?
Accidents happens for many reasons and in this case the ship contacted a rock below water and a small leakage occurred.Right, the rock just jumped out in front of the ship.
The ship didn't sink for it.Right, a piddling 53 meter long gash couldn't possibly cause enough leakage to be a problem.
No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians.
No accident investigations were done as per international rules and regulations. As Germans died German authorities requested to attend the investigation ... which was refused by the Italians.
So no investigation was done but Germany wasn't allowed to attend the investigation.
Here is the report of the investigation that didn't happen.
https://www.msb.se/Upload/Insats_och_beredskap/Brand_raddning/RITS/Concordia_Mission_final_report.pdf
You and your friend the captain have a similar grasp of reality. Tell him he's a coward from me.
I have seen it before! The Captain should have stayed aboard and drowned!
Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Your reasoning is more back-asswards than flat-earthers.Hm, it is the ship owner who owns and orders the ship to sail around paid for by passengers. The captain is just an employée doing what he is told paid for by the owner. And accidents happen all the time. Maybe it was the passengers fault sailing on a cheap, unsafe, boring cruise? Going from Civittavecchio to Savona - two Italian ports of no interest.The captain was responsible for ordering the ship closer to shore than normal.I know you are not an expert of anything. A ship's captain is not responsible for everything on a ship particularily when accidents happen. You really have to grow up and open your eyes.No, I'm not a safety at sea expert. However, I do know that a ship's captain is responsible for the ship under his command. I also know that showing off for your girlfriend is not always a good idea.IMO the damage was an accident.Yes, it was an accident that never should have happened, but did because of the captain's incompetence.
Also, this has nothing at all to do with the topic (your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics).
It happened but we do not know how and why?
Incompetent captain?
Couldn't turn the ship 56° starboard by turning the rudders for two minutes? Give me a break!
You being so smart knowing everything - can you explain the trajectory and dynamics of this strange turn ending in an accidental contact?
Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc. And no adverts. And all free of charge. I have several 100's of visitors/download every day and >2.3 million from the start.Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
😂😂😂😂😂Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both. You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Or, better yet, we can drop this whole off topic distraction and get back on topic: i.e. your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics.
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both.I have yet to see any evidence that you're any good at either.
You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Safety at sea is more complicated than orbital mechanics and I am good at both. You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .So why don't you just pick the most relevant information and post it here?Because my web page is full of interesting links, pictures, quotes from rules, explanations, etc, etc.Why can't you just copy and paste the relevant passage here? Or cite some reputable source?Thanks for asking. Study http://heiwaco.com/news86.htm what I say.Reason - staff opened illegal watertight doors aboard, etc, etc.Are you saying that watertight doors are illegal on a ship? ???
Or, better yet, we can drop this whole off topic distraction and get back on topic: i.e. your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics.
You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Heiwa proves again the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple.Is that what Arianespace tells you?
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Yes, human space travel is impossible.Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple.Is that what Arianespace tells you?
Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
When, where, how?You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Through this thread and others, every time you talk about it. More lies from Heiwa.When, where, how?You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Yes, human space travel is impossible.When did Arianespace say that? ???
Yes, human space travel is impossible.When did Arianespace say that? ???
But when, how and where?Through this thread and others, every time you talk about it. More lies from Heiwa.When, where, how?You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Are you saying that if Arianespace chooses not to do it, then it can't possibly be done by anyone else? ???Yes, human space travel is impossible.When did Arianespace say that? ???
Arianespace just puts satellites in any orbits. They will never recover them. Just ask them and they will confirm.
Are you saying that if Arianespace chooses not to do it, then it can't possibly be done by anyone else? ???Yes, human space travel is impossible.When did Arianespace say that? ???
Arianespace just puts satellites in any orbits. They will never recover them. Just ask them and they will confirm.
Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)
While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.
If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land. Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/Ok, I will.
Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.
The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)
While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.
If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
No, I just say that Arianespace only puts small satellites in orbits. It is a one-way business. These satellites cannot come back and land on Earth. Not even the rockets can land. Just ask them or visit their web site http://www.arianespace.com/Ok, I will.
Hmmm....
Look what I just found:Quote from: http://www.arianespace.com/press-release/successful-launch-of-ixv-reentry-demonstrator-by-vega/Vega, the latest member of the family of launchers operated by Arianespace, has successfully launched the IXV (Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle) atmospheric reentry demonstrator. The fourth Vega launch took place on February 11 at 10:40 am (local time) from the Guiana Space Center in French Guiana. Developed by the European Space Agency, the IXV marks the latest step by Europe in the development of atmospheric reentry technologies, a key to manned flights.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
As you already know, fuel consumption for space travel is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation, so your challenge has been met. Building a rocket that is light enough and powerful enough to make the trip with the fuel calculated is a completely different challenge.
The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)
While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.
If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.
Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.
Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.
If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.
Yes, the European Xpace Agecny, EXA, is into the fake human space travel biz together with NAXA and Xpaces. You know, you say you send humans into space and then tell media that they have magically returned by a reentry, slowing down and landing. A simple, magic Houdini trick!It is a truly pitiful engineer who can't tell the difference between technology and magic.If you think Tsiolkovsky is the answer to win my Challenge, you know nothing about orbital mechanics.Oh, I'm sure that no one will ever be able to do enough to win any of your silly little challenges.
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?No, you must study his very popular website. He explains it all there.
Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Show us how in the context of F=ma.
Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.
The amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Show us how in the context of F=ma.
Here. Copy and paste from your website if you have to. Saying you can prove it then refusing to and calling people stupid because you can't debunk their arguments is lame.
?? Applying a force F to a mass m will displace the mass at increased speed a. Example - planet Earth applies force F by gravity (no fuel required!) to an apple in a tree on Earth. The apple drops from the tree at increased speed. Mass m remains unchanged. When the apple crashes against ground, ground applies a new force and applies it on the apple which stops!
To produce a force F to move a spacecraft fuel is required. But how much? That's the question.
However, the force F must also be applied in the right direction, at the right location and at the right time. If you are already moving at high speed changing direction all the time (e.g. in an orbit or somewhere in Universe), things get complicated.
And if your mass changes (is reduced) by producing the force F, then you have to consider it too.
All stupid idiots having failed my Challenge forgot these basics of orbital mechanics.
When, where, how?You've been shown multiple times and only proven your dishonesty and ignorance.Heiwa proves AGAIN the topic of the thread.You are just another loser that cannot even calculate the fuel required for a simple, but impossible, manned space trip.If space trips are as simple as you claim, then why should they be impossible? ???
Space trips putting satellites in orbits one way are simple. Human space trips are impossible! You cannot stop and land afterwards. All space trips are one way ... until you run out of fuel.
Of course you can stop.
Fire in the opposite direction.
No! Of course not. No fuel for it. Lose http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm and you will understand. It is basic rocket science. No way to return, land and stop.
Hm? But how to re-enter, brake, land and stop when returning from space? Explain and win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?
What's with you guys?
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.The main reason ships dominate and have dominated international cargo transfer is that for them weight does not really matter. Build a ship twice the size, you can carry twice the stuff. In rocket science it is a little different. As you said, you have to keep it light. Your suggestion to put a swimming pool (or a sauna or sth similar) on a spacecraft again proves your ignorance or sheer incompetence.Sorry to bring this up again but I was away for some time. The sole reason we need a captain on ships nowadays is that he is responsible and can react in case something goes wrong. Guidance and collision detection nowadays is quite good but you need someone responsible - the captain. Jumping off the ship immediately is not the appropriate reaction. Noone expects him to drown but IMO he is responsible to stay as long as he can to help and coordinate the evacuation. I hope this guy serves a looooong time in jail.On a ship the chief engineer is responsible for the machinery and on passenger ships the ship's doctor looks after medical affairs, etc, etc. If you think a captain is responsible for everything, you sound like an American shipowner who is not responsible for anything except collecting the money.
On topic: heiwa, safety at sea is definitely not easy, but rocket science plays in a different league (there is a reason it is called rocket science)
While you have clearly demonstrated that you do not even understand the simplest orbital mechanics, I thought you at least had some grasp on your region of expertise. Seems that I was wrong.
If you understand anything about orbital mechanics please tell me whether I made any mistakes in the calculations I posted.
Re orbital mechanics I pay since many years €1M to anyone who can describe the fuel consumption of manned trips to the Moon and planet Mars. http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . It seems nobody knows how to do these basic calculations. I present my calculations at my website and it seems I get too heavy to get off the ground, even if my spacecraft is very light - without swimming pool and facilities we provide on a ship.
I described how to calculate the fuel consumption to go to the moon on the first post of this article, starting from LEO. You ignored it. Your challenge is a lie and you constantly crying for it is a little pathetic, to be honest.
Of course the captain is not responsible for everything, but he is the ultimate authority on the ship. And if an accident happens, it is his responsibility to ensure a swift evacuation. You can not do that if you are not on the ship.
Thanks for agreeing that the captain is not responsible for everything. BTW - if an accident happens in space, how do you evacuate your spacecraft and save the people aboard? And who is responsible.
And shouldn't a space craft for humans have facilities for the people? Or should they just be locked up for the complete trip? That's inhuman!
Re your first post there are some calculations of yours what speed you have in orbit and what speed you must have to reach the Moon in another orbit ... and crash. Nothing about fuel consumption. I pointed it out in my answer to you then.
But as you are so clever, why don't you calculate the speed increase to put a spacecraft in orbit around the Sun like the 100% fake OSIRIS REx and what the trajectory looks like to return to Earth after about a year for a (fake) gravity sling shot. Study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for this hoax and waste of tax payers money.
(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)
Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
no, what you show only is your extreme ignorance. Don't worry, we've all been laughing at you. That was your goal, right?So you can't show us that the mass of the shuttle is too great to accelerate it with the force available?
What's with you guys?
That a 90 tons Shuttle with only 15 tons payload could not take off from ground, I show since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
What the public saw at launches and was shown live on TV was a lightweight mock-up or prop sent away behind the clouds. The fake Shuttle then was vaporized when it ran out of fuel. The Shuttle seen landing weeks later was just dropped of from the top of a jumbo jet. What a stupid magic trick.
More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.
(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)
Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics. But at least you're staying on topic.More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.
(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)
Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.
Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.
Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.
Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics. But at least you're staying on topic.More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.
(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)
Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.
Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.
Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.
Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.If you don't know what a hyberbolic orbit is then you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics. But at least you're staying on topic.More proof from Heiwa that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics.
(http://heiwaco.com/orex11.gif)
Note how OSIRIS REx was speeding away from Earth at high speed last September inside Earth's orbit around the Sun and how ISIRIS REx is now slowing down (!) in its strange orbit (trajectory!) now outside the Earth that is catching up from behind at constant speed. Earth and spacecraft OSIRIS REx will meet again in September. It is really MAGIC!
Well - let's test your understanding of orbital mechanics or dynamics. It seems planet Earth orbits the Sun at almost constant speed in an almost cirkel - green in the figure above. The 360° orbit Earth takes a year.
Spacecraft OSIRIS REx was launched from Earth orbiting the Sun on 8 September 2016 into an ellpitical or hyperbolic (!) orbit around the Sun - red in the figure above.
The Atlas V rocket launched OSIRIS-REx with a hyperbolic escape velocity (!) of 5.4 km/s (over 12,000 mph). In space, OSIRIS-REx perform a series of Deep Space Maneuvers, changing velocity by another 0.52 km/s (1,163 mph).
See - http://www.asteroidmission.org/mission/#cruise
After a year and two weeks orbiting (!) the sun, OSIRIS-REx will make a flyby of Earth. Earth's gravitational field will pull the spacecraft towards the planet Earth where it can "borrow" a small amount of Earth's orbital energy. This additional energy is used to increase OSIRIS-REx's orbital inclination and sling it back into space for a rendezvous with Bennu.
The flyby will take place September 22, 2017 and the spacecraft will reach Bennu November 2018. Bennu is an asteroid orbiting around the Sun in the blue elliptical orbit inclined to the Earth orbit.
Now, what kind of trajectory is OSIRIS REx doing? It took off from Earth heading towards the Sun on 8 September 2016 leaving Earth behind in a hyperbolic orbit inside Earth's orbit. What is a hyperbolic orbit? Ever heard of one? What is OSIRIS REx orbiting around? The Sun?
1 May 2017 OSIRIS REx is still far ahead of planet Earth - actually 5.91 light minutes - outside Earth's orbit but now Earth is getting closer every day. OSIRIS REx will collide with Earth September 22, 2017.
But NO! There will only be a flyby.
Anyway - to show that you are clever - what was/is the OSIRIS REx speeds (relative Sun and Earth) the first of every month since launch until flyby? It is basic orbital dynamics!
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with. At least you're good for humor though!
Nope. I said NOTHING about the picture you posted. Thank you for proving that not only are you completely ignorant about orbital mechanics but that you are also incapable of reading.What part of you are not worth my time do you not understand?Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
No, it seems I'm not your lackey that will do whatever you ask when it is clear you don't have the basic understanding to start with. At least you're good for humor though!
Well, you said that the picture I posted of orbits around the was more proof from me that I don't understand orbital mechanics.
However, the picture is a fake. A spacecraft cannot move around the Sun as shown - start from Earth and then come back to Earth after one year two weeks. NASA suggests it is a hyperbolic orbit ... but it isn't. So the whole NASA OSIRIS REx project is a hoax!
Its hyperbolic escape speed from Earth was about 5.41 km/s (3.36 mi/s). On 28 December 2016, the spacecraft successfully performed its first deep space maneuver (DSM-1) to change its velocity by 431 m/s (1,550 km/h; 960 mph) using 354 kg (780 lb) of fuel. An additional, smaller firing of its thrusters on 18 January further refined its course for an Earth gravity assist in September 2017. The cruise phase will last until its encounter with Bennu in August 2018, after which it will enter its science and sample collection phase.from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSIRIS-REx
Again, show us the proof. No I'm not studying your idiotic website. Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.Again, show us the proof. No I'm not studying your idiotic website. Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Show us your proof, don't just make more empty claims.
Because really that's all you have, empty claims. You say you have proof on your website but just claiming, but that's impossible, is not proof, and we both know that's all you have.
Show us your evidence here.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.Again, show us the proof. No I'm not studying your idiotic website. Paste the relevant proof here or admit you are just a liar.Great, show us the math proves you have to carry so much fuel you can't launch.?? No, I show that there are no calculations of fuel consumption, only calculations of speed changes. Read again my Reply #1! But you cannot change speed without using fuel.No, you just claim it. You show nothing to support. Which is all you ever do. Make claims you cannot back up.Why not just show Kami where his maths is wrong?
It is nothing wrong with the maths. But it is only maths of instant speed increase and no calculations of associated fuel consumption. If you do that, you will find that you are too heavy to get off the ground to start with. I though I explained that in Reply #1 of this thread.
And the amount of fuel required for any manned space trip is so large that ... you never get off the ground. It is basic rocket science. It is not even basic orbital mechanics - topic.
Just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , copy paste what you do not understand and I will explain why you do not understand.
Arianespace need plenty of fuel just to launch a small satellite into orbit 2017. NASA 50 years earlier launched 10 times heavier satellites/spacecraft using less fuel.
So NASA faked it 1969.
Actually they were told to fake. The public then didn't understand anything anyway.
Isn't it funny? We were fooled 1969 with asstronuts on the Moon.
Show us your proof, don't just make more empty claims.
Because really that's all you have, empty claims. You say you have proof on your website but just claiming, but that's impossible, is not proof, and we both know that's all you have.
Show us your evidence here.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
How's your ability to detect sarcasm?
I do not understand what you want. Do you want me to describe the accurate path of the spacecraft, subject to the gravitational influence of the sun, the planets and several larger asteroids? I am not able to do that - a team of NASA scientists has worked months to develop this orbit, you can not expect some random guy on a conspiracy forum to reproduce this work.Why should I spend the time to do the work when you won't understand it, will deny it out of hand, and you will still only prove you don't understand orbital mechanics at all? YOU are not worth my time.
Just tell me the speeds of OSIRIS REx in its hyperbolic orbit the 1st of every months.
It seems that a spacecraft under standard assumptions traveling along a hyperbolic trajectory will coast to infinity, so I cannot understand how it can return to Earth after a year and two weeks?
Your clarifications will be highly appreciated.
Well, it seems you cannot describe a hyperbolic orbit of OSIRIS REx spacecraft starting from Earth and ending at a flyby of Earth one year two weeks later. It confirms my understanding that the whole spacecraft and its trip is a hoax. Thanks!
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
And heiwa proves he doesn't understand sarcasm.Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
Again you make claims with no support. Surprise, another fail. Show us your evidence.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Well, you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for my solid evidence that most NASA activites are fake! No humans in space, no space crafts visiting the solar system, etc. Only one way satellite launches to orbit Earth are possible.
Why would I publish empty claims at my website? Ever heard of Fake News? Propaganda? Most NASA space info is like it. You have been fooled by NASA since it was created 1958. Soon 60 years! Main Stream Media are part of the hoax.
It is so easy because the public doesn't understand anything!
Wow! It's a great thing that you understand it then! Are you, by any chance, really really smart?
It helps. Plus some luck. Being strong and handsome is another advantage.
How's your ability to detect sarcasm?
To be fair, his post did seem a bit like a joke.
Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims. Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.
And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.
Why would I lie here?
Have you got a real name?
No, I post all evidence to support my claims at http://heiwaco.com since twenty years and plenty anonymous twirps here and there post like you, out of the blue, that I am liar and a fake.What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims. Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.
And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.
Why would I lie here?
Have you got a real name?
Twirp!Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.
Twirp!Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.
Which one are you?
Twirp!Nice, old English word with at least two meanings; contemptible person, silly fool.
Which one are you?
You are the ultimate proof that it's possible to be both at once!
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.
Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.
I see heiwa is desperately trying to change the subject away from his lies, failings, and shortcomings again.Telling us who you are doesn't make you a nice guy. You're definitely a twirp in every sense.No, I am real! But you? Name? Address? Mother? Do you exist? You sound like some robot.
And still no evidence. Again, no surprise, you never post anything to support your insane claims.No, I post all evidence to support my claims at http://heiwaco.com since twenty years and plenty anonymous twirps here and there post like you, out of the blue, that I am liar and a fake.What a surprise, you still fail to post any evidence to support your claims. Proving once again you are a liar and a fake.Would you please don't lie about me? Keep lying about your website all you want but I never said that 5.41km/s is not enough to reach the moon. I actually calculated it - in this thread - to be about 3.13km/s.
And once again you fail to support your claims. It's kind of pathetic really.
You are making the claims here, support them here or go away.
? But this OSIRIS REx spacecraft is a hoax! I publish in this thread a NASA picture of its hyperbolic trajectory around the Sun and explain why a spacecraft cannot fly in a hyperbolic trajectory and some twerps suggest I do not understand orbital mechanics.
The NASA spacecraft was launched by some Mickey Mouse rocket that gave it a hyperbolic escape speed of 5.41 km/s, when everyone knows incl. kami that you need much more speed just to reach the Moon. But this NASA spacecraft orbits the Sun and will return to Earth after a year and two weeks for a flyby. It is of course ridiculous.
I describe many other, similar NASA hoaxes at my website and I have plenty visitors. And nobody shows I am wrong.
Yes, but 3.13 km/s was just the extra velocity added to your spacecraft's velocity in orbit to get to the Moon. And you forgot to tell me the fuel required to speed up.
And why do you suggest that I lie, like all other annonymous twirps in this thread? Why would I lie? I put all my info on my web site with a photo of me + full style for contact, comments, etc. I exist. I am alive. I am real.
Why would I lie here?
Have you got a real name?
Why don't you develop your crazy ideas? Start by signing with a full style - name/address!
ROTFL
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!Oh look, another post with no evidence. Just admit you are a liar and a fake
ROTFL
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!
The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.
The NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!
Ummm... You do understand that RNASA is a part of the Rotary Club, not the US government, don't you?Quote from: http://www.rnasa.org/The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Prove it's fake. Oh wait, you never back up your statements here. Yet another failureThe NAXA people faking the space trips, hyperbolic trajectories and gravity assisted sling shots meet at regular intervals to celebrate their success at the RNAXA Space Awards Gala 2017. What a miserable lot!
Ummm... You do understand that RNASA is a part of the Rotary Club, not the US government, don't you?Quote from: http://www.rnasa.org/The Rotary National Award for Space Achievement (RNASA) Foundation was founded by the Space Center Rotary Club of Houston, Texas in 1985 to organize and coordinate an annual event to recognize outstanding achievements in space and create greater public awareness of the benefits of space exploration. Each year since 1987, the Foundation has presented the National Space Trophy and other awards honoring those who have contributed to our nation's space program at a gala event in April in Houston, Texas.
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.
All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers
Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at <snipped obviously> .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at <snipped obviously> .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong . . .
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have. I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits. I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories.
Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.
Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges". I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done. I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
If I post proof of who I am, will you post proof of your prize fund.
Even a picture of say you with 50k in cash would help assure us you could pay in the event you decided someone won your challenge.
P.S I won your challenge #1
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0)
If I post proof of who I am, will you post proof of your prize fund.
Even a picture of say you with 50k in cash would help assure us you could pay in the event you decided someone won your challenge.
P.S I won your challenge #1
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0)
There is no challenge. There is just a frustrated tard who enjoys yanking on dicks.
LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ...Then you owe NASA the Russian and Chinese space agencies a million euros, because they have obviously calculated the fuel required and demonstrated that the rockets can lift it off the ground as a part of multiple manned space trips.
... and you provide links to some stupid reports.No, I provided links to text books that teach you how to calculate interplanetary trajectories and how to plan atmospheric reentry.
And you don't even have a name.I have a name. I simply choose not to share it here. If you like, you can call me Mark.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.There are different standards of "clean and happy". Just like early ships, early manned rockets aren't known for their luxury.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!Do you have toilet paper on display in your business office?
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down.Of course there is air at 120 km, just not very much. You do understand that air density gradually decreases as you go up, don't you? That means that air density gradually increases as you go down.
Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.Please lighten up and stop acting like a bitter old man. There is simply no possible way that manned space flight could possibly be faked so many times by so many different agencies.
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down.Of course there is air at 120 km, just not very much. You do understand that air density gradually decreases as you go up, don't you? That means that air density gradually increases as you go down.
To be sure, atmospheric reentry is a challenge, but it is a solvable one to those who understand the finer points of high speed aerodynamics.
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.
Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.Please lighten up and stop acting like a bitter old man. There is simply no possible way that manned space flight could possibly be faked so many times by so many different agencies.
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.
You know what else is tiresome?
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.
You know what else is tiresome?
No, tell me!
You.
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.
You know what else is tiresome?
No, tell me!
Well, there is no air at 120 000 m altitude but there is thin air at 5000 m altitude making mountain climbing tiresome.Then it's a good thing that spacecraft don't need to breathe. ::)
So using air friction/turbulence to stop a spacecraft at 120 000 m altitude doesn't work.??? Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km? At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins. The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.
Anyone knowing a little about high speed aerodynamics, like me, knows it.Well, they do say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Maybe this text book can help you to learn more:
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have. I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits. I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories.
Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.
Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges". I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done. I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.
LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious.... >:(He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.
LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
He is not joking when he calls us idiots, it's clear he thinks we are.
Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.
You seem to be quite good at predicting heiwas behaviour. Plus you issure challenges. Suspicious.... >:(He will come back in a day or a week and try to pretend that posts like this were never posted.Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.
LOL. My simple Fraudulent Joke is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.
The Fraudulent Joke is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Fraudulent Joke is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
He is not joking when he calls us idiots, it's clear he thinks we are.
Hewia, you can try to act like your Fraudulent Joke has never been won and your questions have never been answered, but we have been here the whole time and we know.
??? Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km? At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins. The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.
Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have. I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits. I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories.
Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.
Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges". I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done. I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
Edit.
I found a loophole in one of your challenges, I won, stop ignoring the fact. I archived your website as of my declaration of victory.
Edit.
I found a loophole in one of your challenges, I won, stop ignoring the fact. I archived your website as of my declaration of victory.
Funny thing is...Verinage technique is used in France more often than anywhere else, you would think he would know that.
Despite the fact this method would not function on 1/2 (core design, math of top and bottom do not work for the method etc etc)..and 7 (obviously from video evidence) does not qualify... Heiwa does say to show an instance where the upper half of a building can destroy the lower half...
So by technical decision, disputeone wins....Better open those purse strings punkin
Edit grammar
Watch him dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge lol.Until now I have watched him ignore completely :D
Once again you fail to provide any evidence. And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have. I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits. I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories.
Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.
Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges". I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done. I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.
? To win my Challenges you must provide an application to me with required information, incl. full name and bank account for me to transfer the money. So far noone has done it.Once again you fail to provide any evidence. And you have been given links that show how to calculate the fuel and links that show what fuel was consumed and when.Show your evidence that those reports are wrong. I have posted links that answered both those questions. You ignore them. You run away saying it's impossible. Of course you never show any evidence as to why it's impossible. As always, you fail.LOL. My simple Challenge is just to calculate the fuel required (kg) for some manned space trips and to show that you can lift it off the ground ... and you provide links to some stupid reports. And you don't even have a name.I'm sorry, but it's hard to have a productive discussion when you go off on these rants that make you sound like a confused, angry old man.Well, you, an anonymous twirp, always tells me that I am not smart, bla, bla, and I offer you €1M to prove it and ... ? You just moan and groan like a retired NASA faker. Just carry on! Haven't you got a contract to fulfill, to do it?All of those "100% fake achievements" build on the initial achievement of unmanned satellite launches.Yes - isn't it ridiculous? All space achievements are paid for by taxpayers and 100% fake and produced/invented on Earth with nobody in space. Just the usual magic nonsense. And these clowns give awards to each other. Disgusting.Make up your mind, will you?
Either all space achievements are 100% fake or commercial satellites are real. You can't have it both ways.
No, you are wrong as usual like most anonymous twirps at this forum.
Commercial satellites are real, e.g. Arianespace sending them one way into orbits all the time. Just ask them!
The rest (NASA, ESA, SpaceX, bla, bla) is 100% fake. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
I pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Just because you aren't smart enough to figure out how hyperbolic trajectories or atmospheric reentry work, that doesn't mean that they're impossible.
Disgusting. Slave contract. White slaves! 2017!
I never claimed to an engineer of any kind, but you have. I have posted a link to a textbook called Orbital Mechanics for Engineering Students (https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf) showing how to calculate various orbits. I have posted links to other textbooks describing atmospheric reentry and calculating interplanetary trajectories.
Why you insist that these things are impossible when it's plain that the science of how to do so is readily available continues to baffle me.
Anders, I'm not the least bit interested in your money or your "challenges". I'd much rather you spend some of that money on a few textbooks that show you how to do what you claim can't be done. I still have a hard time believing that a distinguished engineer as yourself would let someone telling you that a task is impossible stop you from finding a clever solution.
The Challenge is also to describe the sanitary facilities provided. The humans aboard must be able to be clean and happy.
And what is shown? A little capsule with some seats inside. Hilarious. Not even toilet paper!
The impossible Challenge is of course the re-entry and landing. It is suggested that there is air at 120 000 m altitude and that it will provide friction and turbulence for landing. But there is no air at 120 000 m altitude with birds flying around in it. The air is 115 000 m further down. Please, grow up and do not support the criminal idiots at NASA and their Rotary friends with their prizes.
The reports do not say how to calculate the fuel required for a manned space trip and how to get off the ground with it. And to land afterwards, which are the requirements of the Challenge.
Yet another failure.
Quote from: heiwacochallenge1No structure of any kind collapses from top down!
It is always from bottom up, top C is damaged in this example. So to win the Challenge 1 you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you € 1 000 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge 1 though.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall1.htm#hc
I've won, I have shown you, and can explain in technical detail how a structure can collapse from the top down.
Your challenge clearly states "any structure in the universe" my structure, for this example, has demolition charges in it. Just a classic top down controlled demolition, nothing fancy, no magic. Now, I believe there is the matter of the €1 000 000?
Heiwa, I won your challenge #1.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70589.0
Pay me.Quote from: heiwacochallenge1No structure of any kind collapses from top down!
It is always from bottom up, top C is damaged in this example. So to win the Challenge 1 you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you € 1 000 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge 1 though.
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall1.htm#hc
I've won, I have shown you, and can explain in technical detail how a structure can collapse from the top down.
Your challenge clearly states "any structure in the universe" my structure, for this example, has demolition charges in it. Just a classic top down controlled demolition, nothing fancy, no magic. Now, I believe there is the matter of the €1 000 000?
I've read them.
When you confirm I have won then I will send my deets.
Drop the top on the bottom, bottom structure destroyed sequentially from the top down by demolition charges.
Top down building collapse.
Pay me.
Gravity and explosives. It's part of the building design your challenge states I can design.
There are no forces except gravity pulling the building down, I just use explosives to take care of the structural resistance.
Pay me.
I drop the small weak top on the strong bottom part, as it impacts the bottom structure, demolition charges remove the structural components of the the bottom structure sequentially from the top down causing a top down collapse and winning your challenge #1.
Pay me.
I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Friction. Have you ever heard of it? How about terminal velocity?
??? Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km? At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins. The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.
LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?
You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Friction. Have you ever heard of it? How about terminal velocity?
??? Who said anything about stopping the spacecraft at 120 km? At about 120 km, the process of slowing the spacecraft down begins. The spacecraft doesn't stop until it touches down at zero m.
LOL - is starts slowing down! No, it is just going faster and faster. Gravity you know! Ever heard about it?
Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
There is no friction in space! There is no friction at 120 000 m altitude.If that was true (which it isn't), then the ISS (400 km) would not need its orbit to be boosted periodically.
Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
Heiwa tell me why I haven't won your challenge #1 or pay me.
In the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, such as bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels.
Building implosion (which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods) typically occurs in urban areas and often involves large landmark structures.
The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down." [1]
I'll accept monopoly money at this point.You really have to study my Challenge rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Are there any other engineers that can tell Heiwa I won?
If you don't like demolition charges I could design support structures set to fail sequentially in the event of an impact.
It's really quite simple to make a building collapse from the top down via demolition.QuoteIn the controlled demolition industry, building implosion is the strategic placing of explosive material and timing of its detonation so that a structure collapses on itself in a matter of seconds, minimizing the physical damage to its immediate surroundings. Despite its terminology, building implosion also includes the controlled demolition of other structures, such as bridges, smokestacks, towers, and tunnels.
Building implosion (which reduces to seconds a process which could take months or years to achieve by other methods) typically occurs in urban areas and often involves large landmark structures.
The actual use of the term "implosion" to refer to the destruction of a building is a misnomer. This had been stated of the destruction of 1515 Tower in West Palm Beach, Florida. "What happens is, you use explosive materials in critical structural connections to allow gravity to bring it down." [1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_implosion
The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground!
Another fail. Show your evidence to support your statement. Why do you always run away from such requests? What are you afraid of?At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
Another fail. Show your evidence to support your statement. Why do you always run away from such requests? What are you afraid of?At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
Supports you? Now you show yourself to be a liar and a fake. Just another fail where cannot support any of your claims. You really are pathetic.Another fail. Show your evidence to support your statement. Why do you always run away from such requests? What are you afraid of?At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
He supports you 100%. Especially around 3:24.Another fail. Show your evidence to support your statement. Why do you always run away from such requests? What are you afraid of?At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
He supports you 100%. Especially around 3:24.Another fail. Show your evidence to support your statement. Why do you always run away from such requests? What are you afraid of?At http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The Apollo missions were all fake because they couldn't carry the fuel with them, etc, etc. Too heavy to get off the ground! You really aren't very bright.Nobody is talking about your fake challenge. You have been given links that show fuel use for apollo missions. You lie and say no can show you that.The Challenge is to calculate the fuel required for two manned space trips. Your links do not provide any info how to do it.Again, you lie. You have been given links showing exactly that. How about showing some evidence to support your position? Something you continually fail to do.You're a liar. I personally have posted links to both of those subjects. You ignored them.I didn't say anything about your fake challenge. You're trying to change the subject.Hm, topic is my understanding in orbital mechanics. Don't change it. My understanding is that humans cannot orbit anywhere. If you orbit, you are going too fast up somewhere and cannot de-orbit, slow down, re-enter and land. I offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong. I also offer anyone the same amount to calculate the amount of fuel required for simple, manned space trips. And to explain the sanitary facilities.
I simply pointed out that you have made statements here that you refuse to back up.
You show no evidence here that space flight is fake. You demand evidence from others then you ignore it.
Show some evidence here that you are not a complete lying idiot.
Plenty twirps copy/paste links to various reports about it ... but always forget the fuel and the re-entry ... and the sanitary facilities.
Question! Do you never use a sanitary facility? If not, explain how it works in space!
Please explain why you think it can't work. Be specific, give some evidence.
Well, you didn't calculate the fuel required ... and how to get off the ground. You are a loser!
I am an old supporter of robotic, unmanned space trips. They are possible but of little scientific values = waste of time. The robots are too stupid like the people on Earth trying to control them.
Where is your evidence to support your statements?
This Don Pettit clown supports me 100%. Don lives in Hollywood and to avoid living in a gutter he prostitutes himself. Isn't it sad?
Or when he floats arount in microgravity. The entire time.
Nice own-goal.
Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.Anders, why do you say such stupid things? ???
Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.Anders, why do you say such stupid things? ???
Why do you say such stupid things? ???He's a pathological liar.
Why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.
So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.Anders, why do you say such stupid things? ???
translation: I don't understand any of it! But I am the infallible Heiwa. If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!Why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.
And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
Yes, when Don Pettit does it in the snow of Antartica. Don learnt it at the NAXA University of Arizona. It teaches plenty pseudoscience.So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.Anders, why do you say such stupid things? ???
translation: I don't understand any of it! But I am the infallible Heiwa. If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!Why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.
And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that insults is all he's got.translation: I don't understand any of it! But I am the infallible Heiwa. If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!Why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.
And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
No, I just quote from Don's CV. The guy is a genius clown.
Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in space and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.And Heiwa proves AGAIN that insults is all he's got.translation: I don't understand any of it! But I am the infallible Heiwa. If I don't understand it then I must insult him to make myself feel better!Why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Don Pettit is an expert of reduced gravity fluid flow and materials processing, atmospheric spectroscopy on noctilucent clouds seeded from sounding rockets, fumarole gas sampling from volcanoes, problems in detonation physics and similar pseudoscientific important matters.
And has done dental surgery in Antarctica. The person is a real clown. Working for NASA!
No, I just quote from Don's CV. The guy is a genius clown.
Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Repeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmRepeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
You made the claim here show your evidence here. Of course you won't, you never do. Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmRepeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Study it. It is all true facts.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! Study it.You made the claim here show your evidence here. Of course you won't, you never do. Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmRepeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Study it. It is all true facts.
Heiwa proves that he thinks "true facts" means unsupported ignorant opinions.Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmRepeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Study it. It is all true facts.
Yet another fail. Yep, a liar and an idiothttp://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ! Study it.You made the claim here show your evidence here. Of course you won't, you never do. Which can only lead us to believe you are a liar and an idiot.Yes! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htmRepeating stupid things doesn't make them less stupid.Andres, why do you say stupid things ???But this is not a stupid thing I (Heiwa, aka Anders) say; Hm, in this case I just speak out about a person claiming he has been over a year flying in (a NASA) space(craft) and done dental surgery at Antarctica. If I hurt his feelings, I am not sorry at all.
Do you believe, think humans can fly in space (in a NASA spacecraft)? Do you think amateurs can do dental surgery in Antarctica? If you do, do some serious research. How do you get up in space? And how do you get back? And dental surgery? In the snow!
Naturally you can show some evidence to support your claims.
Study it. It is all true facts.
Who said that he did the dental surgery in the snow?Yes, when Don Pettit does it in the snow of Antartica. Don learnt it at the NAXA University of Arizona. It teaches plenty pseudoscience.So you're saying that dental surgery is pseudoscience? ???Anyone claiming to be an asstronut, doing magic tricks in space, designing nuclear arms at NM and doing dental surgery at snowy Antarctica must be doctor of pseudoscience many times over.Hm, Don is a treble doctor of pseudoscience inventing fantasies wherever he is; Hollywood, Los Alamos, Antarctica, Disneyland. Imagine this clown doing dental surgery ... in a hole in snow ... when he is not developing nuclear micro arms. The ultimate NASA twirp.Anders, why do you say such stupid things? ???
Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS. What does that make you?Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS. What does that make you?Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
The medium-lift Soyuz entered service from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana during 2011, bringing the industry's longest-operating launcher to the world's most modern launch base. Soyuz is a four-stage launcher, designed to extremely high reliability levels for its use in manned missions.
Hmm... So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS. What does that make you?Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.
Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.Why do you hate science so much?
Hmm... So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS. What does that make you?Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.Why do you hate science so much?
Why do you hate science so much?
Why do you hate science so much?
I actually think he is paid for it. Making himself and his ideas look stupid that is. He plays the part well.
Meanwhile.
Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html ! Study it.Cool website btw
Apparently the only thing you are recognized for, scientifically speaking, is being unscientificHmm... So you're okay with aiding abetting a criminal organization?And yet you knowingly invest in a company that supports manned space flight with resupply missions to the ISS. What does that make you?Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Hm, Arianespace just sends unmanned satellites into orbits. If EXA pays and says that they arrive at the fake IFS, what's the problem? You do not argue with your criminal clients.Anyway, it will not last. The NAXA/JPL clowns like Don Pettit & Co cannot invent new magic tricks and dead planets out of the empty Universe forever. Even if the University of Arizona honors them with free, fake PhDs.Why do you hate science so much?
I love science being an educated, recognized scientist. But I do not like fake news and pseudoscience like nuclear arms, manned space flights, towers collapsing from top by gravity, bow visors falling off ships and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Again you offer no evidence to support your position. And you lie. You have been given all of that information you just ignore it. Yet another fail.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.
It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing. After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.
Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO. If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer. If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.
In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.
No. Does that prove anything?Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.Any evidence for that?
It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing. After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.
Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO.Any evidence for that?
If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer. If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.A heat shield is meant to burn. It is an isolating layer slowly burning away. It is designed that it lasts until the spacecraft has slowed down.
In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.Sure. Whatever.
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
It is suggested that a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 but anyone concerned knows the towns were destroyed months before by standard napalm carpet bombing.Actually, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and other potential targets were left alone in the months leading up to the atomic bombings.
After that no nuclear weapons have ever been used un any war. Reason is that they do not work. They are just propaganda. North Korea is good at it.Actually there are a few reasons why. First of all, there haven't been any wars on the scale of WWII since 1945. Secondly, after Russia got nukes, it didn't take very long to figure out that US and Russia tossing nukes back and forth would be a very bad thing for everyone.
Re manned space travel I have only seen various footage of people on the Moon and in the International Space Station but the footage is fake. No doubt about it. Trick films, IMHO. If you ask for details how much fuel is used fo a trip, you never get a real answer.We have provided links to detailed mission reports that tell you exactly how much fuel was used.
If you ask for details about landings on Earth at 8000-11000 m/s speed, the only answer is that you brake using a heat shield. If you study a heat shield you find that it is made of plastic and burns at 250C. It cannot brake anything.We have also provided links to text books explaining how to design atmospheric reentry scenarios.
In spite of this plenty stupid people believe in nuclear weapons and manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them. They are totally brain washed.That's alright, in spite of you claiming to be an engineer, many of us feel sorry for you and your inability to understand basic concepts of nuclear fission and rocket science.
Why do you hate science so much?
I actually think he is paid for it. Making himself and his ideas look stupid that is. He plays the part well.
Meanwhile.
Why are you under the impression everyone's paid by everyone? And why do you think anyone cares about FES?
And plenty of tests that were visible from Vegas in the 50's. It became a tourist attraction. Guess that's thousands of more people that have to be in on it.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?
I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.
He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.
Why do I get the feeling that you still wouldn't believe in atomic bombs even if you were vaporized by one? ::)Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.
He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.
Please tell me about your distrust.
The engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim that scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott, C.Eng., a chartered consulting structural engineer in the UK, told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A Swedish naval architect and marine engineer working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.”
Thanks for clarifications.
I have my reasons to distrust Heiwa. I can share them if you like.
He actually is an engineer also which furthers my suspicions.
Please tell me about your distrust.
You raise a very valid and relevant point here.QuoteThe engineers find it difficult to believe the government’s claim that scattered fires brought about such an orderly collapse. Failure of heat-weakened steel would show “large deflection, asymmetric local failure, and slow progress,” David Scott, C.Eng., a chartered consulting structural engineer in the UK, told colleagues at the Institution of Structural Engineers in the UK. It’s “a gradual process,” agrees Anders Björkman, and “cannot be simultaneous everywhere.” A Swedish naval architect and marine engineer working in France, Björkman maintains that failures “will always be local and topple the mass above in the direction of the local collapse.”
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html
You are, of course, correct.
You then go on to discredit everything you say by claiming the towers were holgrams / cgi.
Furthermore you destroy any credibility you have left by parroting demonstrably incorrect physics in your "moon landing challenge." Also going on about the impossibility of sex in shpayze.
I'm not even going to touch your "nuclear challenge"
So in my eyes you make a totally correct statement, then you go in to destroy your credibility (a lot of posters would say on purpose.) And the credibilty of your arguments.
Why do it? It seems to me like you are doing a great job of making any alternative hypothesis look as stupid as you make yourself look.
That is all, fault my logic, if you like.
Yes yes, everything is cgi, you do your thing man.
. . . my thing is to . . . fake reality by propaganda.
Anyway, it seems plenty people with funny names at this forum are totally brainwashed by propaganda of all types.How do you tell the difference real news and propaganda?
If anyone ever asks me for an example of circular reasoning I will link them to heiwa. A-bombs do not exist. Therefore the footage is faked. Therefore A-bombs do not exist. Excellent piece of logic.
Anyway, it seems plenty people with funny names at this forum are totally brainwashed by propaganda of all types.How do you tell the difference real news and propaganda?
How do you know that you aren't the one brainwashed by your own propaganda?
Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
You just did it again. No evidence, just you making a claim.If anyone ever asks me for an example of circular reasoning I will link them to heiwa. A-bombs do not exist. Therefore the footage is faked. Therefore A-bombs do not exist. Excellent piece of logic.
? End 1944 USA started terror fire bombing Japanese towns of no real military value. By end July 1945 or seven months later >60 big Japanese towns had been burnt down. But by chance USA Army had forgotten to wipe out the big ports of Nagasaki and Hiroshima with their important military industrial complexes. This is the official story established afterwards.
But then USA had developed and tested their a-bombs and ... they were used to vaporize both Hiroshima and Nagasaki in nano-seconds August 1945. It was the first and last time nuclear weapons have been used in war according official history established by winner (and loser).
IMHO official history is just propaganda. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire bombed already spring 1945 but to cover up the fact that a-bombs don't work, they were used as official a-bomb targets August 1945. Footage of fire bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki were later used as evidence (LOL) that a-bombs work.
Only brain washed people believe/love a-bombs and manned space travel and arabs landing in NY skyscrapers. I just feel sorry for these fools.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
Fine. Prove it's fake. Just another failure.Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n kills everyone hanging around.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n kills everyone hanging around.
(....) IMO (....)
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n kills everyone hanging around.
That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n kills everyone hanging around.
That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".
You are right! Sending an underwater craft to 10 000 m below water is probably fake too like all manned flights in space. You have to verify the details of the claims. Do not rely on some flimsy footage of anything, e.g. a lunar lander on the Moon. It is much easier to do it in a studio on Earth.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Why do you say such stupid things?
? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.
Yes - I have seen the movie! The house catches fire and flies away. I see it. Very strange. It is suggested that an a-bomb exploded on the other side of the street but ... I didn't see it. Not even the camera caught the exploding a-bomb.Prove it or shut up. You have failed again.I have not personally seen it, but there were plenty of witnesses that survived the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There were also plenty of military personnel who witnessed above ground tests in the '40s and '50s.Prove it. Back up your statements here, where you made them not on your obnoxious website.Heiwa why do you say such stupid things? ???Stupid? Anyone stating she/he has been in space is a silly, lying fool paid like a prostitute. Human space travel is as fake as nuclear weapons.
Use your brains if any.
Have you ever seen anything destroyed by a nuclear weapon in peace (testing) and war (to win it)?Testing nuclear weapons seem only to be footage of FLASHES followed by no destruction of any kind.??? ??? ??? Are you saying that you've never seen films of tests like these?
Of course I have seen it! So the footage proves that instant militart destrcutive fission, i..e. a-bombs work? But it is just trick film! Like everything else shown about a-bombs in the 1940/50's. It was produced to scare you. Nothing else. IMO it proves what I say. Nuclear weapons are fake from the start. Just propaganda.
I have always wondered who took the film and why he/she + camera were not v a p o r i z e d! I am told that a-bombs vaporize everything in the vicinity and that the r a d i a t i o n kills everyone hanging around.
That's like watching underwater footage and saying "That's fake! People need air and cameras don't work under water!".
You are right! Sending an underwater craft to 10 000 m below water is probably fake too like all manned flights in space. You have to verify the details of the claims. Do not rely on some flimsy footage of anything, e.g. a lunar lander on the Moon. It is much easier to do it in a studio on Earth.
Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics. Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence? Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics. Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence? Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Or will simply fail again.
I think you have failed yet again to post any evidence to support your claims. By the way, no one is interested in your fake challenge. Just show your evidence here where you are making your claims.Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics. Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence? Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Or will simply fail again.
I explain my claims since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , i.e. humans cannot travel in space. It is a big site. Very popular. Downloaded 100 000's of times.
You have to study it. If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . My famous CHALLENGE.
I know plenty people say they have travelled or can travel in space but they have all failed my CHALLENGE. I think they simply lie or are totally brain washed. They cannot explain how it is done or how they did it.
What do you think?
Do you think?
If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe. Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!Prove it. Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion. Show examples of what you are claiming. Show some actual EVIDENCE. Again, you fail.
On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.
Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.
As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.
As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!
With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.
However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above, you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.
Don't blame me for it.
? Can't you look up in the sky? Are you locked up in some asylum without windows?Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe. Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!Prove it. Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion. Show examples of what you are claiming. Show some actual EVIDENCE. Again, you fail.
On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.
Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.
As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.
As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!
With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.
However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above, you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.
Don't blame me for it.
Childish insults aside, that's a no, as usual. You can't support your statements. Pretty everything I see in the sky orbits something. Perhaps you can give an example something not following the rules of gravity and orbital dynamics like you claim.? Can't you look up in the sky? Are you locked up in some asylum without windows?Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe. Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!Prove it. Show us these celestial bodies acting in some random fashion. Show examples of what you are claiming. Show some actual EVIDENCE. Again, you fail.
On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.
Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.
As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.
As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!
With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.
However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above, you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.
Don't blame me for it.
Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.You are right in a way. My Challenge is real of course. But the challengers are all stupid zeros. In spite of my efforts to cure them. I am disappointed.
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
Prove it. Show us the escrow account you keep the money in. No? Yep, it's fake.Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.You are right in a way. My Challenge is real of course. But the challengers are all stupid zeros. In spite of my efforts to cure them. I am disappointed.
Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
Thanks. There is no lack of orbital mechanics knowledge on my part! It is simple rocket science, as you know.Back to your lack of knowledge on orbital mechanics. Can you support any of your claims about space travel with actual evidence? Can you show such evidence here, in this forum where you made those claims without linking to your pathetic website?? Plenty people claim plenty things, like Alexander Humboldt. Ever heard of him? He lived >200 years ago around the corner from me at Freiberg, when I lived there.
Can you point to anywhere in DNO's quote that he specified a depth of 10, 000 m?
Heiwa denies the reality of the Trieste expedition to the Marianas Trench. He does this mostly by saying "It's a fake". Therefore everything is fake because plenty reasons.
Alexander suggested he and a friend had climbed Aconcagua and many other high mountains 200 years ago - they were the astronuts of their times - but media was not there to check anything. Media just reported it as ... FAKE NEWS!
Yes, Alex & Co had seen the mountains from afar ... and that was it.
Or will simply fail again.
I explain my claims since many years at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , i.e. humans cannot travel in space. It is a big site. Very popular. Downloaded 100 000's of times.
You have to study it. If you think I am wrong I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . My famous CHALLENGE.
I know plenty people say they have travelled or can travel in space but they have all failed my CHALLENGE. I think they simply lie or are totally brain washed. They cannot explain how it is done or how they did it.
What do you think?
Do you think?
Orbital mechanics, or rather dynamics – the objects are moving – is very simple at least in our part of the Universe. Just look at the Moon. There must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting between us on Earth and the Moon. The strength of each one is maybe dependent on gravity and the distance between the Earth and the Moon. It seems the Moon orbits Earth elliptically in space. Don't ask me to prove it. Just look up!and with this, possibly the single worst explanation of orbits I've ever seen, Heiwa proves the title of the thread, AGAIN. Of course to even get this he had to plagiarize it from the biggest joke of a forum out there. We all know Heiwa couldn't explain it in his own words.
On Wikipedia it says the perigee of the Moon is ~362 000 km and the apogee is ~405 000km with the midpoint of this elliptical orbit being ~384 000km from Earth.
Let’s start out at this midpoint with the moon having momentum leading it away from Earth in its orbit. As the Moon gets farther away from Earth beyond 384 000km, the attractive force comes to dominate the repulsive force. Meaning the Moon begins to be net pulled towards the Earth. First the momentum away from the Earth is decelerated until the Moon no longer has any momentum moving away from the Earth at the apogee ~405 000km.
As the attractive force is still dominant at this distance, the Moon begins gaining momentum moving towards Earth in its orbit. Until it builds up some good momentum and passes through the midpoint distance of 384 000km once again, but this time going the other way. You can see it yourself by looking up on the Moon. Use your eyes.
As the Moon travels closer to Earth, now the repulsive force begins to dominate. And gradually the repulsive force chips away at the Moon's momentum towards Earth. Until at ~362 000km the repulsive force has brought the Moon's momentum towards Earth to 0. And now the Moon begins to gain momentum moving away from Earth again. It is a simple example or orbital dynamics!
With this the Moon can remain in orbit of Earth for millions or billions of years. Kepler has explained it. One question remains; wouldn't this going back and forth between repulsive and attractive locations of force in orbit, eventually center the Moon at the midpoint distance. For this, I think the rotation of Earth, and the movement of Earth away from its own midpoint away from the Moon, will keep the Moon from achieving a resting midpoint. Another possibility is the action of other bodies like the Sun on the Earth-Moon system, will keep the system from rest distances. Yet another possibility is the idea of a tendency towards stability is based on observing things on Earth, where there is resistance like air resistance, which that tendency might not be true in space.
Anyway, the easiest way to understand orbital mechanics is to look out of the window and watch the Moon.
Our Solar System was, if you believe what you are told at school or by Wikipedia, formed 4.6 billion years ago from the gravitational collapse of a giant interstellar molecular cloud. Imagine that! It was long before I was born and I am sorry I cannot prove it.
However, if you today, 4.6 billion years later, look further away from the tip of your nose and our Universe or Solar System and study other solar systems or galaxies in the sky above, you will find that they do not orbit anything and pop up and disappear into nothing at regular intervals not following any rules of gravity and orbital dynamics.
Don't blame me for it.
Aside from all the misinformation and lies.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
more lies from Heiwa.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Idiot.
http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php
See, that's a lie. I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Links? They prove nothing.See, that's a lie. I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Why do you say such stupid things?
Why do you say such stupid things. I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.Links? They prove nothing.See, that's a lie. I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Why do you say such stupid things?
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Hm, you have to read what I say. It is quite simple. Humans cannot travel in space and then land on Earth afterwards. I show and prove it quite clearly at my website. I also explain the reasons for the hoaxes, incl. stealing money from the public. It is just show biz and magic tricks.Why do you say such stupid things. I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.Links? They prove nothing.See, that's a lie. I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Why do you say such stupid things?
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Others have shown you flight plans and fuel consumption and then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
Why do you lie?
But, show some evidence that the toilets designed for space won't work there. Oh wait, you're a failure and can't actually support your claims.
More lies. You have been shown about the fuel consumption, you have been shown the toilets, you have been shown the entire flight plans for the Apollo missions. You have been shown these things in great detail. Then you lie and say no one can show you these things.Hm, you have to read what I say. It is quite simple. Humans cannot travel in space and then land on Earth afterwards. I show and prove it quite clearly at my website. I also explain the reasons for the hoaxes, incl. stealing money from the public. It is just show biz and magic tricks.Why do you say such stupid things. I've shown exactly how toilets in space work and then you lie and say no one can show you how toilets would work in space.Links? They prove nothing.See, that's a lie. I have posted links to exactly how the toilets in space work as a direct reply to you spouting this nonsense.I do it all the time even if the full story is at my website.Another fail. Show your evidence here, where you are making your idiotic claims.Hm, do you suggest the Moon doesn't orbit Earth?Check your meds, I think your mad cow is getting worse. I do not suggest the moon isn't orbiting the earth.
Or do you suggest Earth orbits the Moon?
What do you think? And can you prove what you think. You sound like Donald Trump. I like him and laugh all the time.
I do state as a fact though, that you have once again failed to support your claims.
All claims at http://heiwaco.com are facts.
One reason why human space travel just orbiting Earth or going to the Moon or Mars is impossible is simply that there are no toilet available onboard. Asstronuts and kosmoklowns apparently do not shit and piss.
If you ask NASA for details you do not get any reply. I assume NASA forgot that detail as these facilities are readily available on Earth and humans were never intended to fly in space.
Why do you say such stupid things?
And why would you have toilets in space? No humans can ever use them.
Others have shown you flight plans and fuel consumption and then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
Why do you lie?
But, show some evidence that the toilets designed for space won't work there. Oh wait, you're a failure and can't actually support your claims.
Here at this forum nobody has even been able to calculate the fuel for simple trips in space and when you ask about the sanitary facilities in space you just get the standard shit.
Plenty people are brain washed to believe in human space travel. I just feel sorry for you.
Idiot.
http://toilet-guru.com/spacecraft.php
LOL. Did Apollo 11 contain all this shit?
(http://toilet-guru.com/pictures/spacecraft-dscf0217.jpg)
Fecal Collection Assembly
Apollo
These two bags make up the fecal collection assembly, part of the personal hygiene system used by Apollo astronauts. These bags were not flown.
This self-contained system gave the astronaut flexibility and control in a weightless environment and allowed for simple and hygienic disposal.
Transferred from NASA Johnson Space Center
A19750739000
No - nobody has shown how you calculate fuel required for a space trip or the flight plans for the Apollo missions. I, on the other hand, analyse one proposed flight plan (Apollo 11) at my website. There are several versions to look at and the difference in fuel used is of the order 100's of tons.
More lies. You have been shown about the fuel consumption, you have been shown the toilets, you have been shown the entire flight plans for the Apollo missions. You have been shown these things in great detail. Then you lie and say no one can show you these things.
You have never once presented any evidence at all on this forum and yet constantly demand that others show you proof. When they do, you ignore it and lie some more.
Show some evidence here to support your claims or admit or just a pathetic failure.
Why do you say such stupid lies?
Why do you say such stupid lies?Well - nobody has shown how you calculate fuel required for a space trip or the flight plans for the Apollo missions. I, on the other hand, analyse one proposed flight plan (Apollo 11) at my website. There are several versions to look at and the difference in fuel used is of the order 100's of tons.
Do you think it becomes less stupid if you post it twice?No, but it seems plenty people do not understand what I write. Maybe they are lazy or slow in their heads?
The bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
Do you think it becomes less stupid if you post it twice?No, but it seems plenty people do not understand what I write. Maybe they are lazy or slow in their heads?
Hm, I would assume it would be a part of normal asstronut training but ... I have never heard of it before now. Anyway, none of these shitters/tissue wipers have ever been in space. They just make it up on ground.re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
Translation: I haven't heard of it because my research skills are completely abysmal and I'm a pathological liar. I have no proof of my claims but I'll refer you to my website anyway because the paltry hit count gives me a hard on.Hm, I would assume it would be a part of normal asstronut training but ... I have never heard of it before now. Anyway, none of these shitters/tissue wipers have ever been in space. They just make it up on ground.re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
So, yes, seriously that stupid. I have posted links that show you exactly how that works.Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Heiwa thinks it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Anyone really think this guy is an engineer?A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?
I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.
A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?
I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.
Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction. This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?
I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.
Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?
So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post then?
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.A lot. When in space or in orbit you are just floating around inside your spacecraft. You are weightless. However, when you shit or piss you act like a rocket! The piss/shit is ejected one way and you move the other way. You have to hold on to something ... and the shit/piss must end up in some container or similar. How do you do it? In your pants? When holding on to something?Is this a weird fetish of yours?Hm, I have been told that, travelling in space you are floating around inside your spacecraft all the time not in touch with anything. To move you must start a little rocket attached to your nose, or something, to get moving, according NASA. Flying to the toilet must be ... something. Imagine if you shit in the wrong direction not attached to whatever. In the wrong place! And the wiper tissue. Imagine if it is not flying about in front of you so you can wipe your ass or dry your pick.Can he seriously be this stupid?re onebigmonkey: apparently you are. It appears in Heiwa's world it is impossible to grab onto something or strap things down. Of course he probably has his nurse wiping his ass.Germicidal wet wipes. Idiot.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s6ch2.htmQuoteThe bag was then removed from the buttocks, and the anus was cleaned with tissue wipes
Jesus we are literally having to teach you how to wipe your own ass.
But how do you use tissue wipes floating around in no gravity?
I assume you have no idea about shitting inside a spacecraft.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Have you ever pissed/shitted in space?
You should try it.
This really is a weird fetish of yours isn't it?
I probably will use the bathroom in space some day.
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
I figured out how to piss out of a moving canoe when I was seven. It's a little tricky but with a little ingenuity it can be accomplished. You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
But I think you know this, you just like to go on about it 'cause it get's you off.
Please, pissing/shitting from a boat at sea has nothing in common with doing it weightless inside a spacecraft in space. You talk nonsense as usual. Maybe your head is too small and your brains compressed?
So you're just going to ignore the rest of my post then?
Some restraining devices to hold things in the appropriate position should not be too hard to figure out.
I think the key thing you're not understanding is that the people who are in space have full control of their bowels and they don't shit until it's directed in the right direction and place. the mistake you're making is assuming that just because you don't have full control of your bowel movements nobody else does either. This is incorrect.
You must be really stupid if you think the problems you are pointing out regarding using the bathroom in space are insurmountable. I really think those are problems that an average seven year old could solve. At most, ten years old.
Personally I prefer my 'arab' style WC with a little shower (and towel) for ass cleaning. It works perfectly ... but not in space.
I have never understood why humans should fly up to piss and shit in space. It doesn't sound normal. Only sick minds can have invented it.
If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction. This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.
As usual Heiwa's objections reduce to nothing but argument from incredulity. He doesn't understand it so it must not be possible. And add that to his apparent fecal obsession and that is all he has to offer.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures. Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.
Personally I prefer my 'arab' style WC with a little shower (and towel) for ass cleaning. It works perfectly ... but not in space.
I have never understood why humans should fly up to piss and shit in space. It doesn't sound normal. Only sick minds can have invented it.
To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind. It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.
Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module. The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind. It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module. The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind. It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module. The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
That's really what it comes down to isn't it? You don't understand it so it can't be true.Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.To be perfectly frank I do not believe the NASA stories of the no gravity toilet in the Apollo service modules and the low gravity toilet in the Apollo lunar modules and operating procedures.That's because the Apollo command module and lunar module didn't have toilets of any kind. It's already been pointed out that they used collection bags.Apparently the asstronut must strip off his space suit and strap himself to the unit and ensure that the piss and shit is transferred to some containers (plastic bags), etc, etc. and then he cleans himself with some tissue paper disposed somewhere else before putting on the space suit again.Apparently you don't understand that the astronauts only wore their space suits during lift off and when in the lunar module. The rest of the time they wore much lighter and more comfortable flight suits for the vast majority of the trip.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4052/4680806980_e44c4fc902_b.jpg)
I have never understoodit.anything.
Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
Yes, you are wrong as usual. What is, e.g., the purpose of sending humans to planet Mars apart from nobody winning my Challenge describing the trip. Mars has, we are told, already been explored by robots. There is nothing there for humans to enjoy. NOTHING! So why send humans there? To piss and shit through a special device strapped to your body? Only idiots would even consider flying to Mars.Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
Actually, there is an instance. On the space station MIR they used to eject the collected urine into space (why not, there is a lot of room out there). Unfortunately, it froze and stayed within a roughtly similar orbit as MIR, so finally some urine-ice-crystals started gathering on the solar panels, significantly reducing their efficiency. This is why on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).If you shit in the wrong direction or place it's a mess no matter where you are! What does this have to do with orbital mechanics? ???Obviously the action of shitting in one direction produces the reaction of pushing the entire spacecraft in the other direction. This means that if you shit hard enough in the wrong direction, your spacecraft will be thrown off course and you will become hopelessly lost in space forever.
My bad! Do you happen to know of any instances where space travelers lost their way due to misdirected feces etc? ;D
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit. Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum. I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit. Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum. I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
Then you shouldn't go.Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit. Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum. I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
I cannot afford it, but, you know, it is a joke. It is not possible.Then you shouldn't go.Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit. Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum. I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
Only idiots would build a sailing ship and sail into the unknown, looking for new land! Only idiots would try to find America.Yes, you are wrong as usual. What is, e.g., the purpose of sending humans to planet Mars apart from nobody winning my Challenge describing the trip. Mars has, we are told, already been explored by robots. There is nothing there for humans to enjoy. NOTHING! So why send humans there? To piss and shit through a special device strapped to your body? Only idiots would even consider flying to Mars.Yes, asstronuts are dressed in pyjamas (flight suits) in space and attach some fittings to piss and shit into collection bags, etc, etc. Sounds great. Then they wash themselves, bla, bla. But what is the whole purpose with these clowns up there? What do they produce ... apart from filled collection bags. I have never understood it.A sailor that doesn't understand the purpose of exploring the unknown? ???
More fun is a cruise on ship. But the ship must be safe. I describe it at my website.
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.
Prove it. Give us the evidence right here why it is not possible. Or admit you're a liar.I cannot afford it, but, you know, it is a joke. It is not possible.Then you shouldn't go.Hm, Donald Trump has just told NASA to put humans on planet Mars by 2033! Nobody seems to know how long it will take to go there. Maybe it will take 200 days. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . The only thing that is certain is that the humans aboard must piss and shit a couple of times daily, even if there are no private facilities aboard the spacecraft.I don't know, you spend an awful lot of time talking about piss and shit. Maybe you should move over to a fetish forum. I'm sure there are some that specialize in bathroom fantasies.No, my interest is ship. And safety of them. Not very popular actually. If something goes wrong on a ship, the easiest solution is to arrest the Captain and jail him - http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . Media support it. Many ships are shit.Well, the process is not that much different... But no, he does not describe that as far as I remember.
on the ISS the urine now gets stored and brought back to ground (that, and the huge interest by researchers).
If you are interested in the actual urinating process i suggest you read chris hadfield's book, there he describes that in pretty good detail.
What about the shit? Does asstronut Hadfield look into it?
What is it about your recent interest in shit? If you want to study shit in a huge abundance, i suggest this (http://www.heiwaco.com) website.
It seems the solution is that the asstronuts undress and strap some device to their bodies into which the asstronuts then shit and piss. The fecals arrive in plastic bags.
I find that solution unsatisfactory.
So why would you go?
200 days shitting/pissing in a strap on gadget in space?
And then?
Planting strawberries on planet Mars?
Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.
Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.
Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/s2eX3vNCUfVcI/giphy.gif?response_id=5925e7100b146110c3a9bc11)The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.
Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.
Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.Of course you're against space exploration. If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
;D I see what you did there.Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.Of course you're against space exploration. If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
Wrong as usual. But space is best explored by robots that do not need toilets. I hope you agree! Use common sense. Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.Of course you're against space exploration. If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
No, I don't agree. At least not until robots become smarter than humans.Wrong as usual. But space is best explored by robots that do not need toilets. I hope you agree!Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.Of course you're against space exploration. If you were for it, then you would be looking for ways to make it possible instead of making shitty excuses.
Use common sense.I do. Do you?
Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
The takeaway from this is that according to Heiwa, space travel is impossible because he doesn't like pissing and shitting into gadgets. Ok.Hm, sending satellites one-way into orbits in space is possible as no toilets are required. It is easy.
Things get difficult, dirty, smelly and shitty if you brings asstronuts aboard for obvious reasons.
Visit http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm for full details.
Please do not suggest that I am against space exploration.
Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
Prove it. Show your evidence here where you make the claim. Yet another failure.Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Proving the thread title with every post.Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Prove it. Show your evidence here where you make the claim. Yet another failure.Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?
Robots may not need to use a toilet, but they still need to land on whatever body they they intend to explore.Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.
But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?If you honestly think that criminals are exploring space, then why don't you report them to the appropriate police organization? After all, if you aren't doing anything to stop the criminals, then you might as well be one of them.
Robots may not need to use a toilet, but they still need to land on whatever body they they intend to explore.Yes, I am for space explorations. By robots. Humans have no chance in space apart from the lack of toilets.Are you sure that you're for space exploration? There seems to be an awful lot of people doing an awful lot of "fake research" for space exploration to be impossible.Wrong again. To explore an object in space you must design a spacecraft that can land on the object after being launched from Earth. Nobody has managed it, incl. winning my €1M. Many has faked it. Just look at all them clowns/actors claiming they know how to do it. Liars. They are paid to lie.Anyway, there is no way for the robots to land anywhere to explore anything. I have proven it since many years. How? Well, nobody has collected my €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .See, there you go being against space exploration again. Don't whine about why things can't be done. Figure out how to get them done. Isn't that what engineers are supposed to do?
My contribution is simply to show what they are. Liars.But plenty criminals are paid to assist exploring space. Are you one of them?If you honestly think that criminals are exploring space, then why don't you report them to the appropriate police organization? After all, if you aren't doing anything to stop the criminals, then you might as well be one of them.
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.People hit moving targets all the time. Have you never been skeet shooting?
And upon arrival you have to brake and land.Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.
As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.Who is stealing money from whom? Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people. If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.
We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.
Heiwa is an engineer. You know the engineer credo, right?
EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!
That's really it. He can't understand it and is too lazy to try so it must be impossible.We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.
Heiwa is an engineer. You know the engineer credo, right?
EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!
Actually it comes off less like he thinks it's impossible and more like he can't be bothered:
"Oh my God, you have to launch the spacecraft and then you gotta be pissing in gadgets and on top of that you have to calculate where your target will move to, and then you gotta... Ugh... You gotta brake and land and... Grrr what an ordeal! Leave me alone, I don't want to go to space!"
Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.People hit moving targets all the time. Have you never been skeet shooting?And upon arrival you have to brake and land.Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.Who is stealing money from whom? Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people. If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible.Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.People hit moving targets all the time. Have you never been skeet shooting?And upon arrival you have to brake and land.Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.Who is stealing money from whom? Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people. If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore? Or just finally gone fully senile?And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS! No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream? You sound like a total imbecille. A 0 IQ tomato.translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible.Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.People hit moving targets all the time. Have you never been skeet shooting?And upon arrival you have to brake and land.Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.Who is stealing money from whom? Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people. If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore? Or just finally gone fully senile?And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS! No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Translation: Of course I don't understand it but I'll throw around some insults to try to distract from that fact.Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream? You sound like a total imbecille. A 0 IQ tomato.translation: I can't understand it so it must be impossible.Hm, a robot spacecraft must first get out of orbit Earth into a trajectory to the target ... and it is not so easy. The target is moving all the time.People hit moving targets all the time. Have you never been skeet shooting?And upon arrival you have to brake and land.Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. We've covered this before. Very difficult, but not impossible if you know what you're doing.As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is done ... and how much fuel is required.I don't know of anyone who really gives a rat's ass about your challenge, so I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.Exploring space is not criminal but stealing money from people in order to explore space is, IMHO, criminal. But it has been going on for >60 years so nobody cares. I just laugh at the fools involved.Who is stealing money from whom? Governments have the legal authority to collect taxes from the people. If they choose to spend it on impossible space exploration, then that's waste, not theft.
The target may be moving at 25 000 m/s in 3D space far away. Not so easy to find. And then you have to stop and land which requires fuel ... that you cannot carry. And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit? Exploring?
You sound like a grand child of those twirps that in the 1950's said human space travel was like ... a cruise over the Atlantic ... and asked for money to go to the Moon, etc, etc. They faked everything and the fakery is still going on. Ever heard of the Ponzi scheme? It works best when tax payers' money are involved.
So senile then. Your post was in no way a reply to mine.No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore? Or just finally gone fully senile?And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS! No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
No, it was an invitation. Do you come?So senile then. Your post was in no way a reply to mine.No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore? Or just finally gone fully senile?And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS! No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
Creepy, senile, old guy inviting me to his place. No thank you. You'll have to be a predator on someone else.No, it was an invitation. Do you come?So senile then. Your post was in no way a reply to mine.No, here it is 17 pm and apero time. Dinner is served at 19 pm. Just come around. Have a good time.Not even bothering to disguise the trolling anymore? Or just finally gone fully senile?And what are you going to do after having stopped and landed, apart from a piss and a shit?
Eat and drink? Why have a toilet if there is no ammo to shoot at it?
Eat and drink? In space? You are joking! What was served on Apollo xx was no fresh fish, milk, eggs, meat, etc. Forget lobster and caviar on the ISS! No, in space it is space rations. Something in a plastic bag. But why eat at all in space? There are much simpler solutions to keep cocumbers alive.
No, it was an invitation. Do you come?
As you have failed to win my Challenge, I assume you are not capable to explain how it is doneAs you have failed to win my challenge I assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream?That depends on whether you're traveling for business or pleasure.
He's actually just fucking with all of us. He's pretty good at it. ;)
He's actually just fucking with all of us. He's pretty good at it. ;)
Probably, but I like it. Still, Intikam exists, so I don't think it's impossible that he's serious.
Please - when you travel anywhere. Don't you want to have a nice meal? A steak? Sallad? Wine. And a dessert. Ice cream?That depends on whether you're traveling for business or pleasure.
Yes, space travel requires certain sacrifices and hardships that some are not willing to endure. Fuck 'em. There are plenty of hardy adventurers who are more than willing endure much greater hardships than pissing and shitting in bags for the chance to explore the mysteries of space.
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.How do you know that everyplace is dead? Have you looked everyplace for life? Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?
Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.How do you know that everyplace is dead? Have you looked everyplace for life? Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?
Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space. Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few. Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
That depends. If you want to colonize space, then it's probably a lot more cost effective to use the resources available in space, rather than to schlep those resources from earth.Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
I doubt recourse collection will ever be cost effective, but knowledge is priceless.
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.
NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.There was a time when the idea of non-stop intercontinental commercial air travel was ridiculous too.
Accept of course, that's another lie. You've been given that information many times. Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position. Another fail.What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.How do you know that everyplace is dead? Have you looked everyplace for life? Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?
Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space. Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few. Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.
Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.
But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.
Sorry, nobody has been able to show how to calculate the fuel required for a trip to the Moon and back ... and how to get it off the ground on Earth. It is suggested that you need 100's of tons and an enormous rocket that does not exist ... and similar fantasies. Do not make up any stories about me.Accept of course, that's another lie. You've been given that information many times. Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position. Another fail.What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.How do you know that everyplace is dead? Have you looked everyplace for life? Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?
Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space. Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few. Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.
Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.
But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
*sigh* Sorry Anders, but I think that you jumped the shark on this one.Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.
LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor.
I remind you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .I remind you that nobody gives a rat's ass about any of your €1M "challenges".
Sorry, you are wrong as usual. He-3 in the Moon regolith ash? You are insane.*sigh* Sorry Anders, but I think that you jumped the shark on this one.Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.
LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor.I remind you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .I remind you that nobody gives a rat's ass about any of your €1M "challenges".
Nobody CARES about your fraudulent challenge because we all know that the sole judge is a biased pathological liar and likely senile.Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon.The moon appears to have large supplies of Helium-3, which is quite useful for fusion reactors.
LOL - only idiots believe in Helium-3 and that it is embedded in the Moon regolith by solar wind and can be used in a fusion reactor. I remind you that nobody has won my famous €1M fusion Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
Liar. You've been shown that multiple times.Sorry, nobody has been able to show how to calculate the fuel required for a trip to the Moon and back ... and how to get it off the ground on Earth. It is suggested that you need 100's of tons and an enormous rocket that does not exist ... and similar fantasies. Do not make up any stories about me.Accept of course, that's another lie. You've been given that information many times. Yet you fail to show any evidence to support your position. Another fail.What mysteries are you talking about? There is nothing to explore in space. No angels flying around. No green men on the Moon or Mars to encounter. Nothing. Every place is dead! Only planet Earth is fairly comfortable to live at for obvious reasons.How do you know that everyplace is dead? Have you looked everyplace for life? Scientists have found life in some pretty uncomfortable places on earth, so why shouldn't there be life in uncomfortable places in space?
Even is we never find life anywhere else, there is still a lot to learn in space. Geology of other bodies, planetary and interplanetary weather patterns, insights into the formation of the solar system and the universe in general, just to name a few. Some even look at the possibility of mining the moon and/or asteroids for valuable resources.
Mining the Moon! You sound crazy. There is nothing to mine on the Moon. NASA had plans to plant strawberries there and ESA wants to build a hotel. All rididculous ideas.
Interplanetary weather patterns! Nonsense.
But what to expect. You cannot even calculate the trajectory and fuel required for a little trip to the Moon (and back). My Challenge - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Reason is that nobody has ever been on the Moon! NASA faked it 1969. But you believed it happened. LOL!
Why do you say such stupid things?It is not me; it is Chris Moore, deputy director of the Advanced Exploration Systems Division at NASA headquarters, who said it in a presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress Oct. 3, 2014, i.e. that a spacecraft, intended to serve as a prototype of a habitat for future deep-space missions, could be in place before the first crewed mission visits a captured asteroid in the mid-2020s.
Plenty people gave you plenty calculations plenty times, you lying fraud.
Go to school:
http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/He can't fail if he didn't try. Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim. I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/He can't fail if he didn't try. Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim. I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
I agree, no serious NASA scientist would even try my Challenge. Why? There are no serious NASA scientists.Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/He can't fail if he didn't try. Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim. I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
Not even people that spend their free time arguing on a forum about the shape of the earth are bored enough to do this so-called 'challenge'. I highly doubt any serious NASA scientist would do it, especially as the judge does not even understand high-school physics.http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/He can't fail if he didn't try. Either provide proof he even knows about your fraudulent "challenge" and cares about it or retract your BS claim. I'm betting you'll do neither because you're nothing but a pathological liar.
Chris Moore of NASA thought 2014 astronuts were going to land on an asteroid mid 2020's but I haven't heard from Chris lately. Maybe he is locked up in a mental institution? Anyway, Chris has miserably failed my Challenge.
I agree, no serious NASA scientist would even try my Challenge. Why? There are no serious NASA scientists.
And what about the rest? Isn't €1M award tempting? Or is the Challenge impossible?
I doubt he has fifty cents to his name.Quite likely. His nurse probably won't let him have spare change for fear he'd swallow it.
I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!Have you ever asked Arianespace how much fuel they require to put a satellite into geostationary orbit? What was their reply?
Arianespace uses plenty fuel to launch satellites into orbits. The amount depends on payload and type of orbit. It seems NASA/SpaceX does the same thing using much less fuel. I explain the differences at my website. Why does Arianespace use such wasteful rockets?I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!Have you ever asked Arianespace how much fuel they require to put a satellite into geostationary orbit? What was their reply?
You know nobody believes you right? You have proven yourself to be a liar and an idiot all to often. You have never once supplied any evidence to support your claims, you have ignored the multiple times people have supplied you with evidence. Your a pathetic little man and I think I'm done with you. Hopefully everyone else will just put you on ignore as well.Arianespace uses plenty fuel to launch satellites into orbits. The amount depends on payload and type of orbit. It seems NASA/SpaceX does the same thing using much less fuel. I explain the differences at my website. Why does Arianespace use such wasteful rockets?I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!Have you ever asked Arianespace how much fuel they require to put a satellite into geostationary orbit? What was their reply?
Re the Challenge money - anyone only has to visit my office and see the records of my assets. I even serve free coffee to my visitors.
Hm, I think you are jealous that I am clever, intelligent, goodlooking and rich, while you are not. But such is life. Unfair. Winners like me and losers like you.You know nobody believes you right? You have proven yourself to be a liar and an idiot all to often. You have never once supplied any evidence to support your claims, you have ignored the multiple times people have supplied you with evidence. Your a pathetic little man and I think I'm done with you. Hopefully everyone else will just put you on ignore as well.Arianespace uses plenty fuel to launch satellites into orbits. The amount depends on payload and type of orbit. It seems NASA/SpaceX does the same thing using much less fuel. I explain the differences at my website. Why does Arianespace use such wasteful rockets?I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!Have you ever asked Arianespace how much fuel they require to put a satellite into geostationary orbit? What was their reply?
Re the Challenge money - anyone only has to visit my office and see the records of my assets. I even serve free coffee to my visitors.
Hm, I think you are jealous that I am clever, intelligent, goodlooking and rich, while you are not. But such is life. Unfair. Winners like me and losers like you.
Yeah I'm here for lolz.
I read your paper by the way, I couldn't see anything erroneous with it other than not mentioning the fact that the spacecraft's orbit would have the barycentre of the Earth/Moon system at it's foci. It is quite a large difference relative to Earth (over 4000km from the planet's centre), but I guess this would come under the 5th simplification about the Moon's gravity.
Sorry, but an answer like that won't win your challenge. How do they get all that fuel off the ground in the first place?Arianespace uses plenty fuel to launch satellites into orbits.I have only asked Chris about the amount of fuel required, what the purpose of visiting an asteroid is and how to get the crew back to Earth from the asteroid. No reply!Have you ever asked Arianespace how much fuel they require to put a satellite into geostationary orbit? What was their reply?
The amount depends on payload and type of orbit. It seems NASA/SpaceX does the same thing using much less fuel.How do you know if NASA/SpaceX use more or less fuel if nobody is telling you just how much fuel they're using?
I explain the differences at my website. Why does Arianespace use such wasteful rockets?Why do you own stock in a company that knowingly participates in a criminal conspiracy to defraud tax payers?
Re the Challenge money - anyone only has to visit my office and see the records of my assets. I even serve free coffee to my visitors.Why do you keep bringing up a challenge that no one cares about?
Re the Challenge money - anyone only has to visit my office and see the records of my assets. I even serve free coffee to my visitors.
Hm, I think you are jealous that I am clever, intelligent, goodlooking and rich, while you are not. But such is life. Unfair. Winners like me and losers like you.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/facebook-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Why
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/crying-laughter-smiley-emoticon.gif)
Do(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/happy/rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-smiley-emoticon.gif)
You(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/rolling-lol.gif)
Say(https://media3.giphy.com/media/6t8gInXCh9RVm/200w.gif#3]http://)Such(https://media3.giphy.com/media/26xBLYil5lKfbbchW/200.gif#16)stupid(https://media2.giphy.com/media/OYBcJu7IBNrPO/200w.gif#10)things?
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
When is owning shares in a company not owning shares in a company...?I don't know. I just invest in shares to increase my fortune. Do you have one?
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
I have only 1 300 shares in Airbus NV, which is a majority owner of Arianespace. I wish I had more.
When is owning shares in a company not owning shares in a company...?I don't know. I just invest in shares to increase my fortune. Do you have one?
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
I have only 1 300 shares in Airbus NV, which is a majority owner of Arianespace. I wish I had more.
How did you get shares without money? ::)
My bank does not buy shares for my account without real money provided ... by me.
You sound utterly stupid.Yes you do.
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
According to his claim of 1300 shares :-\, he owns 0.000168112% of the company.
That's worth about €6136.
Not even close to €100M.
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
According to his claim of 1300 shares :-\, he owns 0.000168112% of the company.
That's worth about €6136.
Not even close to €100M.
? according http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en.html stock price yesterday was €75.60 . So my stake is worth €98 280. I paid much less = I am a winner. And it it only a fraction of my total fortune. Reason why you are poor and stupid is that you are stupid and poor. Don't blame me for it.
http://www.arianespace.com/press-releases/?taxonomy%5Bpress-release-category%5D=ariane-5
and I am a happy share holder!
Well done. How much do you own, 0,00001%?
According to his claim of 1300 shares :-\, he owns 0.000168112% of the company.
That's worth about €6136.
Not even close to €100M.
? according http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en.html stock price yesterday was €75.60 . So my stake is worth €98 280. I paid much less = I am a winner. And it it only a fraction of my total fortune. Reason why you are poor and stupid is that you are stupid and poor. Don't blame me for it.
I was basing it off of the net worth of the company. the only things that have been established are the number of shares Airbus has issued and their value. You claim to own 1300 of them and you claim this is is only a fraction of your total fortune. (Whatever that means. Like 99/100ths?)
BTW reason why you are a lying curmudgeon is that you are a lying curmudgeon. Don't blame me for it.
Edit: *Curmudgeon*
Well, you sound like being...ugly. Knowing nothing about topic.
Well, you sound like being...ugly. Knowing nothing about topic.
How does an ugly person sound exactly?
Well, you sound like being...ugly. Knowing nothing about topic.
How does an ugly person sound exactly?
Look in a mirror and say AHH!
Well, you sound like being...ugly. Knowing nothing about topic.
How does an ugly person sound exactly?
Look in a mirror and say AHH!
I suppose he thinks that stupid smirk is handsome or something. LOL
The LP is skipping.
The LP is skipping.
Someone has to introduce him to the digital era. Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings. I hear there are plenty of computer education programs for old people, and not too pricey either.
The LP is skipping.
Someone has to introduce him to the digital era. Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings. I hear there are plenty of computer education programs for old people, and not too pricey either.
Hey, fine, insult Heiwa, but don't insult my vinyl!
Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings.
Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings.
The beauty of vinyl, besides treating the media with the respect it deserves,
is that it is a listening experience start to finish.
From Pink Floyd to Beethoven.
However, some stuff should be released as MP3, free with a purchase of 5 quarts of motor oil.
The LP is skipping.
Someone has to introduce him to the digital era. Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings. I hear there are plenty of computer education programs for old people, and not too pricey either.
Hey, fine, insult Heiwa, but don't insult my vinyl!
I'm not insulting your vinyl, I think vinyl sounds way better and I have many LPs (including Wish You Were Here, as referenced in your sig). It's just that some stingy curmudgeons buy the cheapest record players they can find. They skip a lot.
I know, I was joking. But seeing another Pink Floyd fan is always a good thing. I think Wish You Were Here was one of their best (but personally I can't put anything over the stuff with Syd).
Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings.
The beauty of vinyl, besides treating the media with the respect it deserves,
is that it is a listening experience start to finish.
From Pink Floyd to Beethoven.
However, some stuff should be released as MP3, free with a purchase of 5 quarts of motor oil.
Some stuff especially by Pink Floyd is much better to listen to on vinyl for a couple of additional reasons. On Dark Side of the Moon, every track smoothly transitions to the next one, as if it's one piece. If you try to listen to songs isolated, it's not how it was "meant" to be, and also on CDs there's a pause between tracks, so the transition isn't smooth any more.
For classical stuff if doesn't seem to me that it matters as much, since they weren't made for LPs anyways, but still the sound is deeper, warmer and fuzzier on vinyls.
I know, I was joking. But seeing another Pink Floyd fan is always a good thing. I think Wish You Were Here was one of their best (but personally I can't put anything over the stuff with Syd).
I personally don't like the stuff with Syd as much. I love the stuff after Meddle. WYWH is my personal favorite.
Btw Roger Waters released a new album the day before yesterday. I heard it, it's ok. Actually it's better than I expected.
Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings.
The beauty of vinyl, besides treating the media with the respect it deserves,
is that it is a listening experience start to finish.
From Pink Floyd to Beethoven.
However, some stuff should be released as MP3, free with a purchase of 5 quarts of motor oil.
Some stuff especially by Pink Floyd is much better to listen to on vinyl for a couple of additional reasons. On Dark Side of the Moon, every track smoothly transitions to the next one, as if it's one piece. If you try to listen to songs isolated, it's not how it was "meant" to be, and also on CDs there's a pause between tracks, so the transition isn't smooth any more.
For classical stuff if doesn't seem to me that it matters as much, since they weren't made for LPs anyways, but still the sound is deeper, warmer and fuzzier on vinyls.
Even Blondie 'Parallel Lines' on vinyl sounds better than digital.
Knowing you can't tap a button to pause the music to throw something at the stupid fucking cat sharpening it's claws on the couch makes the music experience better.
(lock the cat out of the listening room before you drop the tonearm.)
And turn off the telephone for an hour. You won't die.
Back in MY day, you little sons o' bitches . . . . . Get off my lawn !!! ;D
Even Blondie 'Parallel Lines' on vinyl sounds better than digital.
Knowing you can't tap a button to pause the music to throw something at the stupid fucking cat sharpening it's claws on the couch makes the music experience better.
(lock the cat out of the listening room before you drop the tonearm.)
And turn off the telephone for an hour. You won't die.
Back in MY day, you little sons o' bitches . . . . . Get off my lawn !!! ;D
Even Blondie 'Parallel Lines' on vinyl sounds better than digital.
Knowing you can't tap a button to pause the music to throw something at the stupid fucking cat sharpening it's claws on the couch makes the music experience better.
(lock the cat out of the listening room before you drop the tonearm.)
And turn off the telephone for an hour. You won't die.
Back in MY day, you little sons o' bitches . . . . . Get off my lawn !!! ;D
Well, to be fair, on CDs it is easier to make the stupid fucking cat singing to shut up, especially when it comes to Blondie! ;D
Just joking, Blondie's ok, but not all of their music has aged that well.
I was checking the best selling classic rock vinyls on public (public is a really popular and big tech, book and music shop in greece). Some Deep Purple were there. A hint of Beatles and Rolling Stones. Even Jethro Tull were on the first page. Led Zeppelin were there A LOT. David Bowie as well. Almost the entirety of the first page was comprised of Floyd albums, the number one best seller being the Wall, the second being WYWH. I guess it goes to show which bands better stood the test of time. Some of the stuff that used to be really popular back then is a bit hard to resonate with today, because they were so tainted with 60s-70s colour. When you listen to Kashmir or Time or Hey You, they sound really modern and timeless. I really like some of the Beatles stuff (While My Guitar Gently Weeps is one of my favorite songs ever) and some Stones stuff is nice as well, but a lot of the times they sound like relics, and even a bit annoying or cheesy.
Rock has lost its way now... Most new rock artists are more interested in cranking the distortion to 11 and growl while their fans push its other in pits. You also get bands trying to immitate Nirvana and the like because they want to be like the cool boys, but there's a reason Cobain was singing:
"He's the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he knows not what it means"
I like what this thread has become though ;D
I know, I was joking. But seeing another Pink Floyd fan is always a good thing. I think Wish You Were Here was one of their best (but personally I can't put anything over the stuff with Syd).
I personally don't like the stuff with Syd as much. I love the stuff after Meddle. WYWH is my personal favorite.
Btw Roger Waters released a new album the day before yesterday. I heard it, it's ok. Actually it's better than I expected.
How did I not hear about that? He's touring too. Wow. Thanks for dropping that bomb on me. :P Actually though, I'm curious to listen to this.
When loosely defined you might say that orbital mechanics are involved in records and CDs so I think we're still good topic wise. And the title still holds, most likely.
. . . . . while enjoying an early, tripple G&T on the balcony overlooking the Mediterranean with Blondie popping by to find some stuff that she could reuse. Those were the times.
It is much better just to listen to the HF tapes made of the jam sessions and shows back in the early 1970's, if you have the possibility. My friend 'John Speedy Queen' had 100's of hours of good music incl. his Hotel California to listen to ... all done by the Master himself ... while enjoying an early, tripple G&T on the balcony overlooking the Mediterranean with Blondie popping by to find some stuff that she could reuse. Those were the times.
Personally I prefer the original Hotel California by the Master himself, solo ... "some drinks to remember, some drinks to forget" ... but then the Eagles came around and changed drinks to dances ... and the whole thing was destroyed. But it sold in millions and was the top for months.
But this was before I became an expert of orbital mechanics. Topic.
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
Personally I prefer the original Hotel California by the Master himself, solo ... "some drinks to remember, some drinks to forget" ... but then the Eagles came around and changed drinks to dances ... and the whole thing was destroyed. But it sold in millions and was the top for months.
But this was before I became an expert of orbital mechanics. Topic.
Everything that ever happened so far has been before you became an expert of orbital mechanics.
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The "original" Hotel California . . . . .
http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html (http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html).
The 'Master' is his uncle Ned 'the Impaler' (if you know what I mean.)
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The "original" Hotel California . . . . .
http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html (http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html).
The 'Master' is his uncle Ned 'the Impaler' (if you know what I mean.)
I take it that Heiwa was a big fan of the weed in that place?
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The Master wrote/composed it in say 20 minutes but then the text was 'Some drink to remember, some drink to forget', etc, etc. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html and he played it himself, solo. Then he sold the song to the Eagles that changed the text. He has written plenty other songs, e.g. for Blondie.
The Master's lady drinking buddy in California providing inspiration was probably Janis Joplin that died soon after. Sad story.
;D ;D ;DAlso, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The "original" Hotel California . . . . .
http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html (http://hotelcaliforniabaja.com/press/HC_History.html).
The 'Master' is his uncle Ned 'the Impaler' (if you know what I mean.)
I take it that Heiwa was a big fan of the weed in that place?
He invented 'the weed', as part of a top secret psych-ops campaign,
and now claims it can not exist on Earth.
Because boats. :P
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The Master wrote/composed it in say 20 minutes but then the text was 'Some drink to remember, some drink to forget', etc, etc. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html and he played it himself, solo. Then he sold the song to the Eagles that changed the text. He has written plenty other songs, e.g. for Blondie.
The Master's lady drinking buddy in California providing inspiration was probably Janis Joplin that died soon after. Sad story.
Yes, but who's the Master?
Yes, but who's the Master?
He who composed, wrote and played the song 'Hotel California' was a genious. Haven't seen him lately though. We are getting older. The Eagles paid him generously for it. Ask them.
Suggest you return to topic.
Yes, but who's the Master?
He who composed, wrote and played the song 'Hotel California' was a genious. Haven't seen him lately though. We are getting older. The Eagles paid him generously for it. Ask them.
Suggest you return to topic.
No, this is going to be way more fun. ;D
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The Master wrote/composed it in say 20 minutes but then the text was 'Some drink to remember, some drink to forget', etc, etc. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html and he played it himself, solo. Then he sold the song to the Eagles that changed the text. He has written plenty other songs, e.g. for Blondie.
The Master's lady drinking buddy in California providing inspiration was probably Janis Joplin that died soon after. Sad story.
Yes, but who's the Master?
He who composed, wrote and played the song 'Hotel California' was a genious. Haven't seen him lately though. We are getting older. The Eagles paid him generously for it. Ask them.
Suggest you return to topic. Show that you know basic orbital mechanics and can calculate the fuel required to travel to the Moon - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Also, what's the "original" Hotel California? Who's the "Master"?
The Master wrote/composed it in say 20 minutes but then the text was 'Some drink to remember, some drink to forget', etc, etc. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eagles/hotelcalifornia.html and he played it himself, solo. Then he sold the song to the Eagles that changed the text. He has written plenty other songs, e.g. for Blondie.
The Master's lady drinking buddy in California providing inspiration was probably Janis Joplin that died soon after. Sad story.
Yes, but who's the Master?
He who composed, wrote and played the song 'Hotel California' was a genious. Haven't seen him lately though. We are getting older. The Eagles paid him generously for it. Ask them.
Suggest you return to topic. Show that you know basic orbital mechanics and can calculate the fuel required to travel to the Moon - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Yes, but you still didn't tell me...
Who is the Master?
Yes, but you still didn't tell me...
Who is the Master?
You are right. Suggest you ask the Eagles. They pay him. Now back to topic.
Do you or anyone here know anything about orbital mechanics. It seems you haven't got a clue.
Now back to topic.
Do you or anyone here know anything about orbital mechanics. It seems you haven't got a clue.Actually, the topic is your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics. How do you suppose that Arianespace is able to get enough fuel off the ground to transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit into a geostationary orbit?
No, the NEW topic is about when he renamed Angela Tremble as Debbie Harry
and launched her career, while hanging out with Glenn Fry, teaching the Eagles to play music.
You can't ask the Eagles? Why? Lazy? Stupid? Anyway, here topic is orbital mechanics. Do you know how to calculate a simple trip to the Moon. I pay you €1M, if you can! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Yes, but you still didn't tell me...
Who is the Master?
You are right. Suggest you ask the Eagles. They pay him. Now back to topic.
Do you or anyone here know anything about orbital mechanics. It seems you haven't got a clue.
Then how do you know him? I can't ask the Eagles, so I ask you again:
WHO IS THE MASTER ?
H R
O E
T
I S
S A
M
T
H E
E H
T
M
A S
S I
T
E O
R H
?RETSAM EHT SI OHW
Yes! Thank you. I tried to explain this to a young friend of mine. And it isn't just Dark Side of the Moon. Wish You Were Here does some of that.Vinyl is nice and all, but not without its shortcomings.
The beauty of vinyl, besides treating the media with the respect it deserves,
is that it is a listening experience start to finish.
From Pink Floyd to Beethoven.
However, some stuff should be released as MP3, free with a purchase of 5 quarts of motor oil.
Some stuff especially by Pink Floyd is much better to listen to on vinyl for a couple of additional reasons. On Dark Side of the Moon, every track smoothly transitions to the next one, as if it's one piece. If you try to listen to songs isolated, it's not how it was "meant" to be, and also on CDs there's a pause between tracks, so the transition isn't smooth any more.
For classical stuff if doesn't seem to me that it matters as much, since they weren't made for LPs anyways, but still the sound is deeper, warmer and fuzzier on vinyls.
It is much better just to listen to the HF tapes made of the jam sessions and shows back in the early 1970's, if you have the possibility.
No, the NEW topic is about when he renamed Angela Tremble as Debbie Harry.
and launched her career, while hanging out with Glenn Fry, teaching the Eagles to play music.
You can't ask the Eagles? Why? Lazy? Stupid? Anyway, here topic is orbital mechanics. Do you know how to calculate a simple trip to the Moon. I pay you €1M, if you can! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Yes, but you still didn't tell me...
Who is the Master?
You are right. Suggest you ask the Eagles. They pay him. Now back to topic.
Do you or anyone here know anything about orbital mechanics. It seems you haven't got a clue.
Then how do you know him? I can't ask the Eagles, so I ask you again:
WHO IS THE MASTER ?
H R
O E
T
I S
S A
M
T
H E
E H
T
M
A S
S I
T
E O
R H
?RETSAM EHT SI OHW
No, the NEW topic is about when he renamed Angela Tremble as Debbie Harry.
and launched her career, while hanging out with Glenn Fry, teaching the Eagles to play music.
Then perhaps you should start a new thread in the appropriate forum
You can't ask the Eagles? Why? Lazy? Stupid?
You can't ask the Eagles? Why? Lazy? Stupid?
Glenn Fry is dead you orbital fucktard. (orbital = on topic)
Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
I can spoil one of these for all of you...Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
No.
I can spoil one of these for all of you...Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
No.
I can spoil one of these for all of you...Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
No.
I can confirm that. He wears it with every outfit, no matter how ridiculous:
(https://s30.postimg.org/m63wjmljl/Heiwa7.png)
I can spoil one of these for all of you...Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
No.
I can confirm that. He wears it with every outfit, no matter how ridiculous:
(https://s30.postimg.org/m63wjmljl/Heiwa7.png)
I can spoil one of these for all of you...Will Heiwa ever remove that dorky camo headband?
No.
I can confirm that. He wears it with every outfit, no matter how ridiculous:
(https://s30.postimg.org/m63wjmljl/Heiwa7.png)
I know it upsets plenty racist, backwards, stupid, fascist people but I only feel sorry for such twerps.
I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm about a future impact mitigation mission.
It seems the main reason for all this space nonsense is to prepare for it. Imagine that!
Impact mitigation!
Imagine that.
I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm about a future impact mitigation mission.
It seems the main reason for all this space nonsense is to prepare for it. Imagine that!
Impact mitigation!
This gave me a chance to actually read what's in your website, and I have to admit...
...that it is an incredible shithole of gibberish, pointless and downright false/misinterpreted information that goes nowhere and does not even attempt to constitute a logical argument! Well done!
Thanks for trying and I am sorry you didn't understand about "impact mitigation". It is a very serious matter! A sunny morning 423 million years ago an asteroid impacted Earth and wiped out Mexico and all the dinosaurs, so that you and Donald Trump could twitter and post on forums today. If the dinos had prepared an impact mitigation mission to ensure they could carry on for millions of years, we would not discuss the matter today. It seems the probability of an impact is 1 in 250 000 000 and it may take place 2167. In the summer.
D.N.O. was talking about the steaming pile of garbage that is your website.
Heiwa's website:
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/483/593/ad9.gif)
A gazillion click doesn't mean it's not shit, Heiwa.
Very likely, given the odds.Yes of course, shitting and pissing in space is not possible 2017. It was overlooked when creating the space travel fantasies 1961.
and I'll bet it goes up significantly EACH time you post the link. It has been explained to you how search engine bots work before but apparently you still don't get it. Maybe your nurse can explain it to you.
D.N.O. was talking about the steaming pile of garbage that is your website.
Well, he cannot read, so who cares? Actually http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm is my most popular web page with 100's of downloads daily.
Of course it's possible. It can get very messy is all.Very likely, given the odds.Yes of course, shitting and pissing in space is not possible 2017. It was overlooked when creating the space travel fantasies 1961.
Very likely, given the odds.Yes of course, shitting and pissing in space is not possible 2017. It was overlooked when creating the space travel fantasies 1961.
Very likely, given the odds.Yes of course, shitting and pissing in space is not possible 2017. It was overlooked when creating the space travel fantasies 1961.
What does that have to do with whether the content on your website is shit?
Of course it's possible. It can get very messy is all.Very likely, given the odds.Yes of course, shitting and pissing in space is not possible 2017. It was overlooked when creating the space travel fantasies 1961.
Too bad that you missed out on NASA's Space Poop Challenge. You could have fixed the number one (and number 2) challenge holding back manned space flight.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge
Hm, very messy? Have you tried the outfits? Of course, NASA is a joke but their space suits are shit ... or full of it.I suppose that you would know everything there is to know about being full of shit.
Yes. My ships have sewage collection/treatement tanks/systems and, if they do not function properly, there is a problem. For example a leak may spill the sewage where it doesn't belong. The smell of fresh shit inside a ship is not funny. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com .Hm, very messy? Have you tried the outfits? Of course, NASA is a joke but their space suits are shit ... or full of it.I suppose that you would know everything there is to know about being full of shit.
I suppose that you would know everything there is to know about being full of shit.Yes. My ships have sewage collection/treatement tanks/systems and, [...]
Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
translation: I don't understand it so it must not work! Where's my nurse?
Translation: Here's what I googled just now. I'm obsessed with poop!!Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
translation: I don't understand it so it must not work! Where's my nurse?
The Russian space toilets were very good 1967. You pulled a string and there was a flush and the shit dropped down on Earth. NASA tried to use it 1969, but, when they pulled the string, the toilet flushed the shit on the shitter that had forgotten that up is down in space.
Translation: Here's what I googled just now. I'm obsessed with poop!!Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
translation: I don't understand it so it must not work! Where's my nurse?
The Russian space toilets were very good 1967. You pulled a string and there was a flush and the shit dropped down on Earth. NASA tried to use it 1969, but, when they pulled the string, the toilet flushed the shit on the shitter that had forgotten that up is down in space.
Typical Heiwa. Claims to be a "nice guy" and insults everyone inbetween posts about his obsession with poop or pimping his website.Translation: Here's what I googled just now. I'm obsessed with poop!!Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
translation: I don't understand it so it must not work! Where's my nurse?
The Russian space toilets were very good 1967. You pulled a string and there was a flush and the shit dropped down on Earth. NASA tried to use it 1969, but, when they pulled the string, the toilet flushed the shit on the shitter that had forgotten that up is down in space.
Hm, but NASA paid $30 000:- to some clowns designing shit in your pants space uniforms last year. Who is obsessed? You sound or smell like a NASA space toilet cleaner. Are you Mexican? Work permit?
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?Because when you're in the middle of a many hour EVA, it's kinda inconvenient to go back inside the ISS just to use the toilet.
Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiot.Re NASA it seems their astronuts used baby type diapers for 50 years but now there are new systems where the shit/piss is transferred to a pocket in the trousers, but what happens then I do not understand. Of course no humans have ever been in space, so no system is required to handle the shit.The Russians have been using space toilets since Soyuz debuted in 1967. NASA has been using space toilets since the beginning of the Space Shuttle program. The ISS even has two space toilets (one in a Russian module and the other in an American module).
Space toilets 1967. But why then waste money on - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-poop-challenge - space suits with built in toilets 2017?
The whole thing stinks! But of course - no human has ever been in space ... shitting ... or ... pissing. No way to get the shit up in space and down on Earth again.
Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
How do you suppose one would go about doing that?You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
I don't suppose they would, as space flight, moon landing, etc are real.How do you suppose one would go about doing that?You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
Good, that means you can give you "Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiot" shtick a rest.I don't suppose they would, as space flight, moon landing, etc are real.How do you suppose one would go about doing that?You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
I could but I'm not going to.Good, that means you can give you "Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiot" shtick a rest.I don't suppose they would, as space flight, moon landing, etc are real.How do you suppose one would go about doing that?You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
You really should. It's needlessly annoying and it doesn't add anything to the discussion.I could but I'm not going to.Good, that means you can give you "Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiot" shtick a rest.I don't suppose they would, as space flight, moon landing, etc are real.How do you suppose one would go about doing that?You can prove that all of the people who have been to space are lying and that all of the evidence proving space flight is real, is in fact false.Prove it here or shut up you babbling idiotYou realize that you can't prove a negative, don't you?
Yes, let's stay on topic. I have just updated http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm about the Apollo 11 orbital mechanics nonsense 1969 as understood by me. Imagine that three monkeys stayed in a tin box without sanitary facilities for a week back then. Disgusting!What do sanitary facilities have to do with orbital mechanics? ???
Look what I found
https://www.facebook.com/anders.bjorkman.940
. . . let's stay on topic.
Imagine that three monkeys stayed in a tin box without sanitary facilities . . .
Does this mean that we can move on from your obsession with bodily function management?
It will only be a problem for the orbit if you can prove the amount flushed imparts a significant momentum on the craft. I doubt you can.Does this mean that we can move on from your obsession with bodily function management?
If you study the system you will find that there is an opening with valve in the spacecraft wall through which the waste is ejected one way into space, while the rest of the spacecraft is ejected in the opposite direction, according to orbital mechanics principles (topic). If you flush in the wrong direction, you may miss the target you are aiming for, i.e. Moon or Mars. You must also close the valve after use so that the air inside the spacecraft will not leak out. I really wonder how much waste the Apollo clowns flushed out in space 1969/72. Any ideas?
I seriously doubt that they dumped more waste than could be compensated for with a small mid-course correction burn.Does this mean that we can move on from your obsession with bodily function management?
If you study the system you will find that there is an opening with valve in the spacecraft wall through which the waste is ejected one way into space, while the rest of the spacecraft is ejected in the opposite direction, according to orbital mechanics principles (topic). If you flush in the wrong direction, you may miss the target you are aiming for, i.e. Moon or Mars. You must also close the valve after use so that the air inside the spacecraft will not leak out. I really wonder how much waste the Apollo clowns flushed out in space 1969/72. Any ideas?
Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard. Or to unload it on the Moon and use it for the strawberries. Leaking valves on any ship or spacecraft are problems. Of course no shitty spacecraft ever went to the Moon.I seriously doubt that they dumped more waste than could be compensated for with a small mid-course correction burn.Does this mean that we can move on from your obsession with bodily function management?
If you study the system you will find that there is an opening with valve in the spacecraft wall through which the waste is ejected one way into space, while the rest of the spacecraft is ejected in the opposite direction, according to orbital mechanics principles (topic). If you flush in the wrong direction, you may miss the target you are aiming for, i.e. Moon or Mars. You must also close the valve after use so that the air inside the spacecraft will not leak out. I really wonder how much waste the Apollo clowns flushed out in space 1969/72. Any ideas?
Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard.They did collect the shit and return it to earth where it was analyzed (you'd be surprised at how much your shit can tell you about your health). It was the liquid waste that got dumped.
Yes of course. Only liquid waste was dumped through a little valve into vacuum space. Very clever. Do you know where it ended up? On the Moon? As rain?Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard.They did collect the shit and return it to earth where it was analyzed (you'd be surprised at how much your shit can tell you about your health). It was the liquid waste that got dumped.
But dumping anything affects the spacecraft speed and trajectory according to orbital mechanics, so it would be better to keep it onboard.only if you shoot it out at a high velocity.
But dumping anything affects the spacecraft speed and trajectory according to orbital mechanics, so it would be better to keep it onboard.only if you shoot it out at a high velocity.
Yes of course. Only liquid waste was dumped through a little valve into vacuum space. Very clever. Do you know where it ended up? On the Moon? As rain?Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard.They did collect the shit and return it to earth where it was analyzed (you'd be surprised at how much your shit can tell you about your health). It was the liquid waste that got dumped.
But dumping anything affects the spacecraft speed and trajectory according to orbital mechanics,
There must have been plenty solid waste apart from the shit of all sorts aboard - empty bottles, cans, dirty plates, forks, knives, food waste, etc, probably just thrown in bag.
Which reminds me that nobody has managed to describe the energy/fuel required for a simple trip to the Moon and back.
Yes of course. Only liquid waste was dumped through a little valve into vacuum space. Very clever. Do you know where it ended up? On the Moon? As rain?Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard.They did collect the shit and return it to earth where it was analyzed (you'd be surprised at how much your shit can tell you about your health). It was the liquid waste that got dumped.
Who the fuck cares where it ended? It may have ended inside an alien's cereal for all I know, it wouldn't have made a difference. What does that have to do with anything? What is this obsession with human waste?QuoteBut dumping anything affects the spacecraft speed and trajectory according to orbital mechanics,
Oh yes, of course. Dumping 10kg of waste at a speed of 10m/s (which is probably a much more extreme estimate than what actually happened) will alter the velocity of the 20 ton capsule by 0.005m/s. Sounds impossible to correct ::)QuoteThere must have been plenty solid waste apart from the shit of all sorts aboard - empty bottles, cans, dirty plates, forks, knives, food waste, etc, probably just thrown in bag.
You forgot the cat's hairballs, the old stockings, the used condoms, grandma's old scarf, the kid's diapers and your diapers ::). This is what they really ate: http://www.eatmedaily.com/2009/07/food-of-the-apollo-11-lunar-landing/
Disgusting dehydrated food. So what? It's 8 days. Even if it's longer, it's just a minor inconvenience that anyone can put up with.QuoteWhich reminds me that nobody has managed to describe the energy/fuel required for a simple trip to the Moon and back.
Except of all the people who did do that because they had to do that. Why nobody has shown you? Because 1) not as many people as you think know about your challenge, 2) those who do either don't know how to do that because they're not good at physics or they can't be bothered, 3) no one believes you will actually give any money and 4) you wouldn't believe them anyways.
I'm kinda bored so I may do the calculation and tell you approximately how much fuel would be needed. But I can't promise it and it will take some time.
Well, that was the food/waste/garbage back in 1969 for a short 8 days cruise to the Moon. Today Mr. Lone Skum of XpaceS offers 120 days no return trips to Mars and the food? Lobster, caviar, champagne? No it is low cost! You have to pay on board what is served. And what is served? Ask Lone Skum!
I have gone on hiking and mountain climbing expeditions where we only ate dehydrated food for weeks. It's not bad at all. There are some very good options available to the general public. Imagine what NASA could come up with on their budget.When I was in the Navy 1965/70 we ate peasoup in tins from 1945 when doing land exercises. Not bad. But OT.
You are the one who went OT when you brought up trash that isn't dumped and therefore has no effect on orbital mechanics.I have gone on hiking and mountain climbing expeditions where we only ate dehydrated food for weeks. It's not bad at all. There are some very good options available to the general public. Imagine what NASA could come up with on their budget.When I was in the Navy 1965/70 we ate peasoup in tins from 1945 when doing land exercises. Not bad. But OT.
You are the one who went OT when you brought up trash that isn't dumped and therefore has no effect on orbital mechanics.I have gone on hiking and mountain climbing expeditions where we only ate dehydrated food for weeks. It's not bad at all. There are some very good options available to the general public. Imagine what NASA could come up with on their budget.When I was in the Navy 1965/70 we ate peasoup in tins from 1945 when doing land exercises. Not bad. But OT.
I will give you 10 dollars if you post a picture of yourself naked. (No watersports please)
Your obsession with seeing Hewia naked is almost as weird as his obsession with poop and piss.
I am the only one here who understands orbital mechanics as demonstrated at my web site. You cannot send a spacecraft into space and visit places and then return to Earth. Easy to show. You get too heavy to start and then you do not know where you are in space.If you really understand orbital mechanics, then you would know how calculate trajectories to other places in space and figure out where you are in space at any given time.
I am the only one here who understands orbital mechanics as demonstrated at my web site. You cannot send a spacecraft into space and visit places and then return to Earth. Easy to show. You get too heavy to start and then you do not know where you are in space.If you really understand orbital mechanics, then you would know how calculate trajectories to other places in space and figure out where you are in space at any given time.
I could use a vacation . . .
I expect the coffee to be hot and bitter. (the way I like my women ;) )
(no scatilogical play, :P .)
I could use a vacation . . .
I expect the coffee to be hot and bitter. (the way I like my women ;) )
(no scatilogical play, :P .)
How about some naked swimming?
And AGAIN, you need to prove that the miniscule amount dumped would appreciably affect their trajectory at all. You haven't done that and I doubt you can.Yes of course. Only liquid waste was dumped through a little valve into vacuum space. Very clever. Do you know where it ended up? On the Moon? As rain?Why dump anything during a trip of a week? Better just to collect the shit onboard.They did collect the shit and return it to earth where it was analyzed (you'd be surprised at how much your shit can tell you about your health). It was the liquid waste that got dumped.
But dumping anything affects the spacecraft speed and trajectory according to orbital mechanics, so it would be better to keep it onboard. There must have been plenty solid waste apart from the shit of all sorts aboard - empty bottles, cans, dirty plates, forks, knives, food waste, etc, probably just thrown in bag.
Nope, all you've shown is that you don't understand the subject and you have an obsession with poop. And that you can't figure out that EVERYONE is laughing at you.I am the only one here who understands orbital mechanics as demonstrated at my web site. You cannot send a spacecraft into space and visit places and then return to Earth. Easy to show. You get too heavy to start and then you do not know where you are in space.If you really understand orbital mechanics, then you would know how calculate trajectories to other places in space and figure out where you are in space at any given time.
But I do as shown at my web site http://heiwaco.com. There is no way to apply a force to a spacecraft orbiting Earth to catapult it so it will arrive at the Moon a couple of days later to land there. You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Yes, there is. It's called a rocket. How do you think that Arianespace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?I am the only one here who understands orbital mechanics as demonstrated at my web site. You cannot send a spacecraft into space and visit places and then return to Earth. Easy to show. You get too heavy to start and then you do not know where you are in space.If you really understand orbital mechanics, then you would know how calculate trajectories to other places in space and figure out where you are in space at any given time.
But I do as shown at my web site http://heiwaco.com. There is no way to apply a force to a spacecraft orbiting Earth to catapult it so it will arrive at the Moon a couple of days later to land there.
You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Your website says the Hasselblad 500EL can only take one photo every minute. This is wrong.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there. So sorry, you are a victim of cognitive dissonance. Try to cure yourself.
? My website only says that "So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures using standard, silver colored Hasselblad cameras not adapted for space. It would appear that all photos were taken in studios on Earth."Your website says the Hasselblad 500EL can only take one photo every minute. This is wrong.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there. So sorry, you are a victim of cognitive dissonance. Try to cure yourself.
But I do as shown at my web site http://heiwaco.com. There is no way to apply a force to a spacecraft orbiting Earth to catapult it so it will arrive at the Moon a couple of days later to land there. ...
I see you removed the part where you put up a formula, claiming the astronauts didn't have enough time to take all the photos on Apollo 11 EVA. I applaud you for that. Because the formula was fucking stupid.? My website only says that "So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures using standard, silver colored Hasselblad cameras not adapted for space. It would appear that all photos were taken in studios on Earth."Your website says the Hasselblad 500EL can only take one photo every minute. This is wrong.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there. So sorry, you are a victim of cognitive dissonance. Try to cure yourself.
Why do you make up untrue claims?
You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.I see you removed the part where you put up a formula, claiming the astronauts didn't have enough time to take all the photos on Apollo 11 EVA. I applaud you for that. Because the formula was fucking stupid.? My website only says that "So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures using standard, silver colored Hasselblad cameras not adapted for space. It would appear that all photos were taken in studios on Earth."Your website says the Hasselblad 500EL can only take one photo every minute. This is wrong.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there. So sorry, you are a victim of cognitive dissonance. Try to cure yourself.
Why do you make up untrue claims?
Still, the Hasselblad 500EL units and their lenses were very much modified.
Ưou saw what?' the part where you put up a formula, claiming the astronauts didn't have enough time to take all the photos on Apollo 11 EVA. I applaud you for that. Because the formula was fucking stupid. You removed it from your revised webpage though.You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.I see you removed the part where you put up a formula, claiming the astronauts didn't have enough time to take all the photos on Apollo 11 EVA. I applaud you for that. Because the formula was fucking stupid.? My website only says that "So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures using standard, silver colored Hasselblad cameras not adapted for space. It would appear that all photos were taken in studios on Earth."Your website says the Hasselblad 500EL can only take one photo every minute. This is wrong.You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there. So sorry, you are a victim of cognitive dissonance. Try to cure yourself.
Why do you make up untrue claims?
Still, the Hasselblad 500EL units and their lenses were very much modified.
Maybe they used a Hasselblad 500EL. Not my type of camera, though.
You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.
You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.
Didn't find it.
You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there.
?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there.
Then you obviously haven't read this book:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf
By the way. you still haven't explained how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
... That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .
You've already demonstrated that you don't understand. The only thing clear from your craptastic website is how much you love the argument from incredulity logical fallacy. More lies from Heiwa.?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there.
Then you obviously haven't read this book:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf
By the way. you still haven't explained how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
No, I demonstrate my understanding of orbital mechanics at my website since many years but plenty twirps like you cannot understand it. I can only suggest that you take a deep breath and have another try to understand. Don't waste your time with idiotic posts here.You've already demonstrated that you don't understand. The only thing clear from your craptastic website is how much you love the argument from incredulity logical fallacy. More lies from Heiwa.?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there.
Then you obviously haven't read this book:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf
By the way. you still haven't explained how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
LOL. You are really stupid! Read again what you say. You cannot even spell!?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
More lies from Heiwa. Exactly how I thought you would answer. Can't prove your point so you resort to insults instead. Figure out yet that EVERYONE is laughing at you?No, I demonstrate my understanding of orbital mechanics at my website since many years but plenty twirps like you cannot understand it. I can only suggest that you take a deep breath and have another try to understand. Don't waste your time with idiotic posts here.You've already demonstrated that you don't understand. The only thing clear from your craptastic website is how much you love the argument from incredulity logical fallacy. More lies from Heiwa.?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .You seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.Me? You're the one who seems to be ignoring all of the evidence that contradicts your beliefs.
Hm, all evidence I have confirm my findings and conclusions, which I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com since many years. Nobody seems to be able to find anything wrong there.
Then you obviously haven't read this book:
https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/66104/mod_resource/content/1/OrbitalMechanicsForEngineeringStudents-AerospaceEngineering.pdf
By the way. you still haven't explained how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
Figure out yet that EVERYONE is laughing at you?
You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.
Didn't find it.
http://heiwaco.com
You saw what? Anyway, all 5771 alleged photos taken by Apollo astronuts on the Moon were in fact taken on Earth. I explain why at my web site.
So you admit that don't understand orbital mechanics well enough explain orbit transfers. Good to know.LOL. You are really stupid! Read again what you say. You cannot even spell!?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
Guys he's been running his fraudulent challenges for years. You're not going to see a cent.(https://s14.postimg.org/6i65eajr5/b67.jpg)
So you admit that don't understand orbital mechanics well enough explain orbit transfers. Good to know.LOL. You are really stupid! Read again what you say. You cannot even spell!?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
So you admit that don't understand orbital mechanics well enough explain orbit transfers. Good to know.LOL. You are really stupid! Read again what you say. You cannot even spell!?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
?? Orbital mechanics are easy on paper as demonstrated by me at my web site and I understand the problems very well. Difficulty is to execute them in reality, e.g. just plan a trip of a spacecraft. You get too heavy with all the fuel you must carry along. You have yourself failed several times to demonstrate simple maneouvers in space, e.g. how to speed up and how to brake ... and the fuel required. Reason is that all trips into space are one-way only.
No, as all spacecraft trips are one-way only (no return anywhere) you don't need any waste management system at all. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance believe otherwise.So you admit that don't understand orbital mechanics well enough explain orbit transfers. Good to know.LOL. You are really stupid! Read again what you say. You cannot even spell!?? You, not me, are supposed to demonstrate my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Do not change topic with stupid questions and OT requests. That I am an expert in orbital mechanics is clear from http://heiwaco.com .I'm demonstrating your obvious lack of understanding of orbital mechanics by exposing your inability to explain how Arinaespace can transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit.
?? Orbital mechanics are easy on paper as demonstrated by me at my web site and I understand the problems very well. Difficulty is to execute them in reality, e.g. just plan a trip of a spacecraft. You get too heavy with all the fuel you must carry along. You have yourself failed several times to demonstrate simple maneouvers in space, e.g. how to speed up and how to brake ... and the fuel required. Reason is that all trips into space are one-way only.
As I said yesterday, all of this is true except if the astronauts piss through a valve, right?
?? Orbital mechanics are easy on paper as demonstrated by me at my web site and I understand the problems very well. Difficulty is to execute them in reality, e.g. just plan a trip of a spacecraft. You get too heavy with all the fuel you must carry along. You have yourself failed several times to demonstrate simple maneouvers in space, e.g. how to speed up and how to brake ... and the fuel required. Reason is that all trips into space are one-way only.Yes, it's very difficult to execute orbital transfers properly. So how does Arianespace manage to do it on a fairly regular basis? How do they manage to carry enough fuel to carry out the precise burns in just the right direction at just the right time and keep track of where the satellite is at any given time? Is Arianespace a fraud or are you the fraud?
?? Orbital mechanics are easy on paper as demonstrated by me at my web site and I understand the problems very well. Difficulty is to execute them in reality, e.g. just plan a trip of a spacecraft. You get too heavy with all the fuel you must carry along. You have yourself failed several times to demonstrate simple maneouvers in space, e.g. how to speed up and how to brake ... and the fuel required. Reason is that all trips into space are one-way only.Yes, it's very difficult to execute orbital transfers properly. So how does Arianespace manage to do it on a fairly regular basis? How do they manage to carry enough fuel to carry out the precise burns in just the right direction at just the right time and keep track of where the satellite is at any given time? Is Arianespace a fraud or are you the fraud?
Thank you for proving you are incapable of reading. He did NOT agree. More LIES from Heiwa.?? Orbital mechanics are easy on paper as demonstrated by me at my web site and I understand the problems very well. Difficulty is to execute them in reality, e.g. just plan a trip of a spacecraft. You get too heavy with all the fuel you must carry along. You have yourself failed several times to demonstrate simple maneouvers in space, e.g. how to speed up and how to brake ... and the fuel required. Reason is that all trips into space are one-way only.Yes, it's very difficult to execute orbital transfers properly. So how does Arianespace manage to do it on a fairly regular basis? How do they manage to carry enough fuel to carry out the precise burns in just the right direction at just the right time and keep track of where the satellite is at any given time? Is Arianespace a fraud or are you the fraud?
Thanks for agreeing that all rocket launches are one way trips. You send something away with the fuel available. And that's it. All manned launches in the past - Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, etc, were just mockups that disappeared behind some clouds. The rest was filmed in Hollywood studios so people thought humans were in space. Maybe most unmanned launches are similar?
Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Thanks for agreeing that all rocket launches are one way trips.I'm pretty sure that I never said that, but thanks for avoiding my question again.
You send something away with the fuel available. And that's it.So how does Arianespace make sure that they have enough fuel available to transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Sending any mass (m=kg) away from Earth is simple! Just apply a force (f=N) to it and the mass (m=kg) accelerates away (a=m/s²) because f=m a. I doubt you understand it, but it is not your fault. You are just stupid. Anyway ...Thanks for agreeing that all rocket launches are one way trips.I'm pretty sure that I never said that, but thanks for avoiding my question again.You send something away with the fuel available. And that's it.So how does Arianespace make sure that they have enough fuel available to transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
? just copy/paste what you don't understand of my website and I will explain.Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is present some actual evidence here on this discussion board. Easy right?
Begging the question and arguments from incredulity do not constitute proof. That is all that is contained on your joke of a website.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
? just copy/paste what you don't understand of my website and I will explain.Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is present some actual evidence here on this discussion board. Easy right?
I post all my proof at my web site http://heiwaco.com . You don't even post an email address or a link to your Challenge. You must be stupid. Can't you do better?? just copy/paste what you don't understand of my website and I will explain.Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is present some actual evidence here on this discussion board. Easy right?
To win my 1M € challenge you have to work a little harder than that. You must post the proof here yourself. So far no one has been able to do it. The reason is obvious.
I post all my proof at my web site http://heiwaco.com . You don't even post an email address or a link to your Challenge. You must be stupid. Can't you do better?? just copy/paste what you don't understand of my website and I will explain.Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is present some actual evidence here on this discussion board. Easy right?
To win my 1M € challenge you have to work a little harder than that. You must post the proof here yourself. So far no one has been able to do it. The reason is obvious.
Again no evidence. Just more failure. Show something here, anything to support your claims.? just copy/paste what you don't understand of my website and I will explain.Liar. You prove nothing on your shitty website and you have never once offered any evidence to support any of your insane claims. You are an idiot, a liar and a fraud.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is present some actual evidence here on this discussion board. Easy right?
I think that I'm going to dub this the "ad hominem transfer maneuver". It's when your opponent resorts to personal attacks in order to change the trajectory of the discussion.Sending any mass (m=kg) away from Earth is simple! Just apply a force (f=N) to it and the mass (m=kg) accelerates away (a=m/s²) because f=m a. I doubt you understand it, but it is not your fault. You are just stupid. Anyway ...Thanks for agreeing that all rocket launches are one way trips.I'm pretty sure that I never said that, but thanks for avoiding my question again.You send something away with the fuel available. And that's it.So how does Arianespace make sure that they have enough fuel available to transfer satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Have your claims peer reviewed by an independent party and I'll pay you 10 dollars.
Quote from: DogHave your claims peer reviewed by an independent party and I'll pay you 10 dollars.
Of course! My site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm is downloaded by >200 times/day and there are no complaints at all. Just positive mails from all over the world.
Do you believe that humans have travelled in space ... to the Moon, to the ISS? Why do you do it?
Heiwa pretends not to know what peer review is. Also funny that the majority of traffic to his site is from search engine bots which are a direct result of his repeated posting of the website address. He's been told this multiple times but apparently gets his jollies from looking at the meager amount of hits to his crappy site. Expect more shameless plugging of the address.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Have your claims peer reviewed by an independent party and I'll pay you 10 dollars.
Of course! My site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm is downloaded by >200 times/day and there are no complaints at all. Just positive mails from all over the world.
Human space travel is of course a joke since early 1960's. Just fun. It never happened. It didn't hurt anyone. I just laugh about it as a typical example of Fake News like my supporters. Only idiots believe in manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them.
Do you believe that humans have travelled in space ... to the Moon, to the ISS? Why do you do it? Does it make you happy?
How does that have anything to do with his post? Unless you are actually agreeing to have your claims submitted for peer review.Prove it and I'll pay you 1M €. So far you have been unable to do so.?? I prove everything at my web site - http://heiwaco.com - and you don't pay as expected but I get a good laugh anyway. You suffer from cognitive dissonance and live in a fantasy world.
Have your claims peer reviewed by an independent party and I'll pay you 10 dollars.
Of course! My site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm is downloaded by >200 times/day and there are no complaints at all. Just positive mails from all over the world.
Human space travel is of course a joke since early 1960's. Just fun. It never happened. It didn't hurt anyone. I just laugh about it as a typical example of Fake News like my supporters. Only idiots believe in manned space travel. I just feel sorry for them.
Do you believe that humans have travelled in space ... to the Moon, to the ISS? Why do you do it? Does it make you happy?
Do you believe that humans have travelled in space ... to the Moon, to the ISS? Why do you do it? Does it make you happy?Do you believe that Arianespace can put satellites into geostationary orbit even though they can't carry enough fuel or figure out when and in what direction to fire the rocket engine to transfer from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
Do you believe that humans have travelled in space ... to the Moon, to the ISS? Why do you do it? Does it make you happy?Do you believe that Arianespace can put satellites into geostationary orbit even though they can't carry enough fuel or figure out when and in what direction to fire the rocket engine to transfer from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
If you can prove it I will pay you 1M€.But I did, and you didn't pay.
If you can prove it I will pay you 1M€.But I did, and you didn't pay.
Arianespace using their rockets only sends things one way up in the sky on behalf of outside clients. It is a good business.But It's very bad for business if Arianespace can't get the satellite into the proper orbit because they can't carry enough propellant to transfer from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit. Wouldn't you agree?
You have literally never shown any evidence of any of your nonsense.If you can prove it I will pay you 1M€.But I did, and you didn't pay.
Arianespace using their rockets only sends things one way up in the sky on behalf of outside clients. It is a good business.But It's very bad for business if Arianespace can't get the satellite into the proper orbit because they can't carry enough propellant to transfer from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit. Wouldn't you agree?
Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with stopping and starting again? The only time you have to stop is when you land on the moon. After that it's a lot easier to take off from the moon because of its substantially weaker gravity and lack of atmosphere.
It seems that you completely ignore all hints that are given to you. If you know the required delta-v then you can simply use this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) equation. Do you debate that or do you simply not know how to calculate the necessary delta-v?Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with stopping and starting again? The only time you have to stop is when you land on the moon. After that it's a lot easier to take off from the moon because of its substantially weaker gravity and lack of atmosphere.
?? What has delta-v to do with fuel consumption for space trips? Tsiolkovsky's equation is about the force required for speed change of a mass in space ignoring external gravity forces. A purely theoretical question. It has nothing to do with planning trips to Moon/Mars. You don't know much about orbital mechanics, I conclude.It seems that you completely ignore all hints that are given to you. If you know the required delta-v then you can simply use this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation) equation. Do you debate that or do you simply not know how to calculate the necessary delta-v?Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with stopping and starting again? The only time you have to stop is when you land on the moon. After that it's a lot easier to take off from the moon because of its substantially weaker gravity and lack of atmosphere.
You make some interesting claims in this post. Similar to claims you make on your website. However, it’s well established that we can and do send vehicle into space. Even so far as to impact a comet on the Deep Impact project.Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with stopping and starting again? The only time you have to stop is when you land on the moon. After that it's a lot easier to take off from the moon because of its substantially weaker gravity and lack of atmosphere.
Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?Because the thread topic. Nice of him to prove it again.
and he proves the thread topic again. Keep digging that hole and keep the humor coming Heiwa. We'll all keep laughing at you.
?? What has delta-v to do with fuel consumption for space trips?
You make some interesting claims in this post. Similar to claims you make on your website. However, it’s well established that we can and do send vehicle into space. Even so far as to impact a comet on the Deep Impact project.Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.Why do you think you have to "stop and start again"?
To be fair, and in my (very) limited understanding of orbits, if you "stopped" you would simply fall into the body you are orbiting. That's why we need such a large velocity to achieve orbit and a much higher escape velocity.
Stopping on another planet would just be like taking off from earth again.
(https://s18.postimg.org/a3peqe42h/downloadfile-1.png)
(https://s12.postimg.org/e6m6f96m5/5_DGEKb_PNHFn_JLg_S_Rwr9kx8o_CXt15_DN74_JOTFIa_Sy_Z8d_ODl.gif)
Edit.
Inb4 re-entry is impossible.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with stopping and starting again? The only time you have to stop is when you land on the moon. After that it's a lot easier to take off from the moon because of its substantially weaker gravity and lack of atmosphere.
There is more than a century of peer reviewed papers, journals, college text books, and actual launches/missions. Since you make the extraordinary claim that none of this is possible I have to ask. What is your technical basis? What calculations or experiments support you opinion?
Here, I’ll help you out. Your website states, in part, that the Juno mission would be impossible due to quasars and black holes. Your site provides plenty of disparate facts and conclusions but provide no direct or sources for an analytical basis to show why the Juno mission would be impossible. Here are a couple of papers on black holes and quasars. Please review them and provide a technical basis for your claims.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4233096
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4259251
http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2017/pub/fermilab-pub-17-038-ae.pdf
http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2015/pub/fermilab-pub-15-341-ae.pdf
http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/NCSSM%20Student%20Materials/InvestigationsTrimester%203/Moon.pdf
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy?
Thanks - for your nonsense. You sound like Stephen Hawking, the biggest fraud in cosmology that I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Stephen, a Cambridge physics professor, discovered Black Holes in space, even if they are so small and dense that they cannot be seen. He fooled anyone at Cambridge, which is quite easy. Then Stephen announced that he was ill - ALS - and would die after a year ... but that was >30 years ago. Stephen is still around and media thinks he is a hero. But he is just a snake oil vendor. I always have a good laugh at Stephen.
So this is only your opinion the without any proof.You make some interesting claims in this post. Similar to claims you make on your website. However, it’s well established that we can and do send vehicle into space. Even so far as to impact a comet on the Deep Impact project.
Space travel is complicated. First you have to get into high speed orbit around Earth and from there into another higher speed orbit or variable speed/direction trajectory to reach the Moon or Mars that you probably orbit before slowing down to land on. Earth gravity really slows you down getting away. The return trip is similar. You take off into orbit Moon or Mars and from there you speed off into another orbit or trajectory to return to Earth. As soon as you are subject to Earth gravity, you go faster and faster towards the center of Earth and then you have to re-enter and land. It seems nobody knows how to calculate the fuel required for all these maneuvers for any trip and that one or the big problem is to take off with all the fuel aboard at the beginning. Actually it is not possible at all.
There is more than a century of peer reviewed papers, journals, college text books, and actual launches/missions. Since you make the extraordinary claim that none of this is possible I have to ask. What is your technical basis? What calculations or experiments support you opinion?
Here, I’ll help you out. Your website states, in part, that the Juno mission would be impossible due to quasars and black holes. Your site provides plenty of disparate facts and conclusions but provide no direct or sources for an analytical basis to show why the Juno mission would be impossible. Here are a couple of papers on black holes and quasars. Please review them and provide a technical basis for your claims.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4233096
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4259251
http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2017/pub/fermilab-pub-17-038-ae.pdf
http://lss.fnal.gov/archive/2015/pub/fermilab-pub-15-341-ae.pdf
http://courses.ncssm.edu/math/NCSSM%20Student%20Materials/InvestigationsTrimester%203/Moon.pdf
Thanks - for your nonsense. You sound like Stephen Hawking, the biggest fraud in cosmology that I describe at my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Stephen, a Cambridge physics professor, discovered Black Holes in space, even if they are so small and dense that they cannot be seen. He fooled anyone at Cambridge, which is quite easy. Then Stephen announced that he was ill - ALS - and would die after a year ... but that was >30 years ago. Stephen is still around and media thinks he is a hero. But he is just a snake oil vendor. I always have a good laugh at Stephen.
As I always say. All space craft trips are one-way only. You can only carry fuel to reach the target, e.g. a certain orbit ... and that's it. You cannot stop, start again in space and come back and land on Earth.Why would anyone want to stop and start in space? ???
Arianespace only sends very light spacecrafts (satellites) into orbits using plenty fuel and that is all. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com .But you aren't explaining how Ariane 5 ECA can carry enough fuel to put a 10.5 tonne satellite (not very light in my opinion) into low earth orbit and then transfer it into a much higher geostationary orbit.
You on the other hand indicate that space travel with humans aboars is very easy jumping from orbits to orbits with stops and starts in betweeen and that fuel is no problem.When did I ever say any of that? ???
But you cannot even explain how to stop and start in space and the fuel required for it. Reason is that you cannot carry the fuel required to stop and start again in space. It is impossible.The reason that I never explain how to stop and start in space is because no one in their right mind would ever try such a stupid thing. Slowing down and speeding up in space is a different story.
As I always say. All space craft trips are one-way only. You can only carry fuel to reach the target, e.g. a certain orbit ... and that's it. You cannot stop, start again in space and come back and land on Earth.Why would anyone want to stop and start in space? ???Arianespace only sends very light spacecrafts (satellites) into orbits using plenty fuel and that is all. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com .But you aren't explaining how Ariane 5 ECA can carry enough fuel to put a 10.5 tonne satellite (not very light in my opinion) into low earth orbit and then transfer it into a much higher geostationary orbit.You on the other hand indicate that space travel with humans aboars is very easy jumping from orbits to orbits with stops and starts in betweeen and that fuel is no problem.When did I ever say any of that? ???But you cannot even explain how to stop and start in space and the fuel required for it. Reason is that you cannot carry the fuel required to stop and start again in space. It is impossible.The reason that I never explain how to stop and start in space is because no one in their right mind would ever try such a stupid thing. Slowing down and speeding up in space is a different story.
No, you claim it. You have never once shown any evidence to support your insane ideas.As I always say. All space craft trips are one-way only. You can only carry fuel to reach the target, e.g. a certain orbit ... and that's it. You cannot stop, start again in space and come back and land on Earth.Why would anyone want to stop and start in space? ???Arianespace only sends very light spacecrafts (satellites) into orbits using plenty fuel and that is all. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com .But you aren't explaining how Ariane 5 ECA can carry enough fuel to put a 10.5 tonne satellite (not very light in my opinion) into low earth orbit and then transfer it into a much higher geostationary orbit.You on the other hand indicate that space travel with humans aboars is very easy jumping from orbits to orbits with stops and starts in betweeen and that fuel is no problem.When did I ever say any of that? ???But you cannot even explain how to stop and start in space and the fuel required for it. Reason is that you cannot carry the fuel required to stop and start again in space. It is impossible.The reason that I never explain how to stop and start in space is because no one in their right mind would ever try such a stupid thing. Slowing down and speeding up in space is a different story.
LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip and I offer anyone €1M to show I am wrong. You have failed my generous offer. Why do you instead just produce stupid, garbage posts?
LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
Great. Show us some proof. Here, not on your shitty website.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground. But Hollywood made a good job of it. What a comedy.
Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
?? What has delta-v to do with fuel consumption for space trips?Wow. Just ... wow.
You don't know much about orbital mechanics, I conclude.
and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Pls provide a link to your challenge with all details about it + your full style + bank details, so I can collect the money.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Prove it and I pay you 1M€. So far no one has won my challenge. This proves that you are wrong!
Pls provide a link to your challenge with all details about it + your full style + bank details, so I can collect the money.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Prove it and I pay you 1M€. So far no one has won my challenge. This proves that you are wrong!
Unsupported opinion and wouldn't then have been visible and trackable in orbit and wouldn't have had the TLI burn be visible to those on the ground. Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean it didn't happen.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
And you can prove that statement? ::)and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Pls provide a link to your challenge with all details about it + your full style + bank details, so I can collect the money.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Prove it and I pay you 1M€. So far no one has won my challenge. This proves that you are wrong!
My dear sir, please provide the proof! LOL
And you can prove that statement? ::)and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Pls provide a link to your challenge with all details about it + your full style + bank details, so I can collect the money.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Prove it and I pay you 1M€. So far no one has won my challenge. This proves that you are wrong!
My dear sir, please provide the proof! LOL
Well, I do since many years. If you intend to explore the Universe starting from Earth, you will never get off the ground with whatever spacecraft you use. You are too heavy with all your stuff required.
I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
Heiwa should explain the 'manipulations' here, or just admit he's a lying ignorant fraud.Ignorant fraud or consummate troll?
Ignorant fraud or consummate troll?
I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
I've seen it many times so what's wrong with it...(he asks knowing he'll probably regret it)
Mike
I work with safety at sea.
I did read it and everything you have is unfounded with not corroboration so I discount all of it until you can provide proof. I asked you what’s wrong with it and once again you ignore the question.I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
I've seen it many times so what's wrong with it...(he asks knowing he'll probably regret it)
Mike
Well, to be honest. You just watched faked footage and were fooled by it. You are not alone. At my popular web site I explain how and why you were fooled. Study it again. It doesn't cost anything except your time. I am not in the conspiracy business. I work with safety at sea. http://heiwaco.com
Well, I am not in the conspiracy business. My biz is safety at sea. What is yours? You sound like a stupid, idiotic shill paid little. Introduce yourself. You have a name. Parents? You pay taxes? Prove it.I did read it and everything you have is unfounded with not corroboration so I discount all of it until you can provide proof. I asked you what’s wrong with it and once again you ignore the question.I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
I've seen it many times so what's wrong with it...(he asks knowing he'll probably regret it)
Mike
Well, to be honest. You just watched faked footage and were fooled by it. You are not alone. At my popular web site I explain how and why you were fooled. Study it again. It doesn't cost anything except your time. I am not in the conspiracy business. I work with safety at sea. http://heiwaco.com
BTW, saying a government is faking space travel, shooting launches and moon landings on a sound stage, and covering it all up is the very definition of a conspiracy theory so yes, you are in the conspiracy business even if you won’t admit it.
Prove its all fake footage. Otherwise it’s real and you’re fake.
Mike
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy?
You have never provided bank details. Nor have you ever proceeded any evidence to support your claims. More failure.Pls provide a link to your challenge with all details about it + your full style + bank details, so I can collect the money.and still others saw it in orbit and/or witnessed the TLI burn.Evidently it could because many thousands of people witnessed it lifting off the ground a number of times.Yes, I know! See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm .LOL - a space trip starts a 0 speed on Earth and ends at 0 speed on Earth and in the meantime you must stop and start at the target of the trip, e.g. the Moon. I clearly show at my web site that you cannot carry the fuel with you for such a trip...That's because you fail to understand that NASA doesn't use just one rocket for these trips. For the Apollo missions, NASA used 6 rockets for the trip. The Saturn V first, second and third stages, the service module, lunar module ascent and descent stages were all individual rockets that had their own fuel supplies. Each rocket only needed to carry enough fuel to carry out its specific part of the mission.
It was a very heavy solution that never could lift off the ground.
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Prove it and I pay you 1M€. So far no one has won my challenge. This proves that you are wrong!
He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Well, I am not in the conspiracy business. My biz is safety at sea. What is yours? You sound like a stupid, idiotic shill paid little. Introduce yourself. You have a name. Parents? You pay taxes? Prove it.I did read it and everything you have is unfounded with not corroboration so I discount all of it until you can provide proof. I asked you what’s wrong with it and once again you ignore the question.I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
I've seen it many times so what's wrong with it...(he asks knowing he'll probably regret it)
Mike
Well, to be honest. You just watched faked footage and were fooled by it. You are not alone. At my popular web site I explain how and why you were fooled. Study it again. It doesn't cost anything except your time. I am not in the conspiracy business. I work with safety at sea. http://heiwaco.com
BTW, saying a government is faking space travel, shooting launches and moon landings on a sound stage, and covering it all up is the very definition of a conspiracy theory so yes, you are in the conspiracy business even if you won’t admit it.
Prove its all fake footage. Otherwise it’s real and you’re fake.
Mike
You can’t answer the question so you attack the poster. Typical troll behavior.Well, I am not in the conspiracy business. My biz is safety at sea. What is yours? You sound like a stupid, idiotic shill paid little. Introduce yourself. You have a name. Parents? You pay taxes? Prove it.I did read it and everything you have is unfounded with not corroboration so I discount all of it until you can provide proof. I asked you what’s wrong with it and once again you ignore the question.I've seen Apollo launch footage many times. So did most of the world. Apollo 11's launch was filmed by every major news outlet on the planet, seen and filmed/photographed by tens of thousands or on lookers surrounding the facility. Amateur astronomers and universities followed the flight into orbit and you really going to say it never happened.And you can prove that statement? ::)
LOL - it was an empty mockup (wood/paper) of a rocket that took off to impress people. The rest was filmed in a studio.
Well, just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations. I look forward to see you.
I've seen it many times so what's wrong with it...(he asks knowing he'll probably regret it)
Mike
Well, to be honest. You just watched faked footage and were fooled by it. You are not alone. At my popular web site I explain how and why you were fooled. Study it again. It doesn't cost anything except your time. I am not in the conspiracy business. I work with safety at sea. http://heiwaco.com
BTW, saying a government is faking space travel, shooting launches and moon landings on a sound stage, and covering it all up is the very definition of a conspiracy theory so yes, you are in the conspiracy business even if you won’t admit it.
Prove its all fake footage. Otherwise it’s real and you’re fake.
Mike
He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Because he is senile and a troll.Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
It was in the atomic bomb thread. I asked you why fast fission was impossible and you never answered the question.Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Can you repeat the question that was left unattended.
It was in the atomic bomb thread. I asked you why fast fission was impossible and you never answered the question.Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Can you repeat the question that was left unattended.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.It was in the atomic bomb thread. I asked you why fast fission was impossible and you never answered the question.Except I asked him a question not answered on his site, provided some proof to the contrary to his claim and he still refused to answer.He is asking you to provide the proof you claim you have. Why can't you do that?Because he thinks that his "popular" web site is all the evidence that anyone would need.
Can you repeat the question that was left unattended.
But I do reply to all questions. Military, instantaneous, nano-seconds, FLASH fission releasing a-bomb radiation in the atmosphere is stupid propaganda to scare people. Fission doesn't work like that!
It is similar to topic here about travel in space Universe. Any trip in space is always one-way as you cannot carry the fuel with you for stopping, landing, re-starting and returning to Earth. That's the main reason why no humans have ever been in space starting with Yuri Gagarin. It was just propaganda, too.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
?? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Your website doesn't show how the videos were faked nor do they say what was manipulated. Therefore you must answer my question here because your site doesn't.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Your website doesn't show how the videos were faked nor do they say what was manipulated. Therefore you must answer my question here because your site doesn't.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Mike
That's a lie. You only make empty claims. That's why you're afraid to even attempt to show any evidence here. You're a coward and a failure.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Yes it can. I’ve seen it. When I was stationed in Orlando we were given a tour of the launch facility days before the launch. I saW the launch vehicle and I can tell you it wasn’t a wooden mockup. Back in the early eighties those launches were a big deal with the locals in Florida. They would line up and even campout to watch the shuttle travel from the building to launch pad. Then they’d have a party to watch the launch...which I have seen with my own two eyes. Once from Orlando and once from the Cape. It isn't possible to hide a full size wooden mockup and then swap it for the real thing to be moved out the launch pad. Now if you have proof that's what actually happened I'd love to see it but alas, all your website has are claims it happened with no proof.Your website doesn't show how the videos were faked nor do they say what was manipulated. Therefore you must answer my question here because your site doesn't.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Mike
Sorry, my web site is very clear and explains everything and then you have think a little. Example - can a 100 tons US Space Shuttle lift off as shown on all available footage?
How does the 100 tons lift off? It is attached to a big, rusty fuel tank with some rockets connected to it. The whole thing is a big joke. Only idiots like you believe it ... and anything. I am sorry, that I cannot help you further. I assume you are sick. Cognitive dissonance!
No, I publish my findings/all evidence under my own name/full style/photo at my web site http://heiwaco.com and invite comments since many years. I tell MSM all the time to take action. I am not a coward. I love to fight for what I believe. I am not a failure. I have good health and am very strong, I am happy, I have plenty money, I have plenty to do, I live in a nice place, I have good friends and plenty to do.That's a lie. You only make empty claims. That's why you're afraid to even attempt to show any evidence here. You're a coward and a failure.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Yes it can. I’ve seen it. When I was stationed in Orlando we were given a tour of the launch facility days before the launch. I saW the launch vehicle and I can tell you it wasn’t a wooden mockup. Back in the early eighties those launches were a big deal with the locals in Florida. They would line up and even campout to watch the shuttle travel from the building to launch pad. Then they’d have a party to watch the launch...which I have seen with my own two eyes. Once from Orlando and once from the Cape. It isn't possible to hide a full size wooden mockup and then swap it for the real thing to be moved out the launch pad. Now if you have proof that's what actually happened I'd love to see it but alas, all your website has are claims it happened with no proof.Your website doesn't show how the videos were faked nor do they say what was manipulated. Therefore you must answer my question here because your site doesn't.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
Mike
Sorry, my web site is very clear and explains everything and then you have think a little. Example - can a 100 tons US Space Shuttle lift off as shown on all available footage?
How does the 100 tons lift off? It is attached to a big, rusty fuel tank with some rockets connected to it. The whole thing is a big joke. Only idiots like you believe it ... and anything. I am sorry, that I cannot help you further. I assume you are sick. Cognitive dissonance!
Nice try with the personal attacks but I’m not gonna take that bate. You know who else often engages in personal attacks. Trolls. That’s who.
BTW, your use of the rocket equation on your website is incorrect. It’s the simplified form and not applicable to how you applied it. Since you’re an engineer I would have thought you'd have taken that into account. I guess not.
Mike
Prove me wrong, show your evidence here. Or admit you have nothing. Because so far you have simply failed miserably.No, I publish my findings/all evidence under my own name/full style/photo at my web site http://heiwaco.com and invite comments since many years. I tell MSM all the time to take action. I am not a coward. I love to fight for what I believe. I am not a failure. I have good health and am very strong, I am happy, I have plenty money, I have plenty to do, I live in a nice place, I have good friends and plenty to do.That's a lie. You only make empty claims. That's why you're afraid to even attempt to show any evidence here. You're a coward and a failure.Hm, I show my proof at my web site. It is much easier.More failure. Show your proof here. But you can't can you??? Of course I answer all questions. The explanations are then at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance cannot accept it and ask me to prove it ... even if the answer is right in front of them.You still haven't answered. Just claiming it is fake isn't an answer. Prove it.
Saying fission doesn’t work like that isn’t the answer to the question. The question was why doesn’t it work like that. But, that’s a topic for the other thread.
More to this topic of this thread you said “just examine carefully the footage of the lift offs and come to see me and I will explain the manipulations.”
Well I watched all the footage and then asked you what’s wrong with it and you, once again, didn’t answer the question. You actually told me you would explain the manipulation so I’m asking you one more time explain it.
Mike
Re military instant FLASH fission - it is just propaganda as explained in another thread and at my web site.
Re lift offs of space crafts - take the 100+ US Space Shuttles lifting off. Each has a mass of 100 tons and is connected to a big fuel tank and two small rockets. And off it goes. According to basic rocket science it is too heavy to lift off but off it goes. My conclusion is that the Shuttle is a 1 ton paper/plywood mock-up, etc, etc. It is confirmed when you study the re-entries of the Shuttles. All fake too. I describe it at my web site.
No human has ever been in space. All rocket launches are one-way trips only. Basic. Just because you see a film of a rocket lift off doesn't mean that it is a real spacecraft.
What about you? You sound like a misarable, stinking shitty failure tossed in a gutter. But it is your problem.
"Why doesn't this work?"You forgot "I am a good looking, nice, humble, intelligent and rich man and you all have cognitive dissonance"
Heiwa: "It doesn't work because it doesn't work!"
"What? No, why doesn't it work?"
Heiwa: "Look it just can't work. Also it's on my site."
"We looked at your site. It doesn't say why it doesn't work."
Heiwa: "Mama mia look it just doesn't work! I can't comprehend it, so it doesn't work!"
I also offer free coffee to all visitors to my office checking my bank accounts."Why doesn't this work?"You forgot "I am a good looking, nice, humble, intelligent and rich man and you all have cognitive dissonance"
Heiwa: "It doesn't work because it doesn't work!"
"What? No, why doesn't it work?"
Heiwa: "Look it just can't work. Also it's on my site."
"We looked at your site. It doesn't say why it doesn't work."
Heiwa: "Mama mia look it just doesn't work! I can't comprehend it, so it doesn't work!"
I also offer free coffee to all visitors to my office checking my bank accounts.
I also offer free coffee to all visitors to my office checking my bank accounts.
If you can afford a plane ticket for me, (I'm poor),
I would love to hang out with you for a couple of days.
I have a passport and no obligations.
I don't even want to see your financials.
Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
You look at some logos and you immediately know what that company is about...and then sometimes you're completely confused and think "what the heck is that". The logo consortium plays favoritism.Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
I'll even offer a free update on his logo and logotype header. A $3000 value.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfWell NASA is clearly not proficient in orbital mechanics. If they were as smart as heiwa they would know that delta v is completely irrelevant for fuel consumption.
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You look at some logos and you immediately know what that company is about...and then sometimes you're completely confused and think "what the heck is that".Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
I'll even offer a free update on his logo and logotype header. A $3000 value.
A Logologist. :)You look at some logos and you immediately know what that company is about...and then sometimes you're completely confused and think "what the heck is that".Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
I'll even offer a free update on his logo and logotype header. A $3000 value.
That's why you hire a professional. ;)
A Logologist. :)You look at some logos and you immediately know what that company is about...and then sometimes you're completely confused and think "what the heck is that".Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
I'll even offer a free update on his logo and logotype header. A $3000 value.
That's why you hire a professional. ;)
Nope....all yours. :DA Logologist. :)You look at some logos and you immediately know what that company is about...and then sometimes you're completely confused and think "what the heck is that".Ha ha! The Moose outsmarted everyone!
I'll even offer a free update on his logo and logotype header. A $3000 value.
That's why you hire a professional. ;)
Have you copyrighted that yet? ;D
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
He was a joke.
Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle.While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
But he does have a rocking body.While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
He won't read any of that, neither will he pay attention to any of this 1966 document that explains a lot of the methodology for getting to the moon in detail:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LunarLandingMIssionSymposium1966_1978075303.pdf
Why won't he? Because he's a liar, a fraud and an idiot.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
He won't read any of that, neither will he pay attention to any of this 1966 document that explains a lot of the methodology for getting to the moon in detail:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LunarLandingMIssionSymposium1966_1978075303.pdf
Why won't he? Because he's a liar, a fraud and an idiot.
Then prove it. Here, not on that pathetic website of yours.While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
He won't read any of that, neither will he pay attention to any of this 1966 document that explains a lot of the methodology for getting to the moon in detail:
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LunarLandingMIssionSymposium1966_1978075303.pdf
Why won't he? Because he's a liar, a fraud and an idiot.
The alternative is that the link is just garbage propaganda fantasies produced by Willy Low. Poor Willy, working as a liar for NASA! What a fraud and an idiot.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study <some shitty website>, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
Use the archive.
http://archive.is/tjRsk
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
Yeah, I open it and the first thing I see is urine valves and your obsession with piss. I went to the part you talk about fuel and all I see is confused ramblings of an old curmudgeon. I don't think I saw a single use of the rocket equation. You mostly just state things and then say it's impossible. Actually it's very hard to understand what the point you're trying to make is. First there is a confusing paragraph where you whine about discrepancies in your sources (only the link to your first source doesn't lead anywhere), and then you state that the spacecraft can't carry the fuel needed, without showing any calculations. Then you give various percentages (?) of velocities that are just plain confusing, you talk a lot about Lagrange points for unknown reasons, you fail to understand how spaceships steer in space, you promise a calculation showing that the fuel is not enough but you never give it, and then you talk about some unspecified simulation you made (which is probably bullshit). So everything in it is useless.
Piss? Sanitary facilities, pls. I work in shipping since 1966 and passengers, staff and crews on our seagoing ships need sanitary facilities. And when the ships get old the sanitary facilities starts to fail and ... I am called in to solve the problems. Nobody likes a ship with the top of the double bottom full of shit. I have fixed plenty such problems. It is part of my job.
Yeah, but every webpage you find and everything you learned in school is propaganda and faked by nasa. However, there is no conspiracy involved.While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study <some shitty website>, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
Use the archive.
http://archive.is/tjRsk
It is an excellent way of finding out that his page on Apollo is still riddled with plenty lies and basic mistakes that anyone could correct with a few seconds of research despite having had them pointed out to him.
Yeah, but every webpage you find and everything you learned in school is propaganda and faked by nasa. However, there is no conspiracy involved.While trying to calculate whatever Heiwa wanted me to calculate I found this: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdf
It's the entire Apollo 11 flight plan. Heiwa, who apparently is an "expert in orbital mechanics" but probably has no idea how to calculate the Δv for a Hohmann transfer, should have no trouble understanding it. Let's see if he can find anything that doesn't add up or he has objections with in there. It has almost everything.
You really should study <some shitty website>, where I examine Willy Low's Apollo 11 fantasies in your link. Nothing adds up. But Willy got away with 1969 but died young later. He was a joke.
Use the archive.
http://archive.is/tjRsk
It is an excellent way of finding out that his page on Apollo is still riddled with plenty lies and basic mistakes that anyone could correct with a few seconds of research despite having had them pointed out to him.
No conspiracies anywhere. Just plenty stupid people not understanding anything including orbital mechanics.
conspiracy
kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms:plot, scheme, stratagem, plan,machination, cabal; More
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms:plotting, collusion, intrigue,connivance, machination,collaboration;
treason
"he was due to stand trial for conspiracy to murder"
No conspiracies anywhere. Just plenty stupid people not understanding anything including orbital mechanics.
Actually at least one of your "challenges" involves quite a large conspiracy to hide the truth. Hell, I would argue all three of them do.
Here's a bone, please use the word correctly in the future.Quoteconspiracy
kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms:plot, scheme, stratagem, plan,machination, cabal; More
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms:plotting, collusion, intrigue,connivance, machination,collaboration;
treason
"he was due to stand trial for conspiracy to murder"
At my website I think differently:
The 911 incident has been thoroughly investigated by US authorities and it was all due to 19 Arabs and their boss in a cave somewhere. No conspiracy.
Quoteconspiracy
kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms:plot, scheme, stratagem, plan,machination, cabal; More
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms:plotting, collusion, intrigue,connivance, machination,collaboration;
treason
"he was due to stand trial for conspiracy to murder"
Hm, I just think differently - for obvious reasons explained at http://heiwaco.com . People living in one place all their lives just watching TV evidently avoid thinking like me.At my website I think differently:
Yes, you avoid thinking at all costs.
Btw, the piss obsession is becoming increasingly disturbing.
The 911 incident has been thoroughly investigated by US authorities and it was all due to 19 Arabs and their boss in a cave somewhere. No conspiracy.
You idiot, Heiwa.
I'll just quote the relevant part.Quoteconspiracy
kənˈspɪrəsi/
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms:plot, scheme, stratagem, plan,machination, cabal; More
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms:plotting, collusion, intrigue,connivance, machination,collaboration;
treason
"he was due to stand trial for conspiracy to murder"
I doubt Condi knows or cares who you are. More LIES from Heiwa to make himself look more important.
Condi hates me for it.
no conspiracy
Conspiracy.
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the action of plotting or conspiring.
Hm, assuming that a group called Al-Qaeda had a secret plan to something unlawful and harmful called 911, it seems it was not secret to GWB and Condi that the next day knew everything about it and informed media, etc. So no secrecy, no conspiracy!no conspiracy
Are you really this disconnected. Can you not see, using the definition of conspiracy, that 9/11 involves a conspiracy either way you look at it. Are you really unable to use words properly?
One more timeQuoteConspiracy.
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the action of plotting or conspiring.
Now, lets apply those definitions to the 9/11 official story we had a secret plan, by a group called Al-Qaeda to do something unlawful and harmful. Leading up to the event they engaged in the actions of plotting and conspiring.
Now, using our accepted definition of conspiracy can you kindly admit you are wrong.
There really isn't anything to add about your understanding of orbital mechanics. You have none.Hm, assuming that a group called Al-Qaeda had a secret plan to something unlawful and harmful called 911, it seems it was not secret to GWB and Condi that the next day knew everything about it and informed media, etc. So no secrecy, no conspiracy!no conspiracy
Are you really this disconnected. Can you not see, using the definition of conspiracy, that 9/11 involves a conspiracy either way you look at it. Are you really unable to use words properly?
One more timeQuoteConspiracy.
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
the action of plotting or conspiring.
Now, lets apply those definitions to the 9/11 official story we had a secret plan, by a group called Al-Qaeda to do something unlawful and harmful. Leading up to the event they engaged in the actions of plotting and conspiring.
Now, using our accepted definition of conspiracy can you kindly admit you are wrong.
It reminds me of Pear Harbour December 1941 when FDR/Stalin had broken all Japanese codes, knew all Japanese secrets and let it happen. No conspiracy at all.
Terrorism on the other hand is always about doing something unlawful and harmful being planned in secrecy. Maybe you mix up the two?
What has this to do with understanding in orbital mechanics?
Hm, assuming that a group called Al-Qaeda had a secret plan to something unlawful and harmful called 911, it seems it was not secret to GWB and Condi that the next day knew everything about it and informed media, etc. So no secrecy, no conspiracy!
It reminds me of Pear Harbour December 1941 when FDR/Stalin had broken all Japanese codes, knew all Japanese secrets and let it happen. No conspiracy at all.
Terrorism on the other hand is always about doing something unlawful and harmful being planned in secrecy. Maybe you mix up the two?
What has this to do with understanding in orbital mechanics?
Hm, assuming that a group called Al-Qaeda had a secret plan to something unlawful and harmful called 911, it seems it was not secret to GWB and Condi that the next day knew everything about it and informed media, etc. So no secrecy, no conspiracy!
What has this to do with understanding in orbital mechanics?
Nothing at all. Why do you keep bringing it up?
The 911 incident has been thoroughly investigated by US authorities and it was all due to 19 Arabs and their boss in a cave somewhere. No conspiracy.
It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
No. Why should it? Please, explain yourself.It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
But A keeps C in place since 30 years! Why would C suddenly destroy A?
You are just a jealous nobody, IMHO.But A keeps C in place since 30 years! Why would C suddenly destroy A?
Can you hold a heavy rock on your head? If you drop that rock on your head, why would it suddenly destroy your head? How do you even have a job?
I don't think anyone named that "axiom" after yourself, I think you named it yourself. Besides the only references of it I could find were directly related to you. So no one uses it except of you.
You are just a jealous nobody, IMHO.But A keeps C in place since 30 years! Why would C suddenly destroy A?
Can you hold a heavy rock on your head? If you drop that rock on your head, why would it suddenly destroy your head? How do you even have a job?
I don't think anyone named that "axiom" after yourself, I think you named it yourself. Besides the only references of it I could find were directly related to you. So no one uses it except of you.
Nothing you just said makes any sense.LOL
1) The last thing I would ever want to be is you,
2) The analogy flew way over your head, and
3) 40 meters of steel and concrete is not "light". If the first floor fails the structure falls on the second floor, and if that fails it keeps falling like that etc.
LOLYou are just a jealous nobody, IMHO.But A keeps C in place since 30 years! Why would C suddenly destroy A?
Can you hold a heavy rock on your head? If you drop that rock on your head, why would it suddenly destroy your head? How do you even have a job?
I don't think anyone named that "axiom" after yourself, I think you named it yourself. Besides the only references of it I could find were directly related to you. So no one uses it except of you.
Do you even know what IMHO means? It doesn't makes much sense to say it is your humble opinion that DNO is jealous of you.
No, by your own words you're just a plumber, aren't you. I doubt you're an engineer unless you like to call yourself "sanitation engineer" because it sounds better than shit scrubber.LOL
Nothing you just said makes any sense.
1) The last thing I would ever want to be is you,
2) The analogy flew way over your head, and
3) 40 meters of steel and concrete is not "light". If the first floor fails the structure falls on the second floor, and if that fails it keeps falling like that etc.
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram).https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation
Nothing you just said makes any sense.
3) 40 meters of steel and concrete is not "light". If the first floor fails the structure falls on the second floor, and if that fails it keeps falling like that etc.
Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers
Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.
Please see the second video.
Why couldn't we break each brick one by one like what some people claim happened to wtc 1 and 2?
When the force is insufficient then not all the bricks are broken. I would also disagree that the bricks are being broken "all at once" as we can see from either video.
Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.
Please see the second video.
Why couldn't we break each brick one by one like what some people claim happened to wtc 1 and 2?
When the force is insufficient then not all the bricks are broken. I would also disagree that the bricks are being broken "all at once" as we can see from either video.
I can't watch videos right now, but I think I know what you mean.
When you punch a brick, your hand slows down. If it slows down too much you won't be able to accelerate it fast enough to have the necessary momentum to break the other bricks.
It's a much different case for buildings. When a floor fails, the whole mass of the floors above it starts accelerating due to gravity. When it hits the next floor, if its momentum is sufficient, that floor fails as well and then that whole mass starts accelerating again. It's like punching each brick separately with increasing force.
Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
What, exactly, does any of this nonsense have to do with the subject? Which is your complete lack of understanding of orbital mechanics.I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
First of all, the tower collapse wasn't so much a matter of breaking bricks (floors) as breaking the spacers (walls) holding the bricks up.Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.
Please see the second video.
Why couldn't we break each brick one by one like what some people claim happened to wtc 1 and 2?
I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
EDIT: maybe we could rename the thread to Heiwa's lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop.
I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
Thanks for asking (again). I assume the axiom is named after me as I formulated it 2001. Many Americans do not believe it, though. They think things just happens POUFF, POUFF, POUFF. The Pouff Pouff theory - http://heiwaco.com/pouf.htm
DO it! All you have to do is go to your OP click modify and then change the title in the title box.
Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.
Please see the second video.
Why couldn't we break each brick one by one like what some people claim happened to wtc 1 and 2?
When the force is insufficient then not all the bricks are broken. I would also disagree that the bricks are being broken "all at once" as we can see from either video.
I can't watch videos right now, but I think I know what you mean.
When you punch a brick, your hand slows down. If it slows down too much you won't be able to accelerate it fast enough to have the necessary momentum to break the other bricks.
It's a much different case for buildings. When a floor fails, the whole mass of the floors above it starts accelerating due to gravity. When it hits the next floor, if its momentum is sufficient, that floor fails as well and then that whole mass starts accelerating again. It's like punching each brick separately with increasing force.
Is that so?
Check out how long the top section lasts when you have a chance, look at it and tell me the top section stayed intact enough to crush the entire bottom of the building just under gravity and inertia as you describe.
Last post because there's a thread for this, I don't blame you for avoiding it as it's become especially toxic (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1926085#msg1926085)
I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?I just formulated the axiom based on my scientific, peer reviewed paper that you find on the Internet. I am very proud of having an axiom named after me. The US Academy of Science, NIST, ASCE, FBI and CIA don't like it, but they were sleeping at the switches, when I formulated it. I agree, it is pathetic.Who named it after you? It was not you, right?No. I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?It is the Björkman's Axiom of structural dynamic collapse analysis.
Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.
Thanks for asking (again). I assume the axiom is named after me as I formulated it 2001. Many Americans do not believe it, though. They think things just happens POUFF, POUFF, POUFF. The Pouff Pouff theory - http://heiwaco.com/pouf.htm
Okay, you seem kind of dense. The word "who" implies a person, not a year. Who named the axiom björkman's axiom?DO it! All you have to do is go to your OP click modify and then change the title in the title box.
Consider it done
The trajectory to get to the moon and back have been described in great detail.
Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I don't recall why we started to discuss how to handle, e.g. the urine produced during such a trip,
No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
Another stupid questions, zero. But I have already explained everything at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
Trying to wade through your web site gives me a headache. Would you care to copy and paste the relevant passage that explains how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth parking orbit to geostationary orbit?Another stupid questions, zero. But I have already explained everything at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
How do you get a headache? Is there anything between your ears?Trying to wade through your web site gives me a headache. Would you care to copy and paste the relevant passage that explains how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth parking orbit to geostationary orbit?Another stupid questions, zero. But I have already explained everything at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
Nope. I agree that I will never be able to convince you however.
So, you now thrice failed to answer a very simple question: Who gave Björkmanns axiom the name it has?
I thought that you said that you're a nice guy. A nice guy wouldn't insult someone for asking them nicely to do a simple favor, like copying some simple information.How do you get a headache? Is there anything between your ears?Trying to wade through your web site gives me a headache. Would you care to copy and paste the relevant passage that explains how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth parking orbit to geostationary orbit?Another stupid questions, zero. But I have already explained everything at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
Nope. I agree that I will never be able to convince you however.
So, you now thrice failed to answer a very simple question: Who gave Björkmanns axiom the name it has?
Well, it seems the axiom is named after me, if you can spell my family name correctly.
I am also at facebook!
https://www.facebook.com/anders.bjorkman.940/media_set?set=a.504122316593375.1073741863.100009868323415&type=3&uploaded=14
Do you think that 586 persons were maimed not far from my place almost a year ago?
I know it has nothing to do with topic but anyway - 586 persons maimed of which 86 killed. By a bad truck driver! Do you believe it?
Yeah, that's his pattern. Never answer a direct question, never supply any evidence.I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
Nope. I agree that I will never be able to convince you however.
So, you now thrice failed to answer a very simple question: Who gave Björkmanns axiom the name it has?
Well, it seems the axiom is named after me, if you can spell my family name correctly.
I am also at facebook!
https://www.facebook.com/anders.bjorkman.940/media_set?set=a.504122316593375.1073741863.100009868323415&type=3&uploaded=14
Do you think that 586 persons were maimed not far from my place almost a year ago?
I know it has nothing to do with topic but anyway - 586 persons maimed of which 86 killed. By a bad truck driver! Do you believe it?
I do not care if you are on facebook, where you live or anything. I care about who named the axiom after you. And you desperately dodge that question.
axiom
ˈaksɪəm/
noun
a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
Controlled opposition is counterintelligence propaganda and is carried out today, legally, under the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. It’s all an Act. And the Act is part and parcel of Social Engineering, the systematic molding and brainwashing of the individual mind to conform to group-think and one preferred ideology. Controlled opposition turns a captive audience into a captured herd with an accepted institutionalized message.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act
Living in the institutionalized system that we do means that one small group can infiltrate grassroots organizations to change the perception of reality for all. By programming through the educational system and the media, an entire nation can be demoralized within a span of one generation or 15 to 20 years. Controlled opposition exists to subvert and undermine “The Truth Movement” to protect The Establishment.
Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.I thought that you said that you're a nice guy. A nice guy wouldn't insult someone for asking them nicely to do a simple favor, like copying some simple information.How do you get a headache? Is there anything between your ears?Trying to wade through your web site gives me a headache. Would you care to copy and paste the relevant passage that explains how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth parking orbit to geostationary orbit?Another stupid questions, zero. But I have already explained everything at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .You claim that you understand orbital mechanics (despite the lack of any formal education or work experience in aerospace) and that ArianeSpace can put satellites into geostationary orbit, so why can't you explain how they do it?No, it seems you always, all the time, ask stupid questions to the wrong people and ... when there is no reply ... you think you are something.Hm, I see you have changed the topic after failing to describe a simple trajectory and fuel required of a manned trip to the Moon incl. the sanitary facilities required of the spacecraft.And I see that you still haven't explained how ArianeSpace can transfer a satellite from low earth parking orbit to a geostationary orbit.
I assume you then agree that a manned trip to the Moon and back is not possible for obvious reasons.
I assume you then agree that you do not understand orbital mechanics.
Well, you are a stupid, zero IQ, nothing. But you will never understand it.
Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.??? Why is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of orbital mechanics by explaining how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit a stupid question? I'm sure that it's far less complicated than the manned moon mission information that you keep asking for (you don't have to worry about sanitary facilities).
Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.??? Why is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of orbital mechanics by explaining how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit a stupid question? I'm sure that it's far less complicated than the manned moon mission information that you keep asking for (you don't have to worry about sanitary facilities).
Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.??? Why is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of orbital mechanics by explaining how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit a stupid question? I'm sure that it's far less complicated than the manned moon mission information that you keep asking for (you don't have to worry about sanitary facilities).
Because asking people questions to test their various abilities is stupid. This is not a job interview. This is a friendly discussion about topics of interest, e.g. orbital mechanics and my famous Challenge to describe space trips to Moon/Mars. I find it interesting that noone can do it. Not even calculate the fuel consumption.
Re sanitary facilities in space. They are a joke. People don't understand it. People here are really stupid.
Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.
Asking you questions is not about testing your abilities, it's about pointing out the inadequacies of your knowledge, and also reminding you that despite your protestations to the contrary your own questions have been answered countless times here and elsewhere.
You have never won my challenge either Heiwa! This proves that you are wrong!No, it shows you are a joke.
You have never won my challenge either Heiwa! This proves that you are wrong!No, it shows you are a joke.
You have never won my challenge either Heiwa! This proves that you are wrong!No, it shows you are a joke.
I know. But I learned how to do it from you. I'm not gonna stop 'til you stop. But I totally agree it's a joke.
Yes, this is a friendly discussion about orbital mechanics. So why is asking you to describe the relevant orbital mechanics of transferring a satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit stupid? You ask us to describe what you consider to be an impossible trip to Mars, but refuse to describe a relatively simple orbit transfer? That doesn't seem fair to me.Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.??? Why is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of orbital mechanics by explaining how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit a stupid question? I'm sure that it's far less complicated than the manned moon mission information that you keep asking for (you don't have to worry about sanitary facilities).
Because asking people questions to test their various abilities is stupid. This is not a job interview. This is a friendly discussion about topics of interest, e.g. orbital mechanics and my famous Challenge to describe space trips to Moon/Mars. I find it interesting that noone can do it. Not even calculate the fuel consumption.
Asking you questions is not about testing your abilities, it's about pointing out the inadequacies of your knowledge, and also reminding you that despite your protestations to the contrary your own questions have been answered countless times here and elsewhere.
Hm, in order to win my Challenge (actually the topic - see post #1) you must, e.g., be able to calculate how much fuel is required for a spacecraft to leave orbit Earth and blast off towards the target and brake there. I simply notice nobody can do it. Plenty people say it can be done but cannot explain how. You do not win my Challenge saying it can be done.
Same people then get very upset, when I explain my Challenge is impossible to win (for obvious reasons).
I find it funny. Many threads here are about my findings and people saying I present fake findings. But nobody can show that my findings are incorrect. Think about it before asking stupid OT questions.
Another off topic question of no interest! You just confirm that you are not very bright. Don't ask stupid questions. If you think I do not understand orbital mechanics, explain why.Well, I am nice. But you are not with your stupid questions interrupting a decent discussion.??? Why is asking you to demonstrate your understanding of orbital mechanics by explaining how ArianeSpace transfers satellites from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit a stupid question? I'm sure that it's far less complicated than the manned moon mission information that you keep asking for (you don't have to worry about sanitary facilities).
Because asking people questions to test their various abilities is stupid. This is not a job interview. This is a friendly discussion about topics of interest, e.g. orbital mechanics and my famous Challenge to describe space trips to Moon/Mars. I find it interesting that noone can do it. Not even calculate the fuel consumption.
Yes, this is a friendly discussion about orbital mechanics. So why is asking you to describe the relevant orbital mechanics of transferring a satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit stupid? You ask us to describe what you consider to be an impossible trip to Mars, but refuse to describe a relatively simple orbit transfer? That doesn't seem fair to me.
Asking you questions is not about testing your abilities, it's about pointing out the inadequacies of your knowledge, and also reminding you that despite your protestations to the contrary your own questions have been answered countless times here and elsewhere.
Hm, in order to win my Challenge (actually the topic - see post #1) you must, e.g., be able to calculate how much fuel is required for a spacecraft to leave orbit Earth and blast off towards the target and brake there. I simply notice nobody can do it. Plenty people say it can be done but cannot explain how. You do not win my Challenge saying it can be done.
Same people then get very upset, when I explain my Challenge is impossible to win (for obvious reasons).
I find it funny. Many threads here are about my findings and people saying I present fake findings. But nobody can show that my findings are incorrect. Think about it before asking stupid OT questions.
I can calculate all the Hohmann transfers for you, the calculations for landing on the moon or getting to orbit are very dependent on the particular maneuver used and I'll have to use external sources.
Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
1. Your understanding of things will not make them real, though.
2. Do you by any chance remember who named the axiom after you now? Must be dementia. I asked several times, you know?
Then why do you refuse to show any evidence to support your understanding, here in this forum, not a link to your pathetic website. Your constant failure to back up your claims is why people think you are just s lying idiot.Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
Asking you questions is not about testing your abilities, it's about pointing out the inadequacies of your knowledge, and also reminding you that despite your protestations to the contrary your own questions have been answered countless times here and elsewhere.
Hm, in order to win my Challenge (actually the topic - see post #1) you must, e.g., be able to calculate how much fuel is required for a spacecraft to leave orbit Earth and blast off towards the target and brake there. I simply notice nobody can do it. Plenty people say it can be done but cannot explain how. You do not win my Challenge saying it can be done.
Same people then get very upset, when I explain my Challenge is impossible to win (for obvious reasons).
I find it funny. Many threads here are about my findings and people saying I present fake findings. But nobody can show that my findings are incorrect. Think about it before asking stupid OT questions.
I can calculate all the Hohmann transfers for you, the calculations for landing on the moon or getting to orbit are very dependent on the particular maneuver used and I'll have to use external sources.
Thanks, tell Kami (post #1) this! How do you do it, how much fuel is required, what do you do on arrival and why do you do it? There is absolutely nothing to do in space! Only brain washed people think there is something in space.
Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
Hm, personally I think my five Challenges (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) are serious and fun. But plenty persons are not able to understand it. Poor, shitty people!Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
But your understanding of things is so very limited. For example, you don't realize that you've just admitted that your challenge is pretty much a fraud and a joke.
Hm, personally I think my five Challenges are serious and fun. But plenty persons are not able to understand it. Poor, shitty people!
It's not at all serious because you know as well as everyone else it's unwinnable. I know people who were there and saw the towers come down exactly as it was seen on TV. My brother-in-law is a firefighter in NJ and spent a lot of time at ground zero.Hm, personally I think my five Challenges (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) are serious and fun. But plenty persons are not able to understand it. Poor, shitty people!Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
But your understanding of things is so very limited. For example, you don't realize that you've just admitted that your challenge is pretty much a fraud and a joke.
Hm, re my weak top part C crushes strong, intact bottom part A Challenge - the 911 Challenge - you do not win it by saying you know people seeing C crushing A or that your sister's husband was cleaning up after C crushing A.It's not at all serious because you know as well as everyone else it's unwinnable. I know people who were there and saw the towers come down exactly as it was seen on TV. My brother-in-law is a firefighter in NJ and spent a lot of time at ground zero.Hm, personally I think my five Challenges (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) are serious and fun. But plenty persons are not able to understand it. Poor, shitty people!Perhaps I should be a little more careful with my wording but in general Heiwa's money is safe and so is mine. ;)
Edit: I fixed it.
Of course my money is and was always safe, as nobody could ever win my Challenges. A-bombs do not work, human space travel does not work, bow visors on ships are just decorations of the superstructure, seven NY office buildings were not detroyed in a couple of hours due to Arabs landing planes on them and fusion down the road from me will not work.
This is my understanding of things.
But your understanding of things is so very limited. For example, you don't realize that you've just admitted that your challenge is pretty much a fraud and a joke.
However, you won't except any eye witness accounts, you will contend that every photo and video is fake so short of bringing down another skyscraper there is not one single piece of evidence you would ever consider credible and that is why it is unwinnable.
So, why even make the challenge?
Mike
Heiwa, what do you think about my parody of the conspiracy theorists I linked to in my signature?Your parody is ridiculous and stupid.
Hm, re my weak top part C crushes strong, intact bottom part A Challenge - the 911 Challenge - you do not win it by saying you know people seeing C crushing A or that your sister's husband was cleaning up after C crushing A.It's not at all serious because you know as well as everyone else it's unwinnable. I know people who were there and saw the towers come down exactly as it was seen on TV. My brother-in-law is a firefighter in NJ and spent a lot of time at ground zero.
Hm, personally I think my five Challenges (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) are serious and fun. But plenty persons are not able to understand it. Poor, shitty people!
However, you won't except any eye witness accounts, you will contend that every photo and video is fake so short of bringing down another skyscraper there is not one single piece of evidence you would ever consider credible and that is why it is unwinnable.
So, why even make the challenge?
Mike
No, you just have to read the rules - http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm .That’s already been done. Several engineering firms and universities ran finite element modeling proving how the collapse happened. You can download them yourself, including all the input data.
They are not difficult!
Just take any structure A+C you have! Disconnect top C of this structure and drop it on bottom A of the structure!
If C crushes A I will pay you €1M!
Are you kidding? He won't even accept videos like this showing the same type of collapse that has actually been patented in Europe. The patent documentation, it isn't necessary to pre-weaken the supporting structure,But of course that is ridiculous. You really have to study his very popular website if you want to win the challenge. Only stupid people or those suffering from cognitive dissonance believe anyone but him.
But it's not nearly as stupid as using yellow text. ::)Heiwa, what do you think about my parody of the conspiracy theorists I linked to in my signature?Your parody is ridiculous and stupid.
Hm, re my weak top part C crushes strong, intact bottom part A Challenge - the 911 Challenge - you do not win it by saying you know people seeing C crushing A or that your sister's husband was cleaning up after C crushing A.
Just take any structure A+C you have! Disconnect top C of this structure and drop it on bottom A of the structure!
If C crushes A I will pay you €1M!
That video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
I do understand. I said as much a few posts up. It was also why the "Wait for it...." :DThat video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
You don't seem to understand. The Challenge cannot be won. This conclusion has been reached a priori. Any evidence to the contrary is a stupid joke and onlytwerpstwirps believe it.
Sounds good. ;DI do understand. I said as much a few posts up. It was also why the "Wait for it...." :DThat video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
You don't seem to understand. The Challenge cannot be won. This conclusion has been reached a priori. Any evidence to the contrary is a stupid joke and onlytwerpstwirps believe it.
I called him out on his analysis skills. We'll see what he has to say about that.
Mike
That video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
All the wires did was to pull out the supporting walls for the upper floors. The patent mentioned towards the end of the video says that the lower floors don't need to be weakened.That video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
Which is exactly what they did, drop the top without weakening the bottom.That video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.That video seems to meed all of Heiwa's criteria as he outlined it a couple of posts above.
Wait for it....
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
Classic Heiwa reply in 5....4...3....2.....1....ROTFLMAO
He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
I am curious how he will wiggle himself out of this one...Most likely a combination of a denial without reason, ignoring and hoping people forget about it, and insults. That's all he's got.
Meh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
We just badger the shit out of him until he at least admits it's possible. Any time he posts anywhere we follow right behind him. :DMeh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
Hard to pay when his ego won't ever let him admit he's wrong. Of course there is the fact that he has been unable to prove he has even a tenth of the money for years now.Meh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
Nah. His "rules" clearly state that the challenges are unwinnable, so winning a challenge is against his rules.We just badger the shit out of him until he at least admits it's possible. Any time he posts anywhere we follow right behind him. :DMeh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
No much of a challenge then. ;DNah. His "rules" clearly state that the challenges are unwinnable, so winning a challenge is against his rules.We just badger the shit out of him until he at least admits it's possible. Any time he posts anywhere we follow right behind him. :DMeh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
No much of a challenge then. ;DNah. His "rules" clearly state that the challenges are unwinnable, so winning a challenge is against his rules.We just badger the shit out of him until he at least admits it's possible. Any time he posts anywhere we follow right behind him. :DMeh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?No much of a challenge then. ;DNah. His "rules" clearly state that the challenges are unwinnable, so winning a challenge is against his rules.We just badger the shit out of him until he at least admits it's possible. Any time he posts anywhere we follow right behind him. :DMeh. I provide that same video months ago and he still hasn't paid, so I'm not going to hold my breath.After thinking about it, markjo should get the money since he provided the evidence in this thread. Heiwa owes markjo €1,000,000.00.But to whom? And does he have the bank details?He's been here today and even edited his previous post. He's afraid of commenting because he knows he lost.
Mike
Nah, I think he's just gone to his bank to send the millions.
Drinks are on markjo. :D
Mike
Well, my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm - are still open and 1 000's of people have studied them and ... failed.
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Guess what. That makes you are wrong.
So you're going to fall back on the conspiracy theory. They faked the video and falsified the patent application. All of which you have absolutely no proof of.There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Guess what. That makes you are wrong.
No. To bring down the structure as shown in the video the bottom of the structure was weakened ... and the simplest way would then have been just to knock away the bottom structure completely, etc, etc.
The wires attached to the top to pull the top down are just ridiculous. You cannot pull down a top of a structure to crush the bottom by applying a force, via wires, to the top. I am sorry but you have been fooled.
So you're going to fall back on the conspiracy theory. They faked the video and falsified the patent application. All of which you have absolutely no proof of.There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Guess what. That makes you are wrong.
No. To bring down the structure as shown in the video the bottom of the structure was weakened ... and the simplest way would then have been just to knock away the bottom structure completely, etc, etc.
The wires attached to the top to pull the top down are just ridiculous. You cannot pull down a top of a structure to crush the bottom by applying a force, via wires, to the top. I am sorry but you have been fooled.
That's the kind of criticalthinkingnon-thinking I've come to expect from you. You'll just make shit up rather than admit you're wrong.
It's a French company so you could just call and talk to them...but we all know you won't.
Mike
You don't have any clue what you just did do you? Dude, you are a law suit away from the poor house.So you're going to fall back on the conspiracy theory. They faked the video and falsified the patent application. All of which you have absolutely no proof of.There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Guess what. That makes you are wrong.
No. To bring down the structure as shown in the video the bottom of the structure was weakened ... and the simplest way would then have been just to knock away the bottom structure completely, etc, etc.
The wires attached to the top to pull the top down are just ridiculous. You cannot pull down a top of a structure to crush the bottom by applying a force, via wires, to the top. I am sorry but you have been fooled.
That's the kind of criticalthinkingnon-thinking I've come to expect from you. You'll just make shit up rather than admit you're wrong.
It's a French company so you could just call and talk to them...but we all know you won't.
Mike
Conspiracy theory? No, it is not my style. See http://heiwaco.com . No, I just examine various things and events like a-bombs 1945, human space travel 1969, accidents at sea all the time, Arabs flying planes 2001 and suggest more realistic explanations. I find it satisfying and fun.
Re destroying structures/building - do you really believe that connecting wires to the weak top of the structure/building and applying pulling forces via winches on the ground to the top, that the strong bottom structure will fail ... and the whole structure collapse?
Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
I think the French 'idea' is just a joke. And that stupid people believe in it.
You've been proven wrong and you know exactly which video he is referring to.
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
You don't have any clue what you just did do you? Dude, you are a law suit away from the poor house.So you're going to fall back on the conspiracy theory. They faked the video and falsified the patent application. All of which you have absolutely no proof of.There is a video showing it works and a legally issued European patent.You really don’t read people’s posts do you?
So, you refuse to accept the patent in your own country for bringing down a building that exactly matches your challenge. Is that what you're saying?
Let's see if you have the balls to explain why that patent and demonstration don't meet the challenge.
Mike
I don't know any French or other patent you refer to.
On the other hand I recommend you study my peer reviewed paper why weak tops C of structures cannot crush the instact bottom A of same structure, when you drop C on A.
The link is http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Do you really think I am wrong?
I on the other hand EMI was pretty uncivilized to censor my presentation. What do you think, Einstein?
Below is the video and link to the European patent by a French company.That's exactly what that video shows. The wires released the final section of the top floors which then dropped through the lower floors.
Well, applying wires from the ground to apply force on the top has nothing to do with my http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Still open. €1M to win!
You must drop the top! While note weaking the bottom.
The whole point of the video was proof of concept to could bring down the building without having to do the additional work to weaken the lower floors and without explosives.
It is even patented.
https://data.epo.org/publication-server/getpdf.jsp?pn=1082505&ki=B1&cc=EP
The patent it states:
"Moreover, this method is also safe for operators because it is not necessary to weaken the structure of the building."
This is exactly the proof you requested. A patented method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to weaken the structure.
AAMOF, this took place not far from you. You can no longer say it isn't possible and you should be able to verify the procedure and the patent. You now owe someone €1M...although, I'm not sure who.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Guess what. That makes you are wrong.
No. To bring down the structure as shown in the video the bottom of the structure was weakened ... and the simplest way would then have been just to knock away the bottom structure completely, etc, etc.
The wires attached to the top to pull the top down are just ridiculous. You cannot pull down a top of a structure to crush the bottom by applying a force, via wires, to the top. I am sorry but you have been fooled.
That's the kind of criticalthinkingnon-thinking I've come to expect from you. You'll just make shit up rather than admit you're wrong.
It's a French company so you could just call and talk to them...but we all know you won't.
Mike
Conspiracy theory? No, it is not my style. See http://heiwaco.com . No, I just examine various things and events like a-bombs 1945, human space travel 1969, accidents at sea all the time, Arabs flying planes 2001 and suggest more realistic explanations. I find it satisfying and fun.
Re destroying structures/building - do you really believe that connecting wires to the weak top of the structure/building and applying pulling forces via winches on the ground to the top, that the strong bottom structure will fail ... and the whole structure collapse?
Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
I think the French 'idea' is just a joke. And that stupid people believe in it.
You had better be very, very careful what you say. It's one thing to lie in support your own bat shit crazy conspiracy theories. It's a whole other thing to lie about a local company without any evidence. Damaging a companies reputation by accusing them of illegally falsifying their patent application and test data could land you in court. You could lose your €1,000,000.00 on that alone.
BTW, any theory that relies on government cover ups and collusion between governments (e.g. your a-bomb and moon landing theories) is by definition a conspiracy theory. You just don't have the balls to admit it.
Mike
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Have spoken with the good folks at BCT Demolition? I'm sure that they'd love to have a look at your "scientific paper" and discuss in great detail why the technique that they publicly demonstrated shouldn't work. However, I can't vouch for their coffee.
http://www.bct-demolition.com/contact.html
I need attention
But the method doesn't work. It is not illegal to patent things that do not work.
What do you think about my scientific paper about it?
Have spoken with the good folks at BCT Demolition? I'm sure that they'd love to have a look at your "scientific paper" and discuss in great detail why the technique that they publicly demonstrated shouldn't work. However, I can't vouch for their coffee.
http://www.bct-demolition.com/contact.html
Who did you speak to? In what language! Anyway, just tell her/him that I pay anyone €1M demonstrating a top down structural collapse à la 911 at NY.
Majko? Why do you waste your time with all your stupid comments here? Are you handicapped and cannot use your legs and brain? Just chained to your PC in bed?
Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.There are 10 French astronauts who would tell you that you're wrong.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.There are 10 French astronauts who would tell you that you're wrong.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality#European_Space_Agency_members
I feel sorry for them.
Liar. You show nothing you just make baseless claims and whore out your worthless website. You have utterly failed here and you know it. You are nothing more than a lying coward who cannot show any evidence on this forum to support your claims. Just more failure by a pathetic human being.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip, (2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space, (3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry and (4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing. Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.Liar. You show nothing you just make baseless claims and whore out your worthless website. You have utterly failed here and you know it. You are nothing more than a lying coward who cannot show any evidence on this forum to support your claims. Just more failure by a pathetic human being.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
I've already read your website and there is nothing there but conclusions drawn on your interpretation of facts. Not one shred of evidence of anything.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
You say the ISS is fake. A joint venture between Russia, USA, and the European Space Agency would be part of that conspiracy. No proof such a conspiracy exists.
You say people are paid $10,000.00/month to lie about manned space flight. That’s a huge conspiracy. You say you explain this but, once again, you have no proof, just assumption.
Your entire moon hoax website relies on the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind. Of course, you don’t want to discuss it because you want to ignore the fact that you’re a conspiracy theorist. Well here’s the inconvenient truth. A conspiracy on this scale is IMPOSSIBLE. That is itself PROOF that you are wrong.
What I find interesting is your website lays out a long list of conspiracies. All of which are required to make your theory work. How can you then say it not a conspiracy website?
Mike
No. I looked. You do not show that. You show that you do not understand it and then claim that it is impossible, ignoring the possibility that there are people smarter than you that have figured it out.Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip, (2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space, (3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry and (4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing. Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.Liar. You show nothing you just make baseless claims and whore out your worthless website. You have utterly failed here and you know it. You are nothing more than a lying coward who cannot show any evidence on this forum to support your claims. Just more failure by a pathetic human being.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
PS - I almost forgot (5) - the lack of sanitary facilities!
It is disingenuous of you to say that all these countries colluding together and paying off people to lie isn’t a conspiracy. Countries colluding together to perpetuate a lie is literally the definition of a conspiracy. A country paying off people to lie about manned space flight is literally the definition of a conspiracy. BTW, both of these are also the legal definition of a conspiracy.
You say the ISS is fake. A joint venture between Russia, USA, and the European Space Agency would be part of that conspiracy. No proof such a conspiracy exists.
You say people are paid $10,000.00/month to lie about manned space flight. That’s a huge conspiracy. You say you explain this but, once again, you have no proof, just assumption.
Your entire moon hoax website relies on the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind. Of course, you don’t want to discuss it because you want to ignore the fact that you’re a conspiracy theorist. Well here’s the inconvenient truth. A conspiracy on this scale is IMPOSSIBLE. That is itself PROOF that you are wrong.
What I find interesting is your website lays out a long list of conspiracies. All of which are required to make your theory work. How can you then say it not a conspiracy website?
Mike
Yes - I say the ISS is fake. It is a joke. But a conspiracy? Do something secretly that is wrong? No. Is it wrong to fake the ISS? No, it is criminal.
Like manned space travel. It is not possible. But a conspiracy? Not really. JFK ordered it and it is illegal to leak or tell the truth about about it.
So my website - http://heiwaco.com - is about safety at sea and some other things. I simply interpret things differently. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. If people want to fake humans in space, be my guest. It just gives me a good laugh.
And it seems you cannot find anything wrong with my findings.
Do you really believe that waves can knock off a bow visor in a storm and nobody hears and feels it? My old university Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, believes it. If they don't believe it, they will have big problems. I really feel sorry for them.
Not to mention your website is contradictory. You state that only simple satellites can be launched into orbit. However, many of the current satellites out weight the original Mercury capsules. Yet they get launched into orbit. Then, many of these satellites move into geostationary orbit and perform station keeping staying there for decades. Heck the current DIRECTV satellites weight 4-5 times what the Mercury capsule weighed.
You say the ISS is fake. A joint venture between Russia, USA, and the European Space Agency would be part of that conspiracy. No proof such a conspiracy exists.
You say people are paid $10,000.00/month to lie about manned space flight. That’s a huge conspiracy. You say you explain this but, once again, you have no proof, just assumption.
Your entire moon hoax website relies on the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind. Of course, you don’t want to discuss it because you want to ignore the fact that you’re a conspiracy theorist. Well here’s the inconvenient truth. A conspiracy on this scale is IMPOSSIBLE. That is itself PROOF that you are wrong.
What I find interesting is your website lays out a long list of conspiracies. All of which are required to make your theory work. How can you then say it not a conspiracy website?
Mike
Yes - I say the ISS is fake. It is a joke. But a conspiracy? Do something secretly that is wrong? No. Is it wrong to fake the ISS? No, it is criminal.
Like manned space travel. It is not possible. But a conspiracy? Not really. JFK ordered it and it is illegal to leak or tell the truth about about it.
So my website - http://heiwaco.com - is about safety at sea and some other things. I simply interpret things differently. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. If people want to fake humans in space, be my guest. It just gives me a good laugh.
And it seems you cannot find anything wrong with my findings.
Do you really believe that waves can knock off a bow visor in a storm and nobody hears and feels it? My old university Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, believes it. If they don't believe it, they will have big problems. I really feel sorry for them.
Yes - I say the ISS is fake. It is a joke. But a conspiracy? Do something secretly that is wrong? No. Is it wrong to fake the ISS? No, it is criminal.
Like manned space travel. It is not possible. But a conspiracy? Not really.
translation: I, Heiwa, don't understand any of it so I declared it must not work. Have you seen my website?Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip, (2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space, (3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry and (4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing. Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.Liar. You show nothing you just make baseless claims and whore out your worthless website. You have utterly failed here and you know it. You are nothing more than a lying coward who cannot show any evidence on this forum to support your claims. Just more failure by a pathetic human being.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
PS - I almost forgot (5) - the lack of sanitary facilities!
??? Why would you feel sorry for them? They did what you claim is impossible. That sounds like something to be proud of.Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.There are 10 French astronauts who would tell you that you're wrong.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_travelers_by_nationality#European_Space_Agency_members
I know! Lousy actors but well paid. I feel sorry for them.
Liar. You only claim those things with no evidence. You have been shown how all of that works but you are simply too stupid to grasp it and too delusional to accept you are wrong. You are a failure.Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip, (2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space, (3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry and (4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing. Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.Liar. You show nothing you just make baseless claims and whore out your worthless website. You have utterly failed here and you know it. You are nothing more than a lying coward who cannot show any evidence on this forum to support your claims. Just more failure by a pathetic human being.Please actually read the whole post before responding.
Here is the one thing your website doesn’t address but needs to. AAMOF, without explaining this your entire moon hoax theory completely falls apart.
There are currently 12 countries and the European Space Agency with over 2200 satellites in orbit. Some even belong to private companies like DIRECTV, Echostar, & Sirius/XM, etc. Not to mention all the data, pictures, and video. The following is a short list of missions other than satellites:
6 moon landings
135 shuttle flights
MIR
Skylab
Apollo-Soyuz
The Japanese SELENE lunar orbiter
Hundreds of manned & unmanned missions to the ISS
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and dozens more beyond the moon
To fake all of this and have it remains a secret to this day requires tens of thousands of people and over two dozen countries to keep the secret. People can’t keep secrets. To think that literally thousands of flights into space can be faked and nobody know about it is just plain silly. Especially in the day and age. Anyone sitting on this secret knows that with just a little planning they could release all that information and there isn’t squat any nation or agency can do to stop it. How long has Assange and Snowden eluded capture and how much information did they release? And yet, with nearly three dozen countries involved and over the six decades of space travel nobody has even hinted there is a global conspiracy let along leaked any real documents or any whistle blowers talking.
That very fact that nobody has leaked the conspiracy is itself proof that we went to the moon. Unless you can explain how is possible for what would probably the largest conspiracy in the history of mankind to remain a secret for 60 years the rest of your moon hoax website is meaningless.
Mike
Well, just study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I show that no human has ever been in space and then show I am wrong and ... I pay you €1M.
Don't talk about conspiracy. Just show I am wrong!
PS - I almost forgot (5) - the lack of sanitary facilities!
Yes - I say the ISS is fake. It is a joke. But a conspiracy? Do something secretly that is wrong? No.The ISS is quite public. You know, the opposite of secret. ::)
Is it wrong to fake the ISS? No, it is criminal.So you're saying that criminal actions aren't wrong? ???
Like manned space travel. It is not possible. But a conspiracy? Not really.If it isn't possible, then of course faking it requires a conspiracy. That's what conspiracies are.
Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip,It really doesn't take that much more fuel to go to the moon than it does to go to geostationary orbit.
(2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space,So then how can satellites transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit?
(3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry andWhy not? ???
(4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing.You can if you're clever enough to use atmospheric drag just right.
Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise. It would be very foolish to ignore it all.
PS - I almost forgot (5) - the lack of sanitary facilities!Not as difficult a problem as you might think.
Have a look again! I show that (1) you are too heavy to lift off with all the fuel required for the Moon trip,It really doesn't take that much more fuel to go to the moon than it does to go to geostationary orbit.(2) you cannot establish your trajectory leaving any orbit, so you will get lost in space,So then how can satellites transfer from LEO to geostationary orbit?(3) you cannot find the location to start the re-entry andWhy not? ???(4) you cannot brake/slow down for landing.You can if you're clever enough to use atmospheric drag just right.Actually any space trip is just one way from take-off with no return anywhere. Only twerps believe otherwise.There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that suggests otherwise. It would be very foolish to ignore it all.PS - I almost forgot (5) - the lack of sanitary facilities!Not as difficult a problem as you might think.
ROTFL - Can't you do better than that, you twerp?Can't you do better than name calling? ::)
ROTFL - Can't you do better than that, you twerp?Can't you do better than name calling? ::)
That's still no reason for a self proclaimed nice guy to call people not so nice names.ROTFL - Can't you do better than that, you twerp?Can't you do better than name calling? ::)
A twerp is a twerp, as I understand it.
Why do you always ask stupid, OT questions?The questions seem OT because you keep changing the subject. And the questions are stupid only because you can't answer them.
That's still no reason for a self proclaimed nice guy to call people not so nice names.ROTFL - Can't you do better than that, you twerp?Can't you do better than name calling? ::)
A twerp is a twerp, as I understand it.Why do you always ask stupid, OT questions?The questions seem OT because you keep changing the subject. And the questions are stupid only because you can't answer them.
BTW, the topic is your lack of understanding of things. Asking you to explain those things that you claim to understand but evidently don't isn't off topic.
Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
"It is just a very big silver balloon!"
"A silver balloon - satellite - in the sky!"
"The solar panels work only when the sun is shining but must be adjusted all the time, as the IFS is flying so fast up in space ... just like a simple silver balloon."
You say, several times, that the ISS is a big balloon. What evidence do you have for that and how do you move a balloon at those velocities without it coming apart?
You also say people are paid a huge sum each month to keep quiet. You actually use the value of $10,000.00/month. Where does that value come from and what evidence do you have because none is presented on your website?
Mike
So you’re taking someone’s word that they are paid €9000/month. Okay, we’ve established you have no proof for the claim that they’re paid to lie.Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
"It is just a very big silver balloon!"
"A silver balloon - satellite - in the sky!"
"The solar panels work only when the sun is shining but must be adjusted all the time, as the IFS is flying so fast up in space ... just like a simple silver balloon."
You say, several times, that the ISS is a big balloon. What evidence do you have for that and how do you move a balloon at those velocities without it coming apart?
You also say people are paid a huge sum each month to keep quiet. You actually use the value of $10,000.00/month. Where does that value come from and what evidence do you have because none is presented on your website?
Mike
Thanks for asking. The ISS is a balloon shaped, silver colored satellite orbiting Earth in space at say 400 km altitude and 7.6 km/s speed.
All forces applied on it in orbit are in equilibrium and balance, so it will not be ripped apart. It is basic orbital dynamics.
You can see it for yourself, when it passes above you. I provide details for watching it at my website.
Re fake astronuts and their salaries - just contact them yourself and ask. Some teach at universities, e.g. Stockholm, Sweden. Call them! I provide their full styles at my website. A journalist friend of mine told me that an EXA ex-astronut is paid €9000/month for life just to lie about it. I trust him.
What about you? Why do you make stupid comments here about me? Do some real research yourself - like me!
So you’re taking someone’s word that they are paid €9000/month. Okay, we’ve established you have no proof for the claim that they’re paid to lie.Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
"It is just a very big silver balloon!"
"A silver balloon - satellite - in the sky!"
"The solar panels work only when the sun is shining but must be adjusted all the time, as the IFS is flying so fast up in space ... just like a simple silver balloon."
You say, several times, that the ISS is a big balloon. What evidence do you have for that and how do you move a balloon at those velocities without it coming apart?
You also say people are paid a huge sum each month to keep quiet. You actually use the value of $10,000.00/month. Where does that value come from and what evidence do you have because none is presented on your website?
Mike
Thanks for asking. The ISS is a balloon shaped, silver colored satellite orbiting Earth in space at say 400 km altitude and 7.6 km/s speed.
All forces applied on it in orbit are in equilibrium and balance, so it will not be ripped apart. It is basic orbital dynamics.
You can see it for yourself, when it passes above you. I provide details for watching it at my website.
Re fake astronuts and their salaries - just contact them yourself and ask. Some teach at universities, e.g. Stockholm, Sweden. Call them! I provide their full styles at my website. A journalist friend of mine told me that an EXA ex-astronut is paid €9000/month for life just to lie about it. I trust him.
What about you? Why do you make stupid comments here about me? Do some real research yourself - like me!
I asked you what you have to support the balloon theory. You can’t support that claim either.
So, we’ve established that both claims are based on conjecture and hearsay and as such are unsupportable.
Could you please explain to me the following inconsistencies between you’re a-bomb and moon hoax websites.
On your a-bomb website you claim that radiation is harmless.
"Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants"
However, on your moon hoax website you claim that cosmic radiation is nasty stuff.
"And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!"
Why the inconsistencies? Is radiation harmful or harmless?
Dr. Van Allen doesn't think it's an issue so why do you?
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Mike
You don’t provide any evidence for the bribes and balloons which is why I asked.So you’re taking someone’s word that they are paid €9000/month. Okay, we’ve established you have no proof for the claim that they’re paid to lie.Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
"It is just a very big silver balloon!"
"A silver balloon - satellite - in the sky!"
"The solar panels work only when the sun is shining but must be adjusted all the time, as the IFS is flying so fast up in space ... just like a simple silver balloon."
You say, several times, that the ISS is a big balloon. What evidence do you have for that and how do you move a balloon at those velocities without it coming apart?
You also say people are paid a huge sum each month to keep quiet. You actually use the value of $10,000.00/month. Where does that value come from and what evidence do you have because none is presented on your website?
Mike
Thanks for asking. The ISS is a balloon shaped, silver colored satellite orbiting Earth in space at say 400 km altitude and 7.6 km/s speed.
All forces applied on it in orbit are in equilibrium and balance, so it will not be ripped apart. It is basic orbital dynamics.
You can see it for yourself, when it passes above you. I provide details for watching it at my website.
Re fake astronuts and their salaries - just contact them yourself and ask. Some teach at universities, e.g. Stockholm, Sweden. Call them! I provide their full styles at my website. A journalist friend of mine told me that an EXA ex-astronut is paid €9000/month for life just to lie about it. I trust him.
What about you? Why do you make stupid comments here about me? Do some real research yourself - like me!
I asked you what you have to support the balloon theory. You can’t support that claim either.
So, we’ve established that both claims are based on conjecture and hearsay and as such are unsupportable.
Could you please explain to me the following inconsistencies between you’re a-bomb and moon hoax websites.
On your a-bomb website you claim that radiation is harmless.
"Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants"
However, on your moon hoax website you claim that cosmic radiation is nasty stuff.
"And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!"
Why the inconsistencies? Is radiation harmful or harmless?
Dr. Van Allen doesn't think it's an issue so why do you?
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Mike
All my evidences of what I say are at my web site. Just copy paste what you think is wrong.
Watch the ISS satellite yourself. Then ask yourself how to send another spacecraft to dock with it, exchange crews, etc, and then disconnect from it, start descending at high speed trying to find location B at 120 000 m altitude, where you start to dip into the atmosphere to re-enter, brake a lot to land ... hole in one - in Kazakhstan. It is a joke every time.
So Micro ... you are a loser. Why do you continue making stupid posts?
Translation: I don't understand it so nobody else can understand it either! Maybe I'll throw around some insults again and they won't notice I don't understand a thing I'm talking about!So you’re taking someone’s word that they are paid €9000/month. Okay, we’ve established you have no proof for the claim that they’re paid to lie.Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.
"It is just a very big silver balloon!"
"A silver balloon - satellite - in the sky!"
"The solar panels work only when the sun is shining but must be adjusted all the time, as the IFS is flying so fast up in space ... just like a simple silver balloon."
You say, several times, that the ISS is a big balloon. What evidence do you have for that and how do you move a balloon at those velocities without it coming apart?
You also say people are paid a huge sum each month to keep quiet. You actually use the value of $10,000.00/month. Where does that value come from and what evidence do you have because none is presented on your website?
Mike
Thanks for asking. The ISS is a balloon shaped, silver colored satellite orbiting Earth in space at say 400 km altitude and 7.6 km/s speed.
All forces applied on it in orbit are in equilibrium and balance, so it will not be ripped apart. It is basic orbital dynamics.
You can see it for yourself, when it passes above you. I provide details for watching it at my website.
Re fake astronuts and their salaries - just contact them yourself and ask. Some teach at universities, e.g. Stockholm, Sweden. Call them! I provide their full styles at my website. A journalist friend of mine told me that an EXA ex-astronut is paid €9000/month for life just to lie about it. I trust him.
What about you? Why do you make stupid comments here about me? Do some real research yourself - like me!
I asked you what you have to support the balloon theory. You can’t support that claim either.
So, we’ve established that both claims are based on conjecture and hearsay and as such are unsupportable.
Could you please explain to me the following inconsistencies between you’re a-bomb and moon hoax websites.
On your a-bomb website you claim that radiation is harmless.
"Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants"
However, on your moon hoax website you claim that cosmic radiation is nasty stuff.
"And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!"
Why the inconsistencies? Is radiation harmful or harmless?
Dr. Van Allen doesn't think it's an issue so why do you?
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Mike
All my evidences of what I say are at my web site. Just copy paste what you think is wrong.
Watch the ISS satellite yourself. Then ask yourself how to send another spacecraft to dock with it, exchange crews, etc, and then disconnect from it, start descending at high speed trying to find location B at 120 000 m altitude, where you start to dip into the atmosphere to re-enter, brake a lot to land ... hole in one - in Kazakhstan. It is a joke every time.
So Micro ... you are a loser. Why do you continue making stupid posts?
But you're the one claiming to know all about orbital mechanics, so why can't you explain a simple orbital transfer?Hm, I explain my findings at my web site. If you find anything wrong, just copy/paste and I will correct it.Why not just answer my questions here instead?
For example, why won't you explain how Arinaespace can transfer a heavy satellite from low earth orbit to geostationary orbit?
My web site is about safety at sea and some other matters. I suggest you contact Arianespace how it puts their satellites into orbits.
As far as I am concerned, all space trips are one-way only, i.e. starting with a lift-off from Earth ending in a high speed orbit of some kind. There is no way to stop or to fly back, re-enter and land. That's why no humans have ever been in space and the ISS and the Shuttle are 100% fake, etc, etc. I explain more at my web site. Just copy/paste, what you consider wrong, and we can discuss. The fake space biz is big. Plenty stupid people are paid to keep it going since the 1950's. It appears to be boring and no fun at all.I don't need to go to your web site to find things that are wrong, you just listed a few right in this post.
I’ve seen the ISS go overhead many times. Mostly through binoculars but I’ve tried to get a picture with my telescope. However, none of what you’ve just posted has anything to do with proving the ISS is a balloon. So we’re back to conjecture and hearsay. If there is anything other than conjecture and hearsay for the bribes and balloons on your website, please do me a favor and point it out. Thanks.
So, you don’t want to answer the questions about radiation?
Mike
I have been polite and have been using civil language. I’m not the one calling other people loser, twerp, and stupid. Maybe you should talk to that person about being civil.
I’ve seen the ISS go overhead many times. Mostly through binoculars but I’ve tried to get a picture with my telescope. However, none of what you’ve just posted has anything to do with proving the ISS is a balloon. So we’re back to conjecture and hearsay. If there is anything other than conjecture and hearsay for the bribes and balloons on your website, please do me a favor and point it out. Thanks.
So, you don’t want to answer the questions about radiation?
Mike
Good that you, like me, have watched the ISS flying past like a very bright spot in the sky at/after sunset lit up by the Sun - speed >7 kms/s. I have also taken photos of it and tried to observe it in a telescope. To me it looks like a silver balloon. Feel free to question my observations. But try to be polite using civil language.
Imagine being in it, jumping into a little capsule that undocks from the ISS and then drops down into the atmosphere, finds location B at 120 km altitude, re-enters and lands safely. According my calculations the capsule simply burns up! It is not possible to return from a satellite. It is always a one-way trip.
Re radiation - I explain it at my web site - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Yes, inside a nuclear power plant combustion chamber, where fission takes place, radiation is strong. But outside it is very weak and doesn't harm anything.
It is very easy to scare people with radiation.
The poor people that survivied Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 were told that they would die within a year from radiation and that the towns could not be lived in for 500 years. We know it was propaganda.
The people at Fukushima were also told that they would soon die from radiation ... and ... that it was contagious (!), so they should not mix with normal people, not affected by radiation. But now people have been ordered to return back to Fukushima and forget the whole thing. It is a scandal, but the Japanese are very polite and just bow and shut up.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
So you don't believe the materials won't protect against the heat of reentry? Your website doesn't explain why our what is wrong with the material used.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
So you don't believe the materials won't protect against the heat of reentry? Your website doesn't explain why our what is wrong with the material used.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
You still haven’t explained the inconstancies between the moon and a-bomb websites on the assessment of radiation...or addressed Dr. Van Allen’s comment.
Mike
Okay. I will post my question again.So you don't believe the materials won't protect against the heat of reentry? Your website doesn't explain why our what is wrong with the material used.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
You still haven’t explained the inconstancies between the moon and a-bomb websites on the assessment of radiation...or addressed Dr. Van Allen’s comment.
Mike
Hm, according my understanding any material used to enable re-entry will simply melt, catch fire and be vaporized.
What inconstancies between my moon and a-bomb websites on the assessment of radiation are you talking about?
A-bombs do not work at all so there is no radiation at all to assess.
Radiation on the Moon? It seems it is very hot on the Moon, when the Sun heats it up and very cold and frosty (and dark) on the other side. This is my assessment and understanding of radiation on the Moon. NASA has of course suggested it is possible to grow strawberries on the Moon but I have informed them the climate (radiation) is not suitable. My Moon-travel web site is pretty funny.
Please elaborate as to why the materials used as heat shields will melt. Your website does not explain why these materials are inadequate for the heat of reentry. The tests and demonstrations I've seen show they withstand heat that would melt steel.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
Okay. I will post my question again.So you don't believe the materials won't protect against the heat of reentry? Your website doesn't explain why our what is wrong with the material used.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
You still haven’t explained the inconstancies between the moon and a-bomb websites on the assessment of radiation...or addressed Dr. Van Allen’s comment.
Mike
Hm, according my understanding any material used to enable re-entry will simply melt, catch fire and be vaporized.
What inconstancies between my moon and a-bomb websites on the assessment of radiation are you talking about?
A-bombs do not work at all so there is no radiation at all to assess.
Radiation on the Moon? It seems it is very hot on the Moon, when the Sun heats it up and very cold and frosty (and dark) on the other side. This is my assessment and understanding of radiation on the Moon. NASA has of course suggested it is possible to grow strawberries on the Moon but I have informed them the climate (radiation) is not suitable. My Moon-travel web site is pretty funny.
On your a-bomb website you claim that radiation is harmless.
"Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants"
However, on your moon hoax website you claim that cosmic radiation is nasty stuff.
"And then there is the cosmic radiation! Nasty stuff!"
Why the inconsistencies? Is radiation nasty stuff or is it harmless?
Dr. Van Allen doesn't think it's an issue so why do you?
"The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
Please elaborate as to why the materials used as heat shields will melt. Your website does not explain why these materials are inadequate for the heat of reentry. The tests and demonstrations I've seen show they withstand heat that would melt steel.
So you don’t believe it’s possible to use the proper materials to dissipate heat? As an engineer, surely you must be familiar with the specific heat capacities of certain ceramics. These materials effectively insulate kilns & furnaces against heat that melt steel. You don’t think this kind of material can be engineered to protect against the heat of re-entry?
Mike
I describe re-entry, heat shields and various materials used to absorb the heat generated at my web site. The conclusion is that no spacecraft can survive re-entry. They will all be destroyed.
When I was in college we blasted a block of the same material as the used as a heat shield on the shuttle (reinforced carbon–carbon) with a blow torch and we got it to over 2000°F with no damage. You website doesn't discuss at what temperatures these heat shields are no longer effective nor does your website say what you calculate the actual temperature of reentry is.
Mike
You do realise that the point of an ablative heat shield is that it is actually destroyed right?
No, of course you don't.
I am worried about NASA, though, suggesting that you can grow strawberries on the Moon. ESA has also suggested sallad will grow on the Moon. It sounds crazy to me. What do you think?
You do realise that the point of an ablative heat shield is that it is actually destroyed right?
No, of course you don't.
I explain it at my web site. It is basic. The heat shield melts ... and cannot brake anything.
You do realise that the point of an ablative heat shield is that it is actually destroyed right?
No, of course you don't.
I explain it at my web site. It is basic. The heat shield melts ... and cannot brake anything.
But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?
Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Where did you come up with 20,000° C? That’s nearly an order of magnitude higher it really is. Can I see your calculations for that because that’s got to be wrong? ThePlease elaborate as to why the materials used as heat shields will melt. Your website does not explain why these materials are inadequate for the heat of reentry. The tests and demonstrations I've seen show they withstand heat that would melt steel.
When I was in college we blasted a block of the same material as the used as a heat shield on the shuttle (reinforced carbon–carbon) with a blow torch and we got it to over 2000°F with no damage. You website doesn't discuss at what temperatures these heat shields are no longer effective nor does your website say what you calculate the actual temperature of reentry is.
Mike
But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.
Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.
You really must read my complete web page and then copy/paste what you do not understand. I therefore break down my web pages in numbered chapters and sections. My web site is pretty big - 187 MB - and has taken years to build up. But all of it should be correct. Of course links to other sources, pictures and videos suddenly do not work - their authors remove them - and that is how the Internet works.
Example - Swedish government paid SEK millions to explain the sinking of M/S Estonia 1994. All the scientific papers were originally available on the Internet. Then I started to link to them pointing out errors. And POUFF - the papers disappeared.
And you have the gall to tell me I have to be polite and civil. Apparently, you don't believe the same applies to you?But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Why do you always ask stupid questions, twerp? The answers are at my web site. Just find the answers yourself.
I'm sorry but I looked and could find no reference to "bow shock waves" on your space travel page. Would you please provide the relevant citation?But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Why do you always ask stupid questions, twerp? The answers are at my web site. Just find the answers yourself.
See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#213 !I'm sorry but I looked and could find no reference to "bow shock waves" on your space travel page. Would you please provide the relevant citation?But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Why do you always ask stupid questions, twerp? The answers are at my web site. Just find the answers yourself.
I'm sorry, but I still can't see any reference to a detached bow shock wave or the associated boundary layer that forms.See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#213 !I'm sorry but I looked and could find no reference to "bow shock waves" on your space travel page. Would you please provide the relevant citation?But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Why do you always ask stupid questions, twerp? The answers are at my web site. Just find the answers yourself.
Just read the whole chapter 2.13 - Braking using a heat shield. I cannot copy/paste all here, but one part is:
"The potential and kinetic energy of a 5 486 kg Apollo module at 100 000 m altitude and 11 200 m/s velocity is 5 486*(100 000*9.8 + (11 200)²/2) = 349 458 200 kJ.
The potential and kinetic energy of the same 5 486 kg Apollo module at say 15 000 m altitude and 350 m/s velocity is 5 486*(15.000*9.8 + (350)²/2) = 1 142 560 kJ.
The difference 348 315 640 kJ has been absorbed one way or another by the heat shield AVCOAT.
If such AVCOAT can absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg before getting vaporized, it seems you need 832 kg of AVCOAT in the Apollo heat shield. To be on the safe side, you need say 2 400 kg, but then 44% of the module is AVCOAT and there is no space for any human heroes.
Question is - how can anything absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg heat up in thin thermo-mesosphere/space?
It seems the specific heat of AVCOAT plastic is 1.67 kJ/kgK. Say that the AVCOAT melts at about 520 ºK but that it has temperature say -3C (270 K) in space at re-entry. It means that it will melt at temperature 250C. It means that 1 kg of AVCOAT can only absorb 418 kJ before it starts to melt (and flow away), i.e. 1/1000 of amount for it to be vaporized!"
If you don't agree with anything, just tell me.
(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
I'm sorry, but I still can't see any reference to a detached bow shock wave or the associated boundary layer that forms.See http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#213 !I'm sorry but I looked and could find no reference to "bow shock waves" on your space travel page. Would you please provide the relevant citation?But I do explain it at my web page. The potential and kinetic energies (J) that must be transformed to heat due to friction and turbulence when re-entering are so great that any sort of brake (heat shield, tiles) will heat up >20 000C and melt and boil off.Did your calculations take into consideration the subsonic boundary layer between the detached bow shock and the reentry vehicle?Also the forces (N) developing during re-entering and applied on the spacecraft will (1) crush it and (2) start to spin it.Did your calculations take into account the structural integrity and aerodynamic properties of the reentry vehicle?
Why do you always ask stupid questions, twerp? The answers are at my web site. Just find the answers yourself.
Just read the whole chapter 2.13 - Braking using a heat shield. I cannot copy/paste all here, but one part is:
"The potential and kinetic energy of a 5 486 kg Apollo module at 100 000 m altitude and 11 200 m/s velocity is 5 486*(100 000*9.8 + (11 200)²/2) = 349 458 200 kJ.
The potential and kinetic energy of the same 5 486 kg Apollo module at say 15 000 m altitude and 350 m/s velocity is 5 486*(15.000*9.8 + (350)²/2) = 1 142 560 kJ.
The difference 348 315 640 kJ has been absorbed one way or another by the heat shield AVCOAT.
If such AVCOAT can absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg before getting vaporized, it seems you need 832 kg of AVCOAT in the Apollo heat shield. To be on the safe side, you need say 2 400 kg, but then 44% of the module is AVCOAT and there is no space for any human heroes.
Question is - how can anything absorb 418 680.0 kJ/kg heat up in thin thermo-mesosphere/space?
It seems the specific heat of AVCOAT plastic is 1.67 kJ/kgK. Say that the AVCOAT melts at about 520 ºK but that it has temperature say -3C (270 K) in space at re-entry. It means that it will melt at temperature 250C. It means that 1 kg of AVCOAT can only absorb 418 kJ before it starts to melt (and flow away), i.e. 1/1000 of amount for it to be vaporized!"
If you don't agree with anything, just tell me.
Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.
I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.
The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
I'd say that it's at least as real as your million euro challenge.Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
I'd say that it's at least as real as your million euro challenge.
They didn't like me when I invited them on a cruise on one of my ferries to demonstrate what happens in a storm.
Millions paid a ticket to do so. And we travel slowly - 16 knots.
They didn't like me when I invited them on a cruise on one of my ferries to demonstrate what happens in a storm.
Who the hell would go to sea with a zortch like you?
The title of this thread is getting confirmed over and over and over again.
The title of this thread is getting confirmed over and over and over again.
I dont't know.. he has rarely mentioned poop on the last pages...
On the rest I completely agree..
. . . I invented the Björkman public sanitary deck facilities with 60 WCs, 60 showers and 60 wash basins in one deck house, easy to clean with one hose before regular invasions of travellers.
The title of this thread is getting confirmed over and over and over again.
I dont't know.. he has rarely mentioned poop on the last pages...
On the rest I completely agree..
You simply do not understand how the world works. Arabs, e.g. like to be clean and sober and wash carefully before regular prayers and meals and all the time. So our business was transporting pilgrims to Jeddah by sea, >2000 every trip. That's when I invented the Björkman public sanitary deck facilities with 60 WCs, 60 showers and 60 wash basins in one deck house, easy to clean with one hose before regular invasions of travellers. You sound like a dirty, anglo twerp, with a shitty ass not knowing how to be clean yourself, e.g. using water.
Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
You tell us you're and engineer and you really don't believe this is possible? Seriously? You say you're an expert in dynamics and analysis and you're seriously going to say it's impossible to engineer a vehicle to withstand the shock wave. Something stinks here and I don’t mean poo.
Either you’re a troll who loves spinning people up or you don’t know shit about dynamic stress analysis. Keep in mind I do the same type of analysis you claim to be an expert in. All the same forces, e.g. pitch, roll, etc. I also take into account dynamic forces your sanitary systems on a ferry would never see. Things like submergence and, well…battle. I’m not bragging. I say this so that you know you can’t pull the wool over my eyes.
If you actually know anything about 3D modeling and analysis then it should be child’s play to model a Mercury capsule and verify the aerodynamics. You should easily be able to tell whether or not it achieves equilibrium upon reentry. But, of course, you don’t even try. You link to other people’s conjecture and opinion that you blindly believe like some naive child.
That’s what I find so suspicious. You don’t even try to verify the claims in the links that you provide as “proof” when you profess to have your own company with the capability to verify it all.
You need to stop linking to other people’s conjecture as “proof” and do your own work. You’re an engineer. Act like one and do your own work.
The very fact that you believe we can put something into orbit but can’t bring it back down just boggles the mind. You’re and engineer...really? If you really understood the forces, moments, and couples involved you’d know how silly your manned spaceflight webpage is.
I’m sorry but I cannot take anything you say seriously. Your signature is so apropos.
Mike
You say I'm a loser because it deflects from you having address the fact that I said you won't or can't do your own analysis work; that you blindly believe others opinions. As if everyone here can't see right through you.Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
You tell us you're and engineer and you really don't believe this is possible? Seriously? You say you're an expert in dynamics and analysis and you're seriously going to say it's impossible to engineer a vehicle to withstand the shock wave. Something stinks here and I don’t mean poo.
Either you’re a troll who loves spinning people up or you don’t know shit about dynamic stress analysis. Keep in mind I do the same type of analysis you claim to be an expert in. All the same forces, e.g. pitch, roll, etc. I also take into account dynamic forces your sanitary systems on a ferry would never see. Things like submergence and, well…battle. I’m not bragging. I say this so that you know you can’t pull the wool over my eyes.
If you actually know anything about 3D modeling and analysis then it should be child’s play to model a Mercury capsule and verify the aerodynamics. You should easily be able to tell whether or not it achieves equilibrium upon reentry. But, of course, you don’t even try. You link to other people’s conjecture and opinion that you blindly believe like some naive child.
That’s what I find so suspicious. You don’t even try to verify the claims in the links that you provide as “proof” when you profess to have your own company with the capability to verify it all.
You need to stop linking to other people’s conjecture as “proof” and do your own work. You’re an engineer. Act like one and do your own work.
The very fact that you believe we can put something into orbit but can’t bring it back down just boggles the mind. You’re and engineer...really? If you really understood the forces, moments, and couples involved you’d know how silly your manned spaceflight webpage is.
I’m sorry but I cannot take anything you say seriously. Your signature is so apropos.
Mike
Hm, http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Ships operate in the wavy interface water/air and it is quite complex to say the least, even if the velocities are low. The loads are applied in all directions and any hydrodynamic analysis is difficult. Similar to space travel in a way. We always tested our newbuildings in testing tanks and I supervised the test. Etc, etc.
I always use first principles to design ships and structures and I have designed many.
You sound like a loser, micro.
And sub-topic was 'bow shocks' that someone just invented and not shock waves. A 'bow shock' lasts 10 minutes during re-entry and destroys anything trying to re-enter.
Only twerps think 'bow shocks' deflect friction heat, etc, etc.
You say I'm a loser because it deflects from you having address the fact that I said you won't or can't do your own analysis work; that you blindly believe others opinions. As if everyone here can't see right through you.Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
You tell us you're and engineer and you really don't believe this is possible? Seriously? You say you're an expert in dynamics and analysis and you're seriously going to say it's impossible to engineer a vehicle to withstand the shock wave. Something stinks here and I don’t mean poo.
Either you’re a troll who loves spinning people up or you don’t know shit about dynamic stress analysis. Keep in mind I do the same type of analysis you claim to be an expert in. All the same forces, e.g. pitch, roll, etc. I also take into account dynamic forces your sanitary systems on a ferry would never see. Things like submergence and, well…battle. I’m not bragging. I say this so that you know you can’t pull the wool over my eyes.
If you actually know anything about 3D modeling and analysis then it should be child’s play to model a Mercury capsule and verify the aerodynamics. You should easily be able to tell whether or not it achieves equilibrium upon reentry. But, of course, you don’t even try. You link to other people’s conjecture and opinion that you blindly believe like some naive child.
That’s what I find so suspicious. You don’t even try to verify the claims in the links that you provide as “proof” when you profess to have your own company with the capability to verify it all.
You need to stop linking to other people’s conjecture as “proof” and do your own work. You’re an engineer. Act like one and do your own work.
The very fact that you believe we can put something into orbit but can’t bring it back down just boggles the mind. You’re and engineer...really? If you really understood the forces, moments, and couples involved you’d know how silly your manned spaceflight webpage is.
I’m sorry but I cannot take anything you say seriously. Your signature is so apropos.
Mike
Hm, http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Ships operate in the wavy interface water/air and it is quite complex to say the least, even if the velocities are low. The loads are applied in all directions and any hydrodynamic analysis is difficult. Similar to space travel in a way. We always tested our newbuildings in testing tanks and I supervised the test. Etc, etc.
I always use first principles to design ships and structures and I have designed many.
You sound like a loser, micro.
And sub-topic was 'bow shocks' that someone just invented and not shock waves. A 'bow shock' lasts 10 minutes during re-entry and destroys anything trying to re-enter.
Only twerps think 'bow shocks' deflect friction heat, etc, etc.
If I wanted to prove something wasn't possible I'd do my own analysis and not rely on someone else's unverifiable crap.
Mike
There you go name calling to deflect from the real issue. As an engineer I understand the physics behind why it works. Anyone who why actually understands the dynamics involved knows it easily possible. Those who don't understand don't believe it's true...simple as that.You say I'm a loser because it deflects from you having address the fact that I said you won't or can't do your own analysis work; that you blindly believe others opinions. As if everyone here can't see right through you.Yes, I know. That's why I was asking.Just as an FYI, this is what I'm referring to:Quote from: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html(http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Bowshock.jpg)
Blunt bodies, rather than sharp bodies like the V-2, moving at high Mach numbers generate a shock wave that reside in front of the vehicle, not attached to the body. These shocks are known as bow shocks. Bow shocks allow much more of the heat to be dissipated into the surrounding air rather than directly into the body, and provide massive amounts of drag to reduce speed.
Well, my web page linked to above has nothing about 'bow shocks' (LOL) where the heat disappears.I think your 'bow shocks' is an invention to confuse matters.You claim to know about aerodynamics but don't know about shock waves? Tsk, tsk.The photo you provide is ridiculous. Where did you find it, Link pls!Wow, it seems that you don't even know that the link is in the "Quote from:" line. ::)
Here it is again: http://ccar.colorado.edu/asen5050/projects/projects_2014/Smith_Dalton/Aerodynamics.html
Thanks for link. It doesn't prove anything.
And the photo has been provided by NASA! It says everything. It is as real as a $3.47 bill.
You tell us you're and engineer and you really don't believe this is possible? Seriously? You say you're an expert in dynamics and analysis and you're seriously going to say it's impossible to engineer a vehicle to withstand the shock wave. Something stinks here and I don’t mean poo.
Either you’re a troll who loves spinning people up or you don’t know shit about dynamic stress analysis. Keep in mind I do the same type of analysis you claim to be an expert in. All the same forces, e.g. pitch, roll, etc. I also take into account dynamic forces your sanitary systems on a ferry would never see. Things like submergence and, well…battle. I’m not bragging. I say this so that you know you can’t pull the wool over my eyes.
If you actually know anything about 3D modeling and analysis then it should be child’s play to model a Mercury capsule and verify the aerodynamics. You should easily be able to tell whether or not it achieves equilibrium upon reentry. But, of course, you don’t even try. You link to other people’s conjecture and opinion that you blindly believe like some naive child.
That’s what I find so suspicious. You don’t even try to verify the claims in the links that you provide as “proof” when you profess to have your own company with the capability to verify it all.
You need to stop linking to other people’s conjecture as “proof” and do your own work. You’re an engineer. Act like one and do your own work.
The very fact that you believe we can put something into orbit but can’t bring it back down just boggles the mind. You’re and engineer...really? If you really understood the forces, moments, and couples involved you’d know how silly your manned spaceflight webpage is.
I’m sorry but I cannot take anything you say seriously. Your signature is so apropos.
Mike
Hm, http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Ships operate in the wavy interface water/air and it is quite complex to say the least, even if the velocities are low. The loads are applied in all directions and any hydrodynamic analysis is difficult. Similar to space travel in a way. We always tested our newbuildings in testing tanks and I supervised the test. Etc, etc.
I always use first principles to design ships and structures and I have designed many.
You sound like a loser, micro.
And sub-topic was 'bow shocks' that someone just invented and not shock waves. A 'bow shock' lasts 10 minutes during re-entry and destroys anything trying to re-enter.
Only twerps think 'bow shocks' deflect friction heat, etc, etc.
If I wanted to prove something wasn't possible I'd do my own analysis and not rely on someone else's unverifiable crap.
Mike
Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.
Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.
Only twerps do!
Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.Where does it say that you studied rocket science or aerospace technology?
Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.Can you show that it doesn't? Do you have a supersonic wind tunnel handy?
There you go name calling to deflect from the real issue. As an engineer I understand the physics behind why it works. Anyone who why actually understands the dynamics involved knows it easily possible. Those who don't understand don't believe it's true...simple as that.
Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.
Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.
Only twerps do!
Mike
Why do you always ask stupid, idiotic, off-topic questions?Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.Where does it say that you studied rocket science or aerospace technology?Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.Can you show that it doesn't? Do you have a supersonic wind tunnel handy?
Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.There you go name calling again. The resort of a small mind hoping to deflect away from the actual discussion. Very poor attempt at a strawman.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.There you go name calling again. The resort of a small mind hoping to deflect away from the actual discussion. Very poor attempt at a strawman.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
You present a fact, infer its implications, make an assumption about it, and then present conjecture as fact. Your conjecture does not rise to the level of fact nor is it proof of anything.
If you don’t believe it’s possible to put a man on the moon and bring him home, it’s only because you don’t understand the dynamics. The physics and engineering make perfect sense. Apparently, the it is too tough for you to figure out on your own so you make the assumption it’s not possible. All of MIT's classes are online for free. You should actually take some of their dynamics classes instead of making shit up.
Mike
Keep on name calling. It just shows how desperate you are.Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.There you go name calling again. The resort of a small mind hoping to deflect away from the actual discussion. Very poor attempt at a strawman.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
You present a fact, infer its implications, make an assumption about it, and then present conjecture as fact. Your conjecture does not rise to the level of fact nor is it proof of anything.
If you don’t believe it’s possible to put a man on the moon and bring him home, it’s only because you don’t understand the dynamics. The physics and engineering make perfect sense. Apparently, the it is too tough for you to figure out on your own so you make the assumption it’s not possible. All of MIT's classes are online for free. You should actually take some of their dynamics classes instead of making shit up.
Mike
The reason I do not believe in humans on the Moon is that you cannot calculate the fuel required to go there and back. I describe at my web site. Then there are the problems with the trajectory and stopping and landing not forgetting the sanitary facilities.
And there is nothing of interest on the Moon. It a a dead place.
Of course I understand why there are people believing in humans on the Moon. The reason is that they are twerps.
Keep on name calling. It just shows how desperate you are.Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.There you go name calling again. The resort of a small mind hoping to deflect away from the actual discussion. Very poor attempt at a strawman.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
You present a fact, infer its implications, make an assumption about it, and then present conjecture as fact. Your conjecture does not rise to the level of fact nor is it proof of anything.
If you don’t believe it’s possible to put a man on the moon and bring him home, it’s only because you don’t understand the dynamics. The physics and engineering make perfect sense. Apparently, the it is too tough for you to figure out on your own so you make the assumption it’s not possible. All of MIT's classes are online for free. You should actually take some of their dynamics classes instead of making shit up.
Mike
The reason I do not believe in humans on the Moon is that you cannot calculate the fuel required to go there and back. I describe at my web site. Then there are the problems with the trajectory and stopping and landing not forgetting the sanitary facilities.
And there is nothing of interest on the Moon. It a a dead place.
Of course I understand why there are people believing in humans on the Moon. The reason is that they are twerps.
You "calculations" are rudimentary at best and show an incomplete understanding of the dynamics involved.
BTW, nobody is going to provide to you two dozen pages of calculations and diagrams just to how you how wrong you are. Do your own work/study instead of just regurgitating an equation from wikipedia.
Mike
Of course you say that. Because, you have no idea what you are talking about.Keep on name calling. It just shows how desperate you are.Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.There you go name calling again. The resort of a small mind hoping to deflect away from the actual discussion. Very poor attempt at a strawman.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
You present a fact, infer its implications, make an assumption about it, and then present conjecture as fact. Your conjecture does not rise to the level of fact nor is it proof of anything.
If you don’t believe it’s possible to put a man on the moon and bring him home, it’s only because you don’t understand the dynamics. The physics and engineering make perfect sense. Apparently, the it is too tough for you to figure out on your own so you make the assumption it’s not possible. All of MIT's classes are online for free. You should actually take some of their dynamics classes instead of making shit up.
Mike
The reason I do not believe in humans on the Moon is that you cannot calculate the fuel required to go there and back. I describe at my web site. Then there are the problems with the trajectory and stopping and landing not forgetting the sanitary facilities.
And there is nothing of interest on the Moon. It a a dead place.
Of course I understand why there are people believing in humans on the Moon. The reason is that they are twerps.
You "calculations" are rudimentary at best and show an incomplete understanding of the dynamics involved.
BTW, nobody is going to provide to you two dozen pages of calculations and diagrams just to how you how wrong you are. Do your own work/study instead of just regurgitating an equation from wikipedia.
Mike
Hm, I am not wrong! People saying they can calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to the Moon and back simply are twerps. There is no doubt about it.
...and we all have cognitive dissonance.
How is asking you about your relevant credentials idiotic or off topic?Why do you always ask stupid, idiotic, off-topic questions?Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.Where does it say that you studied rocket science or aerospace technology?Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.Can you show that it doesn't? Do you have a supersonic wind tunnel handy?
You seem confused. This thread is not about your challenges. It's about your lack of understanding of various subjects where you claim some sort of expertise....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?How is asking you about your relevant credentials idiotic or off topic?Why do you always ask stupid, idiotic, off-topic questions?Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.Where does it say that you studied rocket science or aerospace technology?Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.Can you show that it doesn't? Do you have a supersonic wind tunnel handy?
How would you suggest studying bow shock waves if not in a supersonic wind tunnel?
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?You seem confused. This thread is not about your challenges. It's about your lack of understanding of various subjects where you claim some sort of expertise....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Learn how to do it yourself.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Yes, get a few billion dollars and hire a bunch of aerospace contractors build you a rocket like the Apollo/Saturn V.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?You seem confused. This thread is not about your challenges. It's about your lack of understanding of various subjects where you claim some sort of expertise....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Learn how to do it yourself.
I'm an engineer and that is not our credo...it may be his credo but it certainly not that of engineers.Learn how to do it yourself.
He's an 'engineer'. You know the 'engineer' credo, right?
NOTHING IS POSSIBLE !!!!!
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it. I do not know. That's the Challenge.Learn how to do it yourself.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Interesting. You admit you don't know but yet you say your calculation on your website proves it. So which is it?Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it. I do not know. That's the Challenge.Learn how to do it yourself.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Just study my web site. All info is there.Interesting. You admit you don't know but yet you say your calculation on your website proves it. So which is it?Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it. I do not know. That's the Challenge.Learn how to do it yourself.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
You said "Please, do not ask me again to do it. I do not know. That's the Challenge." So, are you implying that your website explains that you don't know? ???Just study my web site. All info is there.Interesting. You admit you don't know but yet you say your calculation on your website proves it. So which is it?Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it. I do not know. That's the Challenge.Learn how to do it yourself.Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.If you had a clue you'd be able to figure it out for yourself....and we all have cognitive dissonance.
Hm, question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals?
Translation from Heiwa nonsense-speak: I don't understand this subject so I'll deflect again and call names and hope nobody notices.There you go name calling to deflect from the real issue. As an engineer I understand the physics behind why it works. Anyone who why actually understands the dynamics involved knows it easily possible. Those who don't understand don't believe it's true...simple as that.
Hm, as I said - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm tells a little about me. Suggest you study it.
Do you really believe that a 'bow shock' that lasts 10-15 minutes at variable speeds in a variable density atmosphere can slow down anything and at the the same time protect a capsule landing on Earth.
Only twerps do!
Mike
Well, if you believe in magic 'bow shocks' you are a twerp.
According Wikipedia "a bow shock, also called a detached shock or normal shock, is a curved, stationary shock wave that is found in a supersonic flow past a finite body. The name comes from the example of a bow wave that forms at the bow of a ship when it moves through the water."
Yes, I agree that the hull of a ship forms waves in the interface water/air, when the hull moves through the water, but no ship can move at supersonic speed anyway, as far as I know.
There is however no evidence that the 'bow shock' in supersonic flow removes heat from the body creating it. It is part of the NASA propaganda. But you, being an engineer, can maybe correct me?
Re moving seagoing ships we split the resistance in two parts - friction and wave/shape. The resistances are function of speed (and surface roughness, areas and many other things) and follow different scale laws.
By applying a force on a ship (e.g. by a propeller) you can overcome the resistances. Most of the force is used to push away the water from the ship creating waves. The friction becomes heat that warms up both ship and water. Water is a good medium to cool down things.
Air on the other hand is not such a good medium and that is why spacecrafts arriving at 11 000 m/s speed into the upper atmosphere simply heats up, starts to melt and burn, like a meteorite, and then is finally ripped apart by the brake force acting on it.
Only twerps believe otherwise!
At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
Yes, I agree that seagoing ships produce waves. But no, I do not agree that bow shocks are created by spacecrafts at high speeds returning from space into the atmosphere, diverting the heat from the spacecraft, so that it doesn't melt, etc, etc, i.e. the famous re-entry!
Re your post #1 the delta-v formula is only applicable to a spacecraft not subject to external gravity forces from Earth, Moon and Sun, etc, etc. The delta-v formula only tells you the change in velocity of a spacecraft in one direction, when it ejects rocket fuel gases at high speed/temperature in the opposite direction. You have thus misunderstood that formula. You must use other means to establish the forces and fuel consumptions to get out of LEO and into LMO.
Re the trajectory between LEO and LMO in space, i.e. the time between applying a rocket force to get out of LEO and the time to apply another rocket force to get into LMO, it takes place at variable speeds and directions due to influence of external gravity forces, so it cannot be established. You have thus misunderstood the basics of 3D space navigation close to high mass/density bodies.
My Challenge is only about space craft fuel consumptions. In order to win it you must establish the forces to get out of LEO and into LMO, where and in what direction and how long time they are applied, what type of of rocket engine that produces the force, and so on.As I already stated several times, I do not care about your challenge. Noone does.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.Can you prove that? Do you have some email conversation with experts where they got upset? Else please stop making baseless claims.
Re the modified title of this thread it is correct that I am concerned about the sanitary installations on seagoing vessels since many years. Our passengers and crew demand a certain standard of cleanliness. Suggest you change the title.To what exactly should I change it?
I am no expert in aerodynamics, but I know that bow shocks play an important role in heating interstellar gases.
Example:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/52706main_hstorion_lg.jpg/220px-52706main_hstorion_lg.jpg)
As there the same principle applies, I find it reasonable that they also dissipate heat of reentering vehicles.Quote
I do not follow. Can you explain better, please!
How do you know that bow shocks play an important role in heating interstellar gases.
Where do the bow shocks come from?
Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
Yes, I agree that seagoing ships produce waves. But no, I do not agree that bow shocks are created by spacecrafts at high speeds returning from space into the atmosphere, diverting the heat from the spacecraft, so that it doesn't melt, etc, etc, i.e. the famous re-entry!
Re your post #1 the delta-v formula is only applicable to a spacecraft not subject to external gravity forces from Earth, Moon and Sun, etc, etc. The delta-v formula only tells you the change in velocity of a spacecraft in one direction, when it ejects rocket fuel gases at high speed/temperature in the opposite direction. You have thus misunderstood that formula. You must use other means to establish the forces and fuel consumptions to get out of LEO and into LMO.
Re the trajectory between LEO and LMO in space, i.e. the time between applying a rocket force to get out of LEO and the time to apply another rocket force to get into LMO, it takes place at variable speeds and directions due to influence of external gravity forces, so it cannot be established. You have thus misunderstood the basics of 3D space navigation close to high mass/density bodies.
My Challenge is only about space craft fuel consumptions. In order to win it you must establish the forces to get out of LEO and into LMO, where and in what direction and how long time they are applied, what type of of rocket engine that produces the force, and so on.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.
Re the modified title of this thread it is correct that I am concerned about the sanitary installations on seagoing vessels since many years. Our passengers and crew demand a certain standard of cleanliness. Suggest you change the title.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.Nobody believes you've asked them anything. The attempted name dropping just makes you look pathetic.
Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?He probably does understand fluid dynamics for incompressible fluids like water, but forgot that the dynamics of compressible fluids, like air, can be quite different.
Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
Yes, I agree that seagoing ships produce waves. But no, I do not agree that bow shocks are created by spacecrafts at high speeds returning from space into the atmosphere, diverting the heat from the spacecraft, so that it doesn't melt, etc, etc, i.e. the famous re-entry!
Re your post #1 the delta-v formula is only applicable to a spacecraft not subject to external gravity forces from Earth, Moon and Sun, etc, etc. The delta-v formula only tells you the change in velocity of a spacecraft in one direction, when it ejects rocket fuel gases at high speed/temperature in the opposite direction. You have thus misunderstood that formula. You must use other means to establish the forces and fuel consumptions to get out of LEO and into LMO.
Re the trajectory between LEO and LMO in space, i.e. the time between applying a rocket force to get out of LEO and the time to apply another rocket force to get into LMO, it takes place at variable speeds and directions due to influence of external gravity forces, so it cannot be established. You have thus misunderstood the basics of 3D space navigation close to high mass/density bodies.
My Challenge is only about space craft fuel consumptions. In order to win it you must establish the forces to get out of LEO and into LMO, where and in what direction and how long time they are applied, what type of of rocket engine that produces the force, and so on.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.
Re the modified title of this thread it is correct that I am concerned about the sanitary installations on seagoing vessels since many years. Our passengers and crew demand a certain standard of cleanliness. Suggest you change the title.
Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
Yes, I agree that seagoing ships produce waves. But no, I do not agree that bow shocks are created by spacecrafts at high speeds returning from space into the atmosphere, diverting the heat from the spacecraft, so that it doesn't melt, etc, etc, i.e. the famous re-entry!
Re your post #1 the delta-v formula is only applicable to a spacecraft not subject to external gravity forces from Earth, Moon and Sun, etc, etc. The delta-v formula only tells you the change in velocity of a spacecraft in one direction, when it ejects rocket fuel gases at high speed/temperature in the opposite direction. You have thus misunderstood that formula. You must use other means to establish the forces and fuel consumptions to get out of LEO and into LMO.
Re the trajectory between LEO and LMO in space, i.e. the time between applying a rocket force to get out of LEO and the time to apply another rocket force to get into LMO, it takes place at variable speeds and directions due to influence of external gravity forces, so it cannot be established. You have thus misunderstood the basics of 3D space navigation close to high mass/density bodies.
My Challenge is only about space craft fuel consumptions. In order to win it you must establish the forces to get out of LEO and into LMO, where and in what direction and how long time they are applied, what type of of rocket engine that produces the force, and so on.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.
Re the modified title of this thread it is correct that I am concerned about the sanitary installations on seagoing vessels since many years. Our passengers and crew demand a certain standard of cleanliness. Suggest you change the title.
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?I'm just wondering what do ship hydrodynamics have to to with spacecraft aerodynamics?
No, you really have to study my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR where I examine the NASA OSIRISREx hoax.Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.Nobody believes you've asked them anything. The attempted name dropping just makes you look pathetic.
Gases and liquids are both fluids. The study of how an object flows through that fluid it is fluid dynamics. The equations that govern the stagnation point of a ships hull and the flow past that point along the hull are the same equations use to describe the stagnation point (center of the heat shield) and flow past a supersonic object through the air.Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?I'm just wondering what do ship hydrodynamics have to to with spacecraft aerodynamics?
NOBODY believes you because you are a proven liar. One just has to look at this thread and others to find the MULTIPLE times you've lied. and you offer no evidence. A claim that you've asked is not evidence of anything. And you previously made the claim "If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset." but now say they do not provide any information. You can't even keep your lies straight. You are a joke.No, you really have to study my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#OR where I examine the NASA OSIRISREx hoax.Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.Nobody believes you've asked them anything. The attempted name dropping just makes you look pathetic.
Scroll down a little and read:
"I have asked Ms Nancy N. Jones and Mr. Erin Morton to confirm the DSM-1 original speed, final speed and speed change, fuel used, what direction it was applied, etc, to be reported here. By 5 May 2017 there was no answer. Anyway, with only 875.5 kg fuel left aboard total Delta-v available is 1 620 m/s or less. Between Jan. 16 and Mar. 6 the speed relative to Sun has been reduced by ~5 000 m/s but don't ask me why! On the other hand the speed away from the Sun is April 2017 >6 000 m/s!
I will ask them later to explain the details of the Gravity Assisted Kick and change of inclination in September 2017 and how to arrive at little Bennu November 2018 in its intrinsically dynamically unstable orbit. So far they do not provide any information."
Why don't you believe me when I publish my attempts to contact NASA on my website?
Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?At least heiwa appartently admitted that bow shocks are real and work the way they are supposed to.
A (simplified) calculation for the delta-v and the dynamics of a moon interception orbit are at the beginning of the tread. Do you have any questions about those?
Yes, I agree that seagoing ships produce waves. But no, I do not agree that bow shocks are created by spacecrafts at high speeds returning from space into the atmosphere, diverting the heat from the spacecraft, so that it doesn't melt, etc, etc, i.e. the famous re-entry!
Re your post #1 the delta-v formula is only applicable to a spacecraft not subject to external gravity forces from Earth, Moon and Sun, etc, etc. The delta-v formula only tells you the change in velocity of a spacecraft in one direction, when it ejects rocket fuel gases at high speed/temperature in the opposite direction. You have thus misunderstood that formula. You must use other means to establish the forces and fuel consumptions to get out of LEO and into LMO.
Re the trajectory between LEO and LMO in space, i.e. the time between applying a rocket force to get out of LEO and the time to apply another rocket force to get into LMO, it takes place at variable speeds and directions due to influence of external gravity forces, so it cannot be established. You have thus misunderstood the basics of 3D space navigation close to high mass/density bodies.
My Challenge is only about space craft fuel consumptions. In order to win it you must establish the forces to get out of LEO and into LMO, where and in what direction and how long time they are applied, what type of of rocket engine that produces the force, and so on.
Actually, it is an impossible task, but any NASA/ESA/SpaceX expert will say it is possible. If I ask them to show one example, they get very upset. They are living jokes.
Re the modified title of this thread it is correct that I am concerned about the sanitary installations on seagoing vessels since many years. Our passengers and crew demand a certain standard of cleanliness. Suggest you change the title.
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
That's why I ask...but, apparently you didn't make the connection. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually are an engineer.
Mike
Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
That's why I ask...but, apparently you didn't make the connection. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually are an engineer.
Mike
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
That's why I ask...but, apparently you didn't make the connection. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually are an engineer.
Mike
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
That's why I ask...but, apparently you didn't make the connection. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually are an engineer.
Mike
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.Really? The calculations for the shock wave, the slowing of a capsule, and s-turns that slow the shuttle are fluid dynamics. Since you're an "expert" in the fluid dynamics of a vessel on the sea you should be able to calculate the force of a reentry shock wave spread over heat shield of the capsule.Please tell me you understand the concept of fluid dynamics. You supposedly have a Masters in Marine Engineering. That had to include some basic fluid dynamics, right?
Yes - ship hydrodynamics is very complex and the flow around a ship hull is not easy to understand, e.g. the turbulence at the stern, where the propellers and rudders are fitted. I studied it for many years. Why do you ask?
That's why I ask...but, apparently you didn't make the connection. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually are an engineer.
Mike
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
I think I feel ready to go on ships again. I had lost faith in engineers... But MicroBeta seems to be a competent one. Well, at least he is not so blatantly incompetent that every post makes you cry. (This is not meant as an insult, I just do not know enough about engineering to say anyting more, I just know that heiwa is definitely no engineer)I'm just your average mechanical engineer. It just so happens my area is reactor plant systems and at UCONN (Go Huskies!) my concentration was in computational mechanics...fluids and mechanical. I'm nothing special. AAMOF, I have a lot I still want to learn. Life is about children and family but besides that, for me anyway, it's also about solving the puzzle. In the end I'm just your average everyday guy and I hope I never stop learning.
Sh*t, I totally forgot that the velocity is changing. If there only were some mathematical tools *cough*differential equations*cough* that could model exactly that. Sadly, there is no hope... If only there were people that could model non-stationary values. I get lost driving all the time, it is impossible to know my location, it changes all the time...
Heiwa still proving the thread title. A real engineer would understand that while gravity attracts perpendicular any sideways movement will change the trajectory. Does anybody here trust Heiwa to build a swingset or a rowboats let alone try to understand space travel? At least he's good for humor.That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
I think I feel ready to go on ships again. I had lost faith in engineers... But MicroBeta seems to be a competent one. Well, at least he is not so blatantly incompetent that every post makes you cry. (This is not meant as an insult, I just do not know enough about engineering to say anyting more, I just know that heiwa is definitely no engineer)
Sh*t, I totally forgot that the velocity is changing. If there only were some mathematical tools *cough*differential equations*cough* that could model exactly that. Sadly, there is no hope... If only there were people that could model non-stationary values. I get lost driving all the time, it is impossible to know my location, it changes all the time...
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Heiwa still proving the thread title. A real engineer would understand that while gravity attracts perpendicular any sideways movement will change the trajectory. Does anybody here trust Heiwa to build a swingset or a rowboats let alone try to understand space travel? At least he's good for humor.That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
Heiwa still proving the thread title. A real engineer would understand that while gravity attracts perpendicular any sideways movement will change the trajectory. Does anybody here trust Heiwa to build a swingset or a rowboats let alone try to understand space travel? At least he's good for humor.That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
Apparently, angular momentum and inertia don't exist in some peoples universe. I'm beginning to doubt his engineering background. I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt but the fluid mechanics necessary to calculate the forces and moments for an Apollo/Mercury capsule reentry should be in his wheel house.
That’s incorrect. If you know the angle of attack is known. The initial velocity is known. From there the only input that changes is air density. The dynamic stability derivative can then be plotted vs velocity. The only thing that changes the velocity of the capsule is the drag caused by the change in air density.Yes, actually you can predict the brake force. If you really knew fluid mechanics you could easily reproduce the equations.
I explain at my web site why you cannot predict the brake force applied on a spacecraft during re-entry. Study it.
<snip>
Your website states that an capsule would spin out of control upon reentry. How do you know that? What was your calculated pitching moment? It's not on the website.
Mike
Hm, as the speed of the object and density of the environment changes all the time, the brake force changes all the time, so you cannot predict where you end up.
Anyway, the object starts to rotate around itself - simple model tests show that the object is unstable at any speed or environment. Haven't you studied my web page, where I link to the source?
I have studied your web page so stop telling me to do that. I’ve studied it so well that I know you don’t include any actual values so I’ll ask again.
Since you claim to know the capsule reentry is unstable you had to have calculated these values. Could you please provide your complete calculations rather than just your conclusions?
What was your calculated pitching moment, pitch damping derivative, pitch damping factor, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives?
Mike
No, you do not know the angles of attack and direction or where you are at the top of the atmosphere and the local density of the environment and you do not know your velocity ... as it is increasing all the time.
And you have not visited my website and copied/pasted anything you do not understand.
So why do you waste your time prodicing nonsense comments?
I never said I didn’t understand anything from your site. I said the information I’m looking for is missing.
What want to see are your calculated pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivatives? You had to calculate them to know whether or not it’s possible to reenter the atmosphere. If you didn’t do the correct calculations they your conclusions are baseless. I DID READ YOUR WEBSITE. If the information I was looking for was there I wouldn’t need to ask for it.
Mike
Well, if you do not find what you look for at my site, you should look somewhere else.
Re spacecrafts arriving from space to land on rotating planet Earth orbiting the Sun it seems we all agree that Earth gravity attracts the spacecraft perpendicular down to the centre of Earth - direction 0°.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?
Ever heard about it?
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.With this sentence you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Why would someone ever drop down at a direction of 0°? That would require a delta-v of about 12km/s, which is insane.
So according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?Yes, this is the standard way. Requires only a few 100m/s and offers a long braking way. The bouncing up and out is theoretically possible for high-altitude orbits, but I have never heard of a single instance where this occured.
Ever heard about it?
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.With this sentence you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Why would someone ever drop down at a direction of 0°? That would require a delta-v of about 12km/s, which is insane.QuoteSo according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?Yes, this is the standard way. Requires only a few 100m/s and offers a long braking way. The bouncing up and out is theoretically possible for high-altitude orbits, but I have never heard of a single instance where this occured.
Ever heard about it?
But arriving with speed 11 000 m/s at 110 000 m altitude and direction 0° means that you will hit ground after 10 seconds.With this sentence you clearly demonstrate your lack of understanding in orbital mechanics. Why would someone ever drop down at a direction of 0°? That would require a delta-v of about 12km/s, which is insane.QuoteSo according NASA the spacecraft arrives almost horizontally - direction 85-87° - at the top of the atmosphere at 11 000 m/s speed and one way or other - friction/drag - it brakes and lowers itself in the straight direction towards the target ... unless it bounces up and out for a second attempt. I describe the nonsense at my web page. What do you think about it?Yes, this is the standard way. Requires only a few 100m/s and offers a long braking way. The bouncing up and out is theoretically possible for high-altitude orbits, but I have never heard of a single instance where this occured.
Ever heard about it?
You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!
So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
In order to assure me of anything you have to have done the calculations. Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible and the craft will burn up? Yes or No?
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf
Did you actually read that document? It contains the complete analytical solution. All the equations and their derivatives fully describing how the reentry flow logic (software flow charts) were formulated.You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
In order to assure me of anything you have to have done the calculations. Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible and the craft will burn up? Yes or No?
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf
Thanks. The 1965 planning document is about how land on Earth in three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
Unfortunatly the 1965 document does not explain what forces/moments, etc, are acting on the spacecraft duting the INITIAL ENTRY in the upper atmosphere sending it back into space again - UPCONTROL - for a second attempt. It seems it is forgotten that Earth gravity acts on the spacecraft down all the time. What force could send it up?
Anyway, Apollo 11 1969 ignored the INITIAL ENTRY and UPCONTROL phases and went straight for FINAL ENTRY. How Apollo 11 found the location B up in the sky to start the FINAL ENTRY is still unclear. If you asked about it 1969 armed NASA people would show up Gestapo style and ask you to shut up. It was part of the show.
Of course no Apollo 11 was ever in space.
Did you actually read that document? It contains the complete analytical solution. All the equations and their derivatives fully describing how the reentry flow logic (software flow charts) were formulated.You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
In order to assure me of anything you have to have done the calculations. Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible and the craft will burn up? Yes or No?
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf
Thanks. The 1965 planning document is about how land on Earth in three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
Unfortunatly the 1965 document does not explain what forces/moments, etc, are acting on the spacecraft duting the INITIAL ENTRY in the upper atmosphere sending it back into space again - UPCONTROL - for a second attempt. It seems it is forgotten that Earth gravity acts on the spacecraft down all the time. What force could send it up?
Anyway, Apollo 11 1969 ignored the INITIAL ENTRY and UPCONTROL phases and went straight for FINAL ENTRY. How Apollo 11 found the location B up in the sky to start the FINAL ENTRY is still unclear. If you asked about it 1969 armed NASA people would show up Gestapo style and ask you to shut up. It was part of the show.
Of course no Apollo 11 was ever in space.
That document contains everything needed to calculate the Apollo Capsule reentry for any given reentry angle and velocity. You don’t even try to refute it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. Your website has nothing to do with marine safety. Almost the entire website is junk science and conspiracy theories.
The worst part is that none of it is your own work. You regurgitate and linked to other websites. I handed you NASA’s complete analytical solution on a silver platter. All you had to do was show their solution doesn’t work for any reentry angle and velocity. However, you didn’t even read it.
Actually, I believe the real problem is that you don’t understand what you’re reading and have no idea how it works so you make up some crap ass excuses. For instance, you say they’ve forgotten about gravity. Well if you had actually read it you’d find gravity in the list of variables and can see which equations it’s used in.
You are a junk science conspiracy theory nut job who can’t even be bothered to do his own work.
Mike
I will readily admit that I couldn’t have derived those equations on my own. But, I also know that after reviewing that document it is proof positive you are wrong. With your supposed background in dynamic analysis, it should have been relatively simple for you to refute that document. That fact that you didn’t even try just goes to show you have no idea what the equations mean. Even though my supersonic fluid mechanics classes are more than twenty years behind me, I know I could work through those equations to provide exact solutions for various reentry conditions. This also means you should be able to show the flaws in the calculations that make you right. After all, if these equations work it’s proof you’re wrong. That document is straight up math that either works or it doesn't.Did you actually read that document? It contains the complete analytical solution. All the equations and their derivatives fully describing how the reentry flow logic (software flow charts) were formulated.You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
In order to assure me of anything you have to have done the calculations. Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible and the craft will burn up? Yes or No?
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf
Thanks. The 1965 planning document is about how land on Earth in three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
Unfortunatly the 1965 document does not explain what forces/moments, etc, are acting on the spacecraft duting the INITIAL ENTRY in the upper atmosphere sending it back into space again - UPCONTROL - for a second attempt. It seems it is forgotten that Earth gravity acts on the spacecraft down all the time. What force could send it up?
Anyway, Apollo 11 1969 ignored the INITIAL ENTRY and UPCONTROL phases and went straight for FINAL ENTRY. How Apollo 11 found the location B up in the sky to start the FINAL ENTRY is still unclear. If you asked about it 1969 armed NASA people would show up Gestapo style and ask you to shut up. It was part of the show.
Of course no Apollo 11 was ever in space.
That document contains everything needed to calculate the Apollo Capsule reentry for any given reentry angle and velocity. You don’t even try to refute it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. Your website has nothing to do with marine safety. Almost the entire website is junk science and conspiracy theories.
The worst part is that none of it is your own work. You regurgitate and linked to other websites. I handed you NASA’s complete analytical solution on a silver platter. All you had to do was show their solution doesn’t work for any reentry angle and velocity. However, you didn’t even read it.
Actually, I believe the real problem is that you don’t understand what you’re reading and have no idea how it works so you make up some crap ass excuses. For instance, you say they’ve forgotten about gravity. Well if you had actually read it you’d find gravity in the list of variables and can see which equations it’s used in.
You are a junk science conspiracy theory nut job who can’t even be bothered to do his own work.
Mike
I’ve also come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a NASA twerp. Dusting off 52 years old garbage, etc.
What really pisses me off is your talk about conspiracy theory.
It was a great show in the 1960's! Everyone believed it was real. Noone got hurt. It was fun. I really loved Valentina Tereshkova, the first female kosmopenguin. She was beautiful and fun.
And here you come and destroy the fun and suggest it was real. You are a real twerp.
Translation: I don't understand your objections so I'll throw around some more insults and hope nobody notices.Did you actually read that document? It contains the complete analytical solution. All the equations and their derivatives fully describing how the reentry flow logic (software flow charts) were formulated.You just keep up with the personal comments hoping against hope I'll address them instead of my question. Very poor strawman.Yes, I am an engineer and I have studied the motions of ships, incl. pitching, heaving, rolling, yawing, etc, and the associated forces and moments for several years. To design a ship you must know all the forces applied on the ship and then develop the design accordingly. I have done it many times. But my web site is about other matters. Safety!You haven't heard about a skip reentry? NASA has written several reports about it!
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#RES
The Apollo 11 computer could calculate it in the 1960's. You don't need a Kerbal Space Program:
(http://heiwaco.com/apolentry1A.gif)
To land on Earth there are three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
It is like parking a car in a city! First you try to find a parking place, then you drive around for while and with luck you find an empty slot. Note that the drogue parachute is deployed at 20 000 m altitude and normal, main parachutes at 10 000 m altitude and that the end is an Impact!So, are you going to answer my question or not. Yes or No.
You’ve posted a lot of conclusions but they’re based on assumptions. And, that’s fine as long as you analytically verify your assumptions are correct.
How do you have any idea your conclusions are correct if you’ve never calculated the dynamics? Answer this question and do not tell me to read you website. I have and the answer to this question is not there.
Mike
Everything I publish at http://heiwaco.com is correct. If you find anything wrong, copy/paste it. If I do not publish something, it just means just that.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CUT & PASTE WHAT ISN'T THERE.
Provide us with the pitching moment, and the dynamic and static stability derivative calculations that support your assumptions and conclusions. You had to have done them to know you are right so all I'm asking is to see them. Do you have them? Yes or No?
Mike
Here’s my problem. You’re making conclusions based on silly assumption and using other people’s conclusions and work. You claim to be an engineer whose qualifications make fluid mechanics part of your job. Therefore, the logical conclusion for those of us reading your website is that you performed the same calculations that NASA used, and that you can find in any text book on the subject.
This information is not on your website. You’ve made claims that can only be tested analytically. You make the claim that the vehicle will spin out of control and burn up. In order to say that you had to have done the calculations. Right?
Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible? Yes or No?
Mike
Re spacecrafts arriving to the top of the atmosphere at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed from space, I can assure you that no forces and moments due to atmosphere will brake the spacecraft. There is no air up there. The spacecraft will thus continue another 2-4 seconds and later burn up during another 2-4 seconds.
Just watch the sky any night and observe all the meteorites being vaporized. It happens all the time.
As I say, only twerps believe in UFOs and green things piloting them, etc, etc; You sound like one.
In order to assure me of anything you have to have done the calculations. Will you provide your pitch and stability calculations that you used to prove reentry is impossible and the craft will burn up? Yes or No?
https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf
Thanks. The 1965 planning document is about how land on Earth in three phases: INITIAL ENTRY, UPCONTROL and FINAL ENTRY.
Unfortunatly the 1965 document does not explain what forces/moments, etc, are acting on the spacecraft duting the INITIAL ENTRY in the upper atmosphere sending it back into space again - UPCONTROL - for a second attempt. It seems it is forgotten that Earth gravity acts on the spacecraft down all the time. What force could send it up?
Anyway, Apollo 11 1969 ignored the INITIAL ENTRY and UPCONTROL phases and went straight for FINAL ENTRY. How Apollo 11 found the location B up in the sky to start the FINAL ENTRY is still unclear. If you asked about it 1969 armed NASA people would show up Gestapo style and ask you to shut up. It was part of the show.
Of course no Apollo 11 was ever in space.
That document contains everything needed to calculate the Apollo Capsule reentry for any given reentry angle and velocity. You don’t even try to refute it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. Your website has nothing to do with marine safety. Almost the entire website is junk science and conspiracy theories.
The worst part is that none of it is your own work. You regurgitate and linked to other websites. I handed you NASA’s complete analytical solution on a silver platter. All you had to do was show their solution doesn’t work for any reentry angle and velocity. However, you didn’t even read it.
Actually, I believe the real problem is that you don’t understand what you’re reading and have no idea how it works so you make up some crap ass excuses. For instance, you say they’ve forgotten about gravity. Well if you had actually read it you’d find gravity in the list of variables and can see which equations it’s used in.
You are a junk science conspiracy theory nut job who can’t even be bothered to do his own work.
Mike
I’ve also come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a NASA twerp. Dusting off 52 years old garbage, etc.
What really pisses me off is your talk about conspiracy theory.
It was a great show in the 1960's! Everyone believed it was real. Noone got hurt. It was fun. I really loved Valentina Tereshkova, the first female kosmopenguin. She was beautiful and fun.
And here you come and destroy the fun and suggest it was real. You are a real twerp.
I will readily admit that I couldn’t have derived those equations on my own. But, I also know that after reviewing that document it is proof positive you are wrong. With your supposed background in dynamic analysis, it should have been relatively simple for you to refute that document. That fact that you didn’t even try just goes to show you have no idea what the equations mean. Even though my supersonic fluid mechanics classes are more than twenty years behind me, I know I could work through those equations to provide exact solutions for various reentry conditions. This also means you should be able to show the flaws in the calculations that make you right. After all, if these equations work it’s proof you’re wrong. That document is straight up math that either works or it doesn't.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a NASA twerp. Dusting off 52 years old garbage, etc.
What really pisses me off is your talk about conspiracy theory.
It was a great show in the 1960's! Everyone believed it was real. Noone got hurt. It was fun. I really loved Valentina Tereshkova, the first female kosmopenguin. She was beautiful and fun.
And here you come and destroy the fun and suggest it was real. You are a real twerp.
You need to face up to the fact that when your assertions that manned space flight is impossible needs over two dozen countries to collude together to lie to the world, that is the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
When your theory that a-bombs are fake relies on all of the worlds nuclear powers to collude together to lie about their existence, that is the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
How do you not see that for you to be right these conspiracies MUST exist? Be as pissed as you want but all of your theories can't exist without the conspiracy behind them. Your website is by definition a bunch of conspiracy theories and IMHO, based on junk science. If you would actually refute NASA's equations and prove why they're wrong then you'd have something but you don't. AAMOF, there isn't an original concept on your website. Just work done by someone else.
I was hoping we could have a technical based discussion between two engineers but I can see that ain’t happenin’.
Mike
The MIT document is no longer classified and is available online...which just goes to prove you didn’t even try to look. You don’t need anything from NASA today because nearly everything from the Apollo era has been released and archived online. But, you didn’t know that did you? Just goes to show how poorly you’ve researched manned space flight. Or, I should say you haven’t researched at all.I will readily admit that I couldn’t have derived those equations on my own. But, I also know that after reviewing that document it is proof positive you are wrong. With your supposed background in dynamic analysis, it should have been relatively simple for you to refute that document. That fact that you didn’t even try just goes to show you have no idea what the equations mean. Even though my supersonic fluid mechanics classes are more than twenty years behind me, I know I could work through those equations to provide exact solutions for various reentry conditions. This also means you should be able to show the flaws in the calculations that make you right. After all, if these equations work it’s proof you’re wrong. That document is straight up math that either works or it doesn't.
I’ve also come to the conclusion that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. You sound like a NASA twerp. Dusting off 52 years old garbage, etc.
What really pisses me off is your talk about conspiracy theory.
It was a great show in the 1960's! Everyone believed it was real. Noone got hurt. It was fun. I really loved Valentina Tereshkova, the first female kosmopenguin. She was beautiful and fun.
And here you come and destroy the fun and suggest it was real. You are a real twerp.
You need to face up to the fact that when your assertions that manned space flight is impossible needs over two dozen countries to collude together to lie to the world, that is the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
When your theory that a-bombs are fake relies on all of the worlds nuclear powers to collude together to lie about their existence, that is the dictionary definition of a conspiracy.
How do you not see that for you to be right these conspiracies MUST exist? Be as pissed as you want but all of your theories can't exist without the conspiracy behind them. Your website is by definition a bunch of conspiracy theories and IMHO, based on junk science. If you would actually refute NASA's equations and prove why they're wrong then you'd have something but you don't. AAMOF, there isn't an original concept on your website. Just work done by someone else.
I was hoping we could have a technical based discussion between two engineers but I can see that ain’t happenin’.
Mike
Well - I cannot copy/paste from https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf but all equations in the appendices are complete nonsense. Of course reference 1 is confidential. Why should a scientific paper about spacecraft reentry and landing be confidential?
You are right that space organizations of two dozen countries led by USA and Russia have a secret understanding to promote fake human space travel and similar projects. Just look at the chiefs in charge and their 'experts'. They are just clowns and jokers. I think I show it quite clearly at my website.
Re a-bombs again a limited number of countries have a similar secret agreement to promote their useless nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of normal people. Again I show it quite clearly at my website.
But it is not a conspiracy to have strange secret agreements about space travel and nuclear wars. By US laws it is illegal to make reference to these secret agreements so MSM must trumpet that space travel is easy and a-bombs are very good.
911 is different. It is in my opinion criminal to suggest that a top C of a structure can crush bottom A of same structure by gravity, where A keeps C statically in place, before the interface A/C is damaged, so that C can drop a short distance on A to crush A, etc. C crushes itself at the end. I am quite impressed how particular US interests managed to convince NIST, ASCE and American Architects, etc, to play along that all buildings in the world are incorrectly built so that tops C can crush bottoms A ... by gravity.
Anyway, according to an axiom named after me C cannot crush A.
POTUS Donald & wife III last week had a 3* dinner in the Eiffel tower, Paris. According NIST, ASCE, etc. the weak top could have dropped down any time and spoilt the pleasure. Sorry, I forgot ... it is only in USA C can crush A by gravity.
The MIT document is no longer classified and is available online...which just goes to prove you didn’t even try to look. You don’t need anything from NASA today because nearly everything from the Apollo era has been released and archived online. But, you didn’t know that did you? Just goes to show how poorly you’ve researched manned space flight. Or, I should say you haven’t researched at all.
Well - I cannot copy/paste from https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf but all equations in the appendices are complete nonsense. Of course reference 1 is confidential. Why should a scientific paper about spacecraft reentry and landing be confidential?
You are right that space organizations of two dozen countries led by USA and Russia have a secret understanding to promote fake human space travel and similar projects. Just look at the chiefs in charge and their 'experts'. They are just clowns and jokers. I think I show it quite clearly at my website.
Re a-bombs again a limited number of countries have a similar secret agreement to promote their useless nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of normal people. Again I show it quite clearly at my website.
But it is not a conspiracy to have strange secret agreements about space travel and nuclear wars. By US laws it is illegal to make reference to these secret agreements so MSM must trumpet that space travel is easy and a-bombs are very good.
911 is different. It is in my opinion criminal to suggest that a top C of a structure can crush bottom A of same structure by gravity, where A keeps C statically in place, before the interface A/C is damaged, so that C can drop a short distance on A to crush A, etc. C crushes itself at the end. I am quite impressed how particular US interests managed to convince NIST, ASCE and American Architects, etc, to play along that all buildings in the world are incorrectly built so that tops C can crush bottoms A ... by gravity.
Anyway, according to an axiom named after me C cannot crush A.
POTUS Donald & wife III last week had a 3* dinner in the Eiffel tower, Paris. According NIST, ASCE, etc. the weak top could have dropped down any time and spoilt the pleasure. Sorry, I forgot ... it is only in USA C can crush A by gravity.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/R477-AS202-GSOP-Rev2.pdf
Stop with the junk science claims and PROVE IT. Show me what is nonsense about the equations. I’ve reviewed them and they are solid. If you can’t do that then you have nothing but tin foil hat junk science and conspiracy theories to fall back on. Do your own investigation for a change.
Mike
The MIT document is no longer classified and is available online...which just goes to prove you didn’t even try to look. You don’t need anything from NASA today because nearly everything from the Apollo era has been released and archived online. But, you didn’t know that did you? Just goes to show how poorly you’ve researched manned space flight. Or, I should say you haven’t researched at all.
Well - I cannot copy/paste from https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf but all equations in the appendices are complete nonsense. Of course reference 1 is confidential. Why should a scientific paper about spacecraft reentry and landing be confidential?
You are right that space organizations of two dozen countries led by USA and Russia have a secret understanding to promote fake human space travel and similar projects. Just look at the chiefs in charge and their 'experts'. They are just clowns and jokers. I think I show it quite clearly at my website.
Re a-bombs again a limited number of countries have a similar secret agreement to promote their useless nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of normal people. Again I show it quite clearly at my website.
But it is not a conspiracy to have strange secret agreements about space travel and nuclear wars. By US laws it is illegal to make reference to these secret agreements so MSM must trumpet that space travel is easy and a-bombs are very good.
911 is different. It is in my opinion criminal to suggest that a top C of a structure can crush bottom A of same structure by gravity, where A keeps C statically in place, before the interface A/C is damaged, so that C can drop a short distance on A to crush A, etc. C crushes itself at the end. I am quite impressed how particular US interests managed to convince NIST, ASCE and American Architects, etc, to play along that all buildings in the world are incorrectly built so that tops C can crush bottoms A ... by gravity.
Anyway, according to an axiom named after me C cannot crush A.
POTUS Donald & wife III last week had a 3* dinner in the Eiffel tower, Paris. According NIST, ASCE, etc. the weak top could have dropped down any time and spoilt the pleasure. Sorry, I forgot ... it is only in USA C can crush A by gravity.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/R477-AS202-GSOP-Rev2.pdf
Stop with the junk science claims and PROVE IT. Show me what is nonsense about the equations. I’ve reviewed them and they are solid. If you can’t do that then you have nothing but tin foil hat junk science and conspiracy theories to fall back on. Do your own investigation for a change.
Mike
Well, I link to plenty NASA documents/webpages at my site, so I don't know why you say I don't know NASA. Some years back NASA couldn't pay their web servers and all my NASA links were dead.
Of course I do my own research, investigations and calculations before publication, so I am source of unique info.
Just copy/paste what you think I have not got right. I do not publish junk. Why would I?
The original purpose of my web site http://heiwaco.com was to promote my 1997 IMO approved oil tanker design (and to earn money) and to publish 1998 my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994. Another purpose was to promote peace (heiwa in Japanese) on Earth.
In both cases the reactions were surprising. Governments and learned institutions suddenly called me an unreasonable, unscientific idiot, etc, etc.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
And me, having worked in Egypt since 1981 with people knowing distantly the daddy of son Mr. Atta (the head of the 911 terrorists) agreed. It so happened that E's daddy had helped Stalin to build a communist a-bomb 1949, small world, and E hinted that Stalin had faked it. I investigated ... and found that E was right.
And there we are. No conspiracy. I just happen to move around learning a lot and meeting people. You sound like a person who has just seen the ears of your donkey.
Well, he sent me a document from 1965 suggesting I had misunderstood something ... but I couldn't copy paste anything of that nonsense. I don't know who he was or if he is more knowledgeable and professional than I.The MIT document is no longer classified and is available online...which just goes to prove you didn’t even try to look. You don’t need anything from NASA today because nearly everything from the Apollo era has been released and archived online. But, you didn’t know that did you? Just goes to show how poorly you’ve researched manned space flight. Or, I should say you haven’t researched at all.
Well - I cannot copy/paste from https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf but all equations in the appendices are complete nonsense. Of course reference 1 is confidential. Why should a scientific paper about spacecraft reentry and landing be confidential?
You are right that space organizations of two dozen countries led by USA and Russia have a secret understanding to promote fake human space travel and similar projects. Just look at the chiefs in charge and their 'experts'. They are just clowns and jokers. I think I show it quite clearly at my website.
Re a-bombs again a limited number of countries have a similar secret agreement to promote their useless nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of normal people. Again I show it quite clearly at my website.
But it is not a conspiracy to have strange secret agreements about space travel and nuclear wars. By US laws it is illegal to make reference to these secret agreements so MSM must trumpet that space travel is easy and a-bombs are very good.
911 is different. It is in my opinion criminal to suggest that a top C of a structure can crush bottom A of same structure by gravity, where A keeps C statically in place, before the interface A/C is damaged, so that C can drop a short distance on A to crush A, etc. C crushes itself at the end. I am quite impressed how particular US interests managed to convince NIST, ASCE and American Architects, etc, to play along that all buildings in the world are incorrectly built so that tops C can crush bottoms A ... by gravity.
Anyway, according to an axiom named after me C cannot crush A.
POTUS Donald & wife III last week had a 3* dinner in the Eiffel tower, Paris. According NIST, ASCE, etc. the weak top could have dropped down any time and spoilt the pleasure. Sorry, I forgot ... it is only in USA C can crush A by gravity.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/R477-AS202-GSOP-Rev2.pdf
Stop with the junk science claims and PROVE IT. Show me what is nonsense about the equations. I’ve reviewed them and they are solid. If you can’t do that then you have nothing but tin foil hat junk science and conspiracy theories to fall back on. Do your own investigation for a change.
Mike
Well, I link to plenty NASA documents/webpages at my site, so I don't know why you say I don't know NASA. Some years back NASA couldn't pay their web servers and all my NASA links were dead.
Of course I do my own research, investigations and calculations before publication, so I am source of unique info.
Just copy/paste what you think I have not got right. I do not publish junk. Why would I?
The original purpose of my web site http://heiwaco.com was to promote my 1997 IMO approved oil tanker design (and to earn money) and to publish 1998 my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994. Another purpose was to promote peace (heiwa in Japanese) on Earth.
In both cases the reactions were surprising. Governments and learned institutions suddenly called me an unreasonable, unscientific idiot, etc, etc.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
And me, having worked in Egypt since 1981 with people knowing distantly the daddy of son Mr. Atta (the head of the 911 terrorists) agreed. It so happened that E's daddy had helped Stalin to build a communist a-bomb 1949, small world, and E hinted that Stalin had faked it. I investigated ... and found that E was right.
And there we are. No conspiracy. I just happen to move around learning a lot and meeting people. You sound like a person who has just seen the ears of your donkey.
Actually, he seems like a person who is a lot more knowledgeable and professional than you.
Well, I link to plenty NASA documents/webpages at my site, so I don't know why you say I don't know NASA. Some years back NASA couldn't pay their web servers and all my NASA links were dead.You just can’t stop with the name calling can you? Oh well.
Of course I do my own research, investigations and calculations before publication, so I am source of unique info.
Just copy/paste what you think I have not got right. I do not publish junk. Why would I?
<snip>
1. I’m asking again for those calculations. Specifically, the pitch and stability calculations as they would be the calculations needed to support your claim. ...
You completely ignored my previous requests for this info and are very likely going to ignore it again. The information for these two questions is not on your website. Answer them here.
Mike
Well, he sent me a document from 1965 suggesting I had misunderstood something ... but I couldn't copy paste anything of that nonsense. I don't know who he was or if he is more knowledgeable and professional than I.The MIT document is no longer classified and is available online...which just goes to prove you didn’t even try to look. You don’t need anything from NASA today because nearly everything from the Apollo era has been released and archived online. But, you didn’t know that did you? Just goes to show how poorly you’ve researched manned space flight. Or, I should say you haven’t researched at all.
Well - I cannot copy/paste from https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf but all equations in the appendices are complete nonsense. Of course reference 1 is confidential. Why should a scientific paper about spacecraft reentry and landing be confidential?
You are right that space organizations of two dozen countries led by USA and Russia have a secret understanding to promote fake human space travel and similar projects. Just look at the chiefs in charge and their 'experts'. They are just clowns and jokers. I think I show it quite clearly at my website.
Re a-bombs again a limited number of countries have a similar secret agreement to promote their useless nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of normal people. Again I show it quite clearly at my website.
But it is not a conspiracy to have strange secret agreements about space travel and nuclear wars. By US laws it is illegal to make reference to these secret agreements so MSM must trumpet that space travel is easy and a-bombs are very good.
911 is different. It is in my opinion criminal to suggest that a top C of a structure can crush bottom A of same structure by gravity, where A keeps C statically in place, before the interface A/C is damaged, so that C can drop a short distance on A to crush A, etc. C crushes itself at the end. I am quite impressed how particular US interests managed to convince NIST, ASCE and American Architects, etc, to play along that all buildings in the world are incorrectly built so that tops C can crush bottoms A ... by gravity.
Anyway, according to an axiom named after me C cannot crush A.
POTUS Donald & wife III last week had a 3* dinner in the Eiffel tower, Paris. According NIST, ASCE, etc. the weak top could have dropped down any time and spoilt the pleasure. Sorry, I forgot ... it is only in USA C can crush A by gravity.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Documents/R477-AS202-GSOP-Rev2.pdf
Stop with the junk science claims and PROVE IT. Show me what is nonsense about the equations. I’ve reviewed them and they are solid. If you can’t do that then you have nothing but tin foil hat junk science and conspiracy theories to fall back on. Do your own investigation for a change.
Mike
Well, I link to plenty NASA documents/webpages at my site, so I don't know why you say I don't know NASA. Some years back NASA couldn't pay their web servers and all my NASA links were dead.
Of course I do my own research, investigations and calculations before publication, so I am source of unique info.
Just copy/paste what you think I have not got right. I do not publish junk. Why would I?
The original purpose of my web site http://heiwaco.com was to promote my 1997 IMO approved oil tanker design (and to earn money) and to publish 1998 my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994. Another purpose was to promote peace (heiwa in Japanese) on Earth.
In both cases the reactions were surprising. Governments and learned institutions suddenly called me an unreasonable, unscientific idiot, etc, etc.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
And me, having worked in Egypt since 1981 with people knowing distantly the daddy of son Mr. Atta (the head of the 911 terrorists) agreed. It so happened that E's daddy had helped Stalin to build a communist a-bomb 1949, small world, and E hinted that Stalin had faked it. I investigated ... and found that E was right.
And there we are. No conspiracy. I just happen to move around learning a lot and meeting people. You sound like a person who has just seen the ears of your donkey.
Actually, he seems like a person who is a lot more knowledgeable and professional than you.
My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Ask me for a quote and you'll find you cannot afford my paid services.
Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
1. I’m asking again for those calculations. Specifically, the pitch and stability calculations as they would be the calculations needed to support your claim. ...
You completely ignored my previous requests for this info and are very likely going to ignore it again. The information for these two questions is not on your website. Answer them here.
Mike
But I have replied. The information is at my website. When the spacecraft (Apollo 11) arrives at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed, there is no air there. So pitch and stability calculations are not required. You just continue ... and are destroyed 10 seconds later. But no ...
NASA says the Apollo 11 dips down to 70 000 m altitude and then bounces up again, bla, bla.
The astronuts aboard do not have to do anything. All is automatic! A 1969 onboard computer steers the spacecraft towards the target (POTUS D. Nixon).
Pls study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm again. It is so funny.
You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
You have done maybe the best job of showing Heiwa for what he is but you certainly aren't the first to try. It was a truly noble effort and I applaud your work on this.Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
1. I’m asking again for those calculations. Specifically, the pitch and stability calculations as they would be the calculations needed to support your claim. ...
You completely ignored my previous requests for this info and are very likely going to ignore it again. The information for these two questions is not on your website. Answer them here.
Mike
But I have replied. The information is at my website. When the spacecraft (Apollo 11) arrives at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed, there is no air there. So pitch and stability calculations are not required. You just continue ... and are destroyed 10 seconds later. But no ...
NASA says the Apollo 11 dips down to 70 000 m altitude and then bounces up again, bla, bla.
The astronuts aboard do not have to do anything. All is automatic! A 1969 onboard computer steers the spacecraft towards the target (POTUS D. Nixon).
Pls study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm again. It is so funny.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
Thanks. But, not quite done yet.You have done maybe the best job of showing Heiwa for what he is but you certainly aren't the first to try. It was a truly noble effort and I applaud your work on this.Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
1. I’m asking again for those calculations. Specifically, the pitch and stability calculations as they would be the calculations needed to support your claim. ...
You completely ignored my previous requests for this info and are very likely going to ignore it again. The information for these two questions is not on your website. Answer them here.
Mike
But I have replied. The information is at my website. When the spacecraft (Apollo 11) arrives at 120 000 m altitude at >11 000 m/s speed, there is no air there. So pitch and stability calculations are not required. You just continue ... and are destroyed 10 seconds later. But no ...
NASA says the Apollo 11 dips down to 70 000 m altitude and then bounces up again, bla, bla.
The astronuts aboard do not have to do anything. All is automatic! A 1969 onboard computer steers the spacecraft towards the target (POTUS D. Nixon).
Pls study http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm again. It is so funny.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
But heiwa is a level one moron and the Dunning Kruger effect is strong in this one.
Still, some really nice info. Stuff like that is the main reason I come here.
Thanks
You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
And only twerps suggest that I am in the conspiracy business. I am in the safety at sea business. Based on real science!And all my work is my own. I do not copy/paste anyone.
You sound like an unhappy exNASA twerp. Did they stop paying you a pension. Why do you go on posting your stupid comments?
You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
And only twerps suggest that I am in the conspiracy business. I am in the safety at sea business. Based on real science!And all my work is my own. I do not copy/paste anyone.
You sound like an unhappy exNASA twerp. Did they stop paying you a pension. Why do you go on posting your stupid comments?
Nope. Never worked for NASA. I would have liked to though. I work for Electric Boat.
Almost none of the work on your site is yours. It’s nearly identical to many other sites. Not that it matters. You’ve made your own erroneous assumptions and attempted to apply them to your overly simplified approach.
The interesting part is you’ve once addressed the actual equations that every NASA engineer, every university professor, and every aeronautical engineering student has used to calculate reentry. If you believed their equations, their theory, and their algorithms were fake you would have to exposed NASA. Yet, you didn’t even try. What are you afraid of? Why won’t you answer my question? It should be rather simple. What is wrong the equations in the NASA document I linked? Or, are you going to ignore my question again.
Mike
What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
Since there is not a single equation on your website showing why a space capsule becomes unstable you don’t have a leg to stand on. You can’t back up your conclusion that a space craft cannot reenter the atmosphere. You refuse to show why NASA’s equations are nonsense.
One can only conclude that your website is a conspiracy theory based on junk science...and not even your own science. As near as I can tell you have just reproduced other people’s work with your own flawed assumptions from which you make erroneous conclusions. You have yet to make a single cogent argument.
I see you are unable to answer my second question so you just removed it and hope it goes away. Not gonna happen.
As to the NASA/MIT documents I linked you to. You say they are nonsense. Show me why they won’t work?
Mike
And only twerps suggest that I am in the conspiracy business. I am in the safety at sea business. Based on real science!And all my work is my own. I do not copy/paste anyone.
You sound like an unhappy exNASA twerp. Did they stop paying you a pension. Why do you go on posting your stupid comments?
Nope. Never worked for NASA. I would have liked to though. I work for Electric Boat.
Almost none of the work on your site is yours. It’s nearly identical to many other sites. Not that it matters. You’ve made your own erroneous assumptions and attempted to apply them to your overly simplified approach.
The interesting part is you’ve once addressed the actual equations that every NASA engineer, every university professor, and every aeronautical engineering student has used to calculate reentry. If you believed their equations, their theory, and their algorithms were fake you would have to exposed NASA. Yet, you didn’t even try. What are you afraid of? Why won’t you answer my question? It should be rather simple. What is wrong the equations in the NASA document I linked? Or, are you going to ignore my question again.
Mike
Sorry, I am the author of 100% of the content ot my website. When I quote others it is obvious. Why do you suggest the opposite?
I have read a few texts about reentries. The 1965 NASA document you link to (pdf) is 100% nonsense like all the rest. It doesn't explain anything. It is a joke. Why do you link to such garbage? Are you mentally ill? Are you too poor to pay a doctor?
To win my Challenge, apart from calculating fuel required for the trips, you must explain the reentry at the end of the trips. According to the document you linked to the Apollo 11 reentry was done 100% automatic by some 1969 computer/software/autopilot. All details are confidential. You say they are not. So just copy paste info of the 1969 computer/software/autopilot that assisted Apollo 11 to land.
I assume it is of the same high standard like the Apollo 11 sanitary system I describe at my site. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm (i.e. piss in a hose, open a valve and eject it overboard. Sorry, via a filter).
https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/tree/master/Comanche055
The values entered into the AGC are available in the mission transcripts.
To what exactly should I change it?A crap load of poo
You are right that my website is not perfect with equations of all sorts, bla, bla, bla. But it explains perfectly why spacecrafts cannot return from space, stop and land. Gravity is too strong.
My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .Where does your CV list any educational or professional experience in nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
I am not in the conspiracy business.
I am not in the conspiracy business.
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to and all you answer with is a rant about OSIRIS. A rant that has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
More LIES from Heiwa. No proof that GWB or "Condileezza" know who you are or care.I am not in the conspiracy business.
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
Thanks monkey for linking to me - http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm - Study http://heiwaco.com/mac5.htm for full details!
GWB and Condileezza really got upset about it.
I guess you are into conspiracy theories.I am not in the conspiracy business.
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
Thanks monkey for linking to me - http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm - Study http://heiwaco.com/mac5.htm for full details!
GWB and Condileezza really got upset about it.
I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to any you answer with a rant about OSIRIS. That has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
You said the equations in the paper is nonsense. I asked you to explain what is wrong with them. Answer that question and some random shit that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll ask again. What is wrong with the equations in the 1965 NASA paper that make it nonsense?
Mike
You brought up gravity the first time and I called you out on it. Gravity as a vector quantity in the equations and is in the list of variables. Gravity is in the first derivatives in Appendix A and Appendix B.I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to any you answer with a rant about OSIRIS. That has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
You said the equations in the paper is nonsense. I asked you to explain what is wrong with them. Answer that question and some random shit that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll ask again. What is wrong with the equations in the 1965 NASA paper that make it nonsense?
Mike
But I explain it at my website since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 .
The NASA 1969 equations do not consider influence of gravity but regardless, there was no computer available 1969 to fully automatically steer Apollo 11 during the re-entry. Actually the whole trip was fantasy.
How can ain intelligent person like believe the NASA 1965 nonsense?
You brought up gravity the first time and I called you out on it. Gravity as a vector quantity in the equations and is in the list of variables. Gravity is in the first derivatives in Appendix A and Appendix B.I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to any you answer with a rant about OSIRIS. That has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
You said the equations in the paper is nonsense. I asked you to explain what is wrong with them. Answer that question and some random shit that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll ask again. What is wrong with the equations in the 1965 NASA paper that make it nonsense?
Mike
But I explain it at my website since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 .
The NASA 1969 equations do not consider influence of gravity but regardless, there was no computer available 1969 to fully automatically steer Apollo 11 during the re-entry. Actually the whole trip was fantasy.
How can ain intelligent person like believe the NASA 1965 nonsense?
You a liar. You didn’t even read the paper. You are a very bad liar but a liar none the less.
Actually read the paper this time and explain why it's nonsense. Or is it too far over your head for you to understand?
Mike
Then why did you lie about it?You brought up gravity the first time and I called you out on it. Gravity as a vector quantity in the equations and is in the list of variables. Gravity is in the first derivatives in Appendix A and Appendix B.I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to any you answer with a rant about OSIRIS. That has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
You said the equations in the paper is nonsense. I asked you to explain what is wrong with them. Answer that question and some random shit that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll ask again. What is wrong with the equations in the 1965 NASA paper that make it nonsense?
Mike
But I explain it at my website since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 .
The NASA 1969 equations do not consider influence of gravity but regardless, there was no computer available 1969 to fully automatically steer Apollo 11 during the re-entry. Actually the whole trip was fantasy.
How can ain intelligent person like believe the NASA 1965 nonsense?
You a liar. You didn’t even read the paper. You are a very bad liar but a liar none the less.
Actually read the paper this time and explain why it's nonsense. Or is it too far over your head for you to understand?
Mike
You are right! I used this 1969 paper - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690029435.pdf . But it is the same old nonsense.
Because he is a fraud that doesn't know what he is talking about.Then why did you lie about it?You brought up gravity the first time and I called you out on it. Gravity as a vector quantity in the equations and is in the list of variables. Gravity is in the first derivatives in Appendix A and Appendix B.I ask you what is wrong with the paper I linked to any you answer with a rant about OSIRIS. That has nothing to do with my question.
1. What do you mean the 1965 NASA never explains anything? It has everything you need. It lays out all the derivatives and the flow logic for the software. Step by step. You supposed to be an engineer so you should not need any explanation for basic derivatives. The flow charts exactly match the equations so that shouldn’t need any explanation there either. My calculus is rusty as hell and even I can follow it.
Maybe you think it’s nonsense only because you can’t understand it. If that’s the problem, well...that’s your issue. Maybe you should take one of those free online classes from MIT and get you calculus skills up to snuff.
2. If you're in the safety at sea business why is 99% of your website just conspiracy theories? Why isn't the majority of your site about safety at sea. If I were looking to hire a Marine Architect and found that site I would immediately hit the back button. Not to mention the only Heiwa Company I can find is in Japan and makes pachinko machines. Why is that? Interesting.
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. A recent example of NASA silence and pseudoscience is the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft, which orbits the Sun in a very funny trajectory and which will in September 2017 be gravity kicked (LOL) in another strange trajectory to visit an asteroid and from there will fly back to Earth and drop off a sample taken from the asteroid. If you only ask about the fuel consumption, there is no answer from NASA. I am embarrassad that plenty NASA people participate in this hoax. https://www.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/
2. I am not in the conspiracy business. One of my pages is about the former (east) German Democratic Republic, GDR, that between 1963 and 1989 sold people like slaves to western countries. The numbers could be a couple of hundreds/year up to almost 3000/year. Total >33 000! Reason was that GDR top people needed money! Heard about it? Probably not as western media were told to shut up! The news could kill! So media was silent. East German secret police was also confused! They arrested people to protect GDR and then the GDR top brass sold these people to the enemy!
The reason why the scam worked was the secrecy. Same with a-bombs and human space travel. The details are secret as both things are hoaxes. Don't blame me for it.
Of course some interests use the same tactics to cover up incidents at sea. You just invent things and tell media to publish it.
I am quite pleased with my website http://heiwaco.com . I think you are, apart from stupid, just jealous.
You said the equations in the paper is nonsense. I asked you to explain what is wrong with them. Answer that question and some random shit that has nothing to do with my question.
I'll ask again. What is wrong with the equations in the 1965 NASA paper that make it nonsense?
Mike
But I explain it at my website since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm#EV17 .
The NASA 1969 equations do not consider influence of gravity but regardless, there was no computer available 1969 to fully automatically steer Apollo 11 during the re-entry. Actually the whole trip was fantasy.
How can ain intelligent person like believe the NASA 1965 nonsense?
You a liar. You didn’t even read the paper. You are a very bad liar but a liar none the less.
Actually read the paper this time and explain why it's nonsense. Or is it too far over your head for you to understand?
Mike
You are right! I used this 1969 paper - https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690029435.pdf . But it is the same old nonsense.
Why won't you answer the question? What is wrong with the equations that make them nonsense? Why are you afraid to answer the question.
Mike
Why won't you answer the question? What is wrong with the equations that make them nonsense? Why are you afraid to answer the question.
Mike
Hm, the 1965 document https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf assumes that a re-entry consists of
1. Pre-Up Phase (reducing altitude, speed)
2. Up-Control Phase (bouncing up increasing altitude, redcucing speed)
3. Kepler Phase (reducing altitude, speed)
For each phase the spacecraft travels a certain distance (range) during a certain time. The velocity, altitude and density/temperature of the air and change all the time.
However, as we don't know the loction/time where the Pre-Up Phase starts and in what direction you travel, the location where the Up-Control Phase starts will be uncertain.
Why the spacecraft bounces up during the Up-Control Phase is also un-clear.
So the location and altitude, where the Kepler Phase starts is also uncertain.
I would conclude that the proposed method cannot be used to predict, where the spacecraft will deploy its parachutes.
Actually the whole paper is a joke. Of course no Apollo spacecrafts ever landed as suggested bouncing up during landing. No Apollo spacecrafts landed at all. They were just dropped off from an airplane.
LOL!! Anders, you are so silly.I am not in the conspiracy business.
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
Thanks monkey for linking to me - http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm
[img]http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg[/img]
LOL!! Anders, you are so silly.I am not in the conspiracy business.
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
Thanks monkey for linking to me - http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm
That image isn't linked to your site. It's a cropped screenshot that's being hosted in imgur.Code: [Select][img]http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg[/img]
Hm, the 1965 document https://ia600501.us.archive.org/14/items/nasa_techdoc_19750065842/19750065842.pdf assumes that a re-entry consists ofThank you Dr. Obvious PhD. The world’s foremost authority on the incredibly apparent.
1. Pre-Up Phase (reducing altitude, speed)
2. Up-Control Phase (bouncing up increasing altitude, redcucing speed)
3. Kepler Phase (reducing altitude, speed)
For each phase the spacecraft travels a certain distance (range) during a certain time. The velocity, altitude and density/temperature of the air and change all the time.
However, as we don't know the loction/time where the Pre-Up Phase starts and in what direction you travel, the location where the Up-Control Phase starts will be uncertain.
Why the spacecraft bounces up during the Up-Control Phase is also un-clear.
So the location and altitude, where the Kepler Phase starts is also uncertain.
I would conclude that the proposed method cannot be used to predict, where the spacecraft will deploy its parachutes.
Actually the whole paper is a joke. Of course no Apollo spacecrafts ever landed as suggested bouncing up during landing. No Apollo spacecrafts landed at all. They were just dropped off from an airplane.
<snip>The fact that you sat around with your friend and laughed as the towers came down is offensive.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
<snip>
<snip>The fact that you sat around with your friend and laughed as the towers came down is offensive.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
<snip>
My cousin was in a wheel chair in the north tower. Some random man carried her down eleven flights of stairs and she got out alive. She owes her life to that man. This is personal for me.
My cousin watched the towers fall from a mile away. Millions saw them come down and I don’t mean on TV or video. They were there and watched it with their own eyes. Millions of people from Manhattan, north Jersey, and Long Island. I’m from north Jersey and I live in Connecticut. I personally know a dozen people who were there and witnessed the collapse. That’s why I know it happened exactly as you saw on TV.
The fact that you found at the deaths of 2606 people laughable says something about your character. You are a piss poor engineer, a liar, and if you think it’s ok to make light of the loss of 2606 souls to terrorism, well, that makes you piece of shit human being too. I defy you to walk into any NYC firehouse and tell them your junk science conspiracy theory. See what happens then.
I missed this comment when I scanned this post earlier. This will be my last post to you.
Mike Bertelson
Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
<snip>The fact that you sat around with your friend and laughed as the towers came down is offensive.
At that time I met E who supported me 100%. E was a refugée from Eastgermany. And then 2001 the whole WTC/NY complex was destroyed by some Arabs incl. Egyptians. E and I watched the re-plays on TV at our house at Freiberg i.Sa.. E just laughed. It couldn't physically happen.
<snip>
My cousin was in a wheel chair in the north tower. Some random man carried her down eleven flights of stairs and she got out alive. She owes her life to that man. This is personal for me.
My cousin watched the towers fall from a mile away. Millions saw them come down and I don’t mean on TV or video. They were there and watched it with their own eyes. Millions of people from Manhattan, north Jersey, and Long Island. I’m from north Jersey and I live in Connecticut. I personally know a dozen people who were there and witnessed the collapse. That’s why I know it happened exactly as you saw on TV.
The fact that you found at the deaths of 2606 people laughable says something about your character. You are a piss poor engineer, a liar, and if you think it’s ok to make light of the loss of 2606 souls to terrorism, well, that makes you piece of shit human being too. I defy you to walk into any NYC firehouse and tell them your junk science conspiracy theory. See what happens then.
I missed this comment when I scanned this post earlier. This will be my last post to you.
Mike Bertelson
Thanks for stopping posting rubbish to me. You sound like a paid shill.
It is physically impossible that a weak top C can crush a solid bottom A of a tower by gravity, when the interface C/A is weakened by, e.g. fire and C drops on A.
According to all laws of physics top C should just bounce on bottom A ... and no global collapse can take place.
As you know I pay anyone €1M demonstrating that weak top C can crush strong, intact bottom A by gravity. You have not attempted to win it. You are a loser.
What was shown on TV by five US TV channels on 911 - top C crushing bottom A at high, constants speed - was 100% computer generated images, CGI, à la Hollywood. It could never have happened in reality incl. the planes.
It seems the complete WTC at NY was destroyed by other means, e.g. from bottom up. And no planes.
It is thus quite easy to solve the 911 mystery and who did it. How?
Just find out who made the CGI footage and ordered the TV companies to broadcast it (and ordered shills like you to lie about it). I have evidently told FBI about it ... but they were not interested?
You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
Rubbish? No! You don’t get to make fun the deaths of 2606 souls and then call my posts rubbish.
Prove It! You say they’re rubbish, then prove it. I don’t think you have the engineering skills of the level of knowledge to prove anything. Prove my posts are rubbish.
I’m no paid shill. I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
I started posting in here because it seemed like an interesting discussion. I didn’t know I’d discussing technical data with an engineer wannabe. You have some balls complaining about my posts. Especially considering you’ve been banned from nearly every forum you post your conspiracy theories. Yeah, I looked you up.
I’m tired of your lies and treatment of other posters. I’m not going anywhere. You're not going to get away with thinking it's ok to laugh at the deaths of 2606 people.
Since you’re so sure the towers didn’t come down that way how do you explain the literally millions of eye witnesses that say they came down exactly as they did on TV. Do you have the balls to answer this question?
Mike
Your question. Not mine. I have no doubts about what or how.Rubbish? No! You don’t get to make fun the deaths of 2606 souls and then call my posts rubbish.
Prove It! You say they’re rubbish, then prove it. I don’t think you have the engineering skills of the level of knowledge to prove anything. Prove my posts are rubbish.
I’m no paid shill. I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
I started posting in here because it seemed like an interesting discussion. I didn’t know I’d discussing technical data with an engineer wannabe. You have some balls complaining about my posts. Especially considering you’ve been banned from nearly every forum you post your conspiracy theories. Yeah, I looked you up.
I’m tired of your lies and treatment of other posters. I’m not going anywhere. You're not going to get away with thinking it's ok to laugh at the deaths of 2606 people.
Since you’re so sure the towers didn’t come down that way how do you explain the literally millions of eye witnesses that say they came down exactly as they did on TV. Do you have the balls to answer this question?
Mike
We have a thread for this.
I am more than happy to school you.
If you don't want a challenge then keep """debating""" heiwa.
Of course the towers came down. The question is what caused them to collapse.
Heiwa is the shill. Not you.
Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - <spam removed>- and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
So, it's true. You don't have the balls to answer my question. I knew you wouldn't.Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - <spam removed>- and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
So you invited the people who would sentence you to death to listen to evidence that would sentence you to death, yet you were not sentenced to death.
Who told you? The cleaner? Harvey the rabbit? J Edgar Hoover's ghost?
What a sack of lying fraudulent shit this is. Even your challenge is less impressive - a mere 10000 Euros.
So, it's true. You don't have the balls to answer my question. I knew you wouldn't.Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Mike
What question are you on about?
Proving once again you don't read posts.So, it's true. You don't have the balls to answer my question. I knew you wouldn't.Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Mike
What question are you on about? I thought you had decided not to participate in this friendly discussion about my lack of understanding in everything.
What question are you on about?
He wants to know what happened to wtc 1, 2 and 7 if it was "all cgi" I think it is a very reasonable question. What happened to wtc 1, 2 and 7 Heiwa?
Nuke the entire site from orbit--it's the only way to be sure. :DWhat question are you on about?
He wants to know what happened to wtc 1, 2 and 7 if it was "all cgi" I think it is a very reasonable question. What happened to wtc 1, 2 and 7 Heiwa?
They were nuked from the moon by the captain of Costa Concordia.
Proving once again you don't read posts.So, it's true. You don't have the balls to answer my question. I knew you wouldn't.Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Mike
What question are you on about? I thought you had decided not to participate in this friendly discussion about my lack of understanding in everything.
Since you’re so sure the towers didn’t come down that way how do you explain the literally millions of eye witnesses that say the towers came down exactly as you saw on TV?
Proving once again you don't read posts.So, it's true. You don't have the balls to answer my question. I knew you wouldn't.Well, I was at Albuquerque, NM, 2010 making a speech - http://heiwaco.com/HeiwaNMSR.pdf - and invited FBI to attend. FBI didn't show up. It was only later I was told that we a-bombs deniers are sentenced to death in USA.You said you couldn't come to US because of a death sentence. So are you lying now about being in Albuquerque or were you lying about not being able to come to US?Obvious attention whore troll is even more obvious than usual.Hm, just call the SAC of FBI, Albuquerque, NM, and ask her why she didn't investigate my tip! I was there but she said I should contact her colleague at the US Embassy, Paris.
I was at Albuquerque, NM, USA, and I should call Paris, France!?! From Albuquerque!
As for the FBI blowing you off, well, it's not hard to tell you're an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
Mike
What question are you on about? I thought you had decided not to participate in this friendly discussion about my lack of understanding in everything.
Since you’re so sure the towers didn’t come down that way how do you explain the literally millions of eye witnesses that say the towers came down exactly as you saw on TV?
According basic, dynamic, structural, damage analysis a top part C of a structure cannot crush bottom part A of same structure, when bottom A can statically keep C in place. If you drop top C on bottom A, C will always bounce on bottom A. There might be some local damages in interface C/A, but top C annot ever crush bottom A by gravity. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm .
Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.
Of course five US TV companies didn't have any reporters at all in the streets of NY and in the air above NY at 911. Everything shown on TV were a pre-recorded show.
The actual location was fenced off before the show started. During the show, the complete WTC was destroyed from bottom up, etc, etc. Of course they forgot to destroy WTC7, so it was done later.
No planes, no Arabs!
What a show.
Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you've ever said.Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Noone was inside the buildings. Only paid actors later said they were. Part of the show. Just look at them! Actors all of them! Look at the alleged 'TV reporters' on the ground in action when ... the towers collapse from top down in the background. The background collapses are 100% CGI and the 'reporters' were just actors probably in front of a green screen. Just ask them! I link to plenty videos of these 'reporters/actors' at my site. Only twerps believe the offical story with Arabs and planes.
That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you've ever said.Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Noone was inside the buildings. Only paid actors later said they were. Part of the show. Just look at them! Actors all of them! Look at the alleged 'TV reporters' on the ground in action when ... the towers collapse from top down in the background. The background collapses are 100% CGI and the 'reporters' were just actors probably in front of a green screen. Just ask them! I link to plenty videos of these 'reporters/actors' at my site. Only twerps believe the offical story with Arabs and planes.
I’m going to assume you’ve never been to NYC because your comments are just plain nonsense.
1. It is not possible to fence off most of the financial district and nobody knows about it. It never happened and it’s complete nonsense to say that it did.
2. To think there were green screens and actors and millions of people not know about it is complete nonsense.
3. Those towers could be seen from roof tops and windows all the up the island. They could be seen from all of NY harbor. They could be seen from Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. They could be seen from Brooklyn and Governors Island in New York. They could be seen from Ellis Island, in NJ or NY, who knows.
What you’re trying so hard to ignore and what I want you to answer is why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV.
Answer this question or admit you are wrong.
2606 people died when those towers came down and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Mike
I'm not going away until you answer the question.That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you've ever said.Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Noone was inside the buildings. Only paid actors later said they were. Part of the show. Just look at them! Actors all of them! Look at the alleged 'TV reporters' on the ground in action when ... the towers collapse from top down in the background. The background collapses are 100% CGI and the 'reporters' were just actors probably in front of a green screen. Just ask them! I link to plenty videos of these 'reporters/actors' at my site. Only twerps believe the offical story with Arabs and planes.
I’m going to assume you’ve never been to NYC because your comments are just plain nonsense.
1. It is not possible to fence off most of the financial district and nobody knows about it. It never happened and it’s complete nonsense to say that it did.
2. To think there were green screens and actors and millions of people not know about it is complete nonsense.
3. Those towers could be seen from roof tops and windows all the up the island. They could be seen from all of NY harbor. They could be seen from Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. They could be seen from Brooklyn and Governors Island in New York. They could be seen from Ellis Island, in NJ or NY, who knows.
What you’re trying so hard to ignore and what I want you to answer is why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV.
Answer this question or admit you are wrong.
2606 people died when those towers came down and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Mike
I have been in NYC several times and I have even visited the ABS office in one of the WTC towers in the 1980's and the restaurant on the top. I already then wondered why ABS would have a little office there. The tower seemed almost empty already then.
The WTC area is quite small and (1) very easy to fence off.
The average Americans are not very bright (2). They believe in a-bombs frying Japanese monkies 8/45 and that strong Americans have been on the Moon 69/72 in spite of non-existing sanitary facilites. I assume (3) most of them watched TV 911 and didn't bother to look out of the windows. So there were no eye witnesses of any top-down collapses. They were propaganda ... like all monkey eyewitnesses of 1945 FLASHES at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So MicroBrain! Go away!
I'm not going away until you answer the question.That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you've ever said.Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Noone was inside the buildings. Only paid actors later said they were. Part of the show. Just look at them! Actors all of them! Look at the alleged 'TV reporters' on the ground in action when ... the towers collapse from top down in the background. The background collapses are 100% CGI and the 'reporters' were just actors probably in front of a green screen. Just ask them! I link to plenty videos of these 'reporters/actors' at my site. Only twerps believe the offical story with Arabs and planes.
I’m going to assume you’ve never been to NYC because your comments are just plain nonsense.
1. It is not possible to fence off most of the financial district and nobody knows about it. It never happened and it’s complete nonsense to say that it did.
2. To think there were green screens and actors and millions of people not know about it is complete nonsense.
3. Those towers could be seen from roof tops and windows all the up the island. They could be seen from all of NY harbor. They could be seen from Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. They could be seen from Brooklyn and Governors Island in New York. They could be seen from Ellis Island, in NJ or NY, who knows.
What you’re trying so hard to ignore and what I want you to answer is why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV.
Answer this question or admit you are wrong.
2606 people died when those towers came down and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Mike
I have been in NYC several times and I have even visited the ABS office in one of the WTC towers in the 1980's and the restaurant on the top. I already then wondered why ABS would have a little office there. The tower seemed almost empty already then.
The WTC area is quite small and (1) very easy to fence off.
The average Americans are not very bright (2). They believe in a-bombs frying Japanese monkies 8/45 and that strong Americans have been on the Moon 69/72 in spite of non-existing sanitary facilites. I assume (3) most of them watched TV 911 and didn't bother to look out of the windows. So there were no eye witnesses of any top-down collapses. They were propaganda ... like all monkey eyewitnesses of 1945 FLASHES at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So MicroBrain! Go away!
I never said they couldn't fence it off. I said it was impossible to fence it off and nobody know about it.
Assuming they all watched it on TV is just plain stupid. You obviously don't understand Americans. Anyone who could was trying to see it live and not on TV. Even if your ignorant comment were true that still leaves a million or more people seeing it live.
Answer the question of admit you're wrong.
Mike
What the matter, can't you read because that’s not what I posted? I said millions saw it live, as it happened, not on TV.I'm not going away until you answer the question.That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you've ever said.Millions of people watching TV saw of course twice tops C crushing bottoms A of two NY towers on 911, but it was all CGI.What about the people who were inside the buildings when the planes hit, left the buildings and then watched them come down?
Noone was inside the buildings. Only paid actors later said they were. Part of the show. Just look at them! Actors all of them! Look at the alleged 'TV reporters' on the ground in action when ... the towers collapse from top down in the background. The background collapses are 100% CGI and the 'reporters' were just actors probably in front of a green screen. Just ask them! I link to plenty videos of these 'reporters/actors' at my site. Only twerps believe the offical story with Arabs and planes.
I’m going to assume you’ve never been to NYC because your comments are just plain nonsense.
1. It is not possible to fence off most of the financial district and nobody knows about it. It never happened and it’s complete nonsense to say that it did.
2. To think there were green screens and actors and millions of people not know about it is complete nonsense.
3. Those towers could be seen from roof tops and windows all the up the island. They could be seen from all of NY harbor. They could be seen from Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. They could be seen from Brooklyn and Governors Island in New York. They could be seen from Ellis Island, in NJ or NY, who knows.
What you’re trying so hard to ignore and what I want you to answer is why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV.
Answer this question or admit you are wrong.
2606 people died when those towers came down and you're an idiot if you think otherwise.
Mike
I have been in NYC several times and I have even visited the ABS office in one of the WTC towers in the 1980's and the restaurant on the top. I already then wondered why ABS would have a little office there. The tower seemed almost empty already then.
The WTC area is quite small and (1) very easy to fence off.
The average Americans are not very bright (2). They believe in a-bombs frying Japanese monkies 8/45 and that strong Americans have been on the Moon 69/72 in spite of non-existing sanitary facilites. I assume (3) most of them watched TV 911 and didn't bother to look out of the windows. So there were no eye witnesses of any top-down collapses. They were propaganda ... like all monkey eyewitnesses of 1945 FLASHES at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
So MicroBrain! Go away!
I never said they couldn't fence it off. I said it was impossible to fence it off and nobody know about it.
Assuming they all watched it on TV is just plain stupid. You obviously don't understand Americans. Anyone who could was trying to see it live and not on TV. Even if your ignorant comment were true that still leaves a million or more people seeing it live.
Answer the question of admit you're wrong.
Mike
I agree that a million or more of people could see the CGI live on TV. There is no question about it, MicroBrain. You must be suffering from cognitive dissonance. See my warning at http://heiwaco.com !
So you are saying that of the several million inhabitants of new york not a single person bothered to look at one of the most important events of the decade. This seems stupid even compared to your standards.it's an inconvenient truth that proves him wrong so he'll do his best to ignore it no matter how foolish it makes him look.
What the matter, can't you read because that’s not what I posted? I said millions saw it live, as it happened, not on TV.
It’s amazing how all those things that prove your conspiracy theory wrong you just refuse to discuss. You must have cognitive dissonance and are afraid to discuss such thing for fear of becoming ill.
Answer the question.
Mike
How WTC1/2 were destroyed is not clear. The amount of dust produced during the destructions - seen by millions? - cannot be explained by a top down gravity driven collapse. Too little energy available.
Keep calling me names and trying to get me to leave but it just ain't gonna happen.
What the matter, can't you read because that’s not what I posted? I said millions saw it live, as it happened, not on TV.
It’s amazing how all those things that prove your conspiracy theory wrong you just refuse to discuss. You must have cognitive dissonance and are afraid to discuss such thing for fear of becoming ill.
Answer the question.
Mike
Evidently my scientific dynamic structural damage analysis - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm - is not a conspiracy theory. A little top part C of a structure cannot crush the bottom part A by gravity, if a bit of the interface C/A is removed so that C drops on A. I am not in the creative conspiracy theory business.
The only thing that can happen is that C bounces on A.
So millions cannot have seen C crush A - twice - on 911. Whatever they saw, it was something else.
Fact remains that the complete WTC of NY was destroyed - seven buildings - and that most footage of the ruins is as unreal as the collapses itself.
We are told that WTC1 and WTC 2 were destroyed by tops C crushing bottoms A by gravity, but on all photos we see bottom four walls of the towers standing but no piles of floors and no debris whatsoever. The walls were not crushed. And the floors had disappeared.
WTC 7 was completely different - a pile of 47 intact floors on top of each other. WTC 7 was destroyed from bottom up, when the show was over.
How WTC1/2 were destroyed is not clear. The amount of dust produced during the destructions - seen by millions? - cannot be explained by a top down gravity driven collapse. Too little energy available.
I fully explain it http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . You sound like a stupid twerp, Microbrain. Why don't you just piss off?
I say we should all go to France, find Anders Bjorkman, and kick his geriatric ass up and down the Champs De Elysee.A couple of victims of 9/11 live in France. I wonder what their families think about his conspiracy theory and laughing at the loss of life.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Anders believes that anyone died when those "fake" towers came down. Again, just more actors in on the scam.I say we should all go to France, find Anders Bjorkman, and kick his geriatric ass up and down the Champs De Elysee.A couple of victims of 9/11 live in France. I wonder what their families think about his conspiracy theory and laughing at the loss of life.
Mike
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Anders believes that anyone died when those "fake" towers came down. Again, just more actors in on the scam.I say we should all go to France, find Anders Bjorkman, and kick his geriatric ass up and down the Champs De Elysee.A couple of victims of 9/11 live in France. I wonder what their families think about his conspiracy theory and laughing at the loss of life.
Mike
It's one thing to deny space travel, but it's totally another to deny 3000 people dying horribly in a terrorist attack. Anders is lower than a human. He doesn't deserve to be called a human, he is a heartless nothing.Yes. He is implying that nobody died.
People, what's your evidence that words help with the conspiracy theorists? If a person doesn't want to believe in airplanes, he can always find ridiculous excuses not to. And the same is true, if not even more, with rockets.No evidence what so ever. AAMOF, I'm certain all this discussion will be lost on him.
Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Anders believes that anyone died when those "fake" towers came down. Again, just more actors in on the scam.I say we should all go to France, find Anders Bjorkman, and kick his geriatric ass up and down the Champs De Elysee.A couple of victims of 9/11 live in France. I wonder what their families think about his conspiracy theory and laughing at the loss of life.
MikeIt's one thing to deny space travel, but it's totally another to deny 3000 people dying horribly in a terrorist attack. Anders is lower than a human. He doesn't deserve to be called a human, he is a heartless nothing.Yes. He is implying that nobody died.
The circumstances of his conspiracy theory, and it is a conspiracy theory, requires setup, fences, and pre-made video are beyond logic to believe they are true.
He says he’s been to NYC. If true he must realize that it is impossible to “fence” off the towers for a controlled take down and nobody notice. The very thought that this is even remotely possible is ludicrous and poorly thought through.
The idea that there wouldn’t be millions of eye witnesses is even crazier. First of all, it is basic human nature to look and see what’s going on. People slow down to look at the train wreck or car accident. They certainly are going to go outdoors and see if they can see what's going on. He has no understanding of human nature.
It’s very odd to me that in all these years none of this has occurred to him. He certainly didn’t think his shitty theory through. No engineer would leave big gaping holes like this in their hypothesis.
Maybe he realizes these holes prove him wrong but is mentally incapable of admitting he’s wrong and will die with the lie. If so I hope he gets psychiatric help soon.
Mike
I've read you crackpot conspiracy theory.Check me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Anders believes that anyone died when those "fake" towers came down. Again, just more actors in on the scam.I say we should all go to France, find Anders Bjorkman, and kick his geriatric ass up and down the Champs De Elysee.A couple of victims of 9/11 live in France. I wonder what their families think about his conspiracy theory and laughing at the loss of life.
MikeIt's one thing to deny space travel, but it's totally another to deny 3000 people dying horribly in a terrorist attack. Anders is lower than a human. He doesn't deserve to be called a human, he is a heartless nothing.Yes. He is implying that nobody died.
The circumstances of his conspiracy theory, and it is a conspiracy theory, requires setup, fences, and pre-made video are beyond logic to believe they are true.
He says he’s been to NYC. If true he must realize that it is impossible to “fence” off the towers for a controlled take down and nobody notice. The very thought that this is even remotely possible is ludicrous and poorly thought through.
The idea that there wouldn’t be millions of eye witnesses is even crazier. First of all, it is basic human nature to look and see what’s going on. People slow down to look at the train wreck or car accident. They certainly are going to go outdoors and see if they can see what's going on. He has no understanding of human nature.
It’s very odd to me that in all these years none of this has occurred to him. He certainly didn’t think his shitty theory through. No engineer would leave big gaping holes like this in their hypothesis.
Maybe he realizes these holes prove him wrong but is mentally incapable of admitting he’s wrong and will die with the lie. If so I hope he gets psychiatric help soon.
Mike
Well, fact remains I am not in the secret, violent conspiracy business. I work openly, peacefully with safety at sea and publish my findings under my own name + photo.
If anyone can describe a structure where top C crushes bottom A by gravity I pay that twerp €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm !
Study the link before you reply.
Here's a link so a thread of some people who attended his "talk" in Albuquerque.
BTW, this is one of the many forums Heiwa has been banned from.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191251&page=2
Mike
I've read you crackpot conspiracy theory.
Again, you just keep avoiding the question because it proves you wrong.
Why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV?
Mike
Here's a link so a thread of some people who attended his "talk" in Albuquerque.
BTW, this is one of the many forums Heiwa has been banned from.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191251&page=2
Mike
Thanks re-read the thread from post #1.
Yes, I was a member of that forum starting exactly 10 years ago. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4561353#post4561353 . Suggest you re-read it to learn something.
But after a couple of years I was banned from that forum. I have forgotten why. I actually liked Dave Thomas, NMSR, for inviting me to Albuquerque, NM. Suggest you re-read bill smith's comments in the thread.
Note that posters are polite and non-violent, etc.
Visiting Albuquerque and its atomic bomb museum really convinced me that a-bombs were a hoax from the start. And I met plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter designing a-bombs, spacecrafts incl. flying saucers, etc. They were all mad!
Keep up with the name calling.
I've read you crackpot conspiracy theory.
Again, you just keep avoiding the question because it proves you wrong.
Why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV?
Mike
They just saw it on TV, MicroBrain!
Keep up with the name calling.
I've read you crackpot conspiracy theory.
Again, you just keep avoiding the question because it proves you wrong.
Why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV?
Mike
They just saw it on TV, MicroBrain!
There were millions that did not see it on TV. They witnessed it with their own eyes so that is a nonsensical answer. Do you really think it makes sense that not one person in the NY metro area actually witnessed the towers fall? Are you really that stupid?
Mike
Wow. You really will say any made up shit to protect you conspiracy theory.Keep up with the name calling.
I've read you crackpot conspiracy theory.
Again, you just keep avoiding the question because it proves you wrong.
Why did the millions of eye witnesses from Manhattan, Long Island, and Northern Jersey see exactly what was shown on TV?
Mike
They just saw it on TV, MicroBrain!
There were millions that did not see it on TV. They witnessed it with their own eyes so that is a nonsensical answer. Do you really think it makes sense that not one person in the NY metro area actually witnessed the towers fall? Are you really that stupid?
Mike
No, everyone watched the 911 show on TV. Because it didn't happen in reality. When people were watching the TV show, WTC was destroyed from bottom up locally. No Arabs, no planes. Only stupid twerps, like you, suggest something else.
Anyway, I am not in the conspiracy business. My biz is safety at sea - http://heiwaco.com - which I understand very well.
It is a stone cold fact that millions witnessed the towers falling. I don't for a minute believe you believe otherwise. I believe you would make up any lie rather than admit there is a flaw with your conspiracy theory.
Lies like this are why you have no credibility and have been banned from so many forums.
The fact that you deny the deaths is just wrong. I don't understand how someone could be so callous. Don't you have a shred of humanity. Several of those that died in the WTC live in France. If you had any balls you'd talk them.
Mike
I think that Heiwa is suffering from the Sunk Cost Fallacy. He is probably thinking "I've spent so much time spreading bullshit. If I stop right now, it would mean I wasted my time.", instead of thinking "OK, I've learned a lot of rocket science (though I could have learned it in a less painful way), I should now do something useful with it!"Welcome, PhysicsMaster. We need more intelligent posters here.
Anyway, I am not in the conspiracy business.
Anyway, I am not in the conspiracy business.
uh-huh...
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
Hi, Heiwa! I haven't really read the entire thread, but I've seen you support the conspiracy theories that the Moon landing was fake and some 9/11 conspiracy theory. These are crazy theories. Astronauts have left mirrors on the Moon, they are detectable by lasers, and millions of people have examined it. The 9/11 attack has had countless investigations, both governmental and non-governmental, and those investigations together have certainly involved thousands of people, all of which would have to be involved in a conspiracy. And there is no clear motive for that. Plus, if your alleged evidence, that official reports contradict the basic physics and that the photographs and videos contain obvious anomalies, was real, that would certainly require millions of people to be in a conspiracy. The biggest conspiracy ever proven to be real was Operation Snow White, involving, according to some sources, some 5000 people. And there was, unlike with your theories, a clear motive behind it (they had to destroy evidence against their religious leader).
Millions did see it. They were there and watched. You're the one making the crazy claim that they didn't see it. Prove it.
It is a stone cold fact that millions witnessed the towers falling. I don't for a minute believe you believe otherwise. I believe you would make up any lie rather than admit there is a flaw with your conspiracy theory.
Lies like this are why you have no credibility and have been banned from so many forums.
The fact that you deny the deaths is just wrong. I don't understand how someone could be so callous. Don't you have a shred of humanity. Several of those that died in the WTC live in France. If you had any balls you'd talk them.
Mike
Hm, my little contribution is only the understanding that a top C of any structure with bottom A cannot be crushed from top down by gravity. C on top cannot crush A below! It is physically impossible.
Millions of people cannot see a top C crushing bottom A.
So let's look at the footage seen live on TV again. POUFF, POUFF, POUFF. - http://heiwaco.com/pouf.htm . Is this top C destoying bottom A by gravity? Of course not.
It is a Hollywood style TV show! And then nobody dies.
My credibility is very good. There is nothing wrong with my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps like you think so, but you are bad at thinking. You play upset ... badly!
Anyway, I am not in the conspiracy business.
uh-huh...
(http://i.imgur.com/0SBNVCD.jpg)
But my web page is about something completely different. It is about two reports by members of the US Congress that (1) torture is marvelous and (2) that Arabs can fly planes after a couple of hours training and destroy a small plot of land on Manhattan in minutes! I hint politely that the US senators and US congress persons concerned are not serious.
Why not link to it properly.
Try to stay on topic!
Millions did see it. They were there and watched. You're the one making the crazy claim that they didn't see it. Prove it.
Millions did see it. They were there and watched. You're the one making the crazy claim that they didn't see it. Prove it.
Yes, plenty people watched the show. Why do you suggest the opposite? But it was a show! You don't really suggest that structures of any kind can collapse by gravity from top down?
You sound like a terrorist. Ever heard of Bazant? He is a US terrorist. I describe him at my website. He is a terrible terrorist. He encourages pseudoscience of the worst Stalin style. I feel sorry for him.How dare you call me a terrorist you piece of shit. I’m a Proud American, something you'll never understand. I served in the New Jersey Army National Guard for two years and the United States Navy for ten years.
You know, few people disagreed with Stalin. If you did, you were shot. No conspiracy.You don’t get to denigrate people the way you do and get away with it. I’m not going anywhere you small-minded, intolerant ass.
MicroBrain! Why don't you just piss off?
Good stuff! Make sure you hold him to a point until he addresses it. Otherwise he'll try to change the topic and the conversation goes in never-ending circles with Heiwa addressing nothing and constantly spewing out the same old circle of bullshit!Heiwa spends a lot of time not answering questions that make him look bad. No matter how much evidence there is he'll never admit he's wrong.
Good stuff! Make sure you hold him to a point until he addresses it. Otherwise he'll try to change the topic and the conversation goes in never-ending circles with Heiwa addressing nothing and constantly spewing out the same old circle of bullshit!Heiwa spends a lot of time not answering questions that make him look bad. No matter how much evidence there is he'll never admit he's wrong.
Heiwa is incapable of keeping an open mind
Mike
I've given up the possibility of rational discussion.Good stuff! Make sure you hold him to a point until he addresses it. Otherwise he'll try to change the topic and the conversation goes in never-ending circles with Heiwa addressing nothing and constantly spewing out the same old circle of bullshit!Heiwa spends a lot of time not answering questions that make him look bad. No matter how much evidence there is he'll never admit he's wrong.
Heiwa is incapable of keeping an open mind
Mike
Which is why it is far better to just point out his lies, stupidity and trolling rather than bother trying to have a discussion with him, and as he is a trolling attention whore always edit out his links.
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
So you think its's reasonable to say that there was nobody outside during the day in the entire NY Metro area. That is one of the stupidest things you've said...well maybe not stupidest but pretty danged stupid.No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
So you think its's reasonable to say that there was nobody outside during the day in the entire NY Metro area. That is one of the stupidest things you've said...well maybe not stupidest but pretty danged stupid.No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
There's a million-ish people on the streets on NYC at any give weekday. Your comment just proves you inability to deal with reality in you conspiracy theories.
Mike
Yeah, just keep posting the same crap over and over again. It's not going to make your ignorant idea that nobody saw the towers come down go away.So you think its's reasonable to say that there was nobody outside during the day in the entire NY Metro area. That is one of the stupidest things you've said...well maybe not stupidest but pretty danged stupid.No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
There's a million-ish people on the streets on NYC at any give weekday. Your comment just proves you inability to deal with reality in you conspiracy theories.
Mike
Well, what I say at my website is that a top C of any structure cannot crush bottom A below, even if you drop C on A. C always bounces on A and there may local damages at the interface C/A. But C cannot crush A into dust!
I have been told that you could see on TV that on 9.11 2001 two towers in NY were destroyed that way in spite of my findings.
So I have of course looked at recordings of the famous tops C crush bottoms A at NY and found that the recordings are fake! Simple Hollywood CGI. I assume the terrorists made the fake footage so they could blame the destructions on some Arabs and planes. A conspiracy!
But my business is structural safety, mainly of ships. Interesting stuff.
Yeah, just keep posting the same crap over and over again. It's not going to make your ignorant idea that nobody saw the towers come down go away.So you think its's reasonable to say that there was nobody outside during the day in the entire NY Metro area. That is one of the stupidest things you've said...well maybe not stupidest but pretty danged stupid.No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
There's a million-ish people on the streets on NYC at any give weekday. Your comment just proves you inability to deal with reality in you conspiracy theories.
Mike
Well, what I say at my website is that a top C of any structure cannot crush bottom A below, even if you drop C on A. C always bounces on A and there may local damages at the interface C/A. But C cannot crush A into dust!
I have been told that you could see on TV that on 9.11 2001 two towers in NY were destroyed that way in spite of my findings.
So I have of course looked at recordings of the famous tops C crush bottoms A at NY and found that the recordings are fake! Simple Hollywood CGI. I assume the terrorists made the fake footage so they could blame the destructions on some Arabs and planes. A conspiracy!
But my business is structural safety, mainly of ships. Interesting stuff.
Mike
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.Yeah, just keep posting the same crap over and over again. It's not going to make your ignorant idea that nobody saw the towers come down go away.So you think its's reasonable to say that there was nobody outside during the day in the entire NY Metro area. That is one of the stupidest things you've said...well maybe not stupidest but pretty danged stupid.No, someone just made up a story that millions saw a top C crushing bottom A. No conspiracy. There are no records that millions saw anything. FBI forgot to write down the names.So it's not a conspiracy but millions lied...do you actually read what you post?
I don’t just suggest it, I’m flat out saying it. It came down from the top down as witnessed by the millions who were there. Instead of keeping up the charade why don’t you try to get at the truth.
Well, a top C of any structure cannot crush by gravity the bottom A that keeps it up and in position. You can even drop top C on A and ... top C just bounces. Structures cannot collapse by gravity from top down ... and become dust.
So no millions being there witnessed any top down collapse ... shown live on TV. Sorry, Microbrain, you just make things up.
No! I posted what actually happened. You invented the stupid idea that there were no eye witnesses because you lack the know how to create a workable theory that represents reality.
Instead you came up with a theory that requires that not a single person outside in Manhattan, Jersey City, Hoboken, Bayonne, or Long Island...because what would someone be doing outside during the day? You are really stupid if your small mind thinks anyone will believe such an ignorant claim. You really are an idiot.Why do you do it ... apart from lack of brains? Are you a supporter of terrorists? Why don't you reply simple questions?
I already did but as you always do, you cut that part of my post out because it makes you look bad.
Mike
No, I just came up with the fact that no top C of any structure can crush bottom A below by gravity.
As a follow up of this finding I conclude that anyone stating having seen a top C crushing a bottom A of same structure is a simple liar. They are not part of a conspiracy. They are just lying. Or twerps say that millions of these liars exist. But twerps are twerps and cannot be trusted. You are a twerp!
There's a million-ish people on the streets on NYC at any give weekday. Your comment just proves you inability to deal with reality in you conspiracy theories.
Mike
Well, what I say at my website is that a top C of any structure cannot crush bottom A below, even if you drop C on A. C always bounces on A and there may local damages at the interface C/A. But C cannot crush A into dust!
I have been told that you could see on TV that on 9.11 2001 two towers in NY were destroyed that way in spite of my findings.
So I have of course looked at recordings of the famous tops C crush bottoms A at NY and found that the recordings are fake! Simple Hollywood CGI. I assume the terrorists made the fake footage so they could blame the destructions on some Arabs and planes. A conspiracy!
But my business is structural safety, mainly of ships. Interesting stuff.
Mike
But all footage of the destructions show clearly that tops C just disappear first - they are compressed into nothing - and then that intact floors of bottom A explodes into dust starting from the top. It has nothing to do with a top C crushes bottom A collapse!
Plenty people may have seen how intact floors of bottom A exploded, when the towers were destroyed from top down.
I doubt any person saw top C crush bottom A.
Why do you get so upset about my finding? Aren't you interested in structural safety.
Or do you think surrounding a structure with soldiers to secure it, makes it any safer Department of Homeland Security style.
Sorry, you have completely misunderstood what safety is and what I work with. You are a simple twerp!
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Do you really think you can get me to back off my calling me a terrorist or microbrain? The answer is NO!Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
No, millions didn't see any tops C crush bottoms A of any towers on 9/11 2001 at NY. Only terrorists say so.
That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Or a microbrain, or terrorist...ok that last one pissed me off a little. It's the only way he can think of to try to get people to leave him alone so he could post what ever bat shit crazy conspiracy theories he wants. Plus, he likes to think he sounds superior to everyone else and posting questions that he can't answer make him mad...as does calling him a conspiracy theorist.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Or simply call anyone who doesn't believe his lies ('most everyone)a twerp. As if that proves anything!
I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
That's one way to put it.I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Dunning-Kruger is another way.That's one way to put it.I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
It certainly fits...okay, I had to look that up. :DDunning-Kruger is another way.That's one way to put it.I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
Plus pathological liar and probably a good dose of senility.Dunning-Kruger is another way.That's one way to put it.I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
I think that comes into play but I really think he is delusional. It makes more sense to his brain that nobody in New York looked out their window on 911 than that he be wrong.Dunning-Kruger is another way.That's one way to put it.I've often wondered if there isn't some psychological condition were his brain actually can't accept being wrong. I mean not just stupid and arrogant but literally can't see the possibility so his brain makes up stuff to prove to itself he is right. Regardless of how crazy said stuf is it makes more sense to him than being wrong. Just something I've wondered about.You are right. He would rather make up the most implausible lie rather than admit he's wrong.That's what it is. His mind is too small to wrap it around the fact that he is wrong. He is literally too stupid to see it.Millions saw it. Learn to deal with it.
Millions saw it and your suffering from dementia if you believe otherwise.
Mike
No, millions didn't see tops C crushing bottoms A. Reason is that top C cannot crush A.
just watch any footage of the destructions. No tops C visible anywhere crushing anything! Only terrorists believe tops C can crush bottoms A. You sound like a desperate terrorist.
Your simple mind can't figure out how to deal with the fact that it disproves your little conspiracy theory so you just deny anyone could have been outside during the collapse.
Mike
Mike
Narcissistic Personality Disorder?
I think he is thoroughly bored and just fucking with us.Given his last line of bs I'm starting to come to that conclusion as well
There is a pattern. Things slow down and then he adds some inane BS to stir the pot.
I think he is thoroughly bored and just fucking with us.
There is a pattern. Things slow down and then he adds some inane BS to stir the pot.
"My proven facts are simple and correct news and no crazy conspiracy theories. Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon or in space. M/S Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All official theories or information to the contrary are propaganda, lies or fantasy theories invented by particular political interests promoted by media."
Do you even know what "conspiracy theory" means?I think he is thoroughly bored and just fucking with us.
There is a pattern. Things slow down and then he adds some inane BS to stir the pot.
No, I am not bored at all! I am busy with a lot of interesting things.
Only a few minutes/day I use to improve http://heiwaco.com and:Quote"My proven facts are simple and correct news and no crazy conspiracy theories. Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon or in space. M/S Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All official theories or information to the contrary are propaganda, lies or fantasy theories invented by particular political interests promoted by media."
Definition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Whether he knows the definition or not, he doesn't have the balls to admit he is a conspiracy theorist.Do you even know what "conspiracy theory" means?I think he is thoroughly bored and just fucking with us.
There is a pattern. Things slow down and then he adds some inane BS to stir the pot.
No, I am not bored at all! I am busy with a lot of interesting things.
Only a few minutes/day I use to improve http://heiwaco.com and:Quote"My proven facts are simple and correct news and no crazy conspiracy theories. Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon or in space. M/S Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All official theories or information to the contrary are propaganda, lies or fantasy theories invented by particular political interests promoted by media."Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theoryDefinition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Thanks for asking a question. Why do you ask stupid questions all the time?Do you even know what "conspiracy theory" means?I think he is thoroughly bored and just fucking with us.
There is a pattern. Things slow down and then he adds some inane BS to stir the pot.
No, I am not bored at all! I am busy with a lot of interesting things.
Only a few minutes/day I use to improve http://heiwaco.com and:Quote"My proven facts are simple and correct news and no crazy conspiracy theories. Atomic bombs do not work. Human beings cannot travel to the Moon or in space. M/S Estonia didn't lose its bow visor and skyscrapers do not collapse from top down. All official theories or information to the contrary are propaganda, lies or fantasy theories invented by particular political interests promoted by media."Quote from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracy%20theoryDefinition of conspiracy theory
: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?Fission doesn't work in a FLASH! . Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?Fission doesn't work in a FLASH! . Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
To be fair, he still is unable to understand it...Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
That can't be true....Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
So how do you make an a-bomb explode? Fission?You are wrong. Fission is not slow. It is controlled (slowed down may be easier for you to understand) by the control rods. ANY nuclear reactor can go prompt critical (criticality on fast neutrons from initial fission, aka prompt neutrons) if the rods are pulled fast enough. Not as fast as in a nuclear weapon.
But fission is slow and works only in nuclear power plants and similar. Moderated neutrons are permitted to fission uranium atoms. It goes slowly! Temperatures are very low. Water boils under pressure.
A-bomb fission is very, very fast according to some 'experts'. You have two pieces of solid uranium metal of about 30 kg each. And then you bring them together, so they make up a 'critical mass' of about 60 kg. You also ensure that there is a free neutron in between.
And what happens then?
Yes!
FLASH!
It explodes at the speed of light. Billions of atoms fission in nano-seconds liberating energy at 100 000 000 000 000 000C!
But do not worry. Only twerps believe it!
So how do you make an a-bomb explode? Fission?You are wrong. Fission is not slow. It is controlled (slowed down may be easier for you to understand) by the control rods. ANY nuclear reactor can go prompt critical (criticality on fast neutrons from initial fission, aka prompt neutrons) if the rods are pulled fast enough. Not as fast as in a nuclear weapon.
But fission is slow and works only in nuclear power plants and similar. Moderated neutrons are permitted to fission uranium atoms. It goes slowly! Temperatures are very low. Water boils under pressure.
A-bomb fission is very, very fast according to some 'experts'. You have two pieces of solid uranium metal of about 30 kg each. And then you bring them together, so they make up a 'critical mass' of about 60 kg. You also ensure that there is a free neutron in between.
And what happens then?
Yes!
FLASH!
It explodes at the speed of light. Billions of atoms fission in nano-seconds liberating energy at 100 000 000 000 000 000C!
But do not worry. Only twerps believe it!
We already covered this and you admitted that fast fission does work so why the reversal.
BTW, 100 000 000 000 000 000C is about twelve orders of magnitude hotter than an actual atomic bomb. Quite making stuff up to support you incorrect hypotheses. Stop Lying.
Mike
Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
No, when I was ten my worry was USSR invading Hungary. The USSR embassy was nearby and people were demonstrating and I couldn't get home.Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
No, when I was ten my worry was USSR invading Hungary.Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
No, when I was ten my worry was USSR invading Hungary.Also when he was ten a physicist refused to give him a detailed explanation for how the work so it must be fake.Just to crop a feel, Heiwa: Why would you think A-bombs don't work?
Didn't you know this? Let me enlighten you - it's hilarious.
Heiwa wanted to see a bomb go off for himself, because he didn't believe it without evidence of his own eyes. So he asked the French government to detonate one on the Swiss border so he could see it. Astonishingly, they refused to do so. Thus, Heiwa concluded that A bombs cannot possibly be real - they'd have demonstrated one for him if they were.
;D
http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)
http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579QuoteOdigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Edit.
CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.
[Open]
[Open]
Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.
Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.
This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]
Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]
Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""
(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)
Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt
Elevator company involved in a modernization project (planting bombs) disappears after 9/11 with no evidence of the comany existing prior to it.QuoteThe words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either. If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in. The building owner is also key. The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor.http://911Experiments.com/reports.
With the assistance of Frank Lowy, Paul Eisenberg, and Ronald Lauder, Larry the N.Y. Port Authority turned over the management to Silverstein Properties. He hired the firm Kroll for security.
Kevin Ryan has well researched who had access to the WTC towers in his article.http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html
According to Dennis Cimino, interviewed onDr. James Fetzer's show, there were other fake sounding names on the list of renovation contractors working on the World Trade Center.
This report will focus on ACE.
ACE got the WTC contract, the biggest elevator project in history, There was an article "Drive to the Top" in the trade magazine Elevator World about the ACE project.
Elevator modernization would be the perfect cover for the planting of explosives. Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc., said that the elevator shafts, next to the load bearing columns, would be the perfect place. (can personally confirm)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio: n/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html
NEOCT supporters may say "people would have seen A.C.E. Elevator planting explosives in the shafts". But building occupants, except for A.C.E. workers and StrateSec security, could not look in the elevator shafts. As an experiment you can do, just try to get permission to look in the shafts. I could not even look in one that I partly own. (I can also personally confirm)
A.C.E. Elevator Company went bankrupt in 2006. How could ACE go bankrupt, if they were skilled enough to get the largest contract in history? Presumably they got paid, because Larry Silverstein was fully insured, received over $4 billion, and there are no records of ACE suing Larry. This supports the hypothesis that Ace Elevator was a "front company" created for the purpose of planting explosives, with just enough background to sound credible.
Some NEOCT supporters may say: "ACE is still in business. So there is nothing suspicious about them". But that is not true.http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/115931_152_opinion.pdf
http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/
9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.So how do you make an a-bomb explode? Fission?You are wrong. Fission is not slow. It is controlled (slowed down may be easier for you to understand) by the control rods. ANY nuclear reactor can go prompt critical (criticality on fast neutrons from initial fission, aka prompt neutrons) if the rods are pulled fast enough. Not as fast as in a nuclear weapon.
But fission is slow and works only in nuclear power plants and similar. Moderated neutrons are permitted to fission uranium atoms. It goes slowly! Temperatures are very low. Water boils under pressure.
A-bomb fission is very, very fast according to some 'experts'. You have two pieces of solid uranium metal of about 30 kg each. And then you bring them together, so they make up a 'critical mass' of about 60 kg. You also ensure that there is a free neutron in between.
And what happens then?
Yes!
FLASH!
It explodes at the speed of light. Billions of atoms fission in nano-seconds liberating energy at 100 000 000 000 000 000C!
But do not worry. Only twerps believe it!
We already covered this and you admitted that fast fission does work so why the reversal.
BTW, 100 000 000 000 000 000C is about twelve orders of magnitude hotter than an actual atomic bomb. Quite making stuff up to support you incorrect hypotheses. Stop Lying.
Mike
LOL! Just tell me how you get an a-bomb to explode, how long it takes to fission all the 60 kg of atoms and how you measure the temperature during the fission! I look forwars to your lies about it.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
You do not have any real calculations. No reaction rate, no six factor formula, no neutron flux calculations...not a single calculation that supports how fast or how slow fission takes place.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Question remains - how to start an a-bomb explosion?
Do you support the idea to contact two pieces of uranium metal so that
FLASH
they explode? In nano-seconds!
How does it work?
I am a nice, friendly guy. Why not tell me how explode an a-bomb?
Push a button. Light a fuse. Squeeze a trigger. How do you do it?
You do not have any real calculations. No reaction rate, no six factor formula, no neutron flux calculations...not a single calculation that supports how fast or how slow fission takes place.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Question remains - how to start an a-bomb explosion?
Do you support the idea to contact two pieces of uranium metal so that
FLASH
they explode? In nano-seconds!
How does it work?
I am a nice, friendly guy. Why not tell me how explode an a-bomb?
Push a button. Light a fuse. Squeeze a trigger. How do you do it?
AAMOF, even though you finally admitted fast fission happens, you never updated your website.
Mike
I did say under a second the total reaction time is on the order of milliseconds not nanoseconds but both are really danged fast.You do not have any real calculations. No reaction rate, no six factor formula, no neutron flux calculations...not a single calculation that supports how fast or how slow fission takes place.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Question remains - how to start an a-bomb explosion?
Do you support the idea to contact two pieces of uranium metal so that
FLASH
they explode? In nano-seconds!
How does it work?
I am a nice, friendly guy. Why not tell me how explode an a-bomb?
Push a button. Light a fuse. Squeeze a trigger. How do you do it?
AAMOF, even though you finally admitted fast fission happens, you never updated your website.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My real calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
You sound like a twirp.
You know he's trolling you right?It would be an incredibly elaborate setup to create such an lengthy set of websites just to be a troll. No, Heiwa believes what he is posting and therefore not really a troll.
right?
I did say under a second the total reaction time is on the order of milliseconds not nanoseconds but both are really danged fast.You do not have any real calculations. No reaction rate, no six factor formula, no neutron flux calculations...not a single calculation that supports how fast or how slow fission takes place.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Question remains - how to start an a-bomb explosion?
Do you support the idea to contact two pieces of uranium metal so that
FLASH
they explode? In nano-seconds!
How does it work?
I am a nice, friendly guy. Why not tell me how explode an a-bomb?
Push a button. Light a fuse. Squeeze a trigger. How do you do it?
AAMOF, even though you finally admitted fast fission happens, you never updated your website.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My real calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
You sound like a twirp.
I can’t find the reaction rate and neutron flux calculations on your website. Can you point them out to me please.
And, you sound like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Mike
When is a conspiracy not a conspiracy?
When Heiwa says it's a conspiracy. Or not. One of them.
For the billionth time, I have read your website and nowhere does it show the reaction rate for a bomb is impossible. A reactor relies on a chain reaction and an a-bomb relies on a faster chain reaction. Therefore, the reaction rate and flux calculations do apply to atomic weapons.I did say under a second the total reaction time is on the order of milliseconds not nanoseconds but both are really danged fast.You do not have any real calculations. No reaction rate, no six factor formula, no neutron flux calculations...not a single calculation that supports how fast or how slow fission takes place.
With prompt neutrons you could fission 60kg in under a second. A verifiable scientific fact. One that you have no proof to dispute. Unless of course you have calculations for neutron flux and reaction rates that you have yet to show us.
In a reactor you have control rods and fuel that's about 1% fissile material. In a bomb the purity of fissile material is >90% with no control rods. Did you take that into account in you reaction rate "calculations"? Of course you didn't because you had no idea that it mattered.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Question remains - how to start an a-bomb explosion?
Do you support the idea to contact two pieces of uranium metal so that
FLASH
they explode? In nano-seconds!
How does it work?
I am a nice, friendly guy. Why not tell me how explode an a-bomb?
Push a button. Light a fuse. Squeeze a trigger. How do you do it?
AAMOF, even though you finally admitted fast fission happens, you never updated your website.
Mike
Hm, but a-bomb experts suggest it took nano-seconds. My real calculations are at my web site. Easy to check, copy/paste and query. Do it! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
You sound like a twirp.
I can’t find the reaction rate and neutron flux calculations on your website. Can you point them out to me please.
And, you sound like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Mike
Well, reaction rate and neutron flux calculations are only of interest in nuclear power plants using moderated fission, which I conclude works well being a shareholder (7 222 shares) of EDF owning plenty nuclear power plants. In such a plant hundreds of tons of nuclear fuel are transformed inte pure energy by fission which takes several years. Very safe! No conspiracies!
A-bombs are on the other hand using explosive fission lasting nano-seconds that transforms about 60 kg of metal uranium into energy in a FLASH. It is just propaganda, pseudoscience and a big conspiracy.
Please, read my web page again - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - and copy/paste anything you consider wrong or do not understand.
What if I like fish?Then sow a fish.
For the billionth time, I have read your website and nowhere does it show the reaction rate for a bomb is impossible. A reactor relies on a chain reaction and an a-bomb relies on a faster chain reaction. Therefore, the reaction rate and flux calculations do apply to atomic weapons.
The only reason fuel in a reactor lasts years is because the reaction rate is slowed by the control rods. Without control rods the fuel would be used up instantly.
Here is what we do know:
- We know that fast fission is possible. Although, you haven’t included this in your website yet you agreed fast fission is possible.
- We know that fast fission from prompt neutrons is possible due to the SL-1 accident we previously discussed.
- This implies that uncontrolled fast fission due to prompt neutrons in an atomic bomb is possible and thus an atomic explosion is theoretically possible. This is supported by the reaction rate and neutron flux calculations from the Manhattan project.
For you to say fast fission in atomic weapon is not possible you would have to show the following equations do not support atomic bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_factor_formula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_factor_formula
If you show that these calculations don'’t work you will proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a-bombs don’'t work. Or, you have to show why they don't apply to a-bomb reactions you will proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a-bombs don’'t work. Let us know when you’re done.
Mike
Just because you’re happy to conclude something doesn’t make it the truth.
Well, you have to read http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm#38 again !
We are not dicussing fast fission! The 'experts' talk about explosive fission, when 6x1024 U235 atoms fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - and I am happy to conclude that 6x1024 U235 atoms cannot fission at the speed of light as suggested by the 'experts'.
And that's why a-bombs do not work. Explosive fission is pseudoscience.The “dirty cloud” is the same as with a conventional explosive.
May I ask a question? Why is the a-bomb mushroom cloud so dirty?
Ho-humm...
So what exactly laid utter waste on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then?
Dunno, but rejecting the mere existence of successfully performed nuclear blasts in the history is quite something in my book tbh.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were napalm, carpet bombed and burnt down spring 1945
Just because you’re happy to conclude something doesn’t make it the truth.
Well, you have to read http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm#38 again !
We are not dicussing fast fission! The 'experts' talk about explosive fission, when 6x1024 U235 atoms fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - and I am happy to conclude that 6x1024 U235 atoms cannot fission at the speed of light as suggested by the 'experts'.
The math says you’re wrong (the links in my previous post) so you have to prove the math is incorrect or you have to concede it is correct. One or the other.And that's why a-bombs do not work. Explosive fission is pseudoscience.The “dirty cloud” is the same as with a conventional explosive.
May I ask a question? Why is the a-bomb mushroom cloud so dirty?
You detonate a conventional explosive in the air you don’t get a big cloud of dust and debris. You get a fire ball and that’s all…except for a little dirt and debris but only if it’s close enough to the ground...otherwise it’s just a fireball.
You detonate a conventional explosive on the ground you get a fire ball and a huge amount of dust and debris.
It’s is the same for an a-bomb. The “dirty cloud” is the same dirt and debris you get with a conventional explosive only a lot more of it. Where do you think all that dirt and debris from the thousand foot by three hundred foot deep crater goes. It’s gotta go somewhere. Guess what. It’s the “dirty cloud”...it’s just common sense.
Junk science is saying a-bombs aren't real without actually proving the math is wrong.
Mike
Ho-humm...
So what exactly laid utter waste on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then?
Dunno, but rejecting the mere existence of successfully performed nuclear blasts in the history is quite something in my book tbh.
I explain everything at my website.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were napalm, carpet bombed and burnt down spring 1945 like >60 other Japanese cities. The Japanese population was not told of any of them by media due to censorship.
Same people that destroyed Dresden, Germany, February 1945 were in action.
The allied commanders thought 1944/5 that destroying cities full of civilians and of no military value at all by air bombing was a fantastic idea.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
I've yet to witness a single reason to convince me to visit your website, sorry. Explain it here.
So you're implying that any footage of any nuclear blast in the history, going back to as late as the 1940s, by both the Americans and the Russians were not real and have been fabricated probably much later by C/P-ing footage of chemical explosions?
Are you even serious?
You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
BTW, Adobe Photoshop didn't exist before 1990. Just sayin'.
Mike
You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
BTW, Adobe Photoshop didn't exist before 1990. Just sayin'.
Mike
All proof is at my website. My findings are well documented.
You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
BTW, Adobe Photoshop didn't exist before 1990. Just sayin'.
Mike
All proof is at my website. My findings are well documented.
No it's not. The fact that you've created an elaborate, though cheesy, website in which to express your bizarre opinions does not automatically turn said bizarre opinions into proof. If you think the proof is on your website why not paste the relevant portions here.
BTW we all know why you won't.
Stalin was a master of photoshop...ummmm, I don't even know where to go with that...although, I’m pretty sure they didn’t have graphical computers in 1945. BTW, Adobe released Photoshop in 1990.You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
BTW, Adobe Photoshop didn't exist before 1990. Just sayin'.
Mike
All proof is at my website. My findings are well documented.
Do you really believe Stalin built an a-bomb 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG, Annaberg or Aue, Saxony?
And photo shop is very old. Stalin was a master of it.
Your slurs are just those of a jealous twerp. I am a source. You can quote me.Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when the the source in question is not a recognized authority in the field in question.
Here's a few PhD stuctural engineers.
www.wtc7evaluation.org
Photo shop is very old. Stalin was a master of it.It just pays off to visit this thread from time to time for a good laugh...
As usual you don't know what you are talking about. Central Dresden, capital of Saxony, was built by bricks in baroque style, while 95% of all houses at Hiroshima/Nagasaki were built of wood, straw and paper. I had a house at Freiberg i.Sa, the previous capital only 35 km away, which burnt down around 1480 due to all houses being of wood. So my house was rebuilt in stone 1520 - only the roof frames were of wood. I did a structural analysis of them around 2000. They were very strong! Did you know that a wood beam behaves like a steel beam from a structural analysis point of view? Beam analysis! Basic engineering! But NIST and ASCE do not understand it.Photo shop is very old. Stalin was a master of it.It just pays off to visit this thread from time to time for a good laugh...
But seriously, if you compare pictures of Dresden (almost every house was hit by at least one bomb but most parts of the walls still stood upright) and hiroshima (basically a field of debris) you can not possibly think that those two events were caused by the same source. Or the japanese were really, really shitty at building houses, which I do not think.
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.Just because you’re happy to conclude something doesn’t make it the truth.
Well, you have to read http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm#38 again !
We are not dicussing fast fission! The 'experts' talk about explosive fission, when 6x1024 U235 atoms fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - and I am happy to conclude that 6x1024 U235 atoms cannot fission at the speed of light as suggested by the 'experts'.
The math says you’re wrong (the links in my previous post) so you have to prove the math is incorrect or you have to concede it is correct. One or the other.And that's why a-bombs do not work. Explosive fission is pseudoscience.The “dirty cloud” is the same as with a conventional explosive.
May I ask a question? Why is the a-bomb mushroom cloud so dirty?
You detonate a conventional explosive in the air you don’t get a big cloud of dust and debris. You get a fire ball and that’s all…except for a little dirt and debris but only if it’s close enough to the ground...otherwise it’s just a fireball.
You detonate a conventional explosive on the ground you get a fire ball and a huge amount of dust and debris.
It’s is the same for an a-bomb. The “dirty cloud” is the same dirt and debris you get with a conventional explosive only a lot more of it. Where do you think all that dirt and debris from the thousand foot by three hundred foot deep crater goes. It’s gotta go somewhere. Guess what. It’s the “dirty cloud”...it’s just common sense.
Junk science is saying a-bombs aren't real without actually proving the math is wrong.
Mike
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
How do you start it? Why doesn't it fizzle after a few fissions, etc, etc.You start it the same you do in a reactor. The first time a reactor starts up there is a neutron startup source. After initial criticality it isn’t needed any more but that’s how it initiates fission the first time.
And why would you explode a big chemical bomb in the air just to get a fire ball? Fire works? No, chemical explosions produce dirty mushroom clouds.No! Chemical explosions do not always produce dirty mushroom clouds on their own.
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.
Mike
If you had actually read my previous post you'd see that I already told you how you start it.
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.
Mike
You sure? Milliseconds?
But how do you start it?
You do something ... and miliseconds or nanoseconds later there is a FLASH!
What do you do?
Stalin was good at airbrushing people out of history, literally. This is an example from a Life magazine I own from 1970 showing the removal of Alexander Dubček:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wp7a8e639d_05_06.jpg)
As I point out on my own site, the original existed, the forgery was spotted, no-one was fooled.
What Heiwa is doing is the same thing - trying to airbrush history to match his own version of events. Unfortunately for him there are enough people out there with access to original information and who understand things properly. Atom bombs are real, the moon landings were real, buildings in New York collapsed when some set of twats flew planes into them.
If you had actually read my previous post you'd see that I already told you how you start it.
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.
Mike
You sure? Milliseconds?
But how do you start it?
You do something ... and miliseconds or nanoseconds later there is a FLASH!
What do you do?
Sorry about the milliseconds, I meant microseconds.
Okay, fine. Stick with nanoseconds because it hardly matters that much. The camera they designed to take pictures on the initial explosion took the picture about 20 milliseconds after the initial explosion and the fire ball was about 20 m across.If you had actually read my previous post you'd see that I already told you how you start it.
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.
Mike
You sure? Milliseconds?
But how do you start it?
You do something ... and miliseconds or nanoseconds later there is a FLASH!
What do you do?
Sorry about the milliseconds, I meant microseconds.
Nanosecond! Please!
So how do you start the explosive fission? I didn't get it.
Let's repeat:
You drop the a-bomb from a plane. The a-bomb drops. Due to gravity
But how do you get it to explode? When it drops!
Okay, fine. Stick with nanoseconds because it hardly matters that much. The camera they designed to take pictures on the initial explosion took the picture about 20 milliseconds after the initial explosion and the fire ball was about 20 m across.If you had actually read my previous post you'd see that I already told you how you start it.
But what about the 6x1024 U235 atoms that fission at the speed of light - total nano-seconds - without any moderation in a FLASH?
What about it? That’s the way it works…although, it’s milliseconds not nano-seconds.
Mike
You sure? Milliseconds?
But how do you start it?
You do something ... and miliseconds or nanoseconds later there is a FLASH!
What do you do?
Sorry about the milliseconds, I meant microseconds.
Nanosecond! Please!
So how do you start the explosive fission? I didn't get it.
Let's repeat:
You drop the a-bomb from a plane. The a-bomb drops. Due to gravity
But how do you get it to explode? When it drops!
I’m not retyping what I already posted about initiating fission in a bomb. Go back and read it.
Are you asking what the triggering mechanism is? If so I can’t discuss that. I will tell you that you will never find any documentation on it. Nor will find anyone to discuss it with you. You should probably assume it classified at the TS special access level. You were in the Navy so you should understand classified information. Right?
However, if you look at Little Boy and Fat Man it’s conceivable they were triggered by the same kind of mechanisms that conventional bombs were.
How did they do it back in the day? Timer, altitude, or proximity? I don’t see why it matters because it’s probably the least complicated aspect of a nuclear weapon.
Mike
You drop the a-bomb from a plane. The a-bomb drops. Due to gravity
But how do you get it to explode? When it drops!
I don't follow.Yes, that much is painfully obvious.
Offically Little Boy and Fat Man exploded August 1945 when, suddenly, two subcritial parts of metal were brought into contact with each other ... with a free neutron in between ... to become critical and then the explosive fission started that transformed the metal atoms to pure energy (the nanoseconds FLASH) and some new atoms.The mechanics of the gun type Uranium bomb and implosion type Plutonium bomb have been explained to you so many times that it boggles my mind that you still use the same old, lame old gross oversimplification.
This was supposed to happen when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropping and accelerating at free fall from high altitude.So what?
I know what fission is but explosive fission I consider a bad joke.Then you don't know fission as well as you think you do.
I don't follow.Yes, that much is painfully obvious.Offically Little Boy and Fat Man exploded August 1945 when, suddenly, two subcritial parts of metal were brought into contact with each other ... with a free neutron in between ... to become critical and then the explosive fission started that transformed the metal atoms to pure energy (the nanoseconds FLASH) and some new atoms.The mechanics of the gun type Uranium bomb and implosion type Plutonium bomb have been explained to you so many times that it boggles my mind that you still use the same old, lame old gross oversimplification.This was supposed to happen when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropping and accelerating at free fall from high altitude.So what?I know what fission is but explosive fission I consider a bad joke.Then you don't know fission as well as you think you do.
It’s ok to consider explosive fission a joke because there is no such thing. Fission by itself is not nor ever has been explosive.Okay, fine. Stick with nanoseconds because it hardly matters that much. The camera they designed to take pictures on the initial explosion took the picture about 20 milliseconds after the initial explosion and the fire ball was about 20 m across.
I’m not retyping what I already posted about initiating fission in a bomb. Go back and read it.
Are you asking what the triggering mechanism is? If so I can’t discuss that. I will tell you that you will never find any documentation on it. Nor will find anyone to discuss it with you. You should probably assume it classified at the TS special access level. You were in the Navy so you should understand classified information. Right?
However, if you look at Little Boy and Fat Man it’s conceivable they were triggered by the same kind of mechanisms that conventional bombs were.
How did they do it back in the day? Timer, altitude, or proximity? I don’t see why it matters because it’s probably the least complicated aspect of a nuclear weapon.
Mike
I don't follow. Offically Little Boy and Fat Man exploded August 1945 when, suddenly, two subcritial parts of metal were brought into contact with each other ... with a free neutron in between ... to become critical and then the explosive fission started that transformed the metal atoms to pure energy (the nanoseconds FLASH) and some new atoms.
This was supposed to happen when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropping and accelerating at free fall from high altitude.
I know what fission is but explosive fission I consider a bad joke.
You can say those things but you have no proof. Your website talks about why you think it's true but that doesn't mean it is true. Stop talking like you have documented, smoking gun proof of any of this. All you really have is opinion based on you interpretation of some facts. Opinion is not proof.
What about the pictures and videos of the mushroom cloud after the blast, what could possibly be of such a magnitude for a single explosion other than a nuke? Or even the russian footage of their Tsar Bomba, how could you even think of emulating or faking such explosion with conventional stuff?
All photo shop! I explain it at my website. No videos 1945 though. You film a chemical explosion mushroom cloud, copy paste it anywhere and you say it was an a-bomb. Ever heard of propaganda? How old are you? 10?
BTW, Adobe Photoshop didn't exist before 1990. Just sayin'.
Mike
All proof is at my website. My findings are well documented.
No it's not. The fact that you've created an elaborate, though cheesy, website in which to express your bizarre opinions does not automatically turn said bizarre opinions into proof. If you think the proof is on your website why not paste the relevant portions here.
BTW we all know why you won't.
Your slurs are just those of a jealous twerp. I am a source. You can quote me. My findings about, e.g. the Estonia incident are historical facts. Of course media cannot quote me due to gate keepers of all sorts, but it is not my problem.
... on what basis are you referring to yourself as a source?
Oh, get over yourself already. The only place your website shows up is on a couple of conspiracy websites and other forums where you've been banned.... on what basis are you referring to yourself as a source?
Thanks for asking. I am a well educated person with plenty experience and I have done a lot of research and investigations and I have produced a lot of original material about, e.g. safety at sea. So I or http://heiwaco.com became a source.
The M/S Estonia 1994 sinking is a typical example. I operated similar ropax ships and wanted to find out why she sank. We recreated the trip of the ship in severe weather at the given speed and observed the loads and forces on the foreship. They were heard and felt. You could not miss them. You had to slow down. Etc, etc. The Swedish prime minister lied about everything the same day and ordered a fake investigation to be done by a friend of mine. It is very easy in Sweden. You just black mail people. Assisted by local CIA!
The atomic bombs 1945 is another example. I arrived in Japan 1972 and could have a look in situ. What happened locally at the a-bomb sites was shrouded in mysteries and censorship. But then 1999 I got to know a person who had helped Stalin build his a-bomb 1946/58 using uranium ore from Wismut AG. It appeared that Wismut AG never delivered any uranium ore at all to Stalin, so Stalin could not possibly copy/paste a US a-bomb and explode it 1949. It was all propaganda.
I describe it at my site.
I am the source.
It is original work.
I am very proud of it.
Any Japanese and German wanting to expose the fraud at the time was easily persuaded not to ... by local CIA.
The 911 show 2001 is another example. It is very easy to show that any structure cannot collapse from top down by gravity. A flagpole top decoration cannot crush the pole below, if you put it on fire. FBI in USA and CIA everywhere else will ensure that any twirp suggesting anything else, will not suggest it. Life is tough.
But you Americans can only blame yourself. Exxon Valdez. A loaded tanker went aground due to confusion on the bridge and spilt crude oil. It was an accident ... and I explain why at my site.
But NO. It was no accident. It was all the fault of the Master of the ship. Poor man.
But, if the oil tanker had been better built, no oil spill would have occured.
USA asked me and others to develop a better design.
Which I did.
When it was done and approved by the United Nations and USA 1997, the next day USA said tankers of my design could not enter US ports.
It reminded me of the constitution of the German Democratic Republic 1949; all democratic liberties and rights were guaranteed. Unless a local regulation at Freiberg i.Sa said otherwise allowing torture and killing people 1958. Life is tough.
But I enjoyed living there 1999-2016.
I know fission. It's what I did for a living for twelve years in both the US Navy & commercial nuclear power and twenty years in design analysis of reactor plant systems on submarines.I don't follow.Yes, that much is painfully obvious.Offically Little Boy and Fat Man exploded August 1945 when, suddenly, two subcritial parts of metal were brought into contact with each other ... with a free neutron in between ... to become critical and then the explosive fission started that transformed the metal atoms to pure energy (the nanoseconds FLASH) and some new atoms.The mechanics of the gun type Uranium bomb and implosion type Plutonium bomb have been explained to you so many times that it boggles my mind that you still use the same old, lame old gross oversimplification.This was supposed to happen when Little Boy and Fat Man were dropping and accelerating at free fall from high altitude.So what?I know what fission is but explosive fission I consider a bad joke.Then you don't know fission as well as you think you do.
Thanks for enlighting me. I know about fission! A neutron splits an atom and releases energy and more neutrons that can fission more atoms - a chain reaction! It happens in a nuclear power plant. Easy to start, stop and control. No problem.
But explosive fission. A chain reaction at the speed of light that consumes all the atoms that can fission in a FLASH! To be used to wipe out people.
I know that some crazy people did it 1945 and that Stalin copied it 1949 but ... after careful examination of available info I consider it pseudo science and propaganda.
I know it upsets you a lot. Ever heard of cognitive dissonance.
I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
I've provided you with the theory. I've provided you with the locations of the current fast fission reactors in the world. I've provided you with explanations of the function of control rods and what happens when they don't exist. I've provided you with the equations.I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
OK - so how do you start a military, explosive fission to blow up a city?
I've provided you with the theory. I've provided you with the locations of the current fast fission reactors in the world. I've provided you with explanations of the function of control rods and what happens when they don't exist. I've provided you with the equations.I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
OK - so how do you start a military, explosive fission to blow up a city?
I've already told you how it works. Go back and read the dozens of posts where I and others have explained it to you. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff just to have you not read it.
Mike
Yes I have explained it. I didn’t explain the triggering mechanism but I did describe how fast fission works in a weapon. Go back and read it or let it go.I've provided you with the theory. I've provided you with the locations of the current fast fission reactors in the world. I've provided you with explanations of the function of control rods and what happens when they don't exist. I've provided you with the equations.I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
OK - so how do you start a military, explosive fission to blow up a city?
I've already told you how it works. Go back and read the dozens of posts where I and others have explained it to you. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff just to have you not read it.
Mike
No, you have not explained how to start/trigger a military, explosive fission to blow up a city in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds? You haven't even explained how it works.
I know how fission works in a nuclear power plant. It is a slow, moderated process.
But a secret, military, explosive fission, that consumes 60 kgs of fuel in nano-seconds, I consider an invention based on pseudoscience.
Only twerps believe in a secret, military, explosive fission.
Yes I have explained it. I didn’t explain the triggering mechanism but I did describe how fast fission works in a weapon. Go back and read it or let it go.I've provided you with the theory. I've provided you with the locations of the current fast fission reactors in the world. I've provided you with explanations of the function of control rods and what happens when they don't exist. I've provided you with the equations.I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
OK - so how do you start a military, explosive fission to blow up a city?
I've already told you how it works. Go back and read the dozens of posts where I and others have explained it to you. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff just to have you not read it.
Mike
No, you have not explained how to start/trigger a military, explosive fission to blow up a city in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds? You haven't even explained how it works.
I know how fission works in a nuclear power plant. It is a slow, moderated process.
But a secret, military, explosive fission, that consumes 60 kgs of fuel in nano-seconds, I consider an invention based on pseudoscience.
Only twerps believe in a secret, military, explosive fission.
One thing you don’t seem to understand is that nobody can tell you how the triggering works. You said you were in the Navy so I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to understand that something's are classified. Didn’t you have to deal with that?
Mike
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.Yes I have explained it. I didn’t explain the triggering mechanism but I did describe how fast fission works in a weapon. Go back and read it or let it go.I've provided you with the theory. I've provided you with the locations of the current fast fission reactors in the world. I've provided you with explanations of the function of control rods and what happens when they don't exist. I've provided you with the equations.I can say that you have made quite a few incorrect assumptions and are completely wrong about how nuclear reactions work.
So no, you don't have the first clue how fission, and particularly fast fission, works. If you did you could show what's wrong with the equations that contradict your conclusions. The fact that you can't even do that is another proof that you don't understand fission.
Mike
OK - so how do you start a military, explosive fission to blow up a city?
I've already told you how it works. Go back and read the dozens of posts where I and others have explained it to you. I'm tired of repeating the same stuff just to have you not read it.
Mike
No, you have not explained how to start/trigger a military, explosive fission to blow up a city in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds? You haven't even explained how it works.
I know how fission works in a nuclear power plant. It is a slow, moderated process.
But a secret, military, explosive fission, that consumes 60 kgs of fuel in nano-seconds, I consider an invention based on pseudoscience.
Only twerps believe in a secret, military, explosive fission.
One thing you don’t seem to understand is that nobody can tell you how the triggering works. You said you were in the Navy so I don’t understand why it’s so hard for you to understand that something's are classified. Didn’t you have to deal with that?
Mike
Thanks. You admit you cannot explain how to start a secret, military, explosive fission, because it is secret. Reason why it is secret is that the whole thing is a hoax! Propaganda.
Only twerps believe in a secret, military, explosive fission lasting nano-seconds.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
You really are a whiny little child with the name calling. Everyone knows you do that to hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about. Grow up already.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that. I say it doesn't work. Reason why it is secret is that the development work - the Manhattan project 1942/5 - was a fiasco. FDR prolonged the war against Japan a year trying to develop some plausible propaganda with his fantasy a-bombs. I just analyse the result.
Mike, please. You do not just sound like a twerp. You are a twerp. Try to use whatever is between your ears and I do not mean some glasses. MicroBrain!
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
You really are a whiny little child with the name calling. Everyone knows you do that to hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about. Grow up already.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that. I say it doesn't work. Reason why it is secret is that the development work - the Manhattan project 1942/5 - was a fiasco. FDR prolonged the war against Japan a year trying to develop some plausible propaganda with his fantasy a-bombs. I just analyse the result.
Mike, please. You do not just sound like a twerp. You are a twerp. Try to use whatever is between your ears and I do not mean some glasses. MicroBrain!
You can say it all you want but you NEVER say why it doesn't work. Let me be clear...YOUR WEBSITE NEVER SAYS WHY A TRIGGER CANNOT WORK. You assume it won't work and that's all you say. You provide ZERO proof and therefore you claims have no credibility. Prove it or STFU.
You admitted fast fission works but you never address it on your website. AAMOF, your site still says it’s not possible. How do you expect people to take you seriously if you can’t even be bothered to fix your site to correct information you already admitted is wrong?
Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that your explanation of radiation is wrong? You say your all about safety yet you say radiation is harmless. So which is it? Are you or are you not about safety?
Mike
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
You really are a whiny little child with the name calling. Everyone knows you do that to hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about. Grow up already.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that. I say it doesn't work. Reason why it is secret is that the development work - the Manhattan project 1942/5 - was a fiasco. FDR prolonged the war against Japan a year trying to develop some plausible propaganda with his fantasy a-bombs. I just analyse the result.
Mike, please. You do not just sound like a twerp. You are a twerp. Try to use whatever is between your ears and I do not mean some glasses. MicroBrain!
You can say it all you want but you NEVER say why it doesn't work. Let me be clear...YOUR WEBSITE NEVER SAYS WHY A TRIGGER CANNOT WORK. You assume it won't work and that's all you say. You provide ZERO proof and therefore you claims have no credibility. Prove it or STFU.
You admitted fast fission works but you never address it on your website. AAMOF, your site still says it’s not possible. How do you expect people to take you seriously if you can’t even be bothered to fix your site to correct information you already admitted is wrong?
Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that your explanation of radiation is wrong? You say your all about safety yet you say radiation is harmless. So which is it? Are you or are you not about safety?
Mike
Reason why it is secret is that the whole thing is a hoax!
I’m glad you are yourself...that’s usually a good thing.You really are a whiny little child with the name calling. Everyone knows you do that to hide the fact you don't know what you're talking about. Grow up already.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that. I say it doesn't work. Reason why it is secret is that the development work - the Manhattan project 1942/5 - was a fiasco. FDR prolonged the war against Japan a year trying to develop some plausible propaganda with his fantasy a-bombs. I just analyse the result.
Mike, please. You do not just sound like a twerp. You are a twerp. Try to use whatever is between your ears and I do not mean some glasses. MicroBrain!
You can say it all you want but you NEVER say why it doesn't work. Let me be clear...YOUR WEBSITE NEVER SAYS WHY A TRIGGER CANNOT WORK. You assume it won't work and that's all you say. You provide ZERO proof and therefore you claims have no credibility. Prove it or STFU.
You admitted fast fission works but you never address it on your website. AAMOF, your site still says it’s not possible. How do you expect people to take you seriously if you can’t even be bothered to fix your site to correct information you already admitted is wrong?
Are you going to keep ignoring the fact that your explanation of radiation is wrong? You say your all about safety yet you say radiation is harmless. So which is it? Are you or are you not about safety?
Mike
No, I am myself and thankful that you admit you cannot explain how to start a secret, military, explosive fission, because it is secret. Reason why it is secret is that the whole thing is a hoax! Propaganda. Let's sort that one out first.
Only twerps believe in a secret, military, explosive fission lasting nano-seconds.
Your conclusion that a-bombs are fake rests on two pieces of information.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
No, I don't say that. I said it doesn't work. Are you a twerp?
Your conclusion that a-bombs are fake rests on two pieces of information.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
No, I don't say that. I said it doesn't work. Are you a twerp?
1. You claim that only thermal fission is possible. You’ve admitted that fast fission is possible so that claim is invalid.
2. You claim it is that it’s impossible to trigger a nuclear explosion but yet, you provide not proof of this and cannot prove it's a hoax.
Since you’ve admitted 1 is wrong and you can’t prove 2, this means your whole a-bomb website is invalid. When will you admit you are wrong?
Mike
Your conclusion that a-bombs are fake rests on two pieces of information.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
No, I don't say that. I said it doesn't work. Are you a twerp?
1. You claim that only thermal fission is possible. You’ve admitted that fast fission is possible so that claim is invalid.
2. You claim it is that it’s impossible to trigger a nuclear explosion but yet, you provide not proof of this and cannot prove it's a hoax.
Since you’ve admitted 1 is wrong and you can’t prove 2, this means your whole a-bomb website is invalid. When will you admit you are wrong?
Mike
No, fission is fission. Only twerps think fission is something else.
If you think, LOL, anything is wrong at , just copy/paste it and add your thoughts ROTFL.
You are a real TWERP, Mike. Admit it. Anyone paying you must be a double twerp. You are in good hands.
You are a whiny name calling little child. Try to be an adult and engage in civil conservation. If you can. You required it of me, now I'm requiring it of you.Your conclusion that a-bombs are fake rests on two pieces of information.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
No, I don't say that. I said it doesn't work. Are you a twerp?
1. You claim that only thermal fission is possible. You’ve admitted that fast fission is possible so that claim is invalid.
2. You claim it is that it’s impossible to trigger a nuclear explosion but yet, you provide not proof of this and cannot prove it's a hoax.
Since you’ve admitted 1 is wrong and you can’t prove 2, this means your whole a-bomb website is invalid. When will you admit you are wrong?
Mike
No, fission is fission. Only twerps think fission is something else.
If you think, LOL, anything is wrong at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm, just copy/paste it and add your thoughts ROTFL.
You are a real TWERP, Mike. Admit it. Anyone paying you must be a double twerp. You are in good hands.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
Your conclusion that a-bombs are fake rests on two pieces of information.
Because it's classified you say it doesn't exist. That's the stupidest rational for supporting a position I've ever heard.
Ok, I'll probably regret this but prove it.
Mike
No, I don't say that.
Yes. That is exactly what you just said. Dumb as hell!
No, I don't say that. I said it doesn't work. Are you a twerp?
1. You claim that only thermal fission is possible. You’ve admitted that fast fission is possible so that claim is invalid.
2. You claim it is that it’s impossible to trigger a nuclear explosion but yet, you provide not proof of this and cannot prove it's a hoax.
Since you’ve admitted 1 is wrong and you can’t prove 2, this means your whole a-bomb website is invalid. When will you admit you are wrong?
Mike
No, fission is fission. Only twerps think fission is something else.
If you think, LOL, anything is wrong at , just copy/paste it and add your thoughts ROTFL.
You are a real TWERP, Mike. Admit it. Anyone paying you must be a double twerp. You are in good hands.
The part we think is wrong is the part where you say triggering an A-bomb doesn't work, but the only proof you offer is that it's classified.
Dumb as a rock.
You have absolutely no basis or proof to call it pseudoscience. The physics, theory, and math are well established and you just ignore all of that because you don't have a leg to stand on to dispute any of it.
Hm, but I describe the triggering of an a-bomb at my website as per offical info. It is very simple:
You suddenly collide or push together two sub-critical parts of fissionable material (total 61 kg) at great speeds, so they are compressed to double densisty or something, and then ... explosive fission starts by a free neutron in between and ... after a few nano-seconds ... the solid parts are split into billions of sub parts flying away and transformed into kinetic energy ... destroyings cities and humans.
I also suggest it is pure pseudoscience. You really should visit my website
You have absolutely no basis or proof to call it pseudoscience. The physics, theory, and math are well established and you just ignore all of that because you don't have a leg to stand on to dispute any of it.
Hm, but I describe the triggering of an a-bomb at my website as per offical info. It is very simple:
You suddenly collide or push together two sub-critical parts of fissionable material (total 61 kg) at great speeds, so they are compressed to double densisty or something, and then ... explosive fission starts by a free neutron in between and ... after a few nano-seconds ... the solid parts are split into billions of sub parts flying away and transformed into kinetic energy ... destroyings cities and humans.
I also suggest it is pure pseudoscience. You really should visit my website
BTW, Have you updated your website yet?
Mike
So you're not going to fix the incorrect info on your a-bomb website that you have admitted is incorrect? I knew you wouldn't. I didn't think you could have less credibility but it's dropping by the second.You have absolutely no basis or proof to call it pseudoscience. The physics, theory, and math are well established and you just ignore all of that because you don't have a leg to stand on to dispute any of it.
Hm, but I describe the triggering of an a-bomb at my website as per offical info. It is very simple:
You suddenly collide or push together two sub-critical parts of fissionable material (total 61 kg) at great speeds, so they are compressed to double densisty or something, and then ... explosive fission starts by a free neutron in between and ... after a few nano-seconds ... the solid parts are split into billions of sub parts flying away and transformed into kinetic energy ... destroyings cities and humans.
I also suggest it is pure pseudoscience. You really should visit my website
BTW, Have you updated your website yet?
Mike
Well, that sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium starts explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.
Good that you, like me, have watched the ISS flying past like a very bright spot in the sky at/after sunset lit up by the Sun - speed >7 kms/s. I have also taken photos of it and tried to observe it in a telescope. To me it looks like a silver balloon. Feel free to question my observations. But try to be polite using civil language.
Imagine being in it, jumping into a little capsule that undocks from the ISS and then drops down into the atmosphere, finds location B at 120 km altitude, re-enters and lands safely. According my calculations the capsule simply burns up! It is not possible to return from a satellite. It is always a one-way trip.
Re radiation - I explain it at my web site - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Yes, inside a nuclear power plant combustion chamber, where fission takes place, radiation is strong. But outside it is very weak and doesn't harm anything.
It is very easy to scare people with radiation.
The poor people that survivied Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945 were told that they would die within a year from radiation and that the towns could not be lived in for 500 years. We know it was propaganda.
The people at Fukushima were also told that they would soon die from radiation ... and ... that it was contagious (!), so they should not mix with normal people, not affected by radiation. But now people have been ordered to return back to Fukushima and forget the whole thing. It is a scandal, but the Japanese are very polite and just bow and shut up.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Okay, which one of these is the lie...So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
No, there is only one type of fission. A neutron splits an atom. I explain it at my website. It is fast.
The military, explosive fission destroying towns and killing millions of people in nano-seconds is just propaganda. You really have to read what I write at my popular website.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Okay, which one of these is the lie...So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
No, there is only one type of fission. A neutron splits an atom. I explain it at my website. It is fast.
The military, explosive fission destroying towns and killing millions of people in nano-seconds is just propaganda. You really have to read what I write at my popular website.
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
I fully understand what fission is. Are you going to answer the question?Okay, which one of these is the lie...So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
No, there is only one type of fission. A neutron splits an atom. I explain it at my website. It is fast.
The military, explosive fission destroying towns and killing millions of people in nano-seconds is just propaganda. You really have to read what I write at my popular website.
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, MicroBrain.
You really have to try to understand what fission is.
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
Only twerps think fission results in a FLASH.
You should really study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is a great article - written by me.
I fully understand what fission is. Are you going to answer the question?Okay, which one of these is the lie...So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
No, there is only one type of fission. A neutron splits an atom. I explain it at my website. It is fast.
The military, explosive fission destroying towns and killing millions of people in nano-seconds is just propaganda. You really have to read what I write at my popular website.
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, MicroBrain.
You really have to try to understand what fission is.
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
Only twerps think fission results in a FLASH.
You should really study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is a great article - written by me.
Mike
My question isn't about a-bombs. It's which of your statements are a lie. Will you answer the question?I fully understand what fission is. Are you going to answer the question?Okay, which one of these is the lie...So did you lie when you said..
The following are two quotes from your website.
“Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions.”
“Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
You’ve admitted fast fission is possible making these two quotes false. This applies to the dozens of other saying the same thing but I didn’t want to include them all.
Now fix you site or take it down.
Hm, you, MicroBrain, have to do better than that.
The quotes are correct!
And as I have already said several times: Sudden compressing two bits of metal uranium to start explosive fission that transforms the two bits into billions of smaller bits + radiation in nano-seconds in a FLASH is ... a stupid, pseudoscientific scam of the worst kind.
Only twerps would suggest anything like it. I name them at my website, so you are not alone. Of course the POTUS FDR decided 1945 by executive order that anyone disagreeing would be killed. Stalin liked it a lot and copied it.
You are not only a twirp, MicroBrain, you sound like a tewwowwisit. I feel sorry for you.OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
No, there is only one type of fission. A neutron splits an atom. I explain it at my website. It is fast.
The military, explosive fission destroying towns and killing millions of people in nano-seconds is just propaganda. You really have to read what I write at my popular website.
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, MicroBrain.
You really have to try to understand what fission is.
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
Only twerps think fission results in a FLASH.
You should really study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is a great article - written by me.
Mike
You should really study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is a great article - written by me. The answer to your question is there.
My question isn't about a-bombs. It's which of your statements are a lie. Will you answer the question?
You should really study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is a great article - written by me. The answer to your question is there.
Mike
You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
However, Okay, which one of these is the lie...
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
It is pseudoscience developed by some US clowns 1942/5 and copied by Stalin 45/9. A 'critical mass' explodes in a nano-seconds, explosive, fission FLASH, if hit by one little free neutron. The little neutron starts a chain reaction at the speed of light. So 'critical masses' are very dangerous.
But if a 'critical mass' is split in half, each half is not critical and will no explode at the speed of light. It is all very simple;
Of course it is a JOKE!
Your are a poor researcher with absolutely no objectivity or integrity.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
However, Okay, which one of these is the lie...
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, quote me properly:QuoteReason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
Just quote me properly, please. Don't pick some words at random from a text.
I just think a guy like Mike has much better things to do than argue with that idiot on an obscure internet forum lol.I have plenty to do and I do it. e.g. I'm involved with local politic and causes. This started out as an interesting discussion but has turned into...well, weirdness. It's a decent distraction.
Sorry Mike, but I was asking Anders to explain, not you.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
So you don't think that critical mass applies to peaceful, moderated nuclear power plants?You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
It is pseudoscience developed by some US clowns 1942/5 and copied by Stalin 45/9. A 'critical mass' explodes in a nano-seconds, explosive, fission FLASH, if hit by one little free neutron. The little neutron starts a chain reaction at the speed of light. So 'critical masses' are very dangerous.
But if a 'critical mass' is split in half, each half is not critical and will no explode at the speed of light. It is all very simple;
Of course it is a JOKE!
Sorry Mike, but I was asking Anders to explain, not you.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.So you don't think that critical mass applies to peaceful, moderated nuclear power plants?You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
It is pseudoscience developed by some US clowns 1942/5 and copied by Stalin 45/9. A 'critical mass' explodes in a nano-seconds, explosive, fission FLASH, if hit by one little free neutron. The little neutron starts a chain reaction at the speed of light. So 'critical masses' are very dangerous.
But if a 'critical mass' is split in half, each half is not critical and will no explode at the speed of light. It is all very simple;
Of course it is a JOKE!
Okay, I’ll play your silly game. The following is a list of errors on website. I included the complete paragraph to ensure context. I found other errors but I’ll only address the problems with your interpretation of fast fission.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
However, Okay, which one of these is the lie...
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, quote me properly:QuoteReason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
Just quote me properly, please. Don't pick some words at random from a text.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down. It is the simple reason why USA, its Department of War and Charles A. Willoughby created the exponential, chain-reaction atom of a critical mass splitting a-bomb explosion propaganda 1945 to impress friends and foes.
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions by slow neutrons to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
Fission is only possible under moderated/controlled conditions. I wonder why Wikipedia cannot say so!
I conclude today it applies to all later versions of a-bombs, incl. the infamous B61 Silver Bullet from 1963 but still 2017 the mainstay of US military defenses described below and as mentioned above to be newly produced again. All bullshit, actually.
Reason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
Fast neutrons, subatomic particles, just fly away at 20.000.000 m/s speed and disintegrate into other subatomic particles. For neutrons to produce fission in a nuclear power station, they must be moderated/controlled, i.e. slowed down 10.000 times to 2.000 m/s speed or less or be sucked up by special control rods. But as all was secret 1945 the responsible parties decided to fake it to keep FDR happy. Wikipedia still cannot make any sense out of it.
Nuclear fission is just uranium or plutonium atoms splitting into smaller atoms (not carbon or oxygen) radiating pure energy/heat only under moderated conditions in a peaceful nuclear power station. No solid masses are transformed into pure energy.
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down. It is the simple reason why USA, its Department of War and Charles A. Willoughby created the exponential, chain-reaction atom of a critical mass splitting a-bomb explosion propaganda 1945 to impress friends and foes.
The following is a list of errors on your website pertaining to ionizing radiation. I included the complete ionizing radiation section to ensure context. To make it easier to follow, I struck out your text and inserted mine in blue. Your description and conclusions concerning ionizing radiation are incorrect, misleading, and possibly even dangerous. What if some child reads your website and thinks it is okay to play with the alpha source in the smoke detector. The results could be catastrophic and it would be your fault. It would be irresponsible of you if you don't correct these errors or remove this section altogether.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
However, Okay, which one of these is the lie...
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, quote me properly:QuoteReason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
Just quote me properly, please. Don't pick some words at random from a text.
Ionizing radiation takes different forms according to conventional wisdom 2017: There are alpha, beta, and neutron particles with mass flying around, and gamma and X-rays of pure energy without mass also flying around as radiation. All types of such radiation are caused by unstable atoms, which have either an excess of energy or mass or both. In order to reach a stable state, these atoms must release that extra energy or mass in the form of invisible radiation at various speeds and intensities.Alpha radiation is just helium atoms with mass that fly away hurting nobody.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.Beta radiation is electrons with much less mass that cannot hurt anyone either.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.Gamma radiation is photons (like light or sun shine) with no mass at all but which contain energy to heat you up; compare sun burn of your skin. Better hide below a parasol, if you are exposed for hours to it on a sunny beach!
X-rays are similar to gamma radiation but man-made to be used as a medical tool. They only last seconds.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945. Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object.
The following is a list of errors on your website pertaining to ionizing radiation. I included the complete ionizing radiation section to ensure context. To make it easier to follow, I struck out your text and inserted mine in blue. Your description and conclusions concerning ionizing radiation are incorrect, misleading, and possibly even dangerous. What if some child reads your website and thinks it is okay to play with the alpha source in the smoke detector. The results could be catastrophic and it would be your fault. It would be irresponsible of you if you don't correct these errors or remove this section altogether.I already did so no. Not again.You really have to try to understand what fission is.Would you care to explain what "critical mass" means in the context of nuclear fission?
It is neutrons spiitting atoms. It can only take place under controlled conditions, e.g. in a nuclear power plant. It produces steam that produces electricity.
Fission cannot take place by pushing two pieces of metal together so they explode in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds and wipes out towns and people.
However, Okay, which one of these is the lie...
From your website:
“ Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons...”
What you posted here:OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Well, quote me properly:QuoteReason is that real fission is only possible by moderated, controlled, rather slow neutrons inside a peaceful nuclear power station.
Fission is not possible by instantaneous, fast, not moderated neutrons in an exploding a-bomb with a FLASH. It was not known, when the a-bomb was invented 1942 by some crazy scientists. The inventors thought that fast, not moderated neutrons, released by fission could exponentially produce more fission and release enormous amount of heat/energy at the speed of light in an a-bomb FLASH.
But it doesn't work like that. Fission is always moderated and controlled. Many people get upset about it. They are paid to lie about a-bombs!
Just quote me properly, please. Don't pick some words at random from a text.
QuoteIonizing radiation takes different forms according to conventional wisdom 2017: There are alpha, beta, and neutron particles with mass flying around, and gamma and X-rays of pure energy without mass also flying around as radiation. All types of such radiation are caused by unstable atoms, which have either an excess of energy or mass or both. In order to reach a stable state, these atoms must release that extra energy or mass in the form of invisible radiation at various speeds and intensities.Alpha radiation is just helium atoms with mass that fly away hurting nobody.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.Beta radiation is electrons with much less mass that cannot hurt anyone either.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.Gamma radiation is photons (like light or sun shine) with no mass at all but which contain energy to heat you up; compare sun burn of your skin. Better hide below a parasol, if you are exposed for hours to it on a sunny beach!
X-rays are similar to gamma radiation but man-made to be used as a medical tool. They only last seconds.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945. Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object.
Mike
Thanks. The differences are not great so I stand by my text at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .You are wrong here. The definitions I posted are correct and explain the potential harmful effects. Further, your definitions are not quite right. I did Radiation Health Physics in the Navy and in commercial nuclear power. I still maintain that your version is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.
I fully agree with you that "All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly."What your article is about is irrelevant to the definitions of radiation. A definition do not change with subject matter being presented.
My article is about a-bombs being a hoax - an invention - so there is no radiation from a-bombs. Only propaganda. To scare!
I also mention peaceful nuclear power. It is also harmless and safe if properly controlled and correctly used. I like nuclear power a lot being a big shareholder of EDF.I quoted the complete text from a section to ensure context. AAMOF, I quoted the entire section of the definition of ionizing radiation so you cannot say I took it out of context.
So what about the radiation? Noone has died from radiation at Fukushima incident and I describe it at my article. Of course 100 000's of Japanese were told that radiation would kill them, so they had to flee, abandon, homes and work, etc, etc, ... but now they are told they MUST go back, bla, bla, bla. All are healthy - apart from those injured by stress and worries, etc, etc.
But it is a fact - noone from Fukushima or in Japan has died from alfa, beta, gamma and neutron radiation at Fukushima. The authorites fooled the public by false propaganda.
So there is nothing wrong with my article/text. Do no quote me out of context.
Please note that it helps to be polite, factual and on topic when you post here. This is a friendly discussion forum where people with different opinions meet and exchange ideas. I know that my ideas are not politically correct, particularly not in the USA, so I am very happy not being there.This last statement is comical coming from you. I’ve lost count of the number of post where you’ve called me a “twerp”, “microbrain”, and worst of all “terrorist”. The vast majority of your posts to me and others have personal attacks in them. Then you have the balls to tell me to be polite. You need to take your own advice and start being polite to the other posters in this forum.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
Thanks. The differences are not great so I stand by my text at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .You are wrong here. The definitions I posted are correct and explain the potential harmful effects. Further, your definitions are not quite right. I did Radiation Health Physics in the Navy and in commercial nuclear power. I still maintain that your version is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.I fully agree with you that "All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly."What your article is about is irrelevant to the definitions of radiation. A definition do not change with subject matter being presented.
My article is about a-bombs being a hoax - an invention - so there is no radiation from a-bombs. Only propaganda. To scare!
If you fully agree then why does your website say it's harmless?I also mention peaceful nuclear power. It is also harmless and safe if properly controlled and correctly used. I like nuclear power a lot being a big shareholder of EDF.I quoted the complete text from a section to ensure context. AAMOF, I quoted the entire section of the definition of ionizing radiation so you cannot say I took it out of context.
So what about the radiation? Noone has died from radiation at Fukushima incident and I describe it at my article. Of course 100 000's of Japanese were told that radiation would kill them, so they had to flee, abandon, homes and work, etc, etc, ... but now they are told they MUST go back, bla, bla, bla. All are healthy - apart from those injured by stress and worries, etc, etc.
But it is a fact - noone from Fukushima or in Japan has died from alfa, beta, gamma and neutron radiation at Fukushima. The authorites fooled the public by false propaganda.
So there is nothing wrong with my article/text. Do no quote me out of context.
You admitted that fast fission works which makes statements on your website factually incorrect.
There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction"
...and...
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down.
I’m sorry but the factually incorrect statements about fast and thermal fission (thermal fission is the proper terminology) make it look like you haven’t done the proper researchPlease note that it helps to be polite, factual and on topic when you post here. This is a friendly discussion forum where people with different opinions meet and exchange ideas. I know that my ideas are not politically correct, particularly not in the USA, so I am very happy not being there.This last statement is comical coming from you. I’ve lost count of the number of post where you’ve called me a “twerp”, “microbrain”, and worst of all “terrorist”. The vast majority of your posts to me and others have personal attacks in them. Then you have the balls to tell me to be polite. You need to take your own advice and start being polite to the other posters in this forum.
By your own admission the statements on fast & thermal fission I quoted with full context are factually incorrect. So, I have to ask. Is the following quote by you a lie or not?OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
You need to address these glaring errors in your website.
If you don’t want to fix the errors about fast & thermal fission that’s your choice. But those of us with actual training and experience in nuclear power know better.
However, I will not stop pointing out the factually incorrect and potentially hazardous errors in your definitions of ionizing radiation. These errors indicate shoddy research and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. You really must fix the section on ionizing radiation because it’s not only factually incorrect it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Someone reading your section on radiation might believe you know what you’re talking about and the improperly handle radioactive sources from such things a smoke detectors, old watches, or uranium glass thinking they are not a hazard. Someone reading you definitions of radiation might think it’s okay to buy radioactive test sources from Amazon not having the first clue how to properly handle them.
Or, is being right more important to you than potentially killing a child because (s)he believes your claim that radiation is harmless.
Mike
Stalin was good at airbrushing people out of history, literally. This is an example from a Life magazine I own from 1970 showing the removal of Alexander Dubček:
(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch5/wpimages/wp7a8e639d_05_06.jpg)
As I point out on my own site, the original existed, the forgery was spotted, no-one was fooled.
What Heiwa is doing is the same thing - trying to airbrush history to match his own version of events. Unfortunately for him there are enough people out there with access to original information and who understand things properly. Atom bombs are real, the moon landings were real, buildings in New York collapsed when some set of twats flew planes into them.
He famously airbrushed Trotski out of everything.
Your website is about a-bombs being fake. So what. It doesn't change the fact that you statements concerning fast & thermal fission is factually incorrect. Since you use your assertion that fast fission is impossible as a basis for a-bombs being fake it invalidates you conclusions.Thanks. The differences are not great so I stand by my text at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .You are wrong here. The definitions I posted are correct and explain the potential harmful effects. Further, your definitions are not quite right. I did Radiation Health Physics in the Navy and in commercial nuclear power. I still maintain that your version is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.I fully agree with you that "All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly."What your article is about is irrelevant to the definitions of radiation. A definition do not change with subject matter being presented.
My article is about a-bombs being a hoax - an invention - so there is no radiation from a-bombs. Only propaganda. To scare!
If you fully agree then why does your website say it's harmless?I also mention peaceful nuclear power. It is also harmless and safe if properly controlled and correctly used. I like nuclear power a lot being a big shareholder of EDF.I quoted the complete text from a section to ensure context. AAMOF, I quoted the entire section of the definition of ionizing radiation so you cannot say I took it out of context.
So what about the radiation? Noone has died from radiation at Fukushima incident and I describe it at my article. Of course 100 000's of Japanese were told that radiation would kill them, so they had to flee, abandon, homes and work, etc, etc, ... but now they are told they MUST go back, bla, bla, bla. All are healthy - apart from those injured by stress and worries, etc, etc.
But it is a fact - noone from Fukushima or in Japan has died from alfa, beta, gamma and neutron radiation at Fukushima. The authorites fooled the public by false propaganda.
So there is nothing wrong with my article/text. Do no quote me out of context.
You admitted that fast fission works which makes statements on your website factually incorrect.
There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction"
...and...
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down.
I’m sorry but the factually incorrect statements about fast and thermal fission (thermal fission is the proper terminology) make it look like you haven’t done the proper researchPlease note that it helps to be polite, factual and on topic when you post here. This is a friendly discussion forum where people with different opinions meet and exchange ideas. I know that my ideas are not politically correct, particularly not in the USA, so I am very happy not being there.This last statement is comical coming from you. I’ve lost count of the number of post where you’ve called me a “twerp”, “microbrain”, and worst of all “terrorist”. The vast majority of your posts to me and others have personal attacks in them. Then you have the balls to tell me to be polite. You need to take your own advice and start being polite to the other posters in this forum.
By your own admission the statements on fast & thermal fission I quoted with full context are factually incorrect. So, I have to ask. Is the following quote by you a lie or not?OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
You need to address these glaring errors in your website.
If you don’t want to fix the errors about fast & thermal fission that’s your choice. But those of us with actual training and experience in nuclear power know better.
However, I will not stop pointing out the factually incorrect and potentially hazardous errors in your definitions of ionizing radiation. These errors indicate shoddy research and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. You really must fix the section on ionizing radiation because it’s not only factually incorrect it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Someone reading your section on radiation might believe you know what you’re talking about and the improperly handle radioactive sources from such things a smoke detectors, old watches, or uranium glass thinking they are not a hazard. Someone reading you definitions of radiation might think it’s okay to buy radioactive test sources from Amazon not having the first clue how to properly handle them.
Or, is being right more important to you than potentially killing a child because (s)he believes your claim that radiation is harmless.
Mike
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
However, you forget that my web page in question is about a-bomb fakery and propaganda to scare the shit out of normal people. It is abig scam. The US governments used and uses numerous 'experts' to say a-bombs kill, not only when they FLASH but also afterwards! The radiation will kill you afterwards, bla, bla, bla. All 100% lies.
And you ignore them.
So I assume you agree with me that explosive fission FLASH a-bombs do not work and that you just make stupid remarks about details - fast versus slow fission, harmless versus deadly radiation, etc, etc. - to impress some particular interests. You work in the US military-industrial complex so I understand your dilemma. If I were you I would change job. Do some constructive! Wasting stolen money on nonsense cannot be fun.
Your website is about a-bombs being fake. So what. It doesn't change the fact that you statements concerning fast & thermal fission is factually incorrect. Since you use your assertion that fast fission is impossible as a basis for a-bombs being fake it invalidates you conclusions.Thanks. The differences are not great so I stand by my text at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .You are wrong here. The definitions I posted are correct and explain the potential harmful effects. Further, your definitions are not quite right. I did Radiation Health Physics in the Navy and in commercial nuclear power. I still maintain that your version is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.I fully agree with you that "All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly."What your article is about is irrelevant to the definitions of radiation. A definition do not change with subject matter being presented.
My article is about a-bombs being a hoax - an invention - so there is no radiation from a-bombs. Only propaganda. To scare!
If you fully agree then why does your website say it's harmless?I also mention peaceful nuclear power. It is also harmless and safe if properly controlled and correctly used. I like nuclear power a lot being a big shareholder of EDF.I quoted the complete text from a section to ensure context. AAMOF, I quoted the entire section of the definition of ionizing radiation so you cannot say I took it out of context.
So what about the radiation? Noone has died from radiation at Fukushima incident and I describe it at my article. Of course 100 000's of Japanese were told that radiation would kill them, so they had to flee, abandon, homes and work, etc, etc, ... but now they are told they MUST go back, bla, bla, bla. All are healthy - apart from those injured by stress and worries, etc, etc.
But it is a fact - noone from Fukushima or in Japan has died from alfa, beta, gamma and neutron radiation at Fukushima. The authorites fooled the public by false propaganda.
So there is nothing wrong with my article/text. Do no quote me out of context.
You admitted that fast fission works which makes statements on your website factually incorrect.
There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction"
...and...
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down.
I’m sorry but the factually incorrect statements about fast and thermal fission (thermal fission is the proper terminology) make it look like you haven’t done the proper researchPlease note that it helps to be polite, factual and on topic when you post here. This is a friendly discussion forum where people with different opinions meet and exchange ideas. I know that my ideas are not politically correct, particularly not in the USA, so I am very happy not being there.This last statement is comical coming from you. I’ve lost count of the number of post where you’ve called me a “twerp”, “microbrain”, and worst of all “terrorist”. The vast majority of your posts to me and others have personal attacks in them. Then you have the balls to tell me to be polite. You need to take your own advice and start being polite to the other posters in this forum.
By your own admission the statements on fast & thermal fission I quoted with full context are factually incorrect. So, I have to ask. Is the following quote by you a lie or not?OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
You need to address these glaring errors in your website.
If you don’t want to fix the errors about fast & thermal fission that’s your choice. But those of us with actual training and experience in nuclear power know better.
However, I will not stop pointing out the factually incorrect and potentially hazardous errors in your definitions of ionizing radiation. These errors indicate shoddy research and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. You really must fix the section on ionizing radiation because it’s not only factually incorrect it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Someone reading your section on radiation might believe you know what you’re talking about and the improperly handle radioactive sources from such things a smoke detectors, old watches, or uranium glass thinking they are not a hazard. Someone reading you definitions of radiation might think it’s okay to buy radioactive test sources from Amazon not having the first clue how to properly handle them.
Or, is being right more important to you than potentially killing a child because (s)he believes your claim that radiation is harmless.
Mike
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
However, you forget that my web page in question is about a-bomb fakery and propaganda to scare the shit out of normal people. It is abig scam. The US governments used and uses numerous 'experts' to say a-bombs kill, not only when they FLASH but also afterwards! The radiation will kill you afterwards, bla, bla, bla. All 100% lies.
And you ignore them.
So I assume you agree with me that explosive fission FLASH a-bombs do not work and that you just make stupid remarks about details - fast versus slow fission, harmless versus deadly radiation, etc, etc. - to impress some particular interests. You work in the US military-industrial complex so I understand your dilemma. If I were you I would change job. Do some constructive! Wasting stolen money on nonsense cannot be fun.
The subject of your website also has no bearing on you descriptions of radiation being factually incorrect and irresponsible.
Your website is about a-bombs being fake. So what. It doesn't change the fact that you statements concerning fast & thermal fission is factually incorrect. Since you use your assertion that fast fission is impossible as a basis for a-bombs being fake it invalidates you conclusions.Thanks. The differences are not great so I stand by my text at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .You are wrong here. The definitions I posted are correct and explain the potential harmful effects. Further, your definitions are not quite right. I did Radiation Health Physics in the Navy and in commercial nuclear power. I still maintain that your version is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.I fully agree with you that "All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and can be dangerous if not properly controlled or used correctly."What your article is about is irrelevant to the definitions of radiation. A definition do not change with subject matter being presented.
My article is about a-bombs being a hoax - an invention - so there is no radiation from a-bombs. Only propaganda. To scare!
If you fully agree then why does your website say it's harmless?I also mention peaceful nuclear power. It is also harmless and safe if properly controlled and correctly used. I like nuclear power a lot being a big shareholder of EDF.I quoted the complete text from a section to ensure context. AAMOF, I quoted the entire section of the definition of ionizing radiation so you cannot say I took it out of context.
So what about the radiation? Noone has died from radiation at Fukushima incident and I describe it at my article. Of course 100 000's of Japanese were told that radiation would kill them, so they had to flee, abandon, homes and work, etc, etc, ... but now they are told they MUST go back, bla, bla, bla. All are healthy - apart from those injured by stress and worries, etc, etc.
But it is a fact - noone from Fukushima or in Japan has died from alfa, beta, gamma and neutron radiation at Fukushima. The authorites fooled the public by false propaganda.
So there is nothing wrong with my article/text. Do no quote me out of context.
You admitted that fast fission works which makes statements on your website factually incorrect.
There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction"
...and...
Fact remains that any nuclear chain reaction or fission must be moderated or controlled like in a peaceful nuclear power reactor to work, i.e. the neutrons must be slowed down.
I’m sorry but the factually incorrect statements about fast and thermal fission (thermal fission is the proper terminology) make it look like you haven’t done the proper researchPlease note that it helps to be polite, factual and on topic when you post here. This is a friendly discussion forum where people with different opinions meet and exchange ideas. I know that my ideas are not politically correct, particularly not in the USA, so I am very happy not being there.This last statement is comical coming from you. I’ve lost count of the number of post where you’ve called me a “twerp”, “microbrain”, and worst of all “terrorist”. The vast majority of your posts to me and others have personal attacks in them. Then you have the balls to tell me to be polite. You need to take your own advice and start being polite to the other posters in this forum.
By your own admission the statements on fast & thermal fission I quoted with full context are factually incorrect. So, I have to ask. Is the following quote by you a lie or not?OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast.
You need to address these glaring errors in your website.
If you don’t want to fix the errors about fast & thermal fission that’s your choice. But those of us with actual training and experience in nuclear power know better.
However, I will not stop pointing out the factually incorrect and potentially hazardous errors in your definitions of ionizing radiation. These errors indicate shoddy research and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. You really must fix the section on ionizing radiation because it’s not only factually incorrect it is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Someone reading your section on radiation might believe you know what you’re talking about and the improperly handle radioactive sources from such things a smoke detectors, old watches, or uranium glass thinking they are not a hazard. Someone reading you definitions of radiation might think it’s okay to buy radioactive test sources from Amazon not having the first clue how to properly handle them.
Or, is being right more important to you than potentially killing a child because (s)he believes your claim that radiation is harmless.
Mike
Thanks for your comments and suggestions.
However, you forget that my web page in question is about a-bomb fakery and propaganda to scare the shit out of normal people. It is abig scam. The US governments used and uses numerous 'experts' to say a-bombs kill, not only when they FLASH but also afterwards! The radiation will kill you afterwards, bla, bla, bla. All 100% lies.
And you ignore them.
So I assume you agree with me that explosive fission FLASH a-bombs do not work and that you just make stupid remarks about details - fast versus slow fission, harmless versus deadly radiation, etc, etc. - to impress some particular interests. You work in the US military-industrial complex so I understand your dilemma. If I were you I would change job. Do some constructive! Wasting stolen money on nonsense cannot be fun.
The subject of your website also has no bearing on you descriptions of radiation being factually incorrect and irresponsible.
Thanks that you agree that my webpage is about fake a-bombs, fake a-bombs radiation, fake secret, miltary, explosive fission FLASH bombs destroying everything in nano-seconds and that my conclusions are right. Or wrong?
Why do you get upset about alleged factually incorrect details ... where you are wrong?I’m not wrong. You’re the one making inconsistent statements about fast fission and you refuse to answer any questions about the inconsistencies. Why are you afraid to answer the question.
You really have to do better, MicroBrain.
Has anyone died at Fukushima from radiation?I have no idea and don’t pretend to know. However, it doesn’t matter. Whether anyone died or not is irrelevant. You definitions of radiation is factually wrong. Apparently you don’t care if some kid gets sick or worse because they believe you irresponsible discussions of radiation which says a lot about your character.
I have no idea and don’t pretend to know. However, it doesn’t matter. Whether anyone died or not is irrelevant. You definitions of radiation is factually wrong. Apparently you don’t care if some kid gets sick or worse because they believe you irresponsible discussions of radiation which says a lot about your character.
Mike
The morality rates have nothing to do with the definitions of ionizing radiation and you're making a correlation where none exists. Your definitions are wrong regardless of who does or doesn't die.
I have no idea and don’t pretend to know. However, it doesn’t matter. Whether anyone died or not is irrelevant. You definitions of radiation is factually wrong. Apparently you don’t care if some kid gets sick or worse because they believe you irresponsible discussions of radiation which says a lot about your character.
Mike
Hm, I just suggest at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that info about a-bombs and nuclear power planst incidents radiation is exaggerated. Nobody has died from radiation at Hiroshisma and Nagasaki 1945 and Fukushima 2011. Isn't it good news?
Has anyone died at Fukushima from radiation?
The accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosisc. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident.
The morality rates have nothing to do with the definitions of ionizing radiation and you're making a correlation where none exists. Your definitions are wrong regardless of who does or doesn't die.
I have no idea and don’t pretend to know. However, it doesn’t matter. Whether anyone died or not is irrelevant. You definitions of radiation is factually wrong. Apparently you don’t care if some kid gets sick or worse because they believe you irresponsible discussions of radiation which says a lot about your character.
Mike
Hm, I just suggest at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that info about a-bombs and nuclear power planst incidents radiation is exaggerated. Nobody has died from radiation at Hiroshisma and Nagasaki 1945 and Fukushima 2011. Isn't it good news?
You call yourself a researcher and a unique source but you're lying to make your discussion of Fukushima sound better. How else do you justify changing the definitions. It makes you an untrustworthy source.
It's no wonder you've been banned from so many other sites.
Mike
1992/98 I was 28 times in Ukraine trying to restart Ukrainian shipbuilding and shipping and I was ready to relocate to Nikolaev, etc, etc. My boss was born at Odessa 1913. Nikoleav is a very nice town with clever, civilized people.Has anyone died at Fukushima from radiation?
Has anyone died at Chernobyl from radiation?Quote from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspxThe accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosisc. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident.
Of course I'm sure that you'll just dismiss it as propaganda.
Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
It seems nobody has died at Fukushima of radiation. But plenty Japanese from Fukushima are sick of stress and bad treatment by the government.Just because no deaths have yet been directly attributed to the radiation, that doesn't mean that there will be no long term health problems.
I am just a safety at sea consultant trying to improve safety at sea. Plenty victims of not seaworthy ships have contacted me about their experiences.How does that qualify you as an authority on the health effects of different types of radiation?
Very nice, but has nothing to do with what I said.1992/98 I was 28 times in Ukraine trying to restart Ukrainian shipbuilding and shipping and I was ready to relocate to Nikolaev, etc, etc. My boss was born at Odessa 1913. Nikoleav is a very nice town with clever, civilized people.Has anyone died at Fukushima from radiation?
Has anyone died at Chernobyl from radiation?Quote from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspxThe accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosisc. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people on-site and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident.
Of course I'm sure that you'll just dismiss it as propaganda.
In the end we failed completely. Too much corruption. The Ukrainians at Kiev didn't like the Russian/Jewish majority in the south and made it impossible to re-start shipyards and shipping companies. Quite sad.
I remember a special tax on all businesses to assist alleged Chernobyl victims. What a scam.And there's the dismissal, as predicted.
Your entire post is meaningless. I don't know who you copied that info from but it's wrong.The morality rates have nothing to do with the definitions of ionizing radiation and you're making a correlation where none exists. Your definitions are wrong regardless of who does or doesn't die.
I have no idea and don’t pretend to know. However, it doesn’t matter. Whether anyone died or not is irrelevant. You definitions of radiation is factually wrong. Apparently you don’t care if some kid gets sick or worse because they believe you irresponsible discussions of radiation which says a lot about your character.
Mike
Hm, I just suggest at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that info about a-bombs and nuclear power planst incidents radiation is exaggerated. Nobody has died from radiation at Hiroshisma and Nagasaki 1945 and Fukushima 2011. Isn't it good news?
You call yourself a researcher and a unique source but you're lying to make your discussion of Fukushima sound better. How else do you justify changing the definitions. It makes you an untrustworthy source.
It's no wonder you've been banned from so many other sites.
Mike
Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.
It seems nobody has died at Fukushima of radiation. But plenty Japanese from Fukushima are sick of stress and bad treatment by the government.
I am just a safety at sea consultant trying to improve safety at sea. Plenty victims of not seaworthy ships have contacted me about their experiences. It is always their own faults. Etc, etc. Many governments don't like me.
Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
You don't give s shit about the truth. All you care about is making sure you look smart and if that means ignoring information you know is wrong than so be it. As long as it fits your silly little narrative the truth doesn't matter to you.Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
You sound sick! Are you OK? Too much radiation?
But don't worry. Radiation is not dangerous. Use suntan/oil to protect yourself.
Please report back when you are cured.
You are wrong as usual.You don't give s shit about the truth. All you care about is making sure you look smart and if that means ignoring information you know is wrong than so be it. As long as it fits your silly little narrative the truth doesn't matter to you.Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
You sound sick! Are you OK? Too much radiation?
But don't worry. Radiation is not dangerous. Use suntan/oil to protect yourself.
Please report back when you are cured.
Yes, I'm sick of your stupidity.Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
You sound sick!
That's funny coming from you. You have yet to show me wrong on anything...not one thing.You are wrong as usual.You don't give s shit about the truth. All you care about is making sure you look smart and if that means ignoring information you know is wrong than so be it. As long as it fits your silly little narrative the truth doesn't matter to you.Ok, so you consider what you write but you obviously don't care what you write. If you did care, then you would reconsider what you write about radiation on your popular, but dangerously inaccurate, web site.Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Did you ever consider the possibility that when you "rewrite it in an easy to understand way" that you may be dangerously oversimplifying and misrepresenting the facts that you copied?
Yes! Why do you always ask stupid, off topic questions. Of course I consider what I write. It seems you don't.
You sound sick! Are you OK? Too much radiation?
But don't worry. Radiation is not dangerous. Use suntan/oil to protect yourself.
Please report back when you are cured.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Why should my postings matter to you?All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Yet you are still here """debating""' him.
Really gives the old noggin a joggin.
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
Well, plenty people regard me as a serious source of information about safety at sea. The authorities interpret the rules in their own favour, when they are not cheating outright. I always publish good factual reasons for my findings. There is no reason why I should make up anything.
Re the a-bomb hoax I provide plenty info why FDR, Uncle Joe & Co faked it with their explosive fission nonsense. Pure pseudoscience. Luckily no a-bombs have been used in war since 9 August 1945 as they do not work. USA must lose their wars in the normal way = wasting canon fodder. Again there is no reason why I should make up anything.
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
Well, plenty people regard me as a serious source of information about safety at sea. The authorities interpret the rules in their own favour, when they are not cheating outright. I always publish good factual reasons for my findings. There is no reason why I should make up anything.
Re the a-bomb hoax I provide plenty info why FDR, Uncle Joe & Co faked it with their explosive fission nonsense. Pure pseudoscience. Luckily no a-bombs have been used in war since 9 August 1945 as they do not work. USA must lose their wars in the normal way = wasting canon fodder. Again there is no reason why I should make up anything.
So where's your source for all the stuff you post about nuclear weapons?
You provide a lot of links to support your historical or technical information but not a single link to support the ignorant conclusions you draw of that historical or technical information.
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
Well, plenty people regard me as a serious source of information about safety at sea. The authorities interpret the rules in their own favour, when they are not cheating outright. I always publish good factual reasons for my findings. There is no reason why I should make up anything.
Re the a-bomb hoax I provide plenty info why FDR, Uncle Joe & Co faked it with their explosive fission nonsense. Pure pseudoscience. Luckily no a-bombs have been used in war since 9 August 1945 as they do not work. USA must lose their wars in the normal way = wasting canon fodder. Again there is no reason why I should make up anything.
You provide a lot of links to support your historical or technical information but not a single link to support the ignorant conclusions you draw of that historical or technical information.
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
Well, plenty people regard me as a serious source of information about safety at sea. The authorities interpret the rules in their own favour, when they are not cheating outright. I always publish good factual reasons for my findings. There is no reason why I should make up anything.
Re the a-bomb hoax I provide plenty info why FDR, Uncle Joe & Co faked it with their explosive fission nonsense. Pure pseudoscience. Luckily no a-bombs have been used in war since 9 August 1945 as they do not work. USA must lose their wars in the normal way = wasting canon fodder. Again there is no reason why I should make up anything.
Here’s some links for you...
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/
http://www.imagewisely.org/Imaging-Modalities/Computed-Tomography/Imaging-Physicians/Articles/Ionizing-Radiation-Effects-and-Their-Risk-to-Humans
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-health-effects
http://www2.clarku.edu/departments/marsh/projects/community/EpiOverviewFinal.pdf
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp149-c3.pdf
https://www.nap.edu/read/5154/chapter/6#112
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiationionizing/hazards.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859619/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/717
Every single one of these links is an authoritative source which directly contradicts your assessment of ionizing radiation. Every single one corroborates the information I previously posted about your clueless descriptions of the types radiation and the self-serving lie that “most radiation is harmless”. You are lying about radiation to support your conclusions about the Fukashima accident. Lies that if you correct would mean you would have to correct so many other related incorrect conclusions you made.
A couple of these links specifically discuss the higher risk to children than to adults. And that’s what makes your stupidity so dangerous. Reading your ignorant webpage some kid may think it’s okay to take the americium out of a smoke detector because you said it was harmless.
I HAVE PROVED YOU WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. NOW FIX THE INCORRECT RADIATION INFORMATION ON YOUR SITE OR TAKE IT DOWN. OR, WOULD YOU RATHER LIE TO PROTECT YOUR IGNORANT CONCLUSIONS?
Mike
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?You provide a lot of links to support your historical or technical information but not a single link to support the ignorant conclusions you draw of that historical or technical information.
...and you can't use yourself as a source. I'll give you a hint...you can't. Meanwhile, nearly everything you've posted and on your website about nuclear power, radiation, and nuclear weapons is wrong...and I've already posted the sources to prove how wrong you are.
All you have are your own inane rantings and lies without a single independent source to back you up.
Your research is shoddy and you conclusions are not only wrong they're just plain stupid.
The difference between you and me is you have yet to prove a single thing I've posted is wrong. You just dismiss shit without even trying to disprove it. You make stupid comments like it's "nonsense" or "propaganda"...and that's all you can do because you don't have the knowledge to do anything else.
Mike
Well, plenty people regard me as a serious source of information about safety at sea. The authorities interpret the rules in their own favour, when they are not cheating outright. I always publish good factual reasons for my findings. There is no reason why I should make up anything.
Re the a-bomb hoax I provide plenty info why FDR, Uncle Joe & Co faked it with their explosive fission nonsense. Pure pseudoscience. Luckily no a-bombs have been used in war since 9 August 1945 as they do not work. USA must lose their wars in the normal way = wasting canon fodder. Again there is no reason why I should make up anything.
Here’s some links for you...
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs371/en/
http://www.imagewisely.org/Imaging-Modalities/Computed-Tomography/Imaging-Physicians/Articles/Ionizing-Radiation-Effects-and-Their-Risk-to-Humans
https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-health-effects
http://www2.clarku.edu/departments/marsh/projects/community/EpiOverviewFinal.pdf
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp149-c3.pdf
https://www.nap.edu/read/5154/chapter/6#112
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiationionizing/hazards.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859619/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/101/4/717
Every single one of these links is an authoritative source which directly contradicts your assessment of ionizing radiation. Every single one corroborates the information I previously posted about your clueless descriptions of the types radiation and the self-serving lie that “most radiation is harmless”. You are lying about radiation to support your conclusions about the Fukashima accident. Lies that if you correct would mean you would have to correct so many other related incorrect conclusions you made.
A couple of these links specifically discuss the higher risk to children than to adults. And that’s what makes your stupidity so dangerous. Reading your ignorant webpage some kid may think it’s okay to take the americium out of a smoke detector because you said it was harmless.
I HAVE PROVED YOU WRONG TIME AND TIME AGAIN. NOW FIX THE INCORRECT RADIATION INFORMATION ON YOUR SITE OR TAKE IT DOWN. OR, WOULD YOU RATHER LIE TO PROTECT YOUR IGNORANT CONCLUSIONS?
Mike
Thanks but you are a little off topic. The radiation I discuss at my website is the one at Fukushima 2011/17, which was and is totally harmless. Nobody has died there. The Japanese yakusa - organized criminal gangs - cleaned up the place, etc, etc.
I also mention the alleged radiation at Hiroshima abd Nagasaki 1945 but as no a-bombs exploded there in nano-seconds FLASHES, there was no radiation.
But I agree - if you spend a full summer day in the sun your skin is burnt, your body is dried up, etc, etc, by sun radiation. Your dose of radiation is a function of exposure time and many other things.
My understanding of certain, defined radiation is clearly explained at my website. And it is harmless.
But with propaganda you can scare the shit out of people that radiation will kill them. I don't like that.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
And Heiwa misses the point as usual.
Hm, I just ask people to read my book at no cost. 19 years ago, I sold it ... at cost. But it was sold out, so I put it on the Internet for anyone to read it. Good PR.
Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
yore stoopidYes, I know plenty twerps think so. Nothing to argue about.
That's exactly what a stoopid twirp wud say.yore stoopidYes, I know plenty twerps think so. Nothing to argue about.
You sure? I (topic) said it and I am such a nice guy understanding everything.That's exactly what a stoopid twirp wud say.yore stoopidYes, I know plenty twerps think so. Nothing to argue about.
I'm sure.You sure? I (topic) said it and I am such a nice guy understanding everything.That's exactly what a stoopid twirp wud say.yore stoopidYes, I know plenty twerps think so. Nothing to argue about.
Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.
Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
I did what you asked. I copied and pasted what was wrong and gave you the correct information with links. You then could use my links for search for you own to see whether or not I was correct.
The fact is you fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.
Mike
I did this for a living so you are not even remotely qualified to tell me I'm wrong when it comes to radiation and reactor theory. I, on the other hand, am qualified to tell you that you're wrong.Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
I did what you asked. I copied and pasted what was wrong and gave you the correct information with links. You then could use my links for search for you own to see whether or not I was correct.
The fact is you fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.
Mike
Well, my website and conclusions are not junk science! Everything is correct incl. my statement that the radiation at Fukushima was and is harmless.
Radiation is only a question of dose - intensity and exposure time. Incorrect radiation my kill you. I friend of mine has been regularily radiated for over a year! To kill some cancer cells in the throat. Such radiation is harmful for the cancer cells but harmless to my friend.
Only crazy twerps suggest I fabricate lies to support invented conspiracy theories.
Why do you post so much BS, Mike?
I did this for a living so you are not even remotely qualified to tell me I'm wrong when it comes to radiation and reactor theory. I, on the other hand, am qualified to tell you that you're wrong.Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
I did what you asked. I copied and pasted what was wrong and gave you the correct information with links. You then could use my links for search for you own to see whether or not I was correct.
The fact is you fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.
Mike
Well, my website and conclusions are not junk science! Everything is correct incl. my statement that the radiation at Fukushima was and is harmless.
Radiation is only a question of dose - intensity and exposure time. Incorrect radiation my kill you. I friend of mine has been regularily radiated for over a year! To kill some cancer cells in the throat. Such radiation is harmful for the cancer cells but harmless to my friend.
Only crazy twerps suggest I fabricate lies to support invented conspiracy theories.
Why do you post so much BS, Mike?
I think you do know you're wrong but you won't fix it because it then it makes you assessment of Fukashima wrong. You are just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
I did what you asked. I copied and pasted what was wrong and gave you the correct information with links. You then could use my links for search for you own to see whether or not I was correct.
The fact is you fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.
Mike
Well, my website and conclusions are not junk science! Everything is correct incl. my statement that the radiation at Fukushima was and is harmless.
Radiation is only a question of dose - intensity and exposure time. Incorrect radiation my kill you. I friend of mine has been regularily radiated for over a year! To kill some cancer cells in the throat. Such radiation is harmful for the cancer cells but harmless to my friend.
Only crazy twerps suggest I fabricate lies to support invented conspiracy theories.
Why do you post so much BS, Mike?
Wow! What a rebuttal!Why do you post so much BS?
I did this for a living so you are not even remotely qualified to tell me I'm wrong when it comes to radiation and reactor theory. I, on the other hand, am qualified to tell you that you're wrong.Yeah, keep ignoring the fact that I called you for lying to protect your junk science and conclusions. The radiation levels may have been relatively harmless that does NOT mean that radiation is harmless.Yeah, you explained it and you're still wrong. You fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.Radiation is NOT harmless and you're a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make your point.
Are you seriously saying that radiation is harmless in just in Japan?
Radiation exposure in NEVER harmless. Your just another conspiracy theory nut job who will say anything to support your delusional rantings.
Good thing nobody reads you stupid site.
Mike
Well just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm in peace and quiet and maybe you will understand!
Most radiation is harmless. Nobody at Fukushima has died from it.
You have absolutely no personal integrity.
I have read you whole site and it's nothing but junk science.
Mike
Well, I explain the opposite! There was no RADIATION at Hiroshima/Nagasaki and the RADIATION at Fukushima today is harmless, so it is only to move back and be happy. The yakusa has cleaned up the place. And the RADIATION at my place is also harmlss. But it seems that RADIATION in space will kill you making space travel impossible, but in spite of this humans can fly around in space, bla, bla, bla. Plenty junk science around. I call it pseudoscience. It works very well. No conspiracy at all. People without integrity use it.
Have at least a little personal integrity and do it right.
Mike
What conspiracy theory are you talking about?
Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945! But it was just propaganda to scare people and end WW2. No conspiracy, no a-bombs and no radiation! Just visit the towns yourself and have a look!
Fukushima 2011? The radiation was real but harmless - it was cleaned away by the yakusa in a few weeks - but people were scared about it and driven away by the authorities ... and are now ordered to return. Not really a conspiracy.
I consider it a scandal. Telling lies to and fooling innocent, simple people.
I did what you asked. I copied and pasted what was wrong and gave you the correct information with links. You then could use my links for search for you own to see whether or not I was correct.
The fact is you fabricated a lie to fit you conspiracy theory. You don't care if it's accurate if it supports your narrative.
Mike
Well, my website and conclusions are not junk science! Everything is correct incl. my statement that the radiation at Fukushima was and is harmless.
Radiation is only a question of dose - intensity and exposure time. Incorrect radiation my kill you. I friend of mine has been regularily radiated for over a year! To kill some cancer cells in the throat. Such radiation is harmful for the cancer cells but harmless to my friend.
Only crazy twerps suggest I fabricate lies to support invented conspiracy theories.
Why do you post so much BS, Mike?
I think you do know you're wrong but you won't fix it because it then it makes you assessment of Fukashima wrong. You are just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
Why do you post so much BS, Mike?
If it should be easy to prove me wrong. Do you have to balls to try and prove me wrong. Don't link to your website to do as a source. I provided multiple links that support me. How about you do the same? If you're right it should be easy.
Fix your site or admit you're just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc.
Thanks for an interesting post.I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc.
J. R. R. Tolkien wrote about Hobbits.
Thanks for an interesting post.I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc.
J. R. R. Tolkien wrote about Hobbits.
Thanks for an interesting post.I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc.
J. R. R. Tolkien wrote about Hobbits.
Okay, answer this question.
If it should be easy to prove me wrong. Do you have to balls to try and prove me wrong. Don't link to your website to do as a source. I provided multiple links that support me. How about you do the same? If you're right it should be easy.
Fix your site or admit you're just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
But I am quite happy with my site. It doesn't need any fixing. I am not in your conspiracy or FES business. I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc. But thanks for your comments anyway.
Okay, answer this question.
If it should be easy to prove me wrong. Do you have to balls to try and prove me wrong. Don't link to your website to do as a source. I provided multiple links that support me. How about you do the same? If you're right it should be easy.
Fix your site or admit you're just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
But I am quite happy with my site. It doesn't need any fixing. I am not in your conspiracy or FES business. I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc. But thanks for your comments anyway.
Why is your definition of radiation correct and mine is wrong. If you can prove you are right and I'm wrong I'll stop posting on this subject.
Mike
moderated fission
moderated fission
Just for shits . . . why would it need to be 'moderated' ?
Nuclear power relies on fission of the uranium-235 nuclei that perpetuates the initial split in other nuclei in an environment moderated by control rods. The power garnered from this process is used to heat water, which in turn powers an electric turbine generator. If the flow of water being heated stops, it can result in a meltdown where the uranium particles melt, releasing radioactive vapors which can escape into the air if security protocol fails.https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why/
That says nuclear power relies on it being moderated, it doesn't say fission must be moderated. It also seems to imply that radioactive vapors are dangerous something you claim is not true.moderated fission
Just for shits . . . why would it need to be 'moderated' ?QuoteNuclear power relies on fission of the uranium-235 nuclei that perpetuates the initial split in other nuclei in an environment moderated by control rods. The power garnered from this process is used to heat water, which in turn powers an electric turbine generator. If the flow of water being heated stops, it can result in a meltdown where the uranium particles melt, releasing radioactive vapors which can escape into the air if security protocol fails.https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why/
Yes, fission must be moderated to produce nuclear power/steam/electricity. Otherwise the system will overheat and fission stops. Nothing wrong with it. Fission is just splitting atoms.That says nuclear power relies on it being moderated, it doesn't say fission must be moderated. It also seems to imply that radioactive vapors are dangerous something you claim is not true.moderated fission
Just for shits . . . why would it need to be 'moderated' ?QuoteNuclear power relies on fission of the uranium-235 nuclei that perpetuates the initial split in other nuclei in an environment moderated by control rods. The power garnered from this process is used to heat water, which in turn powers an electric turbine generator. If the flow of water being heated stops, it can result in a meltdown where the uranium particles melt, releasing radioactive vapors which can escape into the air if security protocol fails.https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why/
So are you going to change that part on your website and admit you were wrong?
Ok but that's not what your source said. It did not say that fission must be moderated or that it cannot be explosive. You were using this source to support those claims, it doesn't. Do you have a source that does?Yes, fission must be moderated to produce nuclear power/steam/electricity. Otherwise the system will overheat and fission stops. Nothing wrong with it. Fission is just splitting atoms.That says nuclear power relies on it being moderated, it doesn't say fission must be moderated. It also seems to imply that radioactive vapors are dangerous something you claim is not true.moderated fission
Just for shits . . . why would it need to be 'moderated' ?QuoteNuclear power relies on fission of the uranium-235 nuclei that perpetuates the initial split in other nuclei in an environment moderated by control rods. The power garnered from this process is used to heat water, which in turn powers an electric turbine generator. If the flow of water being heated stops, it can result in a meltdown where the uranium particles melt, releasing radioactive vapors which can escape into the air if security protocol fails.https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why/
So are you going to change that part on your website and admit you were wrong?
And that is why military, secret, explosive FLASH fission doesn't work. It overheats and fizzles before it can produce a FLASH.
Radioactive vapours? Yes, they maybe dangerous, if they produce high doses of radiation. Have I suggested something else? No. I just point out that the radiation after the Fukushima incident has not killed anybody. The dangers were exaggerated while organized crime - yakusa - cleaned up the place. Maybe any radioactive vapours just blowed away?
Why can't you quote me correctly? You don't sound serious.
This is all wrong and you don't have a source to support so where did you get the information?Yes, fission must be moderated to produce nuclear power/steam/electricity. Otherwise the system will overheat and fission stops. Nothing wrong with it. Fission is just splitting atoms.That says nuclear power relies on it being moderated, it doesn't say fission must be moderated. It also seems to imply that radioactive vapors are dangerous something you claim is not true.moderated fission
Just for shits . . . why would it need to be 'moderated' ?QuoteNuclear power relies on fission of the uranium-235 nuclei that perpetuates the initial split in other nuclei in an environment moderated by control rods. The power garnered from this process is used to heat water, which in turn powers an electric turbine generator. If the flow of water being heated stops, it can result in a meltdown where the uranium particles melt, releasing radioactive vapors which can escape into the air if security protocol fails.https://futurism.com/use-nuclear-power-decline-why/
So are you going to change that part on your website and admit you were wrong?
And that is why military, secret, explosive FLASH fission doesn't work. It overheats and fizzles before it can produce a FLASH.
Radioactive vapours? Yes, they maybe dangerous, if they produce high doses of radiation. Have I suggested something else? No. I just point out that the radiation after the Fukushima incident has not killed anybody. The dangers were exaggerated while organized crime - yakusa - cleaned up the place. Maybe any radioactive vapours just blowed away?
Why can't you quote me correctly? You don't sound serious.
Like I said before your links stated that the exposure levels were low but nowhere in any of your sources are the definitions for ionizing radiation you've used on your site. Unless you can show the source you claimed you copied that info from fix it.Okay, answer this question.
If it should be easy to prove me wrong. Do you have to balls to try and prove me wrong. Don't link to your website to do as a source. I provided multiple links that support me. How about you do the same? If you're right it should be easy.
Fix your site or admit you're just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
But I am quite happy with my site. It doesn't need any fixing. I am not in your conspiracy or FES business. I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc. But thanks for your comments anyway.
Why is your definition of radiation correct and mine is wrong. If you can prove you are right and I'm wrong I'll stop posting on this subject.
Mike
I link to sites that have measure radiation at Hiroshima/Nagasaki - none - and Fukushima - low, harmless values resulting in low doses. I describe a place is Iran where the normal background radiation is high and ... apparently harmless for the population. I had a house in Erzgebirge 17 years and in the vicinity there were hotels offering healthy radiation cures. My friend WM mined something for Wismut AG that Stalin built an a-bomb with. But it was not uranium! It was all fake.
You link to sites suggesting that strong doses of radiation can kill people.
It seems the world's experts haven't yet completely agreed what doses are harmless and what are not. So they say all radiation is dangerous and will kill you ... to be on the safe side.
Anyway, the purpose of my site is not radiation! It is that all nuclear weapons and their explosive fission are fake, so they cannot produce any radiation.
On the other hand nuclear power and moderated fission are well understood and safe.
If you quote me, quote me correctly.
Like I said before your links stated that the exposure levels were low but nowhere in any of your sources are the definitions for ionizing radiation you've used on your site. Unless you can show the source you claimed you copied that info from fix it.Okay, answer this question.
If it should be easy to prove me wrong. Do you have to balls to try and prove me wrong. Don't link to your website to do as a source. I provided multiple links that support me. How about you do the same? If you're right it should be easy.
Fix your site or admit you're just a conspiracy theorist who will lie to make a point with no credibility or integrity.
Mike
But I am quite happy with my site. It doesn't need any fixing. I am not in your conspiracy or FES business. I write about safety at sea, in space, in tops of skyscrapers and around nuclear power plants, etc. But thanks for your comments anyway.
Why is your definition of radiation correct and mine is wrong. If you can prove you are right and I'm wrong I'll stop posting on this subject.
Mike
I link to sites that have measure radiation at Hiroshima/Nagasaki - none - and Fukushima - low, harmless values resulting in low doses. I describe a place is Iran where the normal background radiation is high and ... apparently harmless for the population. I had a house in Erzgebirge 17 years and in the vicinity there were hotels offering healthy radiation cures. My friend WM mined something for Wismut AG that Stalin built an a-bomb with. But it was not uranium! It was all fake.
You link to sites suggesting that strong doses of radiation can kill people.
It seems the world's experts haven't yet completely agreed what doses are harmless and what are not. So they say all radiation is dangerous and will kill you ... to be on the safe side.
Anyway, the purpose of my site is not radiation! It is that all nuclear weapons and their explosive fission are fake, so they cannot produce any radiation.
On the other hand nuclear power and moderated fission are well understood and safe.
If you quote me, quote me correctly.
Mike
You posted in the quote below that you “copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation” into your website.Like I said before your links stated that the exposure levels were low but nowhere in any of your sources are the definitions for ionizing radiation you've used on your site. Unless you can show the source you claimed you copied that info from fix it.
Mike
You sound drunk. What shall I fix? Do you support Stalin/Wismut AG building fake a-bombs 1946/9 and then torturing certain staff to keep the hoax going?
Hm, I do not define radiation. I just copy/paste info about all sorts of radiation and rewrite it in an easy to understand way.Mike
It seems nobody has died at Fukushima of radiation. But plenty Japanese from Fukushima are sick of stress and bad treatment by the government.
I am just a safety at sea consultant trying to improve safety at sea. Plenty victims of not seaworthy ships have contacted me about their experiences. It is always their own faults. Etc, etc. Many governments don't like me.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Again, you cut the questions out so you won't have to answer them. And, we all know it's because you're afraid to.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return as the area is safe again. It seems it is very easy to scare people with radiation of all sorts. The Japanese are told all radiation is deadly since 1945.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
I already did that and you blew me off and said you "copy/paste" the information.The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Well, I describe my understanding of radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima in writing at my website and everyone is welcome to copy/paste what is wrong.
I already did that and you blew me off and said you "copy/paste" the information.The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Well, I describe my understanding of radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima in writing at my website and everyone is welcome to copy/paste what is wrong.
Now, answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
I'm not talking about the first rates and exposure times. I'm merely asking about your definitions for each of the types of radiation and the comment that radiation is harmless. Not that the exposures at Fukashima were low but you say the radiation is harmless.I already did that and you blew me off and said you "copy/paste" the information.The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Well, I describe my understanding of radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima in writing at my website and everyone is welcome to copy/paste what is wrong.
Now, answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
Hm, I provide the links at my website. In general I use recognized definitions of subjects of discussion, so no sources are provided.
I describe radiation at my site and the confusion amongst 'experts' what it is:
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."
Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College, London, 10 March, 2016
The World Health Organization has investigated the radiation exposures of Fukushima:
The present results suggest that the increases in the incidence of human disease attributable to the additional radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident are likely to remain below detectable levels. ...
To date, the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident has not resulted in acute radiation effects among workers. None of the seven reported deaths among workers is attributable to radiation exposure.
The World Nuclear Association has also studied the radiation exposure at Fukushima:
On 11 April 2012 the government suggested that those outside the 20km zone who were likely to accumulate 20 mSv/year total dose should move out within a month. Data at the end of May (with most I-131 gone by decay) showed that about half of the 20 km evacuation zone and a similar area to the NW, total about 1000 sq km, would give an annual dose of 20 mSv to March 2012. ...
From April 2012 part of the 20-km radius area and the portion of Minami-Soma city extending north from it, were recategorised by the Environment Ministry: below 20 mSv/yr, evacuation called off; 20-50 mSv/yr "restrict residency", allowing entry for specific purposes with no protective equipment required and remediation action to be completed in March 2014 (now 2017); and over 50 mSv/yr "difficulty of return", with restricted entry and remediation deferred. These restricted areas, comprising about half of the 20-km radius evacuation zone, are not expected to drop below 20 mSv/yr before about March 2016. Such areas add to those devastated by the tsunami, where rebuilding is very uncertain.
It would appear that the mentioned doses are not dangerous at all.
Just visit my page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD and you find links to the present and past situation at Fukushima.
I'm not talking about the first rates and exposure times. I'm merely asking about your definitions for each of the types of radiation and the comment that radiation is harmless. Not that the exposures at Fukashima were low but you say the radiation is harmless.I already did that and you blew me off and said you "copy/paste" the information.The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Well, I describe my understanding of radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima in writing at my website and everyone is welcome to copy/paste what is wrong.
Now, answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
Hm, I provide the links at my website. In general I use recognized definitions of subjects of discussion, so no sources are provided.
I describe radiation at my site and the confusion amongst 'experts' what it is:
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."
Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College, London, 10 March, 2016
The World Health Organization has investigated the radiation exposures of Fukushima:
The present results suggest that the increases in the incidence of human disease attributable to the additional radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident are likely to remain below detectable levels. ...
To date, the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident has not resulted in acute radiation effects among workers. None of the seven reported deaths among workers is attributable to radiation exposure.
The World Nuclear Association has also studied the radiation exposure at Fukushima:
On 11 April 2012 the government suggested that those outside the 20km zone who were likely to accumulate 20 mSv/year total dose should move out within a month. Data at the end of May (with most I-131 gone by decay) showed that about half of the 20 km evacuation zone and a similar area to the NW, total about 1000 sq km, would give an annual dose of 20 mSv to March 2012. ...
From April 2012 part of the 20-km radius area and the portion of Minami-Soma city extending north from it, were recategorised by the Environment Ministry: below 20 mSv/yr, evacuation called off; 20-50 mSv/yr "restrict residency", allowing entry for specific purposes with no protective equipment required and remediation action to be completed in March 2014 (now 2017); and over 50 mSv/yr "difficulty of return", with restricted entry and remediation deferred. These restricted areas, comprising about half of the 20-km radius evacuation zone, are not expected to drop below 20 mSv/yr before about March 2016. Such areas add to those devastated by the tsunami, where rebuilding is very uncertain.
It would appear that the mentioned doses are not dangerous at all.
Just visit my page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD and you find links to the present and past situation at Fukushima.
Answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
Nope. The definitions I provided aren't my requirements. They are the actual definitions as supported by the links I provided. All of which is proof you are wrong.I'm not talking about the first rates and exposure times. I'm merely asking about your definitions for each of the types of radiation and the comment that radiation is harmless. Not that the exposures at Fukashima were low but you say the radiation is harmless.I already did that and you blew me off and said you "copy/paste" the information.The topic is your lack of understanding about everything. He simply demonstrated your lack of understanding about radiation.
Further, your trying to imply that just because the Japanese near Fukashima received low doses somehow means radiation is not harmful. If you had the first clue what you are talking about you would realize that makes absolutely no sense.
Mike
Well, the Japanese near Fukushima were told they had been radiated and were then forced out so that the area could be cleaned up and radiation removed by people employed by local organized crime - yakusa. And now the radiated people that were force out are asked to return again as the area is safe again.
I just describe bits and pieces of that scandal at my website about the Hiroshima/Nagasaki a-bomb hoax, i.e. no a-bombs ever exploded anywhere 1945. It was just propaganda.
The a-bomb propaganda show is still on - yesterday the mayor of Hiroshima and the prime minister of Japan were at Hiroshima reminding us how Hiroshima was vaporized in a FLASH 72 years ago. Stupid people! Just repeating stupid propaganda.
And you change the topic and talk about radiation! Sorry Mike, you are a twerp.
Well, I describe my understanding of radiation at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima in writing at my website and everyone is welcome to copy/paste what is wrong.
Now, answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
Hm, I provide the links at my website. In general I use recognized definitions of subjects of discussion, so no sources are provided.
I describe radiation at my site and the confusion amongst 'experts' what it is:
"The radiation has not been the disaster. It's our response to the radiation, our fear that we've projected on to others, to say this is really dangerous. It isn't really dangerous and there are plenty of places in the world where you would live with background radiation of at least this level."
Professor Geraldine Thomas of Imperial College, London, 10 March, 2016
The World Health Organization has investigated the radiation exposures of Fukushima:
The present results suggest that the increases in the incidence of human disease attributable to the additional radiation exposure from the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident are likely to remain below detectable levels. ...
To date, the Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident has not resulted in acute radiation effects among workers. None of the seven reported deaths among workers is attributable to radiation exposure.
The World Nuclear Association has also studied the radiation exposure at Fukushima:
On 11 April 2012 the government suggested that those outside the 20km zone who were likely to accumulate 20 mSv/year total dose should move out within a month. Data at the end of May (with most I-131 gone by decay) showed that about half of the 20 km evacuation zone and a similar area to the NW, total about 1000 sq km, would give an annual dose of 20 mSv to March 2012. ...
From April 2012 part of the 20-km radius area and the portion of Minami-Soma city extending north from it, were recategorised by the Environment Ministry: below 20 mSv/yr, evacuation called off; 20-50 mSv/yr "restrict residency", allowing entry for specific purposes with no protective equipment required and remediation action to be completed in March 2014 (now 2017); and over 50 mSv/yr "difficulty of return", with restricted entry and remediation deferred. These restricted areas, comprising about half of the 20-km radius evacuation zone, are not expected to drop below 20 mSv/yr before about March 2016. Such areas add to those devastated by the tsunami, where rebuilding is very uncertain.
It would appear that the mentioned doses are not dangerous at all.
Just visit my page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD and you find links to the present and past situation at Fukushima.
Answer the questions.
1. Where are the sources/links for your definitions of radiation?
2. WHY DON’T YOU HAVE TO BE POLITE AND CIVIL EVEN THOUGH YOU TELL ME I HAVE TO?
Mike
Sorry Mike, you really are a twerp.
All info I provide at my site is correct. If I do not define radiation as per your requirements, the reason is that it is not required to understand what I write. Why should I then answer your off topic questions?
Nope. The definitions I provided aren't my requirements. They are the actual definitions as supported by the links I provided. All of which is proof you are wrong.
Sorry Mike, you really are a twerp.
All info I provide at my site is correct. If I do not define radiation as per your requirements, the reason is that it is not required to understand what I write. Why should I then answer your off topic questions?
Answer the following:
1. Are you definitions for each of the types of ionizing radiation the current accepted definitions and if so cute the source?
2. What is the source for the statement that radiation is harmless?
I see your still calling people names and refuse to answer that question...Listen, you cheesey headband wearin', Uncle Fester lookin' Fuck! I'll start being polite and civil to you when you start doing the same to me and everyone else.
Mike
You sound like a paid shill, Mike. A trouble maker. I have encountered plenty. Go away!
<snip>That is a blatant lie! Here is a direct quote from you website you lying sack-o-shit.
I do not state that radiation is harmless. I state that the level of radiation at Fukushima doesn't add up to dangerous doses, etc, etc, and that the radiation at Fukushima - outside in the air - is harmless. If you have been in Japan you should know that the country is regularly hit by typhoons and heavy wind/rain that washes the whole country clean ... from any radiation and pollution.
Media trumpet that the radiation inside a Fukushima nuclear power reactor is deadly but all radiation insida any nuclear power reactor is deadly. Don't put your cat in a micro oven to dry it after a bath. You'll kill it.
You sound like a paid shill, Mike. A trouble maker. I have encountered plenty. Go away!
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.
<snip>That is a blatant lie! Here is a direct quote from you website you lying sack-o-shit.
I do not state that radiation is harmless. I state that the level of radiation at Fukushima doesn't add up to dangerous doses, etc, etc, and that the radiation at Fukushima - outside in the air - is harmless. If you have been in Japan you should know that the country is regularly hit by typhoons and heavy wind/rain that washes the whole country clean ... from any radiation and pollution.
Media trumpet that the radiation inside a Fukushima nuclear power reactor is deadly but all radiation insida any nuclear power reactor is deadly. Don't put your cat in a micro oven to dry it after a bath. You'll kill it.
You sound like a paid shill, Mike. A trouble maker. I have encountered plenty. Go away!QuoteThus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.
You do say it is harmless. Not to mention, that whole statement is factually incorrect and I bet you don't even know why. And, every one of your ionizing radiation definitions are wrong and I’ve proved it. You’re just a lying conspiracy theorist who will say anything to support his story. Those definitions and your statement that radiation is harmless has absolutely nothing to do with the exposure levels around Fukashima so why do you have to lie about them?
Mike
... Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945.
Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object. ...
I did quote you correctly and I quoted the entire section on radiation earlier in this thread but you already know that. You are just stalling.<snip>That is a blatant lie! Here is a direct quote from you website you lying sack-o-shit.
I do not state that radiation is harmless. I state that the level of radiation at Fukushima doesn't add up to dangerous doses, etc, etc, and that the radiation at Fukushima - outside in the air - is harmless. If you have been in Japan you should know that the country is regularly hit by typhoons and heavy wind/rain that washes the whole country clean ... from any radiation and pollution.
Media trumpet that the radiation inside a Fukushima nuclear power reactor is deadly but all radiation insida any nuclear power reactor is deadly. Don't put your cat in a micro oven to dry it after a bath. You'll kill it.
You sound like a paid shill, Mike. A trouble maker. I have encountered plenty. Go away!QuoteThus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.
You do say it is harmless. Not to mention, that whole statement is factually incorrect and I bet you don't even know why. And, every one of your ionizing radiation definitions are wrong and I’ve proved it. You’re just a lying conspiracy theorist who will say anything to support his story. Those definitions and your statement that radiation is harmless has absolutely nothing to do with the exposure levels around Fukashima so why do you have to lie about them?
Mike
Thanks for visiting my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD. The quote above is from:Quote... Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945.
Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object. ...
Try to quote me correctly, please.
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. [/u]This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.[/b][/i]
It’s a good thing nobody reads your site
Mike
I did quote you correctly and I quoted the entire section on radiation earlier in this thread but you already know that. You are just stalling.<snip>That is a blatant lie! Here is a direct quote from you website you lying sack-o-shit.
I do not state that radiation is harmless. I state that the level of radiation at Fukushima doesn't add up to dangerous doses, etc, etc, and that the radiation at Fukushima - outside in the air - is harmless. If you have been in Japan you should know that the country is regularly hit by typhoons and heavy wind/rain that washes the whole country clean ... from any radiation and pollution.
Media trumpet that the radiation inside a Fukushima nuclear power reactor is deadly but all radiation insida any nuclear power reactor is deadly. Don't put your cat in a micro oven to dry it after a bath. You'll kill it.
You sound like a paid shill, Mike. A trouble maker. I have encountered plenty. Go away!QuoteThus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.
You do say it is harmless. Not to mention, that whole statement is factually incorrect and I bet you don't even know why. And, every one of your ionizing radiation definitions are wrong and I’ve proved it. You’re just a lying conspiracy theorist who will say anything to support his story. Those definitions and your statement that radiation is harmless has absolutely nothing to do with the exposure levels around Fukashima so why do you have to lie about them?
Mike
Thanks for visiting my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD. The quote above is from:Quote... Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945.
Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object. ...
Try to quote me correctly, please.QuoteThus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. [/u]This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.[/b][/i]
There. Now I've copied your quote so you can't say I'm not quoting you correctly. You DO say radiation is harmless and that you don't trust the experts who say otherwise. That’s why you won’t change it. You would rather lie to protect the rest of your stupid tin foil hat wearin' conspiracy theories than have an accurate trustworthy website. It’s the same reason you were even drummed out of the AE911 group by Gage himself. When they realized just how much of a whack job you really were, they removed you your whole profile and even removed any mention of you being Petitioner of the month from their website. They didn’t want your bat shit crazy ideas associated with their website. This is also the kind of crap that has gotten you banned from so many other forums.
You don't care about the truth. You don't give a shit that I and others have posted link after link that proves you wrong. It’s a good thing nobody reads your site because the information is not only wrong but may be dangerous to anyone who doesn’t know better.
Mike
Can't you read. I write ... 'it seems most radiation is harmless' ... , etc, etc, etc. Try to quote properly.I can read very well but apparently you can’t . “seems” is contrary to every link supplied to you so you know that it’s not true and yet, you don’t care. It’s a stone cold fact that all ionizing radiation is harmful. Even in low enough doses is causes somatic damage to the body but it can usually repair itself. Hell, you don't even know that somatic damage is; otherwise your website would be accurate. Why don’t you care about the truth?
Re my friend Richard Gage of AE911Truth we are still on good terms and agree on almost everything about structural design and collapses, etc. Gage thinks some crazy Arabs were hi-jacking and flying four planes on 911. I don't. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
Mike, you are a stupid twerp and paid shill with all your nonsense. I feel sorry for you. Go away.
Can't you read. I write ... 'it seems most radiation is harmless' ... , etc, etc, etc. Try to quote properly.I can read very well but apparently you can’t . “seems” is contrary to every link supplied to you so you know that it’s not true and yet, you don’t care. It’s a stone cold fact that all ionizing radiation is harmful. Even in low enough doses is causes somatic damage to the body but it can usually repair itself. Hell, you don't even know that somatic damage is; otherwise your website would be accurate. Why don’t you care about the truth?
Re my friend Richard Gage of AE911Truth we are still on good terms and agree on almost everything about structural design and collapses, etc. Gage thinks some crazy Arabs were hi-jacking and flying four planes on 911. I don't. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
Mike, you are a stupid twerp and paid shill with all your nonsense. I feel sorry for you. Go away.
Nobody would pay a shill to discredit you because there’s no need. Nobody believes your crap. Nobody reads your site.
Admit it. You can’t prove your definitions of the types of radiation and you can’t prove radiation is harmless. You don’t care about accuracy which is why nobody takes you seriously.
Why don't you care about the truth?
Mike
No, ionizing radiation is only harmful to an organism as a whole when its amount gets too high. We are constantly bombarded with very small amounts of ionizing radiation that occur naturally, and we get along just fine with our lives without being seriously harmed by this radiation.
Let's face it! Most radiation is harmless!Which radiation do you consider to be harmful?
Aha, another stupid question from twerp markjo.Let's face it! Most radiation is harmless!Which radiation do you consider to be harmful?
Let's face it! Most radiation is harmless!And you yelled at me for taking you out of context. Let’s just see what else Dr. Baird has to say shall we.QuoteNo, ionizing radiation is only harmful to an organism as a whole when its amount gets too high. We are constantly bombarded with very small amounts of ionizing radiation that occur naturally, and we get along just fine with our lives without being seriously harmed by this radiation.
http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/01/05/is-ionizing-radiation-always-harmful/
When these atoms radioactively decay, they emit ionizing radiation. By its nature of being ionizing, such radiation can damage individual molecules, even at low intensity. But if the amount of ionizing radiation exposure is very low, our bodies can handle a few damaged molecules without any problem, so that there is no net harm done to our bodies.
<snip>Even in low enough doses is causes somatic damage to the body but it can usually repair itself. <snip>
Ionizing radiation is radiation that has enough energy per particle to rip electrons off of atoms and therefore break chemical bonds.Oh yeah, that sounds harmless...for those that don’t get it *cough-cough-Heiwa* that’s sarcasm. Exactly what I posted when I corrected your website.
I The amount of total harm that ionizing radiation can cause a human depends on the total amount of radiation received, which is a function of the intensity of the radiation and the length of time that the person is exposed to the radiation.
Ionizing radiation takes different forms according to conventional wisdom 2017: There are alpha, beta, and neutron particles with mass flying around, and gamma and X-rays of pure energy without mass also flying around as radiation. All types of such radiation are caused by unstable atoms, which have either an excess of energy or mass or both. In order to reach a stable state, these atoms must release that extra energy or mass in the form of invisible radiation at various speeds and intensities.
Alpha radiation is just helium atoms with mass that fly away hurting nobody.
Beta radiation is electrons with much less mass that cannot hurt anyone either.
Gamma radiation is photons (like light or sun shine) with no mass at all but which contain energy to heat you up; compare sun burn of your skin. Better hide below a parasol, if you are exposed for hours to it on a sunny beach!
X-rays are similar to gamma radiation but man-made to be used as a medical tool. They only last seconds.
Neutron radiation consists of free neutrons, usually emitted as a result of spontaneous or induced nuclear fission. Water moderates the free neutrons, so they either produce more fission or just die down in the water. In air the free neutrons just fly away and die. Neutron radiation is however also able to turn atoms of other materials radioactive - the neutrons are absorbed by the atoms one way or other - and this is what happens in nuclear power plants. A small fraction of the used nuclear fuel becomes radioactive due to neutron radiation and must be stored somewhere until methods are found to treat it to become harmless. No big deal, in my opinion.
Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants. This situation is unfortunately used by well paid nuclear scientists that lie about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents to scare everyone about nuclear weapons since 1945. The invisible radiation is dangerous. It may kill you, it is contagious and, if you have been radiated by it, you are a risk to society, bla, bla, bla. I do not trust these 'experts'.
It is just old fashioned governments, racist propaganda spread by main stream media to scare us.
It is a pity that an intelligent people like Japan remains 2017 fooled by the stupid American propaganda since 1945. Reason is that the Japanese in power and its media like to treat the people like idiots ... and the people are too polite to object.
Ionizing radiation is radiation that has enough energy per particle to rip electrons off of atoms and therefore break chemical bonds.
Circular definition is circular. ::)Aha, another stupid question from twerp markjo.Let's face it! Most radiation is harmless!Which radiation do you consider to be harmful?
Harmful radiation is evidently harmful and not harmful radiation is not harmful.
Take sun bathing radiation. Six hours sunbathing between 9-15 hrs without protection is harmful radiation, where I live. Two hours between 10-12 below a parasol is all right. If you go swimming between 10.45 and 11.15 it is quite healthy.Oh, so now you're saying that it's the dosage that makes radiation dangerous. Well, you're at least partly right there.
Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Your opinion isn't worth much. Actual evidence would be a lot better. And your website is not evidence of this.
Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Your opinion isn't worth much. Actual evidence would be a lot better. And your website is not evidence of this.
Well, it seems plenty twerps get upset about my opinions, reasons of which I explain at my popular website under my own name since many years. They are based on facts and critical thinking. People suffering from cognitive dissonance but also government servants and university experts cannot stand my opinions. The world is full of sick people. I always recommend treatment to cure it.
Thanks. All my evidence is at my site and on Internet. I know you need certain skills to find, study and understand them, but noone is perfect.Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Your opinion isn't worth much. Actual evidence would be a lot better. And your website is not evidence of this.
Well, it seems plenty twerps get upset about my opinions, reasons of which I explain at my popular website under my own name since many years. They are based on facts and critical thinking. People suffering from cognitive dissonance but also government servants and university experts cannot stand my opinions. The world is full of sick people. I always recommend treatment to cure it.
They may be based on some cherry picked facts and your best efforts to think critically. I'll give you that much (But that is so very little) What would really help a lot more is some actual supporting evidence
Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.But, you have no factual basis for that opinion. Only conjecture and interpretation.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Well, it seems there are different opinions what radiation is and its effects on the environment, which I describe at my website. It is thus easy to confuse the public. Facts remain that there is no dangerous radiation today at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Fukushima and probably wasn't ever.But, you have no factual basis for that opinion. Only conjecture and interpretation.
One thing is clear to me - the famous, military, secret, explosive, FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds doesn't produce any radiation at all. Many people say they saw this enormous FLASH and survived to tell it.
In my opinion they are all lying.
Mike
No radiation was ever recorded anywhere starting with New Mexico and later at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.Did you personally take any radiation readings at New Mexico, Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945?
It seems the fake a-bomb pilots never witnessed any blinding FLASHes after they dropped their fake bombs.Did you personally ask any of the crew of the planes what they did or didn't see?
They should have been radiated to death piloting their fake planes.What dosage of what kind of radiation do you think that they should have gotten?
No radiation was ever recorded anywhere starting with New Mexico and later at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.Did you personally take any radiation readings at New Mexico, Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945?
The Japanese did.
http://www.academia.edu/7501572/The_1945_Radiation_Surveys_of_Hiroshima_Conducted_by_Japanese_ScientistsIt seems the fake a-bomb pilots never witnessed any blinding FLASHes after they dropped their fake bombs.Did you personally ask any of the crew of the planes what they did or didn't see?They should have been radiated to death piloting their fake planes.What dosage of what kind of radiation do you think that they should have gotten?
So that would be a no to all of the above. In other words you are a liar and an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about.No radiation was ever recorded anywhere starting with New Mexico and later at Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945.Did you personally take any radiation readings at New Mexico, Hiroshima or Nagasaki in 1945?
The Japanese did.
http://www.academia.edu/7501572/The_1945_Radiation_Surveys_of_Hiroshima_Conducted_by_Japanese_ScientistsIt seems the fake a-bomb pilots never witnessed any blinding FLASHes after they dropped their fake bombs.Did you personally ask any of the crew of the planes what they did or didn't see?They should have been radiated to death piloting their fake planes.What dosage of what kind of radiation do you think that they should have gotten?
More stupid questions from my favourite twerp markjo that never replies to my questions at FEF.
I am born 1946, I have visited USA several times 1968 onwards and Japan 1972 onwards, mostly on business. Without geiger meter. I have worked since mid 1960's.
I have met Allied, German, Japanese and neutral soldiers having participated in WW2 and later. I myself is a trained military killer.
I describe my findings at http://heiwaco.com .
I am/was Navy! I had a smart uniform attracting female attention then.
I have then concluded that, e.g. the US a-bombs attacks on Japan killing mostly civiilans 1945 were pure propaganda. Many people are very upset about it. They prefer that the yellow monkies were killed as stated by US media.
I just feel sorry for such twerps.
Hey,
as promised, I performed a rough estimate on the mechanics involving a lunar transfer orbit. A more detailed, numerical calculation might follow in the next few days.
Heiwa, this should clear up that it is definitely possible to get to the moon (I admit that the actual orbit around the moon can not be calculated with this method, for this there will be the numerical integrator which might come later) and that you should never boost towards the moon. If you find any errors, please point them out.
Generally I would love if someone double-checked my math, the numbers do make sense but still..
The document can be found at https://www.docdroid.net/nSZ6vXb/moon.pdf.html
Hm, so you are in LEO at 200 000 m altitude with speed 7 788 m/s and then you blast off at a certain time to 10 921 m/s to enter a very elliptic orbit around Earth that touches the orbit of the Moon around Earth. But is the Moon there? And what do you do then?
Sorry, it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Very popular! >200 visitors/day. All free! No adverts! Just FUN! It is only rocket science and orbital mechanics. Please do not suggest I lack understanding of them.
I thought this thread is about everything...
Mike
And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Nope. It is as I said. That dementia really is hard on you today, isn't it?And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
No! I am in good shape as usual. How are you?Nope. It is as I said. That dementia really is hard on you today, isn't it?And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
There are too many satellites in orbit that are visible to many armature astronomers...including the ISS.
You're outta gas.
Mike
We can launch a vehicle into orbit. We can accelerate to a higher orbit. We can move the satellite to a given location and then stop at an exact longitude in geostationary orbit. We can decelerate ore accelerate that satellite to move to a new orbital slot. It's a stone cold fact and there's nearly 40 million dishes in the United States pointed at those satellites.It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
There are too many satellites in orbit that are visible to many armature astronomers...including the ISS.
You're outta gas.
Mike
? But I have seen ISS! I describe at my website. Topic here is how to get out of orbit around Earth to reach an orbit around the Moon. I admit I don't know how to calculate it, so I offer people €1M to explain it. Try to focus on topic.
It's my contention that the very fact that there are satellites in orbit is itself proof and therefore invalidates your website.Actually, you have to read the fine print, Mike. Anders believes in unmanned satellites (he claims to own stock in one of the parent companies of ArianeSpace). It's manned and/or interplanetary space flight with which he has a problem. He also seems to have a problem with SpaceX landing their Falcon 9 boosters (I guess he doesn't like the competition undercutting ArianeSapce).
Mike
It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
There are too many satellites in orbit that are visible to many armature astronomers...including the ISS.
You're outta gas.
Mike
? But I have seen ISS! I describe at my website. Topic here is how to get out of orbit around Earth to reach an orbit around the Moon. I admit I don't know how to calculate it, so I offer people €1M to explain it. Try to focus on topic.
Oh, I know but it's a contradiction that's I'm arguing invalidates his moon-hoax website.It's my contention that the very fact that there are satellites in orbit is itself proof and therefore invalidates your website.Actually, you have to read the fine print, Mike. Anders believes in unmanned satellites (he claims to own stock in one of the parent companies of ArianeSpace). It's manned and/or interplanetary space flight with which he has a problem. He also seems to have a problem with SpaceX landing their Falcon 9 boosters (I guess he doesn't like the competition undercutting ArianeSapce).
Mike
We can launch a vehicle into orbit. We can accelerate to a higher orbit. We can move the satellite to a given location and then stop at an exact longitude in geostationary orbit. We can decelerate ore accelerate that satellite to move to a new orbital slot. It's a stone cold fact and there's nearly 40 million dishes in the United States pointed at those satellites.It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
There are too many satellites in orbit that are visible to many armature astronomers...including the ISS.
You're outta gas.
Mike
? But I have seen ISS! I describe at my website. Topic here is how to get out of orbit around Earth to reach an orbit around the Moon. I admit I don't know how to calculate it, so I offer people €1M to explain it. Try to focus on topic.
The very fact that we can put a vehicle in orbit and position it where ever we want contradicts most of your website. Therefore, the 2300+ satellites in orbit is proof that you are wrong.
And, why can't you calculate it. You're an engineer for God's sake.
Mike
Stop telling me to read your link. I've read it and it is nonsense. The mechanics the put a satellite into orbit are the same as a manned craft.We can launch a vehicle into orbit. We can accelerate to a higher orbit. We can move the satellite to a given location and then stop at an exact longitude in geostationary orbit. We can decelerate ore accelerate that satellite to move to a new orbital slot. It's a stone cold fact and there's nearly 40 million dishes in the United States pointed at those satellites.It was established long ago that you don't understand orbital mechanics.And then the topic changed because Heiwa demonstrated he had a lack of understanding in everything as well as an obsession with poop. You'll have to forgive heiwa as the dementia is hitting him hard today
Not really. Kami changed topic when he realized that Apollo 11 became full of shit during the trip. Now back to the real topic - orbital mechanics. How to go to the Moon? Forget the stinking details of piss and shit. Only twerps swim in them.
There are too many satellites in orbit that are visible to many armature astronomers...including the ISS.
You're outta gas.
Mike
? But I have seen ISS! I describe at my website. Topic here is how to get out of orbit around Earth to reach an orbit around the Moon. I admit I don't know how to calculate it, so I offer people €1M to explain it. Try to focus on topic.
The very fact that we can put a vehicle in orbit and position it where ever we want contradicts most of your website. Therefore, the 2300+ satellites in orbit is proof that you are wrong.
And, why can't you calculate it. You're an engineer for God's sake.
Mike
Hm, it is very easy to put a little satellite in one way orbit. Arianespace does it all the time. Problem is to put a manned spacescraft in orbit with three asstronuts + extra fuel aboard that are catapulted to the Moon ... to stop there. Read my link above.
It is not about putting things in orbit.
It is about manned space trips.
Why do you always change topic with nonsense?
Aha! You are a twerp.
Anyway - find anything wrong with http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm
The words Heiwa and logic should never be used in the same sentence.Good point...I feel dirty calling him an engineer. ;D
You do realize there are satellites in orbit right now that weigh more than the Apollo Command Module right? There are a lot of satellites of similar weight to Apollo and quite a few outweigh the Gemini modules. The Hubble telescope weights more than two Apollo modules.
Therefore, if it's possible to put these heavier vehicles into orbit and move them around then, logically it means that putting a lighter manned craft in orbit is easier and moving it to a higher orbit or even to the moon is the same level of technology and complexity.
You are an engineer so this should make logical sense to you.
Mike
Noone has won my Challenge so far.
Incorrect.
You owe me €1 000 000 remember.Quote from: Heiwa""Show how any building can collapse from the top down.""
Sure no chance of a verinage demo working on wtc 1 and 2 because of the core structure and wtc 7 was demonstrably visually not a verinage demolition.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/demolition-using-the-verinage-technique/82601161/
Also granted the collapse initiation of wtc 1 and 2 was a verinage type. They cut beams (pic related) and possibly used hydraulics. However as you correctly state this would not cause the whole collapse of either wtc 1 or 2.
(https://s28.postimg.org/8pl5juzfh/molten-metal-pouring.jpg)Quote from: Heiwa""Show how any building can collapse from the top down.""
Let me know how you will transfer the funds. You are the worst type of disinfo.
>muh cgi.
You do realize there are satellites in orbit right now that weigh more than the Apollo Command Module right? There are a lot of satellites of similar weight to Apollo and quite a few outweigh the Gemini modules. The Hubble telescope weights more than two Apollo modules.
Therefore, if it's possible to put these heavier vehicles into orbit and move them around then, logically it means that putting a lighter manned craft in orbit is easier and moving it to a higher orbit or even to the moon is the same level of technology and complexity.
You are an engineer so this should make logical sense to you.
Mike
Hm, why do you repeat what I say at my website? Of course satellites exist. But manned spacecrafts - topic? Where you must change speeds/courses all the times by applying forces at the right times/locations/directions requiring fuel.
Then it becomes very complicated. Actually it becomes impossible. You cannot carry the fuel with you. You get too heavy. And cannot calculate your variable speeds/directions trajectories.
You haven't won my €1M Challenge, Mike! You are a loser!
You haven't won my €1M Challenge, Heiwa! You are a loser!
You haven't won my €1M Challenge, Heiwa! You are a loser!
No! Your Challenge does not exist like mine - You are just a troll.
You are just a troll.
I won your challenge, Heiwa, don't ignore it.You are just a troll.
So stop feeding them and pay me.
I won your challenge, Heiwa, don't ignore it.You are just a troll.
So stop feeding them and pay me.
Just provide your full style and we can discuss.
I won your challenge, Heiwa, don't ignore it.You are just a troll.
So stop feeding them and pay me.
Just provide your full style and we can discuss.
PM me your email and I'll provide proof of who I am. For clarity, wtc 1 and 2 could have never collapsed from the top down like they did without explosive demolition. However your challenge doesn't stipulate wtc 1 or 2, just "a structure" as I have cited it's called Verinage and it happens all the time.
The Anders Björkman Challenge 1
(March 2010)
Conditions:
1. The structure volume is supposed to have a certain uniform cross area (meter²) and height h (meter) and is fixed on the ground. The structure consists of an assembly of various connected elements inside the volume, e.g. columns (wall elements), beams (floor elements), brackets (to connect columns and beams), plates, etc, of any type or material joined together. It can be any size! The structure volume contains mostly air, of course. It can but need not look like the structure left (developed by NASA engineer Mackey)! It is VERY simple; 111 units of a horizontal beam/platform with mass m supported by/connected to two (or four ?) pillars (total 3 or 5 elements per unit) stacked/joined on top of each other (+ a mast on top). It looks like WTC1!! It also looks like a house of cards but note that the horizontal and vertical elements are connected with solid joints, so use weak supporting, vertical elements of fragile material (and more solid, heavy horizontal ones).
2. The structure should be more or less identical from height = 0 (ground) to height = H (top), e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, weights and joints, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements should be reinforced or made a little stronger, as required. Connections between similar elements should be similar throughout. In example left H = 111 h, where h is height of one unit.
3. The structure should be uniformly stressed at height=0 and height = H. It means that supporting elements are stronger at height=0.
4. Before drop test (see 8.) the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart and to deflect elastically sideways less than H/100 at the top. Connections or joints between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before drop test top 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at height = 0.9 H without damaging the structure/elements/joints more than required for disconnection.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 H high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 H high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush bottom part A of structure into smaller pieces by top part C of the structure (if you can! That's the test). Film the test on video!
9. Drop height of part C above part A is max 3.7 meter. Less drop height is permitted. Thus the maximum energy (Joule) applied at collision C/A to initiate the crush-down progressive collapse is mass of C times gravity acceleration 9.82 m/sec² (i.e. the force acting on C) times height 3.7 m (i.e. distance the force is displaced).
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other at the joints or broken between joints after test, i.e. drop by part C on A from 3.7 m. Try to use elements and/or joints not producing smoke/dust at failures, so we can see the crush down action and failures of elements/joints on video. If all supporting, vertical elements are broken in part A of structure left, then 66.66% of all elements are broken, etc, etc.
Have a try! I look forward to your structures and videos!
Once you have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the structure. The first step in preparation is to clear any loose items out of the structure. The second step is to remove all non-load-bearing elements within the structure. This makes for a cleaner break of elements and joints at every level. If these elements were left intact, they would stiffen the structure, hindering its collapse. You should also weaken the supporting elements and their joints, so that they give way more easily.
The first person describing a structure fulfilling conditions 1-10 above and doing a successful drop test wins Euro 1 000 000:-.
Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
I don't think those are evidence of controlled demo. They're too localized and unlikely to provide enough weakening to be effective. However, I do think there is a lot unexplained. Especially in relation to WTC-7. The FEA is a joke.
Heiwa's real bone headed contentions lie in saying there were no planes and nobody in the buildings. The planes took off with passengers. Where are they and where are all the people that died? If you're gonna say they didn't crash into the towers then you have to show where they are. Otherwise it's just a unfounded crackpot notion.
Mike
Where are the planes, the passengers, and the people who died in the towers? You say that didn't happened so where did they go. You're the one suggesting it didn't happen.This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
I don't think those are evidence of controlled demo. They're too localized and unlikely to provide enough weakening to be effective. However, I do think there is a lot unexplained. Especially in relation to WTC-7. The FEA is a joke.
Heiwa's real bone headed contentions lie in saying there were no planes and nobody in the buildings. The planes took off with passengers. Where are they and where are all the people that died? If you're gonna say they didn't crash into the towers then you have to show where they are. Otherwise it's just a unfounded crackpot notion.
Mike
Finally a fairly intelligent post by MicroBeta/Mike in this thread about my lack in understanding things. FEA is Finite Elements Analysis and US experts of doubtful reputation - criminals, terrorists! - say it can be used to explain how tops C of structures were crushing bottoms A of same structure into dust on 911. Only terrorists suggest it. It seems Mike agrees with me that the US experts faked the FEA.
But then Mike lowers his pants and shows how ugly he is. He suggests that four planes took off with passengers incl. 19 Arabs on 911, all of which later crashed with everyone aboard dying. There is no evidence for it.
No evidence?
Yes, no evidence!
Of course passports of some Arabs were magically found in the rubble but it was part of the show.
It was a great show.
Hollywood!
But they had to fake the FEA. My speciality.
This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
I don't think those are evidence of controlled demo. They're too localized and unlikely to provide enough weakening to be effective. However, I do think there is a lot unexplained. Especially in relation to WTC-7. The FEA is a joke.
Heiwa's real bone headed contentions lie in saying there were no planes and nobody in the buildings. The planes took off with passengers. Where are they and where are all the people that died? If you're gonna say they didn't crash into the towers then you have to show where they are. Otherwise it's just a unfounded crackpot notion.
Mike
Also Professor Leroy Hulsey and his PhD research team are doing a open and honest FEA right now.
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
It's nearly due for release and all the inputs will be released publicly, unlike the NIST FEA which still remain unavailable by FOI request.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.This building.
1/10 of a building crushing 9/10ths of a building is an absolute joke, I agree.
If you're gonna enforce the 1/10th the size and mass rule I concede it's impossible.
No honest person thinks that a part of a building 1/10 the size and 1/10 the mass can crush the other 9/10ths.
Fairy nuff then. Riddle me this, why do you belive that the towers collapse was cgi?
We use a verinage collapse initiation and then destroy the core with timed explosives. (Pic related)
(https://s28.postimg.org/d7021scm5/Squibs.jpg)
It could easily be done with explosives.
I don't think those are evidence of controlled demo. They're too localized and unlikely to provide enough weakening to be effective. However, I do think there is a lot unexplained. Especially in relation to WTC-7. The FEA is a joke.
Heiwa's real bone headed contentions lie in saying there were no planes and nobody in the buildings. The planes took off with passengers. Where are they and where are all the people that died? If you're gonna say they didn't crash into the towers then you have to show where they are. Otherwise it's just a unfounded crackpot notion.
Mike
Hey thanks man I respect that. They are localized, they're called squibs, these small explosions (ejections if you don't like the term) are not caused by the explosives destroying the core structure in my opinion just evidence of explosives, most of the core was destroyed before the collapse.
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=280&MMN_position=541:541
This is really well researched you should check it out.
It also pisses me off when he says the whole thing was cgi. I've spoken to plenty of people in new york at the time and the towers definitely collapsed. It's pretty much indisputable, thats why I don't trust Heiwa.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.
My brother-in-law is a firefighter in Jersey. He, like so many others spent a lot of time at ground zero. If they were off duty, they were there.
I’d like to see Heiwa go into any firehouse on the island and tell them there were no planes and nobody died...let’s see how that works out for him.
I’m an engineer so I can’t deny the contradictions in the reports and testimony. I have no doubts it was terrorists but it’s likely there were more involved than just in the planes. They tried to bring the towers down in ’93 and failed. It’s possible they learned from that. It’s possible there were some pre-staged materials to aid in bringing down the towers...thermite maybe. It would also explain how the fires brought down 7. Once the towers came down and fires spread to start some thermite reactions in building 7 it subsequently came down. It would explain how it came down without any of the explosions you typically see in a controlled collapse. But, it all hinged on the planes and their fuel to start things off. It’s all conjecture and will never be proven but hey, it’s a theory
In the end the government realized they had all the pieces to prevent this and there was more going on that they just plain missed. If there’s anything being covered up it’s their won incompetence and the fact they could have stopped it.
I do want to be clear. I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy by our government. They didn’t do this and it was certainly a terrorist act. There’s no motive and it gains them nothing to kill their own citizens.
Mike
Of course you do because it's a direct contradiction to your no plane theory. Face it. You're a hack conspiracy nut job. Your website is full of bat shit crazy, unprovable assumptions. It is why you've been banned from so many other forums and your membership in AE911 group was revoked.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.
My brother-in-law is a firefighter in Jersey. He, like so many others spent a lot of time at ground zero. If they were off duty, they were there.
I’d like to see Heiwa go into any firehouse on the island and tell them there were no planes and nobody died...let’s see how that works out for him.
I’m an engineer so I can’t deny the contradictions in the reports and testimony. I have no doubts it was terrorists but it’s likely there were more involved than just in the planes. They tried to bring the towers down in ’93 and failed. It’s possible they learned from that. It’s possible there were some pre-staged materials to aid in bringing down the towers...thermite maybe. It would also explain how the fires brought down 7. Once the towers came down and fires spread to start some thermite reactions in building 7 it subsequently came down. It would explain how it came down without any of the explosions you typically see in a controlled collapse. But, it all hinged on the planes and their fuel to start things off. It’s all conjecture and will never be proven but hey, it’s a theory
In the end the government realized they had all the pieces to prevent this and there was more going on that they just plain missed. If there’s anything being covered up it’s their won incompetence and the fact they could have stopped it.
I do want to be clear. I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy by our government. They didn’t do this and it was certainly a terrorist act. There’s no motive and it gains them nothing to kill their own citizens.
Mike
I think you are lying, Mike, about everything ... incl. arabs, planes, their fuel to start things off ... a theory.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Didn't read the thread, but did dispute team up with heiwa in here?
That would be hilarious!
You're a liar. Your have been shown multiple times how much fuel and what rockets and how to calculate the path. But you are a delusional moron and refuse to see the facts.Didn't read the thread, but did dispute team up with heiwa in here?
That would be hilarious!
Just click on post #1 and you will see what it is all about. Kami had got a brilliant idea how to travel to the Moon by applying a force to his spacecraft orbiting Earth and ... after a while the spacecraft arrived at the Moon.
I politely informed that to create a force to go to the Moon from orbit around Earth you needed fuel in that orbit and ... there is no rocket strong enough to lift that fuel off the ground.
Plenty twerps disagreed but none could produce any reliable info how to go to the Moon. Then they decided it was all my fault.
I politely informed that to create a force to go to the Moon from orbit around Earth you needed fuel in that orbit and ... there is no rocket strong enough to lift that fuel off the ground.ITT: Anders believes that a rocket's payload can include anything except fuel (and toilets).
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Might I suggest expanding your repertoire of Depression Era insults? Here are some outdated jibes that I feel may be to your liking;
Chowder Head.
Fribble.
Milksop.
Nincompoop.
Shabbaroon.
Stingbum.
Bodolyne.
Roiderbanks.
Smell-Feast.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Might I suggest expanding your repertoire of Depression Era insults? Here are some outdated jibes that I feel may be to your liking;
Chowder Head.
Fribble.
Milksop.
Nincompoop.
Shabbaroon.
Stingbum.
Bodolyne.
Roiderbanks.
Smell-Feast.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Might I suggest expanding your repertoire of Depression Era insults? Here are some outdated jibes that I feel may be to your liking;
Chowder Head.
Fribble.
Milksop.
Nincompoop.
Shabbaroon.
Stingbum.
Bodolyne.
Roiderbanks.
Smell-Feast.
Curmudgeon.
Oh wait, that's used exclusively for him.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Might I suggest expanding your repertoire of Depression Era insults? Here are some outdated jibes that I feel may be to your liking;
Chowder Head.
Fribble.
Milksop.
Nincompoop.
Shabbaroon.
Stingbum.
Bodolyne.
Roiderbanks.
Smell-Feast.
Curmudgeon.
Oh wait, that's used exclusively for him.
I prefer calling a twirp a twerp.
Additionally, my brother wasn't the only one who saw the plane fly over the harbor into the south tower. Here is the fact you want to go away. There were hundreds of thousands of people who say that plane, not just hit the tower, but fly in over the harbor from Jersey. You can't wish it away just because you want it to.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.
My brother-in-law is a firefighter in Jersey. He, like so many others spent a lot of time at ground zero. If they were off duty, they were there.
I’d like to see Heiwa go into any firehouse on the island and tell them there were no planes and nobody died...let’s see how that works out for him.
I’m an engineer so I can’t deny the contradictions in the reports and testimony. I have no doubts it was terrorists but it’s likely there were more involved than just in the planes. They tried to bring the towers down in ’93 and failed. It’s possible they learned from that. It’s possible there were some pre-staged materials to aid in bringing down the towers...thermite maybe. It would also explain how the fires brought down 7. Once the towers came down and fires spread to start some thermite reactions in building 7 it subsequently came down. It would explain how it came down without any of the explosions you typically see in a controlled collapse. But, it all hinged on the planes and their fuel to start things off. It’s all conjecture and will never be proven but hey, it’s a theory
In the end the government realized they had all the pieces to prevent this and there was more going on that they just plain missed. If there’s anything being covered up it’s their won incompetence and the fact they could have stopped it.
I do want to be clear. I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy by our government. They didn’t do this and it was certainly a terrorist act. There’s no motive and it gains them nothing to kill their own citizens.
Mike
I think you are lying, Mike, about everything ... incl. arabs, planes, their fuel to start things off ... a theory.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
Also Professor Leroy Hulsey and his PhD research team are doing a open and honest FEA right now.
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
It's nearly due for release and all the inputs will be released publicly, unlike the NIST FEA which still remain unavailable by FOI request.
Many years ago I analysed the WTC7 collapse: http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm .
To do a proper WTC7 collapse/damage analysis you have to do >10 000 FEAs starting with the intact structure with the first failure, then redo the FEA of the damaged, one failure structure with modified loads to find the second failure, then do a new FEA of the loaded structure with two failures to find the third failure, etc, etc.
In this case you will find that the collapse stops by itself after a few failures. It is called redundancy. There are some local failures, sagging, loads transmitted to intact members and ... no collapse!
Additionally, my brother wasn't the only one who saw the plane fly over the harbor into the south tower. Here is the fact you want to go away. There were hundreds of thousands of people who say that plane, not just hit the tower, but fly in over the harbor from Jersey. You can't wish it away just because you want it to.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.
My brother-in-law is a firefighter in Jersey. He, like so many others spent a lot of time at ground zero. If they were off duty, they were there.
I’d like to see Heiwa go into any firehouse on the island and tell them there were no planes and nobody died...let’s see how that works out for him.
I’m an engineer so I can’t deny the contradictions in the reports and testimony. I have no doubts it was terrorists but it’s likely there were more involved than just in the planes. They tried to bring the towers down in ’93 and failed. It’s possible they learned from that. It’s possible there were some pre-staged materials to aid in bringing down the towers...thermite maybe. It would also explain how the fires brought down 7. Once the towers came down and fires spread to start some thermite reactions in building 7 it subsequently came down. It would explain how it came down without any of the explosions you typically see in a controlled collapse. But, it all hinged on the planes and their fuel to start things off. It’s all conjecture and will never be proven but hey, it’s a theory
In the end the government realized they had all the pieces to prevent this and there was more going on that they just plain missed. If there’s anything being covered up it’s their won incompetence and the fact they could have stopped it.
I do want to be clear. I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy by our government. They didn’t do this and it was certainly a terrorist act. There’s no motive and it gains them nothing to kill their own citizens.
Mike
I think you are lying, Mike, about everything ... incl. arabs, planes, their fuel to start things off ... a theory.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html
Say what you want but you don't have any business saying there are no planes. No documents, no witnesses, no interviews of anyone who was there, no nothing. I know people who were there who would literally kick your ass if you said there were no planes and nobody died.
Answer this question. Where are the planes and passengers? They took off and never landed at their destinations. Where are the people?
Mike
We can argue 'til the cows come home about who was responsible for 9/11, but no-planers are the worst kind of babbling idiot.
911 was 100% a pre-recorded show by Hollywood broadcasted live on TV September 2001. No planes, no passengers, no real reporters running around on Manhattan with towers collapsing in the background, etc. I describe it at my website. Plenty actors at work! But not very convincing.
And all my mates from new york that saw the towers fall are just wrong?
Heiwa?
I'm in contact with plenty of new yorkers.
They think the towers fell, they saw them collapse in fact.
Doesnt change the issue of 9/11 being a false flag.
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.Additionally, my brother wasn't the only one who saw the plane fly over the harbor into the south tower. Here is the fact you want to go away. There were hundreds of thousands of people who say that plane, not just hit the tower, but fly in over the harbor from Jersey. You can't wish it away just because you want it to.
I’m from the North Jersey area. My brother saw the second plane come in and I have a few friends who saw it too. It came in from the SSW and flew over the city my brother was living in at the time. He saw it go right over the harbor into the South Tower. I’d like to see Heiwa explain that one.
My brother-in-law is a firefighter in Jersey. He, like so many others spent a lot of time at ground zero. If they were off duty, they were there.
I’d like to see Heiwa go into any firehouse on the island and tell them there were no planes and nobody died...let’s see how that works out for him.
I’m an engineer so I can’t deny the contradictions in the reports and testimony. I have no doubts it was terrorists but it’s likely there were more involved than just in the planes. They tried to bring the towers down in ’93 and failed. It’s possible they learned from that. It’s possible there were some pre-staged materials to aid in bringing down the towers...thermite maybe. It would also explain how the fires brought down 7. Once the towers came down and fires spread to start some thermite reactions in building 7 it subsequently came down. It would explain how it came down without any of the explosions you typically see in a controlled collapse. But, it all hinged on the planes and their fuel to start things off. It’s all conjecture and will never be proven but hey, it’s a theory
In the end the government realized they had all the pieces to prevent this and there was more going on that they just plain missed. If there’s anything being covered up it’s their won incompetence and the fact they could have stopped it.
I do want to be clear. I don’t believe there’s some grand conspiracy by our government. They didn’t do this and it was certainly a terrorist act. There’s no motive and it gains them nothing to kill their own citizens.
Mike
I think you are lying, Mike, about everything ... incl. arabs, planes, their fuel to start things off ... a theory.
But of course - you are a twerp. Explains everything.
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/2nd_hit_photos.html
Say what you want but you don't have any business saying there are no planes. No documents, no witnesses, no interviews of anyone who was there, no nothing. I know people who were there who would literally kick your ass if you said there were no planes and nobody died.
Answer this question. Where are the planes and passengers? They took off and never landed at their destinations. Where are the people?
Mike
Mike, re your questions - 911 was 100% a pre-recorded show by Hollywood broadcasted live on TV September 2001. No planes, no passengers, no real reporters running around on Manhattan with towers collapsing in the background, etc. I describe it at my website. Plenty actors at work! But not very convincing.
It was similar to all NASA human space trips to the Moon and the ISS 1969-2017. All pre-recorded shows. It is easy to fool people. It is a great show but not very funny.
It is like a-bombs and radiation 1945! No a-bombs exploded anywhere. And radioactive radiation as it exists is also harmless. The intensities and doses do not kill anyone. But 'experts' suggest otherwise to scare you!
It is like the Chernobyl nuclear power plant incident 1986. It was suggested that radioactivity was spreading over Europe killing people and destroying mushrooms, reindeers and agriculture and so on. But when the dangerous cloud arrived to France ... it disappeared! Of course it was there ... only that France had different criteria what was dangerous radiation. I assume nobody died from radiation at Chernobyl either. But it was a great opportunity to scare people everywhere.
Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
How many people did you interview anyone who were there?Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
I assume you must. Blackmail! Most people going after me are blackmailed. I reveal political hoaxes and you, as part of them, must play your stupid role against me - a person you don't know.
Tragic! Mike - you are a twerp!
I knew people who died in the towers. I know people who saw it unfold. Are they all liars? Is everyone in New York lying? Why? For what you claim to be true you need a million people or so to agree to lie about. Every eyewitness every first responder ever family member. You get that right? It's literally impossible for you to be right about this. It simply cannot have happened that way.Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
I assume you must. Blackmail! Most people going after me are blackmailed. I reveal political hoaxes and you, as part of them, must play your stupid role against me - a person you don't know.
Tragic! Mike - you are a twerp!
This guy can't be serious, can he?I didn't use to think so but now I do think he is serious, just insane.
How many people did you interview anyone who were there?Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
I assume you must. Blackmail! Most people going after me are blackmailed. I reveal political hoaxes and you, as part of them, must play your stupid role against me - a person you don't know.
Tragic! Mike - you are a twerp!
Did you talk to any of the thousands involved in the recovery of remains?
Did you interview any first responders?
Did you interview any of the families that lost loved ones that day, any of the groups created by the families who lost loved ones, or any single person who could possible corroborate you premise?
NO YOU DIDN’T TALK TO A SINGLE PERSON. It’s just another example of shoddy research and lunatic conclusions.
My credibility is rock solid and I welcome anyone to research me thoroughly.
You, on the other hand, research show you’re a conspiracy nut case. You’ve been banned over and over again. Your credibility is so bad that even other engineers who initially accepted you into the AE911 group no longer want anything to do with you after having peer reviewed your work on 9-11. They removed every mention of you from their website because they don’t want to be associated with your crackpot conspiracy theories. That’s how bad your credibility is.
I am making it my mission in life to take every legal means necessary to see that your website is either corrected and you acknowledge the lives that were lost that day or that it comes down completely. And, when I legally to you those planes hit the towers it means your entire analysis is invalid and I will look into taking you to court for the million euros.
Mike
Actually, that would be my wife's brother that's the firefighter.How many people did you interview anyone who were there?Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
I assume you must. Blackmail! Most people going after me are blackmailed. I reveal political hoaxes and you, as part of them, must play your stupid role against me - a person you don't know.
Tragic! Mike - you are a twerp!
Did you talk to any of the thousands involved in the recovery of remains?
Did you interview any first responders?
Did you interview any of the families that lost loved ones that day, any of the groups created by the families who lost loved ones, or any single person who could possible corroborate you premise?
NO YOU DIDN’T TALK TO A SINGLE PERSON. It’s just another example of shoddy research and lunatic conclusions.
My credibility is rock solid and I welcome anyone to research me thoroughly.
You, on the other hand, research show you’re a conspiracy nut case. You’ve been banned over and over again. Your credibility is so bad that even other engineers who initially accepted you into the AE911 group no longer want anything to do with you after having peer reviewed your work on 9-11. They removed every mention of you from their website because they don’t want to be associated with your crackpot conspiracy theories. That’s how bad your credibility is.
I am making it my mission in life to take every legal means necessary to see that your website is either corrected and you acknowledge the lives that were lost that day or that it comes down completely. And, when I legally to you those planes hit the towers it means your entire analysis is invalid and I will look into taking you to court for the million euros.
Mike
Well, you have to prove your credentials, incl. your sister married to a NJ fire fighter. My credentials are very good.
I happened to be at Freiberg i.Sa, Germany, investigating the Wismut AG uranium fraud, when 911 took place. You know, Stalin used forced slave labour to mine (fake) uranium there 1945/7 until my friend WM arrived and suggested productivity would increase by reasonable salaries, etc. I describe it at my site. My a-bomb pages are very poular today for obvious reasons of what happened 72 years ago.
I have watched footage of the WTC collapses with various TV reporters in the foreground and the top down collapsing towers in the background. I have watched the footage of alleged planes slicing in to the towers. Great show but all CGI + pre-recorded somewhere. Imagine you are a fake TV-reporter reporting the attack and ... a WTC tower collapses behind you ... and the same thing happens to a colleague of yours a little later ... and your camera men film it ... twice. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Too good to be true.
Finally, steel structures cannot collapse as shown on this footage. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm .
So Mike - the rumours you have heard are just that. Use a little critical thinking before accusing me of anything. Everything written at my site can be verified. You are not the first one threatening me with legal actions. And all of them have failed. I describe it at my site.
You have to sue me a the TGI at Nice, France. I have been there many times.
Anders Björkman, aka Heiwa
Actually, that would be my brother that's the firefighter.How many people did you interview anyone who were there?Mike. You have no credibility compared with me - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . And your language is bad. Why do you make up all your stories?
Bat shit crazy comments like this is why you have zero credibility. You can't even see the truth right in front of you. Everyone else has to have some evidence to make a claim...apparently you don't.
I had family in those towers. We're fortunate my cousin got out but there are thousands of families who weren't so lucky.
It's not just the million or so people who saw the planes. Workers who spent eight months recovering remains from ground zero. You can't fake something like that.
To this day not all of them have been identified and there are families out there who will never get closure...and you don't think they even exist.
Mike
I assume you must. Blackmail! Most people going after me are blackmailed. I reveal political hoaxes and you, as part of them, must play your stupid role against me - a person you don't know.
Tragic! Mike - you are a twerp!
Did you talk to any of the thousands involved in the recovery of remains?
Did you interview any first responders?
Did you interview any of the families that lost loved ones that day, any of the groups created by the families who lost loved ones, or any single person who could possible corroborate you premise?
NO YOU DIDN’T TALK TO A SINGLE PERSON. It’s just another example of shoddy research and lunatic conclusions.
My credibility is rock solid and I welcome anyone to research me thoroughly.
You, on the other hand, research show you’re a conspiracy nut case. You’ve been banned over and over again. Your credibility is so bad that even other engineers who initially accepted you into the AE911 group no longer want anything to do with you after having peer reviewed your work on 9-11. They removed every mention of you from their website because they don’t want to be associated with your crackpot conspiracy theories. That’s how bad your credibility is.
I am making it my mission in life to take every legal means necessary to see that your website is either corrected and you acknowledge the lives that were lost that day or that it comes down completely. And, when I legally to you those planes hit the towers it means your entire analysis is invalid and I will look into taking you to court for the million euros.
Mike
Well, you have to prove your credentials, incl. your sister married to a NJ fire fighter. My credentials are very good.
I happened to be at Freiberg i.Sa, Germany, investigating the Wismut AG uranium fraud, when 911 took place. You know, Stalin used forced slave labour to mine (fake) uranium there 1945/7 until my friend WM arrived and suggested productivity would increase by reasonable salaries, etc. I describe it at my site. My a-bomb pages are very poular today for obvious reasons of what happened 72 years ago.
I have watched footage of the WTC collapses with various TV reporters in the foreground and the top down collapsing towers in the background. I have watched the footage of alleged planes slicing in to the towers. Great show but all CGI + pre-recorded somewhere. Imagine you are a fake TV-reporter reporting the attack and ... a WTC tower collapses behind you ... and the same thing happens to a colleague of yours a little later ... and your camera men film it ... twice. See http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Too good to be true.
Finally, steel structures cannot collapse as shown on this footage. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm .
So Mike - the rumours you have heard are just that. Use a little critical thinking before accusing me of anything. Everything written at my site can be verified. You are not the first one threatening me with legal actions. And all of them have failed. I describe it at my site.
You have to sue me a the TGI at Nice, France. I have been there many times.
Anders Björkman, aka Heiwa
You watched TV and determined there were no planes...like I said shoddy research and shoddy engineering.
You're a lying sack of shot so, Byte Me!
Mike
No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc.Why would it not surprise me if Anders turned out to be a Holocaust denier too?
No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc.Why would it not surprise me if Anders turned out to be a Holocaust denier too?
No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc.Why would it not surprise me if Anders turned out to be a Holocaust denier too?
No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
I have no earthly idea what you believe about the Holocaust and would never accuse you of denying anything without proof. Unlike you I deal only in facts.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
Several other forums tried to explain to him how the kind of video and photo manipulation work...prior to banning him that is.Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
Because you cannot explain how thousands of people can be lying about what they saw. You really are an idiot who understands nothing at all. You are a disgrace to humanity.Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
You really have to visit my website with links to the footage with the two film teams reporting 911 from Manhattan and running around there on the ground ... when first one tower and then the second tower collapses into dust in the backgrounds 2001. The footage incl. collapses and film teams is 100% CGI fakery. I assume the collapses in the background are just added. Reason being no structure can collapse as suggested.
Topic is the footage. That 1000's of people witnessed something is something else. Real topic is of course impossible human space travel to the Moon. The asstronuts 1969 were just actors. It is quite easy to fool Americans using MSM.
I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.Because you cannot explain how thousands of people can be lying about what they saw. You really are an idiot who understands nothing at all. You are a disgrace to humanity.Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
You really have to visit my website with links to the footage with the two film teams reporting 911 from Manhattan and running around there on the ground ... when first one tower and then the second tower collapses into dust in the backgrounds 2001. The footage incl. collapses and film teams is 100% CGI fakery. I assume the collapses in the background are just added. Reason being no structure can collapse as suggested.
Topic is the footage. That 1000's of people witnessed something is something else. Real topic is of course impossible human space travel to the Moon. The asstronuts 1969 were just actors. It is quite easy to fool Americans using MSM.
I have no earthly idea what you believe about the Holocaust and would never accuse you of denying anything without proof. Unlike you I deal only in facts.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
The fact is, you were named New Petitioner of the Month at AE911Truth. Then they removed all mention of you. They deleted your profile and any mention of you being associated with the petition. All facts. Another fact, you’ve been banned from more forums than some people belong to. Even 9-11 conspiracy sites banned you because your harebrained claims...another fact.
Mike
You ignored my post entirely. What about the thousands of eyewitnesses? Care to address that or are you going to run away from that?I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.Because you cannot explain how thousands of people can be lying about what they saw. You really are an idiot who understands nothing at all. You are a disgrace to humanity.Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
You really have to visit my website with links to the footage with the two film teams reporting 911 from Manhattan and running around there on the ground ... when first one tower and then the second tower collapses into dust in the backgrounds 2001. The footage incl. collapses and film teams is 100% CGI fakery. I assume the collapses in the background are just added. Reason being no structure can collapse as suggested.
Topic is the footage. That 1000's of people witnessed something is something else. Real topic is of course impossible human space travel to the Moon. The asstronuts 1969 were just actors. It is quite easy to fool Americans using MSM.
I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
You ignored my post entirely. What about the thousands of eyewitnesses? Care to address that or are you going to run away from that?I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.Because you cannot explain how thousands of people can be lying about what they saw. You really are an idiot who understands nothing at all. You are a disgrace to humanity.Again, no evidence the footage is fake. You really are not an intelligent person and this claim that thousands upon thousands of people did not actually witness the towers being hit and falling proves it. You are a delusional idiot. Nothing more.No, I watched the footage shown on TV and determined it was CGI fakery, which I explain at my website. If you think I am wrong, you have to show the footage is real, etc, etc. See you at the TGI, Nice. You sound like an American twerp with a big mouth and a small brain.That you can tell just by watching TV whether something is fake CGI is one of the stupidest things you’ve ever said. It's complete nonsense to think that someone with the resources to pull this off would create CGI so bad it's apparent on a consumer television. How fucking stupid are you?
This kind of shoddy research, illogical approach, and lack of attention to detail is the whole reason you’re discredited with any engineer associated Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you were kicked out of their group.
Mike
The footage of the two (fake) reporters running around with their (fake) camera men filming from the street interviewing people with the burning towers in the background until both towers go POUFF, POUFF, POUFF from top down is too good to be true.
I am quite intelligent and as far as I am concerned I am still a good friend of Richard Gage of AE911Truth.
You are a twerp, Mike. When are you going to suggest I am a Holocaust denier? It seems to be standard routine when you are totally lost.
You really have to visit my website with links to the footage with the two film teams reporting 911 from Manhattan and running around there on the ground ... when first one tower and then the second tower collapses into dust in the backgrounds 2001. The footage incl. collapses and film teams is 100% CGI fakery. I assume the collapses in the background are just added. Reason being no structure can collapse as suggested.
Topic is the footage. That 1000's of people witnessed something is something else. Real topic is of course impossible human space travel to the Moon. The asstronuts 1969 were just actors. It is quite easy to fool Americans using MSM.
I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
1. The 9/11 imagery shown live on TV was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'fire fighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images. If you ask me who directed the movie I suggest James Cameron that made Titanic: "I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger."
2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics.
3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives, while the Hollywood show was broadcasted on TV. The WTC 1&2 towers were then demolished from bottom up. The fast POUFF, POUFF top down collapses shown on TV producing dust and smoke were Hollywood style 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. No structures can collapse as shown!
4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. The buildings were empty!
Here are another four examples of the top collapse of the North Tower/WTC1 and what follows provided by NIST.
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at 1:10)
(roof drops at 5:07)
Note the following:
5. All four photographers are - for whatever reason - still roaming in the vicinity of the WTC complex at 10:28am (a full 29 minutes after the earlier WTC2 collapse at 9:59am). This, in spite of the officially reported 'total evacuation' of Lower Manhattan - which, reportedly, was initiated soon after the alleged "plane crashes" - one hour or so earlier.
6. All four photographers, no matter how far they are standing from each other / and from the WTC, are pretty much LATERALLY aligned with each other. The LATERAL perspectives of the four shots - although not perfectly identical - are quite remarkably similar.
7. All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top of WTC1 - at a high zoom level (close-up view) - JUST as WTC1 started to fall. This, in spite of having no possible foreknowledge of the WTC1's sudden collapse - and in spite of WTC2 having collapsed 29 minutes earlier. They all just waited around for half-an-hour, a few hundred yards away from the WTC complex, filming away (undisturbed by the ongoing evacuation).
8. All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse initiations - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur).
9. All four photographers have nerves of steel - and remained calm and composed while all around them, screaming people were running away from the scene in dire panic.
Evidently all four videos are fakes! They are made in Hollywood! But by whom?
Source - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm
And you still fail to address the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of actual eyewitnesses. I know several people who witnessed it and some of them lost friends in the towers that day but you are literally too stupid to see that.I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
Yes, I have done plenty research:Quote1. The 9/11 imagery shown live on TV was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'fire fighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images. If you ask me who directed the movie I suggest James Cameron that made Titanic: "I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger."
2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics.
3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives, while the Hollywood show was broadcasted on TV. The WTC 1&2 towers were then demolished from bottom up. The fast POUFF, POUFF top down collapses shown on TV producing dust and smoke were Hollywood style 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. No structures can collapse as shown!
4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. The buildings were empty!
Here are another four examples of the top collapse of the North Tower/WTC1 and what follows provided by NIST.
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at 1:10)
(roof drops at 5:07)
Note the following:
5. All four photographers are - for whatever reason - still roaming in the vicinity of the WTC complex at 10:28am (a full 29 minutes after the earlier WTC2 collapse at 9:59am). This, in spite of the officially reported 'total evacuation' of Lower Manhattan - which, reportedly, was initiated soon after the alleged "plane crashes" - one hour or so earlier.
6. All four photographers, no matter how far they are standing from each other / and from the WTC, are pretty much LATERALLY aligned with each other. The LATERAL perspectives of the four shots - although not perfectly identical - are quite remarkably similar.
7. All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top of WTC1 - at a high zoom level (close-up view) - JUST as WTC1 started to fall. This, in spite of having no possible foreknowledge of the WTC1's sudden collapse - and in spite of WTC2 having collapsed 29 minutes earlier. They all just waited around for half-an-hour, a few hundred yards away from the WTC complex, filming away (undisturbed by the ongoing evacuation).
8. All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse initiations - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur).
9. All four photographers have nerves of steel - and remained calm and composed while all around them, screaming people were running away from the scene in dire panic.
Evidently all four videos are fakes! They are made in Hollywood! But by whom?
Source - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm
I think my analysis is pretty good.
Don't you know, Badxtoss, they were ALL paid to lie about. Every single one of them. Makes perfect sense.THATS where the money went! Always follow the money.
You just don’t get it. It’s impossible to tell a professional faked video is faked on a consumer TV. Everyone else on the planet have to professional video gear for that....”shoddy research”.I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
Yes, I have done plenty research:
I think my analysis is pretty good.
Hm, I haven't got a clue what the eyewitnesses actually saw! Have you? No, I just analyse TV footage of the incident and ... all the footage is of paid actors using green screens and added collapses, etc, etc.And you still fail to address the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of actual eyewitnesses. I know several people who witnessed it and some of them lost friends in the towers that day but you are literally too stupid to see that.I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
Yes, I have done plenty research:Quote1. The 9/11 imagery shown live on TV was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'fire fighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images. If you ask me who directed the movie I suggest James Cameron that made Titanic: "I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger."
2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics.
3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives, while the Hollywood show was broadcasted on TV. The WTC 1&2 towers were then demolished from bottom up. The fast POUFF, POUFF top down collapses shown on TV producing dust and smoke were Hollywood style 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. No structures can collapse as shown!
4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. The buildings were empty!
Here are another four examples of the top collapse of the North Tower/WTC1 and what follows provided by NIST.
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at 1:10)
(roof drops at 5:07)
Note the following:
5. All four photographers are - for whatever reason - still roaming in the vicinity of the WTC complex at 10:28am (a full 29 minutes after the earlier WTC2 collapse at 9:59am). This, in spite of the officially reported 'total evacuation' of Lower Manhattan - which, reportedly, was initiated soon after the alleged "plane crashes" - one hour or so earlier.
6. All four photographers, no matter how far they are standing from each other / and from the WTC, are pretty much LATERALLY aligned with each other. The LATERAL perspectives of the four shots - although not perfectly identical - are quite remarkably similar.
7. All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top of WTC1 - at a high zoom level (close-up view) - JUST as WTC1 started to fall. This, in spite of having no possible foreknowledge of the WTC1's sudden collapse - and in spite of WTC2 having collapsed 29 minutes earlier. They all just waited around for half-an-hour, a few hundred yards away from the WTC complex, filming away (undisturbed by the ongoing evacuation).
8. All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse initiations - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur).
9. All four photographers have nerves of steel - and remained calm and composed while all around them, screaming people were running away from the scene in dire panic.
Evidently all four videos are fakes! They are made in Hollywood! But by whom?
Source - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm
I think my analysis is pretty good.
If you take into account that people were watching from North Jersey, Manhattan, NY Harbor, & Long Island the numbers of direct eye witnesses number over a million.
And you still fail to address the thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of actual eyewitnesses. I know several people who witnessed it and some of them lost friends in the towers that day but you are literally too stupid to see that.
You just don’t get it. It’s impossible to tell a professional faked video is faked on a consumer TV. Everyone else on the planet have to professional video gear for that....”shoddy research”.I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
Yes, I have done plenty research:
I think my analysis is pretty good.
There were millions who were there and witnessed the events. Interviewing them would be necessary to hear what they saw but you didn’t do that...”shoddy research”.
There were millions who were there and not one of them said anything different from what is seen on the videos. You didn’t consider that...”shoddy research”.
You made a flawed assumption, based solely on a lazy approach of just watching TV, and created an entire theory based on that incorrect assumption...”shoddy research”.
Mike
Of course you haven't a clue because you never actually investigated...”shoddy research”.
Hm, I haven't got a clue what the eyewitnesses actually saw! Have you? No, I just analyse TV footage of the incident and ... all the footage is of paid actors using green screens and added collapses, etc, etc.
I am just an indirect eyewitness. Had I seen a structure collapsing from top C crushing bottom A into dust in front of me, I would have been very suspicious. So I only saw some clips of the collapses later in the day on TV (in Europe) ... and I got immediately very suspicious. I am convinced that the NIST staff were blackmailed to produce false reports of all storts. If they had refused they would have had great problems.
Haven't I seen it before? Yes, I have!
No. I completely understood you. You don't understand that you can't actually analyze professionally faked video on a consumer TV & home computer. You would need real professional video gear to even start an actual investigation...”shoddy research”.
You just don’t get it. It’s impossible to tell a professional faked video is faked on a consumer TV. Everyone else on the planet have to professional video gear for that....”shoddy research”.
There were millions who were there and witnessed the events. Interviewing them would be necessary to hear what they saw but you didn’t do that...”shoddy research”.
There were millions who were there and not one of them said anything different from what is seen on the videos. You didn’t consider that...”shoddy research”.
You made a flawed assumption, based solely on a lazy approach of just watching TV, and created an entire theory based on that incorrect assumption...”shoddy research”.
Mike
You haven't understood. I mainly analyze the content of the footage. It is not real. The people incl. reporters are all actors. Just look at them! LOL.
My main argument is the wto top down collapses into dust. Cannot happen in the real world. Totally fake. So paid actors in the front! And a smoky CGI dust fountain in the back.
I analyze footage without professional video gear, as I just watch the pictures, and then I use common sense.
No. I completely understood you. You don't understand that you can't actually analyze professionally faked video on a consumer TV & home computer. You would need real professional video gear to even start an actual investigation...”shoddy research”.
Did you know there are recently (via FOIA request) HD versions of the crappy videos you link to. And, they're the unedited raw footage...much more than was shown on the air. If you didn't do ”shoddy research” you would probably have seen these.
Mike
I analyze footage without professional video gear, as I just watch the pictures, and then I use common sense.
I don't need HD versions of the footage or anything like it.
I just use common sense since at least 1994, when some government criminals told the public that heavy weather knocks off bow visors on ships at sea, noone aboard senses (hears, feels, experiences) anything of it at sea, the ship sinks at sea and about 1000 persons die at sea. But nobody really is to blame for it, even if ships float on deckhouses, and anyone being at sea just have to swim ashore after an incident.
The government criminals later blackmailed some civil/military servants to invent a fantasy about it, more people ashore died suddenly right and left, and ... I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time ... .
I analyze footage without professional video gear, as I just watch the pictures, and then I use common sense.
I don't need HD versions of the footage or anything like it.
I just use common sense since at least 1994, when some government criminals told the public that heavy weather knocks off bow visors on ships at sea, noone aboard senses (hears, feels, experiences) anything of it at sea, the ship sinks at sea and about 1000 persons die at sea. But nobody really is to blame for it, even if ships float on deckhouses, and anyone being at sea just have to swim ashore after an incident.
The government criminals later blackmailed some civil/military servants to invent a fantasy about it, more people ashore died suddenly right and left, and ... I describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time ... .
What part of you can't analyze professionally faked video with "common sense" don't you understand? IT IS IMPOSSIBLE EVEN FOR IMAGE EXPERTS. That's why they have to you use the proper equipment.
For you to believe watching on a consumer TV and using "common sense" is a proper method of analysis, well that's just ”shoddy research”.
You're ignoring the most important part of this. The eye witnesses. They can either confirm or deny you hypothesis and for you to ignore that is ”shoddy research”.
BTW, I know N.J. Burkett. We went to high school together and he's a friend of mine (Elizabeth High School if you wish to look it up). I've talked to him about this at length. I've talked to friends who were there. I've talked to my brother & brother-in-law. All you have is your ”shoddy research”; which is why no credible engineer wants to be associated with you.
Mike
I'm not going anywhere you fucking toad. You assume this, you assume that...that's your problem. You make assumptions and do shoddy research.
You are a friend of N.J Burkett? But he is/was a poor actor of the 911 show just dressing up as an N.J. Burkett then. OK, I assume you are just an underpaid HR assistant of the bad show. Go away. You did your part of the show 16 years ago. You are note even funny anymore. I agree, the expensive show was TOP on 911 but today 16 years later it is ... 0.
But, the show just goes on. What will you invent now? I am stupid? A Holocaust denier? Homosexual? Terrorist?
I look forward to your next BS post!
I'm not going anywhere you fucking toad. You assume this, you assume that...that's your problem. You make assumptions and do shoddy research.
You are a friend of N.J Burkett? But he is/was a poor actor of the 911 show just dressing up as an N.J. Burkett then. OK, I assume you are just an underpaid HR assistant of the bad show. Go away. You did your part of the show 16 years ago. You are note even funny anymore. I agree, the expensive show was TOP on 911 but today 16 years later it is ... 0.
But, the show just goes on. What will you invent now? I am stupid? A Holocaust denier? Homosexual? Terrorist?
I look forward to your next BS post!
Mike
Top class my ass. If you did top class research you wouldn't have be so lazy to just sit and watch TV to draw a conclusion. It's just plain shoddy research and baseless conclusions.I'm not going anywhere you fucking toad. You assume this, you assume that...that's your problem. You make assumptions and do shoddy research.
You are a friend of N.J Burkett? But he is/was a poor actor of the 911 show just dressing up as an N.J. Burkett then. OK, I assume you are just an underpaid HR assistant of the bad show. Go away. You did your part of the show 16 years ago. You are note even funny anymore. I agree, the expensive show was TOP on 911 but today 16 years later it is ... 0.
But, the show just goes on. What will you invent now? I am stupid? A Holocaust denier? Homosexual? Terrorist?
I look forward to your next BS post!
Mike
Sorry, my research is top class. Your foul language confirms you are an American twerp! Go away!
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.I still admire those two TV teams on the ground at Manhattan filming and interviewing people when ... the towers collapse into dust in the background. I conclude that the film teams are fake and that the collapsing towers in the background are also fake.I'm pretty sure that there were lots more than just two TV news teams on the ground in Manhattan filming at that time the towers came down.
Of course - they were all part of the great show!
Notice how the camera men manage to film the towers becoming dust! Actually it is trick films from A to Z.
That very fact that you believe you can tell the video is faked by watching on a common TV says a lot about you lack of technical rigor. If those videos were faked by something with the necessary resources you would never be able to tell on a consumer TV set. None of that occurred to you did it?
It's amazes me that you'd put so much work into your supposed analysis but did not even verify your suspicions about the video...and that's all you've got is suspicions. Nothing but shoddy research to backup poor engineering.
Mike
Yes, I have done plenty research:Quote1. The 9/11 imagery shown live on TV was nothing but a Hollywood-style film production, complete with actors in the role of 'eye-witnesses' or 'fire fighters', staged 'running crowds', 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. The few clips featuring 'airplanes' (or dull silhouettes thereof) were computer-generated images. If you ask me who directed the movie I suggest James Cameron that made Titanic: "I realized that (the film) "Titanic" gave us help in interpreting the new disaster, in exploring the feelings of loss and anger."
2. No commercial airliners were hijacked or - much less - crashed into the WTC towers, the Pentagon or the Shanksville field. No valid/verifiable records exist for their airport logs/schedules, their numbered parts, their alleged passengers. Their reported speeds at near sea-level as well as the absurd visuals of their total, effortless disappearance into the WTC façades defy the laws of mechanics and physics.
3. The World Trade Center Complex (9 buildings in all) were demolished with powerful explosives, while the Hollywood show was broadcasted on TV. The WTC 1&2 towers were then demolished from bottom up. The fast POUFF, POUFF top down collapses shown on TV producing dust and smoke were Hollywood style 3D-compositing and special cinematic effects. No structures can collapse as shown!
4. No "3000" people were trapped in the top floors/nor perished in the WTC towers. The buildings were empty!
Here are another four examples of the top collapse of the North Tower/WTC1 and what follows provided by NIST.
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at start of clip)
(roof drops at 1:10)
(roof drops at 5:07)
Note the following:
5. All four photographers are - for whatever reason - still roaming in the vicinity of the WTC complex at 10:28am (a full 29 minutes after the earlier WTC2 collapse at 9:59am). This, in spite of the officially reported 'total evacuation' of Lower Manhattan - which, reportedly, was initiated soon after the alleged "plane crashes" - one hour or so earlier.
6. All four photographers, no matter how far they are standing from each other / and from the WTC, are pretty much LATERALLY aligned with each other. The LATERAL perspectives of the four shots - although not perfectly identical - are quite remarkably similar.
7. All four photographers have their four camera-lenses coincidentally trained on the top of WTC1 - at a high zoom level (close-up view) - JUST as WTC1 started to fall. This, in spite of having no possible foreknowledge of the WTC1's sudden collapse - and in spite of WTC2 having collapsed 29 minutes earlier. They all just waited around for half-an-hour, a few hundred yards away from the WTC complex, filming away (undisturbed by the ongoing evacuation).
8. All four photographers (quite coincidentally...) decided to perform a manual or motorized zoom-out motion - within seconds of the WTC1 collapse initiations - and quite successfully so (all four zoom out motions being remarkably progressive and smooth - with minimal amounts of camera shake or motion blur).
9. All four photographers have nerves of steel - and remained calm and composed while all around them, screaming people were running away from the scene in dire panic.
Evidently all four videos are fakes! They are made in Hollywood! But by whom?
Source - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm
I think my analysis is pretty good.
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.I couldn’t care less about your M/S Estonia, a-bomb, moon-hoax, or any other webpage.
<snip>
And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at. So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my shitsite!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
But there are no eyewitnesses that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes! Only GWB, Condileezza and CIA/FBI produced a list of them the next day and MSM media published it without any verification. And then millions of Americans read it and believed it. It is a tragic story http://shitsite.com/911conspiracy.htm .
It seems that a 20th Arab has admitted after torture by CIA that he trained and paid the 19 others but I would also admit to such things being tortured. This Arab has not yet been prosecuted in a US court.
Focus. I said eyewitness to the planes hitting and the towers falling. Address that.And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
But there are no eyewitnesses that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes! Only GWB, Condileezza and CIA/FBI produced a list of them the next day and MSM media published it without any verification. And then millions of Americans read it and believed it. It is a tragic story http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm .
It seems that a 20th Arab has admitted after torture by CIA that he trained and paid the 19 others but I would also admit to such things being tortured. This Arab has not yet been prosecuted in a US court.
I do it at http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm . I should add that IMHO only twerps believe the US official story about Arabs.Focus. I said eyewitness to the planes hitting and the towers falling. Address that.And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
But there are no eyewitnesses that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes! Only GWB, Condileezza and CIA/FBI produced a list of them the next day and MSM media published it without any verification. And then millions of Americans read it and believed it. It is a tragic story http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm .
It seems that a 20th Arab has admitted after torture by CIA that he trained and paid the 19 others but I would also admit to such things being tortured. This Arab has not yet been prosecuted in a US court.
I do it at http://shitsite.com/AB911story.htm . I should add that IMHO only twerps believe the US official story about Arabs.Focus. I said eyewitness to the planes hitting and the towers falling. Address that.And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
But there are no eyewitnesses that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes! Only GWB, Condileezza and CIA/FBI produced a list of them the next day and MSM media published it without any verification. And then millions of Americans read it and believed it. It is a tragic story http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm .
It seems that a 20th Arab has admitted after torture by CIA that he trained and paid the 19 others but I would also admit to such things being tortured. This Arab has not yet been prosecuted in a US court.
In any court system on the planet the presumption will be in favor of the official government account which puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You are delusional if you believe if you believe otherwise.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
Well, that mountain of evidence would not convince the TGI at Nice.
In any court system on the planet the presumption will be in favor of the official government account which puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You are delusional if you believe if you believe otherwise.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
Well, that mountain of evidence would not convince the TGI at Nice.
You make the claim certain people are the terrorists complicit in bringing down the towers. This is a case of libel and as such the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who is disputing the claim. Since the presumption of the court will be in favor of the official accounts that even the International Criminal Court has already accepted, the burden of proof then shifts to you.
Your shoddy research has put you at risk for anyone who cares to sue you. That makes you a liability nightmare and another reason why AE911Truth and every credible engineer on the planet wants nothing to do with you. It’s a good freakin’ thing nobody actually reads your website.
Mike
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Hm, the question remains were there any Arabs aboard? I am certain no eyewitness saw any Arabs flying into the towers.
There is plenty footage of the towers coming down in fountains of smoke and dust. It is very easy to prove that such footage is CGI. If anyone saw fountains of smoke and dust on 911 he/she is lying. Structures do not collapse producing fountains of smoke and dust.
Maybe people saw something else.
Note to everyone:
Hewia changes the title of his posts so if you're responding to him you might want to consider amending the title so it aligns with the thread title.
I am not obtuse. I am clear and concise! All footage of planes hitting WTC1/2 and WTC1/2 collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are CGI/fakery/trick films, IMHO. Easy to prove with my technical background and experiences. I can do it in a court of justice.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Hm, the question remains were there any Arabs aboard? I am certain no eyewitness saw any Arabs flying into the towers.
There is plenty footage of the towers coming down in fountains of smoke and dust. It is very easy to prove that such footage is CGI. If anyone saw fountains of smoke and dust on 911 he/she is lying. Structures do not collapse producing fountains of smoke and dust.
Maybe people saw something else.
You are extraordinarily obtuse. Whether there were any Arabs on board may be a question, but it's not the one being asked of you.
You claimed the planes and the towers coming down are CGI.
The question being asked of you is, if that's the case, what is your response to the millions of eyewitnesses? Please respond to the question being asked.
The nationality of the terrorists is not my point. My point is you're wrong and there were actually planes...regardless of who what flying or whether or not they were the reasons for the collapse, those planes hit the towers.In any court system on the planet the presumption will be in favor of the official government account which puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You are delusional if you believe if you believe otherwise.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
Well, that mountain of evidence would not convince the TGI at Nice.
You make the claim certain people are the terrorists complicit in bringing down the towers. This is a case of libel and as such the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who is disputing the claim. Since the presumption of the court will be in favor of the official accounts that even the International Criminal Court has already accepted, the burden of proof then shifts to you.
Your shoddy research has put you at risk for anyone who cares to sue you. That makes you a liability nightmare and another reason why AE911Truth and every credible engineer on the planet wants nothing to do with you. It’s a good freakin’ thing nobody actually reads your website.
Mike
Well, my legal counsel are of a different opinion. Anyone who assisted destroying the WTC at NY in any way is a terrorist ... and I mention a few at my site ... and none is Arab!
Re my site just today Sunday 13 Aug 2017, 19.08 hrs there were 1 837 pageloads and 1 629 visitors of which 50 were repeat visitors. I will probably have >2 000 visitors today before midnight.
I am not obtuse. I am clear and concise! All footage of planes hitting WTC1/2 and WTC1/2 collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are CGI/fakery/trick films, IMHO. Easy to prove with my technical background and experiences. I can do it in a court of justice.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Hm, the question remains were there any Arabs aboard? I am certain no eyewitness saw any Arabs flying into the towers.
There is plenty footage of the towers coming down in fountains of smoke and dust. It is very easy to prove that such footage is CGI. If anyone saw fountains of smoke and dust on 911 he/she is lying. Structures do not collapse producing fountains of smoke and dust.
Maybe people saw something else.
You are extraordinarily obtuse. Whether there were any Arabs on board may be a question, but it's not the one being asked of you.
You claimed the planes and the towers coming down are CGI.
The question being asked of you is, if that's the case, what is your response to the millions of eyewitnesses? Please respond to the question being asked.
I don't know the number of eyewitnesses - millions - but any eyewitness saying he/she saw planes slicing into the WTC1/2 towers that then collapsed in fountains of smoke and dust is simply lying. Any person saying he knows such an eyewitness is also lying.
The nationality of the terrorists is not my point. My point is you're wrong and there were actually planes...regardless of who what flying or whether or not they were the reasons for the collapse, those planes hit the towers.In any court system on the planet the presumption will be in favor of the official government account which puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You are delusional if you believe if you believe otherwise.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
Well, that mountain of evidence would not convince the TGI at Nice.
You make the claim certain people are the terrorists complicit in bringing down the towers. This is a case of libel and as such the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who is disputing the claim. Since the presumption of the court will be in favor of the official accounts that even the International Criminal Court has already accepted, the burden of proof then shifts to you.
Your shoddy research has put you at risk for anyone who cares to sue you. That makes you a liability nightmare and another reason why AE911Truth and every credible engineer on the planet wants nothing to do with you. It’s a good freakin’ thing nobody actually reads your website.
Mike
Well, my legal counsel are of a different opinion. Anyone who assisted destroying the WTC at NY in any way is a terrorist ... and I mention a few at my site ... and none is Arab!
Re my site just today Sunday 13 Aug 2017, 19.08 hrs there were 1 837 pageloads and 1 629 visitors of which 50 were repeat visitors. I will probably have >2 000 visitors today before midnight.
At that rate, in a year you'll what most webpages most forum webpages do in a week. How many of those visitors are search bots and how many page views per visit do you get.
Mike
It seems I get most of my visitors via word of mouth.
I am not obtuse. I am clear and concise! All footage of planes hitting WTC1/2 and WTC1/2 collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are CGI/fakery/trick films, IMHO. Easy to prove with my technical background and experiences. I can do it in a court of justice.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Hm, the question remains were there any Arabs aboard? I am certain no eyewitness saw any Arabs flying into the towers.
There is plenty footage of the towers coming down in fountains of smoke and dust. It is very easy to prove that such footage is CGI. If anyone saw fountains of smoke and dust on 911 he/she is lying. Structures do not collapse producing fountains of smoke and dust.
Maybe people saw something else.
You are extraordinarily obtuse. Whether there were any Arabs on board may be a question, but it's not the one being asked of you.
You claimed the planes and the towers coming down are CGI.
The question being asked of you is, if that's the case, what is your response to the millions of eyewitnesses? Please respond to the question being asked.
I don't know the number of eyewitnesses - millions - but any eyewitness saying he/she saw planes slicing into the WTC1/2 towers that then collapsed in fountains of smoke and dust is simply lying. Any person saying he knows such an eyewitness is also lying.
You are obtuse as it took you a page and a half of posting before you actually addressed the question being asked. And your answer is ridiculous. You think your analysis of some footage you saw on TV is grounds for dismissing millions of eyewitnesses, and hundreds of personal accounts. You say you can easily prove your claim in a court of justice. Well even if you could prove that all the professional and amateur footage of that event was fake, which you couldn't, you would still have all the eyewitness accounts which the court considers as evidence. Dismissing it with a wave of your hand may work in your imagination and on your joke of a website, but it sure would not work in a court of justice. Your knowledge of the law and how courts work is woefully naive. (Which is why you think the US wants to give you the death penalty for spewing your nonsense about atomic bombs)
The nationality of the terrorists is not my point. My point is you're wrong and there were actually planes...regardless of who what flying or whether or not they were the reasons for the collapse, those planes hit the towers.In any court system on the planet the presumption will be in favor of the official government account which puts the burden of proof on the defendant. You are delusional if you believe if you believe otherwise.
There is a mountain of evidence proving the stone-cold fact that terrorists crashed 4 planes on 9/11; two of which were into the towers. ...
Mike
Well, that mountain of evidence would not convince the TGI at Nice.
You make the claim certain people are the terrorists complicit in bringing down the towers. This is a case of libel and as such the burden of proof is on the plaintiff who is disputing the claim. Since the presumption of the court will be in favor of the official accounts that even the International Criminal Court has already accepted, the burden of proof then shifts to you.
Your shoddy research has put you at risk for anyone who cares to sue you. That makes you a liability nightmare and another reason why AE911Truth and every credible engineer on the planet wants nothing to do with you. It’s a good freakin’ thing nobody actually reads your website.
Mike
Well, my legal counsel are of a different opinion. Anyone who assisted destroying the WTC at NY in any way is a terrorist ... and I mention a few at my site ... and none is Arab!
Re my site just today Sunday 13 Aug 2017, 19.08 hrs there were 1 837 pageloads and 1 629 visitors of which 50 were repeat visitors. I will probably have >2 000 visitors today before midnight.
At that rate, in a year you'll what most webpages most forum webpages do in a week. How many of those visitors are search bots and how many page views per visit do you get.
Mike
You are a twerp, Mike. You didn't see any planes or collapses but maybe your brother, sister and brother-in-law did. You believe in propaganda. And you lie about it. Nobody can take you seriously.
Re my website the stat program only registers real visitors excl. me. Search engines are ignored. Why are you curious. It is very easy to create a website. Problem is to attract attention. It seems I get most of my visitors via word of mouth.
I am not obtuse. I am clear and concise! All footage of planes hitting WTC1/2 and WTC1/2 collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are CGI/fakery/trick films, IMHO. Easy to prove with my technical background and experiences. I can do it in a court of justice.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
Hm. The stupidity of this response is on display for all to see. The millions of eyewitnesses obviously did not see "Arabs hijacking a plane." What they did see was the planes flying into the towers and the towers coming down. You have not addressed this. Please do.shoddy research
Hm, the question remains were there any Arabs aboard? I am certain no eyewitness saw any Arabs flying into the towers.
There is plenty footage of the towers coming down in fountains of smoke and dust. It is very easy to prove that such footage is CGI. If anyone saw fountains of smoke and dust on 911 he/she is lying. Structures do not collapse producing fountains of smoke and dust.
Maybe people saw something else.
You are extraordinarily obtuse. Whether there were any Arabs on board may be a question, but it's not the one being asked of you.
You claimed the planes and the towers coming down are CGI.
The question being asked of you is, if that's the case, what is your response to the millions of eyewitnesses? Please respond to the question being asked.
I don't know the number of eyewitnesses - millions - but any eyewitness saying he/she saw planes slicing into the WTC1/2 towers that then collapsed in fountains of smoke and dust is simply lying. Any person saying he knows such an eyewitness is also lying.
You are obtuse as it took you a page and a half of posting before you actually addressed the question being asked. And your answer is ridiculous. You think your analysis of some footage you saw on TV is grounds for dismissing millions of eyewitnesses, and hundreds of personal accounts. You say you can easily prove your claim in a court of justice. Well even if you could prove that all the professional and amateur footage of that event was fake, which you couldn't, you would still have all the eyewitness accounts which the court considers as evidence. Dismissing it with a wave of your hand may work in your imagination and on your joke of a website, but it sure would not work in a court of justice. Your knowledge of the law and how courts work is woefully naive. (Which is why you think the US wants to give you the death penalty for spewing your nonsense about atomic bombs)
Hm, maybe you are slow to understand what I have written since many years at my website. Atomic bombs 1945 were fake news. They never exploded over Japan 1945. It was all propaganda. POTUS Trump is surprised about it today 2017. Donald cannot wipe out N.Korea. Better to play golf at NJ. What a stupid vaccation. Golf at NJ.
It was followed by the fake space race 1958/72. No Gagaring orbited Earth and no Americans went to the Moon. It was a great show. 100% Americans believed two asstroshits were pissing on the Moon 1969. It is the topic of this thread.
911 was just another fake news show. No Arabs, no planes, no top down collapses. It was all a great show. Done by American terrorists. No doubt about it.
Why are you ignoring the question of witnesses? No on one asked about the hijackers. Please address that issue.
Checked out your link. Did not find anything addressing the millions of eyewitness accounts. Please address that here. Thanks!
Hm, you have to use your brain. There is no eyewitness who has seen any Arab hijacking a plane on 911. Any person saying he/she has seen an Arab hijacking a plane on that day is a liar.
BTW - this thread started about orbital mechanics - how to travel to the Moon and that I could not understand it. See post #1. And still noone has calculated how much fuel you need, what trajectory to chose and how long it will take.
Some people think the trajectory is a straight line, others talks about a hyperbolic, variable speed route, but noone can say how to do it.
Note to everyone:
Hewia changes the title of his posts so if you're responding to him you might want to consider amending the title so it aligns with the thread title.
Heiwa is changing it back to the original thread title.
The title was changed a few weeks back to it's current state.
Which was a very dishonest thing to do, yet none of you REtard scum objected to it.
You did not object to it because you are, of course, scum.
Oh, & AECOM did 9/11 - see them in court!
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.I do it at http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm . I should add that IMHO only twerps believe the US official story about Arabs.Focus. I said eyewitness to the planes hitting and the towers falling. Address that.And yet you still ignore all the eyewitness accounts. Why don't you address that? Are a million people lying? I know people who saw the plane hit the tower, saw them come down.That's bullshit. These videos weren't released unit there was an FOIA request by the International Centers for 9/11 Studies. They were released in 2010 and you had already done you so called analysis of the video years before that. Is there no lie you will tell to support your shoddy research?
Your analysis sucks but it also seems your videos are gone from Youtube.
If I recall, the videos I analysed were provided by NIST. This happens to me all the time.
<snip>
Mike
Hm, I have examined 911 info since 2001 and then published my findings at http://heiwaco.com . So I analyzed the four 911 videos when I got hold of them, published my findings at my site and ... now the videos are no longer available. My research is not shoddy ... it is true, correct, honest and fair. I am quite proud of it.
It is like my M/S Estonia safety at sea research. I got involved 1994 and told the authorities that the visor story was BS. I knew the government 'expert'.
1996 the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden published an article by me about it. Result? Visit my website! The government's reply was that I was an idiot! What a reply! Soon after my governmen 'expert' friend expired.
1997 the government confirmed the visor story. I wrote some books about it, the matter was discussed in the Swedish parliament several times and 2005 it was decided to pay some 'experts' to explain how a ship sinks after losing a bow visor. All the parliament discussions are available at my website!
The 'experts' result was available 2008 on the Internet. The principle of Archimedes didn't apply! I analyzed it and published my results on my website on the Internet linking to the 'experts' reports. Soon after the 'shoddy' research result of the 'experts' was removed from the Internet.
Mike, just visit my website and read about it. Do not make stories about brothers and sisters of yours having seen Arabs flying planes into towers and that you are friends with the news reporters on the ground.
Why don't you address the eyewitness accounts?
But there are no eyewitnesses that 19 Arabs hijacked four planes! Only GWB, Condileezza and CIA/FBI produced a list of them the next day and MSM media published it without any verification. And then millions of Americans read it and believed it. It is a tragic story http://heiwaco.com/911conspiracy.htm .
It seems that a 20th Arab has admitted after torture by CIA that he trained and paid the 19 others but I would also admit to such things being tortured. This Arab has not yet been prosecuted in a US court.
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.
You really are afraid of this subject aren't you? You have failed again.
I'll believe you'll do it when I see it because you could have Googled it yourself but here goes. The following are organizations that can get you in touch with as many witnesses to 9/11 as want as well and surviving family members of the tower collapse and plane crashes.
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.
You really are afraid of this subject aren't you? You have failed again.
GWB, Condoleezze & Co said a lot about arabs the days after 911. Re eyewitnesses pls provide the list of a million eyewitnesses and what they saw in detail and I can check it too even if it will take time.
I'll believe you'll do it when I see it because you could have Googled it yourself but here goes. The following are organizations that can get you in touch with as many witnesses to 9/11 as want as well and surviving family members of the tower collapse and plane crashes.
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.
You really are afraid of this subject aren't you? You have failed again.
GWB, Condoleezze & Co said a lot about arabs the days after 911. Re eyewitnesses pls provide the list of a million eyewitnesses and what they saw in detail and I can check it too even if it will take time.
World Trade Center Survivors' Network
http://www.survivorsnet.org/
Support Resources - 9/11 Groups - Families of September 11
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10
I'll talk to my brother and friends...that is if you actually going to do it.
Mike
I'll believe you'll do it when I see it because you could have Googled it yourself but here goes. The following are organizations that can get you in touch with as many witnesses to 9/11 as want as well and surviving family members of the tower collapse and plane crashes.
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.
You really are afraid of this subject aren't you? You have failed again.
GWB, Condoleezze & Co said a lot about arabs the days after 911. Re eyewitnesses pls provide the list of a million eyewitnesses and what they saw in detail and I can check it too even if it will take time.
World Trade Center Survivors' Network
http://www.survivorsnet.org/
Support Resources - 9/11 Groups - Families of September 11
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10
I'll talk to my brother and friends...that is if you actually going to do it.
Mike
Hm, why should I get in touch with these two strange organizations? They seem to be part of the 2001 hoax/show. I have altready done my analysis and work and published it on the Internet since many years. I am a well known safety at sea expert. Everything I publish is correct. Why would I publish something else?
The 911 fountains of smoke and dust collapses of two intact, solid skyscrapers shown on various footages are CGI! No structure can collapse like that due to a small fire up top. The whole thing was therefore done by Americans assisted by Hollywood. To blame Arabs for it is criminal. Anyone stating having seen a fountain of smoke and dust collapse is a liar.
No, you Americans are famous for Fake News Desinformation. You just invent something, publish it in MSM, blackmail experts to support the lies and ... there we go. I present several other examples at my site.
I just feel sorry for you. You have to do what the Germans of the German Democratic Republic did 1989. They liberated themselves from a dicatorship by kicking it out.
I'll believe you'll do it when I see it because you could have Googled it yourself but here goes. The following are organizations that can get you in touch with as many witnesses to 9/11 as want as well and surviving family members of the tower collapse and plane crashes.
Who said anything about arabs? I asked about the eyewitnesses who saw the planes hit and the towers fall. Thousands upon thousands of them.
You really are afraid of this subject aren't you? You have failed again.
GWB, Condoleezze & Co said a lot about arabs the days after 911. Re eyewitnesses pls provide the list of a million eyewitnesses and what they saw in detail and I can check it too even if it will take time.
World Trade Center Survivors' Network
http://www.survivorsnet.org/
Support Resources - 9/11 Groups - Families of September 11
http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10
I'll talk to my brother and friends...that is if you actually going to do it.
Mike
Hm, why should I get in touch with these two strange organizations? They seem to be part of the 2001 hoax/show. I have altready done my analysis and work and published it on the Internet since many years. I am a well known safety at sea expert. Everything I publish is correct. Why would I publish something else?
The 911 fountains of smoke and dust collapses of two intact, solid skyscrapers shown on various footages are CGI! No structure can collapse like that due to a small fire up top. The whole thing was therefore done by Americans assisted by Hollywood. To blame Arabs for it is criminal. Anyone stating having seen a fountain of smoke and dust collapse is a liar.
No, you Americans are famous for Fake News Desinformation. You just invent something, publish it in MSM, blackmail experts to support the lies and ... there we go. I present several other examples at my site.
I just feel sorry for you. You have to do what the Germans of the German Democratic Republic did 1989. They liberated themselves from a dicatorship by kicking it out.
You asked for evidence, then dismiss it out of hand! Without even looking at it!shoddy research
BTW saying the same thing over and over again doesn't give it any more credibility!
Hm, but I did visit http://www.survivorsnet.org/ and http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10 and found that the organizations are no longer active. They were part of the show and now ... nobody cares about them.So in other words you refuse to actually do a real investigation even when provided with some resources. You do realize that you can do this research yourself. Where is your humanity? Don’t you think it’s important to get this right? Isn’t it important to remember the honored dead?
Hm, but I did visit http://www.survivorsnet.org/ and http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10 and found that the organizations are no longer active. They were part of the show and now ... nobody cares about them.So in other words you refuse to actually do a real investigation even when provided with some resources. You do realize that you can do this research yourself. Where is your humanity? Don’t you think it’s important to get this right? Isn’t it important to remember the honored dead?
Or, is it that you’re afraid to because you’ll learn there actually were planes and deaths. Then you’d have to admit your analysis doesn’t fit the actual circumstances. Is that really more important to you than getting it right?
Mike
No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
And the people I have known for years who saw it happen? And the thousands of others? And the fact that my friends had friends who dies there?Hm, but I did visit http://www.survivorsnet.org/ and http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10 and found that the organizations are no longer active. They were part of the show and now ... nobody cares about them.So in other words you refuse to actually do a real investigation even when provided with some resources. You do realize that you can do this research yourself. Where is your humanity? Don’t you think it’s important to get this right? Isn’t it important to remember the honored dead?
Or, is it that you’re afraid to because you’ll learn there actually were planes and deaths. Then you’d have to admit your analysis doesn’t fit the actual circumstances. Is that really more important to you than getting it right?
Mike
Hm, skyscrapers transformed into fountains of smoke and dust are impossible. It is pure Hollywood. Only twerps believe in them. And what could have caused it?
Planes with evil Arabs?
No, sorry. No Arabs, no planes!
But all those deaths?
No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
It was a great show but ... no deaths.
What a show. But twerps like you, Mike, still work for the make believe. Twerp? Terrorist!
Fake a-bombs 19945 to end WW2 I can accept. But they should have announced they were fake 1946.
Fake humans in space travels 1960's were fun. Gagarin & Co. But they were all fake.
You are a real twerp, Mike!
No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
1. How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
2. Did you attempt to contact any of the people who reportedly died to confirm that they didn't?
3. If none of the victims actually died, then maybe you should contact their insurance companies and report the fraud.
So you're claiming that your ignorance proves that you're right?No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
1. How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
2. Did you attempt to contact any of the people who reportedly died to confirm that they didn't?
3. If none of the victims actually died, then maybe you should contact their insurance companies and report the fraud.
Aha, more stupid questions from my favourite twerp:
1. I am not aware of any deaths. I basically show that structures do not collapse in CGI fountains of smoke and dust, so noone can die then.
2. No. They were all anonymous actors, as far as I am concerned.
3. Maybe the insurance companies should check the claims.
So you're claiming that your ignorance proves that you're right?No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
1. How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
2. Did you attempt to contact any of the people who reportedly died to confirm that they didn't?
3. If none of the victims actually died, then maybe you should contact their insurance companies and report the fraud.
Aha, more stupid questions from my favourite twerp:
1. I am not aware of any deaths. I basically show that structures do not collapse in CGI fountains of smoke and dust, so noone can die then.
2. No. They were all anonymous actors, as far as I am concerned.
3. Maybe the insurance companies should check the claims.
Don't you dare call me a terrorist you cheesy head band wearin' fuck.Hm, but I did visit http://www.survivorsnet.org/ and http://www.familiesofseptember11.org/resources.aspx?s=10 and found that the organizations are no longer active. They were part of the show and now ... nobody cares about them.So in other words you refuse to actually do a real investigation even when provided with some resources. You do realize that you can do this research yourself. Where is your humanity? Don’t you think it’s important to get this right? Isn’t it important to remember the honored dead?
Or, is it that you’re afraid to because you’ll learn there actually were planes and deaths. Then you’d have to admit your analysis doesn’t fit the actual circumstances. Is that really more important to you than getting it right?
Mike
Hm, skyscrapers transformed into fountains of smoke and dust are impossible. It is pure Hollywood. Only twerps believe in them. And what could have caused it?
Planes with evil Arabs?
No, sorry. No Arabs, no planes!
But all those deaths?
No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
It was a great show but ... no deaths.
What a show. But twerps like you, Mike, still work for the make believe. Twerp? Terrorist!
Fake a-bombs 19945 to end WW2 I can accept. But they should have announced they were fake 1946.
Fake humans in space travels 1960's were fun. Gagarin & Co. But they were all fake.
You are a real twerp, Mike!
Bullshit. You don't get to put this back on everyone else. You're not allowed to put up a fucking strawman.So you're claiming that your ignorance proves that you're right?No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
1. How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
2. Did you attempt to contact any of the people who reportedly died to confirm that they didn't?
3. If none of the victims actually died, then maybe you should contact their insurance companies and report the fraud.
Aha, more stupid questions from my favourite twerp:
1. I am not aware of any deaths. I basically show that structures do not collapse in CGI fountains of smoke and dust, so noone can die then.
2. No. They were all anonymous actors, as far as I am concerned.
3. Maybe the insurance companies should check the claims.
Please answer the questions I asked:
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
Please answer the question I asked.So you're claiming that your ignorance proves that you're right?No, I am happy to confirm. No deaths!
1. How did you confirm that there were no deaths?
2. Did you attempt to contact any of the people who reportedly died to confirm that they didn't?
3. If none of the victims actually died, then maybe you should contact their insurance companies and report the fraud.
Aha, more stupid questions from my favourite twerp:
1. I am not aware of any deaths. I basically show that structures do not collapse in CGI fountains of smoke and dust, so noone can die then.
2. No. They were all anonymous actors, as far as I am concerned.
3. Maybe the insurance companies should check the claims.
Please answer the questions I asked:
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
Please answer the questions I asked:Please answer the question I asked.
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
What about the eyewitness? Explain how that is possible. I have actually spoken to some, have you?
If not then admit you are just a lying sack of shit who is too lazy, or stupid to do even the tiniest bit of research.
You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.Please answer the questions I asked:Please answer the question I asked.
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
What about the eyewitness? Explain how that is possible. I have actually spoken to some, have you?
If not then admit you are just a lying sack of shit who is too lazy, or stupid to do even the tiniest bit of research.
I asked first so answer me.
Re your millions of eyewitnesses I haven't met anyone of them. And no, I man not a lying sack of shit, blablabla. I am a nice, friendly guy ... http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Why do you get so upset and foul mouthed? Are you mentally fit? You sound seriously sick! Mad? Crazy?
Haven't you understood? I am a nice person.
Of course, if anyone physically attacks me ... I destroy her/him. I was trained to do it in the Navy.
You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.Please answer the questions I asked:Please answer the question I asked.
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
What about the eyewitness? Explain how that is possible. I have actually spoken to some, have you?
If not then admit you are just a lying sack of shit who is too lazy, or stupid to do even the tiniest bit of research.
I asked first so answer me.
Re your millions of eyewitnesses I haven't met anyone of them. And no, I man not a lying sack of shit, blablabla. I am a nice, friendly guy ... http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Why do you get so upset and foul mouthed? Are you mentally fit? You sound seriously sick! Mad? Crazy?
Haven't you understood? I am a nice person.
Of course, if anyone physically attacks me ... I destroy her/him. I was trained to do it in the Navy.
BTW, you're going to talk to survivors and family members. I'm going to make sure of it.
Mike
Ok I will take this as your admission you are a lazy, stupid lying sack of shit. As always nothing but failure.Please answer the questions I asked:Please answer the question I asked.
The Arabs! Were they really hired by this other Arab at Gitmo that confiirmed it after CIA torture?
Do you think torture is a good system to get info out of people?
What would you do if your local police officer started to torture you?
What about the eyewitness? Explain how that is possible. I have actually spoken to some, have you?
If not then admit you are just a lying sack of shit who is too lazy, or stupid to do even the tiniest bit of research.
I asked first so answer me.
Re your millions of eyewitnesses I haven't met anyone of them. And no, I man not a lying sack of shit, blablabla. I am a nice, friendly guy ... http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Why do you get so upset and foul mouthed? Are you mentally fit? You sound seriously sick! Mad? Crazy?
Haven't you understood? I am a nice person.
Of course, if anyone physically attacks me ... I destroy her/him. I was trained to do it in the Navy.
It is mind boggling that you actually believe that. The only evidence you have is your own opinion. You’re not a qualified expert in digital forensics and from your analysis of the video you clearly don’t have the first clue what it takes to be one.You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.
BTW, you're going to talk to survivors and family members. I'm going to make sure of it.
Mike
I look forward talking to your 911 survivors and family members. They should of course study my website http://heiwaco.com first so they understand my position.
I really look forward to it. But let's face it, Mike. Noone will show up.
Do you know why?
They are all actors and speaking from scripts.
Noone can show I am wrong.
It is mind boggling that you actually believe that. The only evidence you have is your own opinion. You’re not a qualified expert in digital forensics and from your analysis of the video you clearly don’t have the first clue what it takes to be one.You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.
BTW, you're going to talk to survivors and family members. I'm going to make sure of it.
Mike
I look forward talking to your 911 survivors and family members. They should of course study my website http://heiwaco.com first so they understand my position.
I really look forward to it. But let's face it, Mike. Noone will show up.
Do you know why?
They are all actors and speaking from scripts.
Noone can show I am wrong.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and one of them came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and not one of them took a picture or video and came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV and here’s the proof.
Here’s what you don’t understand about Americans. Americans will stop, watch, and take pictures & video of any disaster. The bigger the event the more people it will attract.
Once the first tower hit the news everyone that had line of sight to the towers were at a window or outside. Watching and taking pictures.
If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
Mike
A million eye witnesses! But what did they witness?Why don't you ask some of them sometime?
I have seen some recordings ... all fakery. It makes me suspicious.Oh, you saw some recordings. What other evidence could possibly be relevant? ::)
It is mind boggling that you actually believe that. The only evidence you have is your own opinion. You’re not a qualified expert in digital forensics and from your analysis of the video you clearly don’t have the first clue what it takes to be one.You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.
BTW, you're going to talk to survivors and family members. I'm going to make sure of it.
Mike
I look forward talking to your 911 survivors and family members. They should of course study my website http://heiwaco.com first so they understand my position.
I really look forward to it. But let's face it, Mike. Noone will show up.
Do you know why?
They are all actors and speaking from scripts.
Noone can show I am wrong.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and one of them came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and not one of them took a picture or video and came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV and here’s the proof.
Here’s what you don’t understand about Americans. Americans will stop, watch, and take pictures & video of any disaster. The bigger the event the more people it will attract.
Once the first tower hit the news everyone that had line of sight to the towers were at a window or outside. Watching and taking pictures.
If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
Mike
It makes me suspicious.
I knew you wouldn't have the guts to answer the questions.It is mind boggling that you actually believe that. The only evidence you have is your own opinion. You’re not a qualified expert in digital forensics and from your analysis of the video you clearly don’t have the first clue what it takes to be one.You have some gall saying you're a nice friendly guy. The vast majority of your posts are impolite, uncivil, name calling rants. If you were a nice guy you'd be polite and civil like you ask others to do. I cursed at you because you have no right calling me a terrorist but most of my posts to you have been civil.
BTW, you're going to talk to survivors and family members. I'm going to make sure of it.
Mike
I look forward talking to your 911 survivors and family members. They should of course study my website http://heiwaco.com first so they understand my position.
I really look forward to it. But let's face it, Mike. Noone will show up.
Do you know why?
They are all actors and speaking from scripts.
Noone can show I am wrong.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and one of them came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV.
You’re suggesting that a million on lookers saw what actually happened and not one of them took a picture or video and came forward to say it didn’t happen the way we saw on TV and here’s the proof.
Here’s what you don’t understand about Americans. Americans will stop, watch, and take pictures & video of any disaster. The bigger the event the more people it will attract.
Once the first tower hit the news everyone that had line of sight to the towers were at a window or outside. Watching and taking pictures.
If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
Mike
A million eye witnesses! But what did they witness? I have seen some recordings ... all fakery. It makes me suspicious.
And now it is Charlottesville. Plenty fakery all over the Internet at once. It seems your local police is not doing the job. They just watch the show too.
Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.This is a standard tactic for him. He will disappear for a while then come back and start from scratch saying no has ever shown any evidence he is wrong.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Aside from tonnes of home video of the second plane hitting.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism. The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.
The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism.
Aside from tonnes of home video of the second plane hitting.
Are you saying explosions stared from the bottom? do you have any videos that show this?
BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM
BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM
Correct spelling is Björkman axiom. I am quite proud having an axiom named after me.
Fixed.Thanks.
Fixed.Thanks.
BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM BJÖRKMANN AXIOM
Correct spelling is Björkman axiom. I am quite proud having an axiom named after me.
Ok then, I'm sorry.
BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM BJÖRKMAN AXIOM
Fixed.
Cool.The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism.
Aside from tonnes of home video of the second plane hitting.
Are you saying explosions stared from the bottom? do you have any videos that show this?
As I say, any footage of a second plane hitting is fake! Easy to prove.
And yes, I do not say explosions started from the bottom. I just say that the towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.
Cool.The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism.
Aside from tonnes of home video of the second plane hitting.
Are you saying explosions stared from the bottom? do you have any videos that show this?
As I say, any footage of a second plane hitting is fake! Easy to prove.
And yes, I do not say explosions started from the bottom. I just say that the towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.
Proof this video is fake:
If there is no plane (in your wrong opinion) then what did they fake?Cool.The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism.
Aside from tonnes of home video of the second plane hitting.
Are you saying explosions stared from the bottom? do you have any videos that show this?
As I say, any footage of a second plane hitting is fake! Easy to prove.
And yes, I do not say explosions started from the bottom. I just say that the towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.
Proof this video is fake:
No plane, bad language, no origin, typical fakery. FBI should arrest the persons behind this fake video. Try it yourself! Contact the FBI and report your find! Be a good citizen! And then report back here!
Contact the FBI and report your find! Be a good citizen!
Wow. That’s not even close to answering the questions. And, it’s a poor attempt at trying to avoid answering at that. We both know you understood what I was asking but I’ll clarify the questions for you just so there is no ambiguity. I'll even cut it down to two.Heiwa's had logged in several times without any replies.
It's obvious he doesn't have the guts to answer my questions.
Mike
Hm, so your questions are:
1. If there were no planes, why have none of those witnesses come forth?
2. If there were no planes, why have none of the witnesses come forth with photos/videos?
3. It is impossible to keep a million eye witnesses, from seeing and recording what happened so why is there no evidence to support your theory?
1. Well, if they didn't see any planes slicing into the towers, they had nothing to report.
2. You cannot take videos and photos of somthing you didn't see.
3. The footage, photos and videos provided by planes slicing into the towers and the towers collapsing in fountains of smoke and dust are pure CGI and trick film. Noone can have seen it. It seems it was a great, magic show being performed. No Arabs could do anything like it.
And then there is my peer reviewed, structural, dynamic damage analysis known as the Björkman axiom. No weak top part C of a structure can crush down and collapse the intact bottom part A of same structure by gravity into smoke and dust. Even dropping C on A will just result in C bouncing on A.
I show it at my web site and I also pay anyone €1M showing I am wrong.
Actually anyone testifying, actually lying, having seen planes and top down collapses are persons supporting terrorism. The towers and the whole WTC area were apparently destroyed by other means from bottom up.
It is quite easy to fool Americans using MSM.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of the eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
Is it possible there was more going on that we don’t know about? Is it possible that it took more than just planes to bring down the towers? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I’ll concede that there may be more here than the official story. However, it’s a stone-cold verified fact that planes hit those towers and they collapsed as we saw on TV.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s impossible to keep a million eye witnesses from seeing, recording, and talking about what happened. Also, it’s impossible to silence that many people. Especially before they spread the word. Given this impossibility, at some point you have to concede that there were planes and the towers collapsed from the top down.
Give real answers this time.
Stop already with the challenge crap. Nobody believes you’ll pay and most people don’t even believe you have the money. It’s a piss poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
If it weren't the planes we were told then where are they and the flight crew/passengers?1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of the eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
Is it possible there was more going on that we don’t know about? Is it possible that it took more than just planes to bring down the towers? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I’ll concede that there may be more here than the official story. However, it’s a stone-cold verified fact that planes hit those towers and they collapsed as we saw on TV.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s impossible to keep a million eye witnesses from seeing, recording, and talking about what happened. Also, it’s impossible to silence that many people. Especially before they spread the word. Given this impossibility, at some point you have to concede that there were planes and the towers collapsed from the top down.
Give real answers this time.
Stop already with the challenge crap. Nobody believes you’ll pay and most people don’t even believe you have the money. It’s a piss poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
I agree with this also. Planes hit wtc 1 and 2. I have some doubt they were the planes we were told but regardless, planes hit the towers.
The towers most certainly collapsed.
If it weren't the planes we were told then where are they and the flight crew/passengers?1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of the eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
Is it possible there was more going on that we don’t know about? Is it possible that it took more than just planes to bring down the towers? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I’ll concede that there may be more here than the official story. However, it’s a stone-cold verified fact that planes hit those towers and they collapsed as we saw on TV.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s impossible to keep a million eye witnesses from seeing, recording, and talking about what happened. Also, it’s impossible to silence that many people. Especially before they spread the word. Given this impossibility, at some point you have to concede that there were planes and the towers collapsed from the top down.
Give real answers this time.
Stop already with the challenge crap. Nobody believes you’ll pay and most people don’t even believe you have the money. It’s a piss poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
I agree with this also. Planes hit wtc 1 and 2. I have some doubt they were the planes we were told but regardless, planes hit the towers.
The towers most certainly collapsed.
Mike
Wow. That’s not even close to answering the questions. And, it’s a poor attempt at trying to avoid answering at that. We both know you understood what I was asking but I’ll clarify the questions for you just so there is no ambiguity. I'll even cut it down to two.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of the eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
Is it possible there was more going on that we don’t know about? Is it possible that it took more than just planes to bring down the towers? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I’ll concede that there may be more here than the official story. However, it’s a stone-cold verified fact that planes hit those towers and they collapsed as we saw on TV.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s impossible to keep a million eye witnesses from seeing, recording, and talking about what happened. Also, it’s impossible to silence that many people. Especially before they spread the word. Given this impossibility, at some point you have to concede that there were planes and the towers collapsed from the top down.
Give real answers this time.
Stop already with the challenge crap. Nobody believes you’ll pay and most people don’t even believe you have the money. It’s a piss poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
Wow. That’s not even close to answering the questions. And, it’s a poor attempt at trying to avoid answering at that. We both know you understood what I was asking but I’ll clarify the questions for you just so there is no ambiguity. I'll even cut it down to two.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of the eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account and what was seen on TV?
Is it possible there was more going on that we don’t know about? Is it possible that it took more than just planes to bring down the towers? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I’ll concede that there may be more here than the official story. However, it’s a stone-cold verified fact that planes hit those towers and they collapsed as we saw on TV.
What you don’t seem to understand is that it’s impossible to keep a million eye witnesses from seeing, recording, and talking about what happened. Also, it’s impossible to silence that many people. Especially before they spread the word. Given this impossibility, at some point you have to concede that there were planes and the towers collapsed from the top down.
Give real answers this time.
Stop already with the challenge crap. Nobody believes you’ll pay and most people don’t even believe you have the money. It’s a piss poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
Well, planes do not bring down skyscrapers in fountains of dust and smoke - weak top part C cannot crush intact bottom part A by gravity. All footage of fountains of dust and smoke are CGI!
So any eyewitness having seen and made photos/videos of fountains of dust and smoke are lying or working for the terrorists.
It seems the whole WTC complex was destroyed by controlled demolitions using nano-thermite.
I used to live 1999-2016 at Freiberg i.Sa, which is hub of nano-chemistry university research and local industrial production and I recall someone suggesting that you could destroy steel structures using nano-thermite explosives.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
Mike youre objectively pretty bright. I've been reading your posts. I don't think it's worth your time to debate Heiwa. I'd love to discuss 9/11 with you if you want the point of view of an actual truther.I mean no disrespect but I'm not interested in having yet another protracted discussion on 9/11.
I think he is literally incapable of seeing the truth. His brain simply cannot process information that disagrees with him. He is damaged in some way that won't allow him to see anything that might prove him wrong. It's kind of sad really.Mike youre objectively pretty bright. I've been reading your posts. I don't think it's worth your time to debate Heiwa. I'd love to discuss 9/11 with you if you want the point of view of an actual truther.I mean no disrespect but I'm not interested in having yet another protracted discussion on 9/11.
Heiwa called me, my family, and my friends liars. I'm going to be a thorn in his side for a while and hope he sees the truth.
Mike
There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
Interesting info. However, I’ve always thought the velocity argument was a red herring. They would only need the plane to stay stable enough for straight flight long enough for impact...one minute tops. I believe I remember acceleration rate of a 767 at takeoff is >2 kts/sec. It’s probably higher in level flight let’s use that number. You could go from 400 to 510 knots in under a minute. From below that max operating velocity to 1.26 times max operating in about 55 seconds. If you started accelerating in Jersey I believe it’s reasonable to believe you could reach 510 knots at impact without the plane breaking up.If it weren't the planes we were told then where are they and the flight crew/passengers?
Mike
I'm not sure.
I know that this is not part of a commercial 767.
(https://s22.postimg.org/rd3wqp3k1/b97de014b9cf387effe27342e13e505c--wtc---north-to.jpg)
I know that all three planes that crashed exceeded their safety design limits.
(https://s29.postimg.org/knt8g4mmv/images-27.jpg)
I know that the pentagon plane pulled off maneuvers that led flight controllers into initially thinking that it was a military jet.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123822
I know that the plane hitting the pentagon had about a 0.1% chance of crashing like it did.
(https://s27.postimg.org/e1ek8bjmb/images-33.jpg)
I know that plane crashes don't vaporise planes except on 9/11.
(https://s11.postimg.org/qw9ce0z1v/Flight-93-1.jpg)
I'm not sure what happened to the people on the planes but please listen to this.
"It's a frame."
I know that this is not part of a commercial 767.Why? It looks like the fairing that covers the landing gear to me.
(https://s22.postimg.org/rd3wqp3k1/b97de014b9cf387effe27342e13e505c--wtc---north-to.jpg)
There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
Hm, Bush said that if you didn't join him in his war (that would last a very long time) against terrorism you were a terrorist. He talked like many twerps on this forum. Of course Bush lost that war so it is better forgotten.Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
Personal questions are off limits. Don't think by insulting my wife you're going to get to me. Nice try but no cigar.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
You said, he said on tv that if you disagreed with him you would be shot on sight. Show me the transcript of that or admit you lied.Hm, Bush said that if you didn't join him in his war (that would last a very long time) against terrorism you were a terrorist. He talked like many twerps on this forum. Of course Bush lost that war so it is better forgotten.Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
You said, he said on tv that if you disagreed with him you would be shot on sight. Show me the transcript of that or admit you lied.Hm, Bush said that if you didn't join him in his war (that would last a very long time) against terrorism you were a terrorist. He talked like many twerps on this forum. Of course Bush lost that war so it is better forgotten.Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
So you lied. Got it. Really it's just another example of you being a lying failure.You said, he said on tv that if you disagreed with him you would be shot on sight. Show me the transcript of that or admit you lied.Hm, Bush said that if you didn't join him in his war (that would last a very long time) against terrorism you were a terrorist. He talked like many twerps on this forum. Of course Bush lost that war so it is better forgotten.Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
Hm, GWB said so many things so they are difficult to locate at short notice. Try Google! What I really dislike about GWB is his love of human torture. I describe it at my website.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.So you lied. Got it. Really it's just another example of you being a lying failure.You said, he said on tv that if you disagreed with him you would be shot on sight. Show me the transcript of that or admit you lied.Hm, Bush said that if you didn't join him in his war (that would last a very long time) against terrorism you were a terrorist. He talked like many twerps on this forum. Of course Bush lost that war so it is better forgotten.Liar. Bush never said that. Show us the transcript of that statement or admit you are a liar and a failure.You really are afraid to answer the question. Amazing. You've been at this for how many years ? You didn't even do enough research to even answer a simple question that forms the basis you theory.There you go attacking my wife again. You can’t get me to back off by attacking me you’ll start attacking my family...is that how it works. Nice try.
That’s not what I asked. You're just posting crap to avoid being wrong. It's your theory so you're responsible for backing it up. Now, answer the questions.
1. Eyewitnesses in Jersey and Long Island could see the second plane come over the harbor from Jersey. If there was no plane, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone there were no planes?
2. The collapses were seen by those eyewitnesses; those from the east and west had an especially good view for that. If the towers didn’t collapse from the top down, why have none of those eyewitnesses come forth with testimony, photos, or videos that contradicts the official account of what was seen on TV and tell everyone that the towers didn't collapse from the top down?
Mike
I don't know any people in New Jersey and Long Island and what they saw 9/11 2001. If such people say they saw WTC towers collapse in fountains of smoke and dust, I say they lie. You cannot see these towers from Long Island.
I haven't seen any flag poles or similar structures collapse, so I could go and catch a camera and film it. But if they collapse, they break at a weak point in the structure, and the tops fall sideways and do not crush the intact part below.
And no smoke and dust.
I have analyzed 100's of structural failures of different kinds. But none produce smoke and dust!
You said you were married. But to what? Another twerp?
AGAIN, YOU DIDN’T ANSWER THE QUESTION. Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Are you really that stupid? You do know I’m from that area so why would you say you can’t see the towers from Long Island. AAMOF, you have a better view that you do from Jersey. Redhook and Brooklyn Heights on Long Island have direct line of sight and are closer than Jersey City, Bayonne, and Hoboken in New Jersey. You actually have better views than from New Jersey. Another lie or just plain ignorance on your part?
Mike
Hm, it seems a twerp married you, another twerp, and it is logical. Who else would marry a twerp.
Re your question about the official GWB/Condileezza 911 account with Arabs hijacking planes, etc, etc, I think they made it up. No Arabs, no hijackings. So no people at NJ/LI could have seen Arabs flying planes, etc, etc. They saw something else. Probably a magic show.
Have you ever been to a magig show? These magicians are pretty clever to fool you making people, rabbits and birds disappaer and appear. Only terrorists suggest it is real.
Shoddy Research
Mike
Hm, I remember GWB saying on TV just after 911 that, if you didn't believe him, you were a terrorist and would be shot at sight. So plenty eyewitnesses probably decided to shut up.
You avoid the question about your marriage. How did it happen? An accident? Where did you meet? In a mental hospital? It sounds romantic!
Hm, GWB said so many things so they are difficult to locate at short notice. Try Google! What I really dislike about GWB is his love of human torture. I describe it at my website.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.I know but when he throws out outright lies I like to call him on it. I honestly think he can't help but lie, it's just the way he is wired.
Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
. . . and have an interesting life full of surprises.
Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Mike
My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Mike
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Mike
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think disparaging my wife is going to make me quit. However, it's a pretty low blow and a demonstration of your lack of personal integrity.
You still keep avoiding the question. If there were many such witnesses then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account.
It's okay. You can admit it. Everyone knows the truth. Everyone knows there were planes and nearly 3000 deaths.
Mike
Out of a potential ten million or so people in the area, you're saying that the government figured out who the million-ish eyewitnesses were, visited and coerced every single one of them to keep quiet, and all this before they could hit the internet and cable news.My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Mike
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think disparaging my wife is going to make me quit. However, it's a pretty low blow and a demonstration of your lack of personal integrity.
You still keep avoiding the question. If there were many such witnesses then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account.
It's okay. You can admit it. Everyone knows the truth. Everyone knows there were planes and nearly 3000 deaths.
Mike
Hm, GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it.
Out of a potential ten million or so people in the area, you're saying that the government figured out who the million-ish eyewitnesses were, visited and coerced every single one of them to keep quiet, and all this before they could hit the internet and cable news.My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.Here's the question...I know you don't have the balls to answer it but here it is any way.Again you ignore the question. We all know the reason. Because, you know there isn't an answer. You know it's not possible to fake a "magic" show to that many people. You know it's not possible to fake a plane flying overhead in Jersey and then on into the south tower. You know it's not possible to fake a top down collapse for that many people from so many different angles/perspectives.
I'm thinking it was just Anders' spin on GWB's "If you aren't with us, then you're against us" speech. You have to remember that Anders is old and senile, so he tends to embellish things.
Thanks for not asking a stupid question, as usual, but thinking. That is progress. And you are right about GWB and his torture program.
However, I am not old and senile but young and fit ... and good looking and rich ... and intelligent and have an interesting life full of surprises. Plenty twerps hate me for it. That's why they are twerps.
You know all this but you won't admit it because it negates your whole analysis. We all know your analysis is a piece of shit. And, don't bring up your challenge because everyone know you won't pay.
That's why you won't answer the question.
Mike
Please, repeat the question I have not answered.
It know it is very easy to fake "magic" shows to fool million of people.
The first was the a-bomb show 1945! No nuclear bombs exploded anywhere and killed nobody but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and scare the whole world.
The second was the space race to put men on the Moon ending 1969. No humans have ever been in space anywhere, as they cannot come back and land, but with a "magic" propaganda show it was easy to fool and impress the whole world again ... how easy it was. But it was just trick films.
The 911 Manhattan/Pentagon 911 "magic" show was the third.
So what was the question?
BTW - how is your wife? Rotten?
Why hasn’t even a single one of those eyewitnesses contradicted the official account with anything that backs up your no plane, bottom up theory??
Mike
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think disparaging my wife is going to make me quit. However, it's a pretty low blow and a demonstration of your lack of personal integrity.
You still keep avoiding the question. If there were many such witnesses then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account.
It's okay. You can admit it. Everyone knows the truth. Everyone knows there were planes and nearly 3000 deaths.
Mike
Hm, GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it.
That’s the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. You can’t even come up with a plausible story.
Here’s the truth. You don’t have to balls to admit you’re wrong.
Mike
Well, I just said "GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it."I hate to tell you this, but GWB & Co haven't had much to say about the situation for the better part of 10 years.
Don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial.Well, I just said "GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it."I hate to tell you this, but GWB & Co haven't had much to say about the situation for the better part of 10 years.
I never actually quoted you but okay, I’ll play your silly misdirection game. Now you want me to believe that you weren’t implying coercion. Okay, then you still didn’t answer the question.Out of a potential ten million or so people in the area, you're saying that the government figured out who the million-ish eyewitnesses were, visited and coerced every single one of them to keep quiet, and all this before they could hit the internet and cable news.My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think disparaging my wife is going to make me quit. However, it's a pretty low blow and a demonstration of your lack of personal integrity.
You still keep avoiding the question. If there were many such witnesses then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account?
It's okay. You can admit it. Everyone knows the truth. Everyone knows there were planes and nearly 3000 deaths.
Mike
Hm, GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it.
That’s the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. You can’t even come up with a plausible story.
Here’s the truth. You don’t have to balls to admit you’re wrong.
Mike
Well, I just said "GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it."
Why can't you quote me correctly?
Re 911 I don't believe in Arabs landing planes into buildings, which later, suddenly collapses from top, when the weak top crushes the intact, solid bottom producing a fountain of smoke and dust shown live on TV. It contradicts my axiom. And nobody has shown that my axiom is wrong.
I never actually quoted you but okay, I’ll play your silly misdirection game. Now you want me to believe that you weren’t implying coercion. Okay, then you still didn’t answer the question.Out of a potential ten million or so people in the area, you're saying that the government figured out who the million-ish eyewitnesses were, visited and coerced every single one of them to keep quiet, and all this before they could hit the internet and cable news.My wife is wonderful as always. We've been married 34 years last June.
But there are plenty such eyewitnesses. AE911 quote them at their site, etc, etc. Prof. Steven Jones have plenty followers supporting his thermite theory. Just Google. There are hundreds of sites with persons questioning the official lies.
My contribution is only the Björkman Axiom! A small top C a structure cannot crush the intact bottom A into smoke and dust by gravity. Only terrorists believe the opposite.
GWB and Condileezza have no eyewitnesses of their fantasies. They are terrorists.
BTW - How is your wife? Do you have one? Why hasn't she divorced you? You are a twerp.
You, on the other hand, are an idiot if you think disparaging my wife is going to make me quit. However, it's a pretty low blow and a demonstration of your lack of personal integrity.
You still keep avoiding the question. If there were many such witnesses then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account?
It's okay. You can admit it. Everyone knows the truth. Everyone knows there were planes and nearly 3000 deaths.
Mike
Hm, GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it.
That’s the stupidest thing you’ve said yet. You can’t even come up with a plausible story.
Here’s the truth. You don’t have to balls to admit you’re wrong.
Mike
Well, I just said "GWB & Co don't like people contradicting them. GWB & Co like torture. US Congress has confirmed it."
Why can't you quote me correctly?
Re 911 I don't believe in Arabs landing planes into buildings, which later, suddenly collapses from top, when the weak top crushes the intact, solid bottom producing a fountain of smoke and dust shown live on TV. It contradicts my axiom. And nobody has shown that my axiom is wrong.
Nobody needs to disprove your axiom and here’s why. For argument sake let’s assume the videos were faked. You automatically assume that means there were no planes at all. That’s a completely illogical and unfounded assumption. The faked videos could easily mean they were trying to hide the type planes that were used? It could also mean they weren’t exact 767s the official account said they were.
So, here’s the big problem. You have videos that you believe are faked but you provide absolutely no evidence as to why they were faked. And, without any evidence to support it, you make the assumption that faked videos means no planes. That's akin to saying all crows are black, all crows are birds, and therefore all birds are black. Your conclusion doesn't make any logical sense.
Given the huge number of eyewitnesses and TV cameras, it makes more logical sense that if there was a “cover up”, it was intended to hide the true identity of the planes rather than there being no planes at all.
Your assumption that faked videos equals no planes is yet another example of your shoddy research. It also means that since your analysis is based on there being no planes, the analysis itself is invalid and your so called axiom is a piece of shit.
Now, since you’re clearly implying your comment was not answer my question, answer it now. If there were many eyewitnesses, then why hasn't even one come forward with evidence that contradicts the official account? Clearly, the reason is because there were planes.
Mike
Since that’s the same non-answer you gave me before, and you’ve avoided answering repeated times, it becomes obvious you didn’t research is enough to even answer such a fundamental question. A question you should be able to answer since it’s the basis of your no plane theory.
Hm, don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial. They are the reasons why no eyewitnesses come forward. Anyone seeing anything that GWB didn't see is a terrorist.
Since that’s the same non-answer you gave me before, and you’ve avoided answering repeated times, it becomes obvious you didn’t research is enough to even answer such a fundamental question. A question you should be able to answer since it’s the basis of your no plane theory.
Hm, don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial. They are the reasons why no eyewitnesses come forward. Anyone seeing anything that GWB didn't see is a terrorist.
Now for an even more fundamental question. Faking the videos mean one of a few things.
1. They were faked to hide the fact that there were no planes.
2. They were faked to hide the actual identity of the planes.
3. They were faked to hide the fact that the planes were not 767s.
If we make the assumption the videos/photos were faked, and since you had to do the research to determine which of these scenarios was the most likely, why did you conclude there were no planes vice covering up the type of planes?
Mike
That's not what I asked you. Reread the question and try again.Since that’s the same non-answer you gave me before, and you’ve avoided answering repeated times, it becomes obvious you didn’t research is enough to even answer such a fundamental question. A question you should be able to answer since it’s the basis of your no plane theory.
Hm, don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial. They are the reasons why no eyewitnesses come forward. Anyone seeing anything that GWB didn't see is a terrorist.
Now for an even more fundamental question. Faking the videos mean one of a few things.
1. They were faked to hide the fact that there were no planes.
2. They were faked to hide the actual identity of the planes.
3. They were faked to hide the fact that the planes were not 767s.
If we make the assumption the videos/photos were faked, and since you had to do the research to determine which of these scenarios was the most likely, why did you conclude there were no planes vice covering up the type of planes?
Mike
All footage of WTC911 is false! First the planes slicing into the buildings. Second the buildings on fire up top. Third the confusion down at streel level with fake reporters running around talking to fake eye witnesses, while, amazingly, the towers collapse in the backgrounds in fountains of smoke and dust. Fourth - fake people running away on the ground. Fifth - fake people taking pictures from NJ and LI.
Great show but ... all fakery. Easy to show in a court of justice, if the Arabs at Gitmo are brought there. What are we waiting for? Shouldn't the Arabs be given a fair trial?
That's not what I asked you. Reread the question and try again.Since that’s the same non-answer you gave me before, and you’ve avoided answering repeated times, it becomes obvious you didn’t research is enough to even answer such a fundamental question. A question you should be able to answer since it’s the basis of your no plane theory.
Hm, don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial. They are the reasons why no eyewitnesses come forward. Anyone seeing anything that GWB didn't see is a terrorist.
Now for an even more fundamental question. Faking the videos mean one of a few things.
1. They were faked to hide the fact that there were no planes.
2. They were faked to hide the actual identity of the planes.
3. They were faked to hide the fact that the planes were not 767s.
If we make the assumption the videos/photos were faked, and since you had to do the research to determine which of these scenarios was the most likely, why did you conclude there were no planes vice covering up the type of planes?
Mike
All footage of WTC911 is false! First the planes slicing into the buildings. Second the buildings on fire up top. Third the confusion down at streel level with fake reporters running around talking to fake eye witnesses, while, amazingly, the towers collapse in the backgrounds in fountains of smoke and dust. Fourth - fake people running away on the ground. Fifth - fake people taking pictures from NJ and LI.
Great show but ... all fakery. Easy to show in a court of justice, if the Arabs at Gitmo are brought there. What are we waiting for? Shouldn't the Arabs be given a fair trial?
Mike
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.That's not what I asked you. Reread the question and try again.Since that’s the same non-answer you gave me before, and you’ve avoided answering repeated times, it becomes obvious you didn’t research is enough to even answer such a fundamental question. A question you should be able to answer since it’s the basis of your no plane theory.
Hm, don't tell me. Tell the poor, tortured, Gitmo Arabs still awaiting trial. They are the reasons why no eyewitnesses come forward. Anyone seeing anything that GWB didn't see is a terrorist.
Now for an even more fundamental question. Faking the videos mean one of a few things.
1. They were faked to hide the fact that there were no planes.
2. They were faked to hide the actual identity of the planes.
3. They were faked to hide the fact that the planes were not 767s.
If we make the assumption the videos/photos were faked, and since you had to do the research to determine which of these scenarios was the most likely, why did you conclude there were no planes vice covering up the type of planes?
Mike
All footage of WTC911 is false! First the planes slicing into the buildings. Second the buildings on fire up top. Third the confusion down at streel level with fake reporters running around talking to fake eye witnesses, while, amazingly, the towers collapse in the backgrounds in fountains of smoke and dust. Fourth - fake people running away on the ground. Fifth - fake people taking pictures from NJ and LI.
Great show but ... all fakery. Easy to show in a court of justice, if the Arabs at Gitmo are brought there. What are we waiting for? Shouldn't the Arabs be given a fair trial?
Mike
OK -
Question: If we make the assumption the videos/photos were faked, and since you had to do the research to determine which of these scenarios was the most likely, why did you conclude there were no planes vice covering up the type of planes?
Answer: The planes were just CGI to open the magic show. No real planes existed slicing into any towers. And then there is the Björkman axiom. You can slice the top C of a structure as you like but the top C cannot crush the intact bottom part A by gravity.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
Told you. He is literally too mentally disturbed to understand the question. He is just a poor sick fuck with delusions of grandeur.Hm, I just answered the question. But I agree? There are plenty sick twerps at this forum.
Told you. He is literally too mentally disturbed to understand the question. He is just a poor sick fuck with delusions of grandeur.But I agree? There are plenty sick twerps at this forum.
Told you. He is literally too mentally disturbed to understand the question. He is just a poor sick fuck with delusions of grandeur.But I agree? There are plenty sick twerps at this forum.
I don't know, do you? ???
I haven't really seen plenty of sick twerps but I have seen one that's extraordinarily stupid, suffers from Dunning Kruger's, and tries all sorts of ridiculous antics to get out of facing facts.
I'll give you one million euros if you can figure out who that stupid twerp is!
Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
No! Your research is shit. Just because you say the videos/photos were "faked" is NOT proof that there were no planes. Just because you don't think planes alone could bring down the towers has nothing what so ever to do with whether or not there were planes. It's in illogical assumption that just so happens to make your 2D analysis easier. Coincidence or laziness?Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
That's not an argument based on research, excellent or otherwise. It's an argument based on incredulity.
Furthermore, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
(Sorry, I probably got a little too complicated there for you. I just don't know how to dumb it down any more than that.)
No! Your research is shit. Just because you say the videos/photos were "faked" is NOT proof that there were no planes. Just because you don't think planes alone could bring down the towers has nothing what so ever to do with whether or not there were planes. It's in illogical assumption that just so happens to make your 2D analysis easier. Coincidence or laziness?Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
Fact: You have no evidence why the images were "faked"
Fact: You have no evidence there were no planes
You made up the part about the planes without any evidence that's why the images were "faked". That not only shoddy research it's dishonest and disrespectful to those that died on those planes.
And, since you made that shit up your analysis is a big steaming Pile-O-Poo.
Mike
Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
That's not an argument based on research, excellent or otherwise. It's an argument based on incredulity.
Furthermore, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
(Sorry, I probably got a little too complicated there for you. I just don't know how to dumb it down any more than that.)
No my research is excellent. No doubt about it. Noone has found any fault with it.
Thanks, so we agree no planes caused the towers to collapse.Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
That's not an argument based on research, excellent or otherwise. It's an argument based on incredulity.
Furthermore, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
(Sorry, I probably got a little too complicated there for you. I just don't know how to dumb it down any more than that.)
No my research is excellent. No doubt about it. Noone has found any fault with it.
It's really not. No doubt about that. No-one has ever looked at your research and thought "good research." Ever.
Also, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
I found fault with it and I explained it in my post but you ignored it because you can't justify it.No! Your research is shit. Just because you say the videos/photos were "faked" is NOT proof that there were no planes. Just because you don't think planes alone could bring down the towers has nothing what so ever to do with whether or not there were planes. It's in illogical assumption that just so happens to make your 2D analysis easier. Coincidence or laziness?Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
Fact: You have no evidence why the images were "faked"
Fact: You have no evidence there were no planes
You made up the part about the planes without any evidence that's why the images were "faked". That not only shoddy research it's dishonest and disrespectful to those that died on those planes.
And, since you made that shit up your analysis is a big steaming Pile-O-Poo.
Mike
No my research is excellent. No doubt about it. Noone has found any fault with it.
Please explain what is wrong with my findings.
in my mind I designed a model of the tower . . . This was excellent research.
Do you understand?
Thanks, so we agree no planes caused the towers to collapse.Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
That's not an argument based on research, excellent or otherwise. It's an argument based on incredulity.
Furthermore, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
(Sorry, I probably got a little too complicated there for you. I just don't know how to dumb it down any more than that.)
No my research is excellent. No doubt about it. Noone has found any fault with it.
It's really not. No doubt about that. No-one has ever looked at your research and thought "good research." Ever.
Also, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
Thanks, so we agree no planes caused the towers to collapse.Finally the truth. You concluded there were no real planes without any investigation to verify your hypothesis. You spent all that time testing and retesting you analysis model, creating cardboard demonstrations models, and researching and writing you webpage. Yet, with all of that, you never once did any research into the planes and the deaths.
I knew you would just repeat the same thing and not actually give an answer. Everyone here can tell that’s doesn’t answer the question. Just to prove it to you, let's ask.
Did Heiwa answer the question I asked him?
I didn’t ask about C, the axiom, A, gravity. You did NOT answer the question. Is the question too difficult for you to understand? Just let me know if you need me to dumb it down for you.
How about you actually answer the question? If the planes were CGI, how did you conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Mike
So the question is: If the planes were CGI, how did I conclude that meant there were no planes when it could have meant they were covering up the type of planes used for impact?
Strange question with an if, how, when, etc. Are you asking your wife such questions?
There is no doubt the planes recorded on available footage are CGI, which means that the rest of the footage is also CGI, e.g. fire balls, towers, people jumping from windows, blablabla. It was all a Hollywood movie shown on TV, when the whole WTC were wiped out.
So I simply concluded there were no real planes and fire balls to destroy any real towers.
I don't know how the towers were destroyed. Of course I have some ideas that I mention at my website, e.g. controlled demolitions using nano thermite. It must have been som clever innovative method. Nukes are not possible as they do not work at all.
The type of plane used in the footage is of no interest. With CGI you just copy/paste any plane anywhere in the footage you create.
The planes would have been critical to your analysis. It would have been necessary to determine the amount of damage to the interior in order to determine if the official account even made sense. Obviously something you didn't do. The very definition of shoddy research.
All because you just decided there were no planes. A conclusion without any basis...other that you wanted it to be that way, shoddy research.
Mike
My research is excellent! 911 I was told that Arabs had hijacked planes and landed two of them in skyscrapers that later collapsed. I had the opportunity to watch plenty footage of the events and noticed that it was all trick films.
My speciality is structural dynamic damage analysis and in my mind I designed a model of the tower and let a plane slice into it. The first result was that the tower sliced the plane into small pieces that dropped on the ground.
So I changed the model a little and allowed the plane to fly through an open window, stop and explode in a fireball. No collapse!
Then I started to remove structural members in the landing zone. And after a while the top part C came dropping down by gravity on the intact bottom part A and ... C bounced on A.
There was no way that top C could crush bottom A by gravity.
This was excellent research. I describe it at my website!
No planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity. No planes.
Of course there are planes that fly around, I see them all the time, but no planes could cause the collapse of a skyscraper from top by gravity.
Do you understand?
That's not an argument based on research, excellent or otherwise. It's an argument based on incredulity.
Furthermore, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
(Sorry, I probably got a little too complicated there for you. I just don't know how to dumb it down any more than that.)
No my research is excellent. No doubt about it. Noone has found any fault with it.
It's really not. No doubt about that. No-one has ever looked at your research and thought "good research." Ever.
Also, whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
That is not what I said at all! With that kind of comprehension it's no wonder you do such Shoddy Research!
Try again and read a little slower this time. I'll give you a million euros if you can come up with an intelligent response:
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
Who said anything about landing?
Heiwa, if an airplane comes to a complete stop anywhere but an airport, it's called a crash.
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
I'm not going to play your stupid fucking game.
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
I'm not going to play your stupid fucking game.
I know. You are a twerp.
He's never going to admit what's obvious to everyone else. His research is shit.
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
I'm not going to play your stupid fucking game.
I know. You are a twerp.
Heiwa to Bullwinkle who will not play his stupid game: It's because your a twerp!
Heiwa to those of us who do play his stupid game: You're all twerps!
Millions saw the plane crash into the side of the towers. Debris of the planes was found at the site. You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever. Your research amounts to, "I would not expect a plane to be able to crash into a building, therefore planes did not crash into the towers." That is not research by any standards!
He's never going to admit what's obvious to everyone else. His research is shit.
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
I'm not going to play your stupid fucking game.
I know. You are a twerp.
Heiwa to Bullwinkle who will not play his stupid game: It's because your a twerp!
Heiwa to those of us who do play his stupid game: You're all twerps!
Millions saw the plane crash into the side of the towers. Debris of the planes was found at the site. You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever. Your research amounts to, "I would not expect a plane to be able to crash into a building, therefore planes did not crash into the towers." That is not research by any standards!
Mike
One might say an obsession. ;DHe's never going to admit what's obvious to everyone else. His research is shit.
What are you trying to say? Do you support terrorism?
I'm not going to play your stupid fucking game.
I know. You are a twerp.
Heiwa to Bullwinkle who will not play his stupid game: It's because your a twerp!
Heiwa to those of us who do play his stupid game: You're all twerps!
Millions saw the plane crash into the side of the towers. Debris of the planes was found at the site. You have no evidence for your claims whatsoever. Your research amounts to, "I would not expect a plane to be able to crash into a building, therefore planes did not crash into the towers." That is not research by any standards!
Mike
Shit is his specialty.
Heiwa, if an airplane comes to a complete stop anywhere but an airport, it's called a crash.
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.That is without a doubt one of the stupidest posts I've seen from you yet.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
So according to you, the plane went through the building and landed somewhere else?
Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Mike
Another personal attack because you can't defend your shoddy research.Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Mike
How is your wife, you twerp?
I offer anyone €1M since many years to show that I am 100% wrong about a-bombs, space travel, an accident at sea, 911 and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htmAnother personal attack because you can't defend your shoddy research.Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Mike
How is your wife, you twerp?
Mike
Just stop already. Nobody believes you'll pay some €5M to cover all those challenges.I offer anyone €1M since many years to show that I am 100% wrong about a-bombs, space travel, an accident at sea, 911 and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htmAnother personal attack because you can't defend your shoddy research.Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Mike
How is your wife, you twerp?
Mike
I offer anyone €1M since many years to show that I am 100% wrong about a-bombs, space travel, an accident at sea, 911 and fusion on Earth. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htmAnother personal attack because you can't defend your shoddy research.Your wrong and you can't prove that statement. You made it up to fit your analysis without researching whether or not there were planes. Shoddy Research!Absolutely remarkable.I explain more at
No planes, no Arabs, etc, etc.
Mike
How is your wife, you twerp?
Mike
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
But GWB and Condoleezza named 19 Arabs that did it and the purpose was to destroy the towers and if you don't agree you are a terrorist.
Yes, I may be stupid answering twerp questions but the answer is that planes cannot fly through skyscraper walls. Anyone filming such an event and publishing it on the internet is part of the show. You know, magicians often has agents in the audience to make believe.
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
But GWB and Condoleezza named 19 Arabs that did it and the purpose was to destroy the towers and if you don't agree you are a terrorist.
Who GWB and Condoleezza named is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
I would ask if you're really this stupid but, sadly, I already know the answer.
Still won't admit you have no idea whether or not there were planes. That makes you a lying troll.Yes, I may be stupid answering twerp questions but the answer is that planes cannot fly through skyscraper walls. Anyone filming such an event and publishing it on the internet is part of the show. You know, magicians often has agents in the audience to make believe.
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
But GWB and Condoleezza named 19 Arabs that did it and the purpose was to destroy the towers and if you don't agree you are a terrorist.
Who GWB and Condoleezza named is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
I would ask if you're really this stupid but, sadly, I already know the answer.
Still won't admit you have no idea whether or not there were planes. That makes you a lying troll.Yes, I may be stupid answering twerp questions but the answer is that planes cannot fly through skyscraper walls. Anyone filming such an event and publishing it on the internet is part of the show. You know, magicians often has agents in the audience to make believe.
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
But GWB and Condoleezza named 19 Arabs that did it and the purpose was to destroy the towers and if you don't agree you are a terrorist.
Who GWB and Condoleezza named is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
I would ask if you're really this stupid but, sadly, I already know the answer.
Since you 9/11 heavily relies on some grand conspiracy, that also makes you just another crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Mike
You don’t know, you can’t prove, and you never researched whether or not there were planes.Still won't admit you have no idea whether or not there were planes. That makes you a lying troll.Yes, I may be stupid answering twerp questions but the answer is that planes cannot fly through skyscraper walls. Anyone filming such an event and publishing it on the internet is part of the show. You know, magicians often has agents in the audience to make believe.
Whether or not planes flying into the towers could cause the collapse is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
But GWB and Condoleezza named 19 Arabs that did it and the purpose was to destroy the towers and if you don't agree you are a terrorist.
Who GWB and Condoleezza named is not really relevant in determining whether or not planes did fly into the towers.
I would ask if you're really this stupid but, sadly, I already know the answer.
Since you 9/11 heavily relies on some grand conspiracy, that also makes you just another crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Mike
Of course there were no planes. Fake planes were part of the show, though, all pre-recorded CGI, etc, etc.
I am not in the conspiracy theory business.
My biz is safety at sea.
http://heiwaco.com .
I assume 911 was put together to start wars of all sorts and to make particular interests richer. I am happy I have nothing to do with such twerps.
Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
It never occurred to me either. But let us not get distracted from the topic of this thread.
Boots ;D
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
It never occurred to me either. But let us not get distracted from the topic of this thread.
Boots ;D
I fully agree - orbital mechanics.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
Nope. You're wrong, you're a liar, you're a conspiracy nut job, and nobody you will pay out any money and most don't even believe you have it.Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
It never occurred to me either. But let us not get distracted from the topic of this thread.
Boots ;D
I fully agree - orbital mechanics. Twerps propose it is simple for a spacecraft to blast off from Earth and then travel to the Moon and land there, etc, blahblah. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#3D !
The target - the Moon - is orbiting Earth and the start point Earth is rotating around itself, while orbiting the Sun.
There are many ways to do it - straight, curved or very curved. The trips have different departure and arrival speeds and directions, take different times and require different amounts of fuel. See post #2!
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/AP11el.gif)
I personally think it is not possible at all. You cannot carry the fuel with you. I have since many years tried to establish what force to apply at what time and in what direction to be catapulted to the Moon and I am willing to pay €1M for an answer. But ... nobody knows how to do it.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
Well it's a good thing we have supercomputers then to calculate all the necessary variables.
No I am not a liar. But US presidents, their government departments of war and similar and the Mainstream Media are liars, when they say that (1) a-bombs work 1945, (2) space travel is easy and Americans have been on the Moon 1969 and (3) Arab terrorists can fly planes into skyscrapers that then collapse from top down 2001. Other lies I detest are (4) that bow visors can silently be knocked of ships in storms 1994 and (5) fusion on Earth is possible/just around the corner 2018.Nope. You're wrong, you're a liar, you're a conspiracy nut job, and nobody you will pay out any money and most don't even believe you have it.Can you please stop writing your name at the end of every post you make? Ok, you're Mike. Sigs exist for a reason, you can put it there if you think it's very important for everyone to know you're Mike.Sorry. Force of habit. I've been posting online a long time. Back in the dial-up days, before nice pretty forum software, that's what I did.
Andreas
It never occurred to me that it might offend someone.
Mike...maybe for that last time. ;D
It never occurred to me either. But let us not get distracted from the topic of this thread.
Boots ;D
I fully agree - orbital mechanics. Twerps propose it is simple for a spacecraft to blast off from Earth and then travel to the Moon and land there, etc, blahblah. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#3D !
The target - the Moon - is orbiting Earth and the start point Earth is rotating around itself, while orbiting the Sun.
There are many ways to do it - straight, curved or very curved. The trips have different departure and arrival speeds and directions, take different times and require different amounts of fuel. See post #2!
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/AP11el.gif)
I personally think it is not possible at all. You cannot carry the fuel with you. I have since many years tried to establish what force to apply at what time and in what direction to be catapulted to the Moon and I am willing to pay €1M for an answer. But ... nobody knows how to do it.
Mike
Heiwa, I don't believe the bullshit you're pedaling but even so, I could put up a lot better arguments then you do. You always bring up red herrings and irrelevant facts as though they're supporting your claim.
You still haven't provided any proof why the planes didn't fly into the towers. The closest you came was to say, "I don't think a plane could fly through the wall of a skyscraper like that, therefore there were no planes."
Snowballs, brick walls, CGI, GWB and Condoleezza do not prove that there were no planes. Millions of people who can give firsthand testimony are sound evidence that there were planes. I know some of them personally. They are not liars or fakes.
Regarding your latest photo, what does it prove? Nothing! That photo could exist if the mission was fake and it could exist if the mission was real. Do you know what all those people were doing? Neither do I. But then, do you know what all the people at Google, or Microsoft or Apple are doing? No you don't! Does that mean that computers and the internet aren't real? What stupid arguments you make. Like I said, I'm tempted to start arguing on your behalf, just to show you how it's done.
Heiwa, I don't believe the bullshit you're pedaling but even so, I could put up a lot better arguments then you do. You always bring up red herrings and irrelevant facts as though they're supporting your claim.
You still haven't provided any proof why the planes didn't fly into the towers. The closest you came was to say, "I don't think a plane could fly through the wall of a skyscraper like that, therefore there were no planes."
Snowballs, brick walls, CGI, GWB and Condoleezza do not prove that there were no planes. Millions of people who can give firsthand testimony are sound evidence that there were planes. I know some of them personally. They are not liars or fakes.
Regarding your latest photo, what does it prove? Nothing! That photo could exist if the mission was fake and it could exist if the mission was real. Do you know what all those people were doing? Neither do I. But then, do you know what all the people at Google, or Microsoft or Apple are doing? No you don't! Does that mean that computers and the internet aren't real? What stupid arguments you make. Like I said, I'm tempted to start arguing on your behalf, just to show you how it's done.
Haven't I provided proof that aluminium planes cannot fly through walls of vertical steel columnes supported by horizontal concrete floors?
I thought it was obvious that the plane is sliced into pieces and that the parts bounce off the wall and drops to the ground.
Any person saying that planes can fly through walls is a liar.
They may have seen something like it but it is proof of nothing.
Re the photo of 100+ NASA Moon travel experts sitting in front of computer screens or whatever assisting Apollo 11+ to fly to the Moon it is just fake. Plenty actors playing 'experts' in front of mock-up computers.
Only twerps believe it is real.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
You find the dV first and then the fuel.
I don't know why you insist so much on the direction. There is one direction you have to thrust to in Hohmann transfers, the direction perpendicular to the radius of your orbit (from its epicenter). The force depends on how long the burn lasts, the outcome is more or less the same.
The "slow curved trajectory" takes more fuel and gets you somewhere else. There's ONE possible Hohmann transfer to get your apoapsis to a certain point from a certain orbit.
You know that burn won't get you on the ground straight away, right? You will have to make another burn to be captured in the Moon's orbit and circularize your trajectory (a Hohmann transfer again) and another to bring your periapsis down and land.
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
You find the dV first and then the fuel.
I don't know why you insist so much on the direction. There is one direction you have to thrust to in Hohmann transfers, the direction perpendicular to the radius of your orbit (from its epicenter). The force depends on how long the burn lasts, the outcome is more or less the same.
The "slow curved trajectory" takes more fuel and gets you somewhere else. There's ONE possible Hohmann transfer to get your apoapsis to a certain point from a certain orbit.
You know that burn won't get you on the ground straight away, right? You will have to make another burn to be captured in the Moon's orbit and circularize your trajectory (a Hohmann transfer again) and another to bring your periapsis down and land.
So when and where in the EPO do you apply the force (N) to obtain a dV (m/s) so you can calculate the fuel required (kg)? The velocity in EPO is quite high and, if you apply the force at the wrong location/time, you are dead.
What dV are you talking about? ~3 700 m/s? What force (N) is required, how long do you apply it (s) and what is the fuel consumption (kg)?
And how are you certain you arrive, where the Moon gravity will take over?
I know. I described to you how you should calculate some tume ago. But you didn't bother.No, you didn't.
Yes I did. I told you how to calculate Hohmann transfers. All you have to do is look up the apsises, and figure out the velocity at the moon encounter, and you're done.
No, it doesn't work like that. Before blasting off out of EPO you have to (1) decide your future trajectory, establish (2) the time (GMT), (3) what force (N) to apply in EPO, (4) its direction (°), (5) how much fuel (kg) to be used, (6) your departure location, (7) departure velocity (m/s) and then verify that you are on the right way and will actually arrive at position X where Moon gravity will pull you on for landing.
What Hohmann transfer do you do - a fast, direct one using plenty fuel or a slow, curved one using less fuel?
A small mistake and you will go off into eternity.
You sound like a twerp with no knowledge of the topic. Why do you waste your time here?
You find the dV first and then the fuel.
I don't know why you insist so much on the direction. There is one direction you have to thrust to in Hohmann transfers, the direction perpendicular to the radius of your orbit (from its epicenter). The force depends on how long the burn lasts, the outcome is more or less the same.
The "slow curved trajectory" takes more fuel and gets you somewhere else. There's ONE possible Hohmann transfer to get your apoapsis to a certain point from a certain orbit.
You know that burn won't get you on the ground straight away, right? You will have to make another burn to be captured in the Moon's orbit and circularize your trajectory (a Hohmann transfer again) and another to bring your periapsis down and land.
So when and where in the EPO do you apply the force (N) to obtain a dV (m/s) so you can calculate the fuel required (kg)? The velocity in EPO is quite high and, if you apply the force at the wrong location/time, you are dead.
What dV are you talking about? ~3 700 m/s? What force (N) is required, how long do you apply it (s) and what is the fuel consumption (kg)?
And how are you certain you arrive, where the Moon gravity will take over?
Well, that's why you're not going to apply it to the wrong direction. What you're saying is comparable to "if you're in a highway and you rapidly steer your car the wrong direction, you're going to crash".
You make the burn at the point where you've calculated beforehand will get you to the moon. How are you certain that it will get you there? Well, you're certain because you know the distance to the moon, where it will be at any given time, and how long it's going to take for your spaceship to complete its trajectory towards that point. All that is known so you can be certain.
I don't know what the dV required for the trans lunar injection is, you can calculate it. I'm on my phone now and I can't do it for you. ~3.5km/s seems reasonable. I told you the force is irrelevant, and specific to the spacecraft. You can look up how powerful Saturn V's engines of that stage were and find out. As long as you thrust long enough but your engines aren't so weak the burn will take so long as to completely miss your node the result is pretty much the same.
The fuel consumption is specific to your spacecraft and you can calculate it given the dV using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation.
I'm not american. I'm Greek, I wonder what kind of racist nonsense you have to say about that.
Everything you said is completely stupid. Not a single thing you said makes using Hohmann transfers unusable in the situation. You're just saying "I don't understand it and sounds comex to me, so it's impossible!". If the issue to you is the inclination of the planes, adjusting the inclination a few degrees is pretty easy and requires just a small burn. The rest is just a Hohmann transfer.
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is always valid. You can just feed it the dV your rocket produces, the exhaust speed and the initial mass and you get the final mass. Pretty simple. You just have to calculate the dV required for the trans lunar injection, are you competent enough to do that?
I think you're a senile curmudgeonly twerp, that's what I think.
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is always valid and gives you the integral of the acceleration due to the rocket's engines over the time of the burn, ie the dV.
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
So according to you, the plane went through the building
and landed somewhere else?
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.
We could all see live on TV how the plane just disappeared into the building behind the wall. No crash.
A crash would have been the steel columns slicing the plane into pieces that would drop down on the ground outside the wall.
Do a test your self. Throw a snow ball on a brick wall. What happens?
Lol he's got you there.
I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
Hit a nerve hey? Hurts when it's true.
I'm happy to have an in depth discussions with anyone on 9/11. MaNaeSWolf and I had a great discussion. Unfortunately he left. If you wanted to debate you are months late.
Bhs has extensive experience in mechanical engineering and is happy to explain why the plane cutting through the steel columns like butter while keeping its structural shape couldn't have happened.
But you didn't want a real debate. You want to circlejerk and call Heiwa an idiot with the rest of these mouthbreathers.
That nerve tho.
There's enough info in the post above to keep you busy.
Stick to debating Heiwa if you can't handle me. I have no doubt people saw planes.
Check it out.
Bhs has extensive experience in mechanical engineering and is happy to explain why the plane cutting through the steel columns like butter while keeping its structural shape couldn't have happened.
Something hit those buildings boots, just not a commercial plane. Many witnesses saw this.
Watch the video if you are brave enough.
Still won't engage any of the content.Bhs has extensive experience in mechanical engineering and is happy to explain why the plane cutting through the steel columns like butter while keeping its structural shape couldn't have happened.
Something hit those buildings boots, just not a commercial plane. Many witnesses saw this.
Watch the video if you are brave enough.
I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
So debate Heiwa. You "engaged" with my post then I schooled you, now you are running away. Goodbye Boots.
How massive were the steel columns that the planes crashed into at >500 mph?I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
Compared to the mass of wtc 1 and 2 it was indeed very light.
How massive were the steel columns that the planes crashed into at >500 mph?I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
Compared to the mass of wtc 1 and 2 it was indeed very light.
Ok what do you think about the multiple eyewitness' that say "that's not / wasnt a commercial plane." No windows etc.
Pure coincidence?
What do you think about a hollow aluminium plane totally keeping it's shape apon collision with Structural Steel? In the context of Newton and Galileo.
Ok what do you think about the multiple eyewitness' that say "that's not / wasn't a commercial plane." No windows etc.
Pure coincidence?
What do you think about a hollow aluminium plane totally keeping it's shape apon collision with reinforced Structural Steel? In the context of Newton and Galileo.
I don't know.
Being told that I am "running away" "afraid" have "been schooled" etc. just because I don't delve deeper into the issue is offensive and I don't intend to spend much time engaging with people who use those kind of tactics.
Why do you always interrupt an interesting discussion with a twerp question?How massive were the steel columns that the planes crashed into at >500 mph?I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
Compared to the mass of wtc 1 and 2 it was indeed very light.
Ok what do you think about the multiple eyewitness' that say "that's not / wasn't a commercial plane." No windows etc.
Pure coincidence?
What do you think about a hollow aluminium plane totally keeping it's shape apon collision with reinforced Structural Steel? In the context of Newton and Galileo.I don't know.
That's fine, no worries.Being told that I am "running away" "afraid" have "been schooled" etc. just because I don't delve deeper into the issue is offensive and I don't intend to spend much time engaging with people who use those kind of tactics.
To your credit that last post wasn't that bad.
If I missed anything of substance I apologise. I thought "I don't know" nicely summed up your well worded post. To be fair you had nothing on the eyewitnesses to the planes except "I don't know" and for the collision physics you also said "I don't know."
I didn't think you were being immature I recognised you trying and appreciated it.
Edit cause I feel bad about the mental gymnastics people do on this topic.
People can't punch "through" bricks, we can punch them and break them in half, we don't punch "through" bricks.
Sure ok. There was that one post where I lost my temper. I'm not going to be mr nice guy so others can walk all over me.
Sure ok. There was that one post where I lost my temper. I'm not going to be mr nice guy so others can walk all over me.
Maybe you should consider not walking all over other people.
Sure ok. There was that one post where I lost my temper. I'm not going to be mr nice guy so others can walk all over me.
Maybe you should consider not walking all over other people.
And be a doormat? Take all the insults / shilling with a smile and a thankyou? No thanks.
There are two types of people, the buyers and those who get bought. Actually there's one other kind.
Why do you always interrupt with twerp answers?Why do you always interrupt an interesting discussion with a twerp question?How massive were the steel columns that the planes crashed into at >500 mph?I am amazed at the number of twerp posts claiming that a light aluminium plane flying through a solid wall of steel columns is a crash.The max takeoff weight of a 757 is 255,000 lbs. I don't think that very many people would consider quarter of a million pounds to be light.
Compared to the mass of wtc 1 and 2 it was indeed very light.
Sure ok. There was that one post where I lost my temper. I'm not going to be mr nice guy so others can walk all over me.
Maybe you should consider not walking all over other people.
And be a doormat? Take all the insults / shilling with a smile and a thankyou? No thanks.
There are two types of people, the buyers and those who get bought. Actually there's one other kind.
Yeah. There's the kind who treats others with respect and generally gets treated with respect in return.
You treat people like shit.
:PSure ok. There was that one post where I lost my temper. I'm not going to be mr nice guy so others can walk all over me.
Maybe you should consider not walking all over other people.
And be a doormat? Take all the insults / shilling with a smile and a thankyou? No thanks.
There are two types of people, the buyers and those who get bought. Actually there's one other kind.
Yeah. There's the kind who treats others with respect and generally gets treated with respect in return.
You treat people like shit.
And you've been bought. Po ones nerfect. Nice guys finish last.
I'm not finishing first, far from it. There hasn't been as much winning as I had hoped. The swamp is bigger than I ever could have imagined. Baby steps, peoples fee fees might get a little hurt along the way. I am ok for this to happen.
I'm more than willing to have people hate me to do what I think is right. You aren't.
An important distinction.
You sound like crutonius. "If it's Trump or the Deep State then I support the Deep State."
Disgusting.
There's those balls. I knew I could find them somewhere.
Nice.
I'm not finishing first, far from it. There hasn't been as much winning as I had hoped. The swamp is bigger than I ever could have imagined. Baby steps, peoples fee fees might get a little hurt along the way. I am ok for this to happen.
I'm more than willing to have people hate me to do what I think is right. You aren't.
An important distinction.
You sound like crutonius. "If it's Trump or the Deep State then I support the Deep State."
Disgusting.
Would it help if I told you that the Deep State is a figment of 4chan's imagination?
I apologize for my rather large part in derailing this thread. I will try to refrain from posting about anything other than Heiwa's lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop for a good long while. ;D
We never discussed the fecal problems. That shit was just collected aboard.
. . . the result that NASA sent me some scientific notes about pissing in a hose,
I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
More than four beams. They reckon the planes cut pretty well clean through the elevator shafts.
(https://s10.postimg.org/q8ctxdws9/12-19-2012-12-30-31-_PM.png)
And to be fair what we saw did.
(https://s10.postimg.org/vxt2hp2yh/9_11_Second_Plane_Hit_4012.jpg)
To be fair on NIST they do say column 330 got severed by the plane.
Also why in gods name would they cgi wtc 7 collapsing? Just to f*ck with us? I have issues trusting you on this subject.
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is always valid and gives you the integral of the acceleration due to the rocket's engines over the time of the burn, ie the dV.
Well, in a strong gravity field, i.e. where e.g. Earth gravity acts on the rocket, the equation is not valid. During the time the rocket's engines burn, gravity reduces the acceleration, i.e. dV.
And as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied, the speed is continually reduced ... by gravity.
You better consider this when trying to calculate fuel required to go to the Moon or Mars.
Do you suppose that Arianespace considered the earth's strong gravitational field when using the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation to calculate the fuel required for geostationary orbit?
The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is always valid and gives you the integral of the acceleration due to the rocket's engines over the time of the burn, ie the dV.
Well, in a strong gravity field, i.e. where e.g. Earth gravity acts on the rocket, the equation is not valid. During the time the rocket's engines burn, gravity reduces the acceleration, i.e. dV.
And as soon as the rocket force is no longer applied, the speed is continually reduced ... by gravity.
You better consider this when trying to calculate fuel required to go to the Moon or Mars.
We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
Pls, be on topic. I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey didn't see any plane. Unfortunately I cannot list them here. It is OT.
But I am curious; how can a weak aluminium plane slice through four horizontal, solid floors behind a wall of strong steel columns ... and just disappear ... and then produce a FIREBALL behind the wall and on four floors ... like in a Hollywood movie?
We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.
So you are a believer of the conspiracy theory of planes flying through walls. Pathetic.We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
Pls, be on topic. I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey didn't see any plane. Unfortunately I cannot list them here. It is OT.
But I am curious; how can a weak aluminium plane slice through four horizontal, solid floors behind a wall of strong steel columns ... and just disappear ... and then produce a FIREBALL behind the wall and on four floors ... like in a Hollywood movie?
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe what I prove. You draw conclusions without a shred of evidence and build a whole theory on a lie. You're the lying, crackpot conspiracy theorist who no clue how to properly do research.So you are a believer of the conspiracy theory of planes flying through walls. Pathetic.We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
Pls, be on topic. I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey didn't see any plane. Unfortunately I cannot list them here. It is OT.
But I am curious; how can a weak aluminium plane slice through four horizontal, solid floors behind a wall of strong steel columns ... and just disappear ... and then produce a FIREBALL behind the wall and on four floors ... like in a Hollywood movie?
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe what I prove. You draw conclusions without a shred of evidence and build a whole theory on a lie. You're the lying, crackpot conspiracy theorist who no clue how to properly do research.So you are a believer of the conspiracy theory of planes flying through walls. Pathetic.We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
Pls, be on topic. I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey didn't see any plane. Unfortunately I cannot list them here. It is OT.
But I am curious; how can a weak aluminium plane slice through four horizontal, solid floors behind a wall of strong steel columns ... and just disappear ... and then produce a FIREBALL behind the wall and on four floors ... like in a Hollywood movie?
Mike
But nothing. Quit linking to your stupid site. You're wrong, you're a liar, and you did shoddy research. Plain and simple. Who was flying them or what kind of planes they were is completely irrelevant. They existed, everyone knows it and you refused to actually research it. That makes your analysis a piece of shit and you crackpot conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.I don't believe in conspiracy theories. I believe what I prove. You draw conclusions without a shred of evidence and build a whole theory on a lie. You're the lying, crackpot conspiracy theorist who no clue how to properly do research.So you are a believer of the conspiracy theory of planes flying through walls. Pathetic.We've had this discussion and you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Not gonna go through it again.I'm not sure millions saw the second plane hit though. Surely over a million witnessed the collapse but the plane came in over Jersey into the south tower. I'll bet there were only a few hundred thousand that witnessed that. My brother say it but he was living in North Jersey but south of the towers. He had the right view. There were likely a lot more that weren't in the right position.I don't argue on the 911 thread because I'm scared.
Yes boots very good. He does it so people like you can point at him and say
"hurr durr heiwa is so stupid therefore the 911 commission report has to be true hurr durr."
He does good work. A more effective asset than Rayzor. They learned long ago you can't debunk wtc 7 with facts so they use controlled opposition alongside sites like metabunk.
Millions of people did see planes hit the towers then the towers collapse. Very astute.
(https://s2.postimg.org/i5428a7u1/images-2.jpg)
Don't get me wrong. Hundreds of thousands witnessed the second plane come in over the harbor and impact is still a huge number of eyewitnesses. But, there were a lot more who witnessed the collapse.
Mike
Pls, be on topic. I am certain that hundreds of thousands of people in New Jersey didn't see any plane. Unfortunately I cannot list them here. It is OT.
But I am curious; how can a weak aluminium plane slice through four horizontal, solid floors behind a wall of strong steel columns ... and just disappear ... and then produce a FIREBALL behind the wall and on four floors ... like in a Hollywood movie?
Mike
But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart is a conspiracy theory invented by GWB and Condoleezza. Only twerps believe in it. There is no evidence that any Arabs flew any planes through such walls on 911.
I draw my conclusions based on scientific and physical facts and present them under my own name at my web site http://heiwaco.com .
Of course I have been insulted by many governments and their experts in the media but none have managed to show I am wrong.
But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
You are correct. The floors were poured concrete of a steel deck on a truss system. The flooring system were designed to support themselves and their associated live loads. The did provide lateral support for the exterior columns for wind loading and buckling. Once the flooring gives way there is nothing to prevent buckling of the exterior columns.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
No, they supported each other in different ways. You are right. Thanks for not asking a stupid twerp question, as usual.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
You are correct. The floors were poured concrete of a steel deck on a truss system. The flooring system were designed to support themselves and their associated live loads. The did provide lateral support for the exterior columns for wind loading and buckling. Once the flooring gives way there is nothing to prevent buckling of the exterior columns.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
However, I don't believe the flooring provided any support for the interior column structure.
Mike
I live in a house where the walls keep the upstairs floors from becoming downstairs floors.No, they supported each other in different ways. You are right. Thanks for not asking a stupid twerp question, as usual.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
The floors in any building are there for people to walk and put furniture on. The walls are there to protect the people from outside wind and weather and for the people to put pictures on.
Where do you live? In a cave?
You would have to be intelligent first.You are correct. The floors were poured concrete of a steel deck on a truss system. The flooring system were designed to support themselves and their associated live loads. The did provide lateral support for the exterior columns for wind loading and buckling. Once the flooring gives way there is nothing to prevent buckling of the exterior columns.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
However, I don't believe the flooring provided any support for the interior column structure.
Mike
You are right! The interior column structure - the core structure - was like a self-supporting internal Eiffel tower. All the floors were connected to it. The external walls were then just a big cage to connect floors to and to put windows in. The floorings of course supported the cage. What else could support a 400x60x60 m bird cage?
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
Hopefully you will appreciate it. My objective is simply to turn twerps into intelligent, human beings.
I live in a house where the walls keep the upstairs floors from becoming downstairs floors.
I live in a house where the walls keep the upstairs floors from becoming downstairs floors.No, they supported each other in different ways. You are right. Thanks for not asking a stupid twerp question, as usual.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
The floors in any building are there for people to walk and put furniture on. The walls are there to protect the people from outside wind and weather and for the people to put pictures on.
Where do you live? In a cave?
You would have to be intelligent first.You are correct. The floors were poured concrete of a steel deck on a truss system. The flooring system were designed to support themselves and their associated live loads. The did provide lateral support for the exterior columns for wind loading and buckling. Once the flooring gives way there is nothing to prevent buckling of the exterior columns.But Mike, Arabs flying through walls of steel columns supported by solid floors 12' apart...Hmmm... I thought that the steel columns supported the solid floors, not the other way around.
However, I don't believe the flooring provided any support for the interior column structure.
Mike
You are right! The interior column structure - the core structure - was like a self-supporting internal Eiffel tower. All the floors were connected to it. The external walls were then just a big cage to connect floors to and to put windows in. The floorings of course supported the cage. What else could support a 400x60x60 m bird cage?
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .
Hopefully you will appreciate it. My objective is simply to turn twerps into intelligent, human beings.
Mike
There were these IQ tests where I scored 200+ and then interviews.
<snip>Nope. I'm not buying it.
There were these IQ tests where I scored 200+ and then interviews.
<snip>
I am a winner.
You were brain damaged when you were small..up until say 1988 and then it took another 15 years to heel yourself.Yes, I have heard about OJ Simpson. But he is not the topic here.You cured yourself of brain damage?
Re me I am a nice, rich, good looking, intelligent, warm, social person. Of course I got brain damaged, when I was small - navy, sea mines, taught to kill people - but I cured myself. http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
Yes! And I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
It took plenty time because I was very badly brain damaged up until, say 1988. Then it took another 15 years to heel myself.
I think I am fairly well cured today. But it took a lot of time.
Help me out here. You were very badly brain damaged from when you were small until you were about age 57...do I have this right?
You were able to heal yourself after all that time?
Mike
There were these IQ tests where I scored 200+ and then interviews.
Factor in the exchange rate - that's about an 86.
There were these IQ tests where I scored 200+ and then interviews.
Here's one . . .
Count the fingers on your right hand three times.
How many fingers do you have?
More than four beams. They reckon the planes cut pretty well clean through the elevator shafts.The yield stress of structural aluminum is 55ksi and A36 steel is 36ksi...or 51ksi depending on the grade. Despite what Heiwa says the main body and the largest part of the wings could easily penetrate the columns.
(https://s10.postimg.org/q8ctxdws9/12-19-2012-12-30-31-_PM.png)
And to be fair what we saw did.
(https://s10.postimg.org/vxt2hp2yh/9_11_Second_Plane_Hit_4012.jpg)
To be fair on NIST they do say column 330 got severed by the plane.
Little Mary has a baseball, John has a basket ball and a golf ball,
Billy has a soccer ball, a football and a beach ball.
Which one is most likely to tell the teacher to fuck off?
Come on. It's obviously Billy. He's taking everybody's balls 'cause homie don't play dat!Little Mary has a baseball, John has a basket ball and a golf ball,
Billy has a soccer ball, a football and a beach ball.
Which one is most likely to tell the teacher to fuck off?
??? Am I missing something only americans can understand?
This is either really smart or really dumb.
Come on. It's obviously Billy. He's talking everybody's balls 'cause homie don't play dat!Little Mary has a baseball, John has a basket ball and a golf ball,
Billy has a soccer ball, a football and a beach ball.
Which one is most likely to tell the teacher to fuck off?
??? Am I missing something only americans can understand?
This is either really smart or really dumb.
Predicted and actual sway off the towers under lateral wind loads compared to the actual sway of the towers as the planes hit.My mom took a class in the WTC once. I think it was the 86th floor. She said she could feel it sway. Her instructor scared her when he said they didn't have to worry until their books slid off their desks. He was kidding of course but according to the people I know who've been in really tall buildings you can feel it. The latest tall buildings have dampers to minimize sway which can be feet.
I am just posting this to remind myself to do some proper research. I haven't seen it tackled from this angle. Surely we could calculate how far we expect the towers to sway as the plane hit using simple newtonian equations.
I'll post more on this later. I had an epiphany while on the toilet.
Come on. It's obviously Billy. He's talking everybody's balls 'cause homie don't play dat!Little Mary has a baseball, John has a basket ball and a golf ball,
Billy has a soccer ball, a football and a beach ball.
Which one is most likely to tell the teacher to fuck off?
??? Am I missing something only americans can understand?
This is either really smart or really dumb.
Yep, Billy's got a lot of balls. ;D
Predicted and actual sway off the towers under lateral wind loads compared to the actual sway of the towers as the planes hit.
I am just posting this to remind myself to do some proper research. I haven't seen it tackled from this angle. Surely we could calculate how far we expect the towers to sway as the plane hit using simple newtonian equations.
I'll post more on this later. I had an epiphany while on the toilet.
Heiwa, the question is still up, how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Did you realize the question is in the post thou quoted?Heiwa, the question is still up, how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
Heiwa, the question is still up, how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?Heiwa, the question is still up,Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
Did you realize the question is in the post thou quoted?
Dear God! Pay attention already.
how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?Heiwa, the question is still up,Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
Did you realize the question is in the post thou quoted?
Dear God! Pay attention already.
The question was how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
It doesn't make any sense ... (7 + sqrt ...) . What is 7 + sqrt? And the rest?
When I was tested for military service 1964 no such questions were asked and I scored >200. Maybe the question is a communist trap? Are you a communist?
how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?Heiwa, the question is still up,Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
Did you realize the question is in the post thou quoted?
Dear God! Pay attention already.
The question was how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
It doesn't make any sense ... (7 + sqrt ...) . What is 7 + sqrt? And the rest?
Sqrt is the square root. ^ is the symbol of raising something to a power. Raising something to the 1/3rd power is equivalent to getting its cube root. So I'm asking you what the cube root of (7+sqrt50) plus the cube root of (7-sqrt50) equals to.
It seems like someone with an IQ over 200 shouldn't have so much trouble figuring this out.how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?Heiwa, the question is still up,Damn, the Dunning-Krueger effect here is stronger than with Intikam and his ::) IQ of 180 ::).
Can you repeat the question and explain why the answer is of interest. Thanks!
Did you realize the question is in the post thou quoted?
Dear God! Pay attention already.
The question was how much is (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3)?
It doesn't make any sense ... (7 + sqrt ...) . What is 7 + sqrt? And the rest?
Sqrt is the square root. ^ is the symbol of raising something to a power. Raising something to the 1/3rd power is equivalent to getting its cube root. So I'm asking you what the cube root of (7+sqrt50) plus the cube root of (7-sqrt50) equals to.
But what is 7 + sqrt?
And sqrt50? Why not replace it by a?
So what is cube root (7 + a) + cube root (7 - a)? Well if a is 1 (and not sqrt50) it is 2 + cube root 6. A positive number.
Why do you change topîc asking stupid twerp questions? You sound like a communist!
I don't think Heiwa knows what a square root is. lol
20.0 can look a lot like 200 when your eyesight is getting worse.
but 7 + sqrt ?
but 7 + sqrt ?
Yes, 7+sqrt50. 7+sqrt4 would be 9, because the square root of 4 is 2, so 7+sqrt4=9, and 7-sqrt4=5. What are you finding so hard? Surely someone with an IQ of 200 or more would have figured this much out long ago. So now that I've clarified everything, I repeat the question,
Tell us what does (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equal to, exactly, without using a calculator, and explaining how you found it.
The subject is now your complete ignorance of high school level maths and you lying about your IQ. If it really was that high you'd have found the answer LOOONG ago, and yet you still haven't understood the question.
but 7 + sqrt ?
Yes, 7+sqrt50. 7+sqrt4 would be 9, because the square root of 4 is 2, so 7+sqrt4=9, and 7-sqrt4=5. What are you finding so hard? Surely someone with an IQ of 200 or more would have figured this much out long ago. So now that I've clarified everything, I repeat the question,
Tell us what does (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equal to, exactly, without using a calculator, and explaining how you found it.
The subject is now your complete ignorance of high school level maths and you lying about your IQ. If it really was that high you'd have found the answer LOOONG ago, and yet you still haven't understood the question.
Good, but topic was and is orbital mechanics - see post #1 - and how to get to the Moon! Any ideas? Please, do not copy/paste the NASA nonsense.
Answer the question or admit you're not that bright. You claim to be an engineer for crying out loud! Phd. going on grade 10?
SMH!
but 7 + sqrt ?
Yes, 7+sqrt50. 7+sqrt4 would be 9, because the square root of 4 is 2, so 7+sqrt4=9, and 7-sqrt4=5. What are you finding so hard? Surely someone with an IQ of 200 or more would have figured this much out long ago. So now that I've clarified everything, I repeat the question,
Tell us what does (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equal to, exactly, without using a calculator, and explaining how you found it.
The subject is now your complete ignorance of high school level maths and you lying about your IQ. If it really was that high you'd have found the answer LOOONG ago, and yet you still haven't understood the question.
Good, but topic was and is orbital mechanics - see post #1 - and how to get to the Moon! Any ideas? Please, do not copy/paste the NASA nonsense.
No it's not. The topic changed ages ago. Now it's your lack of understanding of everything and your obsession with poop.
You lied about your IQ. You failing to answer the question proves you did.
Hm, I happened to know the person that IQ tested us 1964 so I had seen the test beforehand. It surely helps. You sound like a boring twerp.In other words, you cheated and your IQ really isn't more than 200.
And, the truth comes out. You lied about your IQ and then a lie to back out of the first lie.but 7 + sqrt ?
Yes, 7+sqrt50. 7+sqrt4 would be 9, because the square root of 4 is 2, so 7+sqrt4=9, and 7-sqrt4=5. What are you finding so hard? Surely someone with an IQ of 200 or more would have figured this much out long ago. So now that I've clarified everything, I repeat the question,
Tell us what does (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equal to, exactly, without using a calculator, and explaining how you found it.
The subject is now your complete ignorance of high school level maths and you lying about your IQ. If it really was that high you'd have found the answer LOOONG ago, and yet you still haven't understood the question.
Good, but topic was and is orbital mechanics - see post #1 - and how to get to the Moon! Any ideas? Please, do not copy/paste the NASA nonsense.
No it's not. The topic changed ages ago. Now it's your lack of understanding of everything and your obsession with poop.
You lied about your IQ. You failing to answer the question proves you did.
Hm, I happened to know the person that IQ tested us 1964 so I had seen the test beforehand. It surely helps. You sound like a boring twerp.
but 7 + sqrt ?
Yes, 7+sqrt50. 7+sqrt4 would be 9, because the square root of 4 is 2, so 7+sqrt4=9, and 7-sqrt4=5. What are you finding so hard? Surely someone with an IQ of 200 or more would have figured this much out long ago. So now that I've clarified everything, I repeat the question,
Tell us what does (7+sqrt50)^(1/3)+(7-sqrt50)^(1/3) equal to, exactly, without using a calculator, and explaining how you found it.
The subject is now your complete ignorance of high school level maths and you lying about your IQ. If it really was that high you'd have found the answer LOOONG ago, and yet you still haven't understood the question.
Good, but topic was and is orbital mechanics - see post #1 - and how to get to the Moon! Any ideas? Please, do not copy/paste the NASA nonsense.
No it's not. The topic changed ages ago. Now it's your lack of understanding of everything and your obsession with poop.
You lied about your IQ. You failing to answer the question proves you did.
Hm, I happened to know the person that IQ tested us 1964 so I had seen the test beforehand. It surely helps. You sound like a boring twerp.
Predicted and actual sway off the towers under lateral wind loads compared to the actual sway of the towers as the planes hit.My mom took a class in the WTC once. I think it was the 86th floor. She said she could feel it sway. Her instructor scared her when he said they didn't have to worry until their books slid off their desks. He was kidding of course but according to the people I know who've been in really tall buildings you can feel it. The latest tall buildings have dampers to minimize sway which can be feet.
I am just posting this to remind myself to do some proper research. I haven't seen it tackled from this angle. Surely we could calculate how far we expect the towers to sway as the plane hit using simple newtonian equations.
I'll post more on this later. I had an epiphany while on the toilet.
I've heard these days you can measure it with some smart phone compass/altitude/inclinometer apps.
Through Google it seems WTC swayed up to three feet at the top floor. I remember reading somewhere that the south tower not only swayed but the eccentric loading caused it to twist. I wonder if you insert some reference lines on one of the closer videos if you can see this. There are a bunch of videos on youtube that were released under an FOI request from NIST. It's all the video subpoenaed for the investigation. They're the raw video and not what someone recorded off TV or the internet.
We should be able to determine how much it should sway. We'd need to calculate a relative stiffness of the tower...although that data probably exists. They would have needed it to calculate the the moments and deflections under wind loading.
Mike
I am an engineer. I do stress analysis for systems and structures on submarines. If I can get some design specs I can run the numbers.Predicted and actual sway off the towers under lateral wind loads compared to the actual sway of the towers as the planes hit.My mom took a class in the WTC once. I think it was the 86th floor. She said she could feel it sway. Her instructor scared her when he said they didn't have to worry until their books slid off their desks. He was kidding of course but according to the people I know who've been in really tall buildings you can feel it. The latest tall buildings have dampers to minimize sway which can be feet.
I am just posting this to remind myself to do some proper research. I haven't seen it tackled from this angle. Surely we could calculate how far we expect the towers to sway as the plane hit using simple newtonian equations.
I'll post more on this later. I had an epiphany while on the toilet.
I've heard these days you can measure it with some smart phone compass/altitude/inclinometer apps.
Through Google it seems WTC swayed up to three feet at the top floor. I remember reading somewhere that the south tower not only swayed but the eccentric loading caused it to twist. I wonder if you insert some reference lines on one of the closer videos if you can see this. There are a bunch of videos on youtube that were released under an FOI request from NIST. It's all the video subpoenaed for the investigation. They're the raw video and not what someone recorded off TV or the internet.
We should be able to determine how much it should sway. We'd need to calculate a relative stiffness of the tower...although that data probably exists. They would have needed it to calculate the the moments and deflections under wind loading.
Mike
Youre bright as man. I might make a project of it on the weekend. Surely we could prove with the video evidence if something did hit the towers. You talk like an engineer.
I know sway is usually an issue for elevator runs.
If any more mathematically inclined posters want to help it would be cool.
Picked it. I can tell when someone knows their shit. (Usually)Nothing special. Just an average guy.
The shop drawings for wtc 1 and 2 are public information, same as wtc 7. It would be difficult but we could calculate the towers overall stiffness.
Edit. Your problem with Heiwa makes much more sense now.
The CIA are the terrorists Heiwa. Lets not stand on ceremony and say they didn't have a major hand in 9/11.
Actually this whistleblower lays it out.
This had been planned for years before the day. You can show the towers collapse was impossible to be caused by the damage from the planes and fires without claiming the whole thing was cgi and everyone who saw them collapse is a liar.
That pisses people off.
I only show at my website that structures cannot collapse from top
and that any footage of such collapses is fake, i.e. trickfilm/CGI. Any person saying she/he has seen a tower collapse from top is a simple, paid liar in my opinion.
I actually did it to calm down children that could not sleep after having seen the footage.
I explained to them that what they saw was fantasy fakery to scare.
After that they were all happy again and could sleep.
Some of them still wonder who really scared them.
I know it upsets plenty twerps pissing in their pants. But it is not my problem.
You don't think that a 757 full of fuel is explosive?I only show at my website that structures cannot collapse from top
Without explosives. I agree.
Well, I am not a whistleblower.
So many good people (like Mike) saw what happened. Notice he's honest and open to the idea the 9/11 commission report wasn't the whole truth.
You don't think that a 757 full of fuel is explosive?I only show at my website that structures cannot collapse from top
Without explosives. I agree.
They looked pretty explosive to me when they crashed into the towers.
You don't get to lie about my family. You know who and everybody else who wishes to search this and the Nuclear Power thread will see what I said and that you're a fuckin' liar.
So many good people (like Mike) saw what happened. Notice he's honest and open to the idea the 9/11 commission report wasn't the whole truth.
Mike didn't see anything! It was his brother, a cousin, a wife or his dead grandfather. But what happened they couldn't remember.
You don't get to lie about my family. You know who and everybody else who wishes to search this and the Nuclear Power thread will see what I said and that you're a fuckin' liar.
So many good people (like Mike) saw what happened. Notice he's honest and open to the idea the 9/11 commission report wasn't the whole truth.
Mike didn't see anything! It was his brother, a cousin, a wife or his dead grandfather. But what happened they couldn't remember.
Mike
Hiawa's other site . . . . . The Onion.com (http://www.theonion.com/)
Hiawa's other site . . . . . The Onion.com (http://www.theonion.com/)
Thanks, instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, we focus on the unquestionably terrible, bigger pictures.
Hiawa's other site . . . . . The Onion.com (http://www.theonion.com/)
Thanks, instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, we focus on the unquestionably terrible, bigger pictures.
Like this one:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_686071_1483293736.png)
??? ??? ???
...we focus on the unquestionably terrible, bigger pictures.
Like this one:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_686071_1483293736.png)
Yes, I look good!
Hiawa's other site . . . . . The Onion.com (http://www.theonion.com/)
Thanks, instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, we focus on the unquestionably terrible, bigger pictures.
Like this one:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_686071_1483293736.png)
Yes, I look good!
Hiawa's other site . . . . . The Onion.com (http://www.theonion.com/)
Thanks, instead of getting bogged down in the infuriating details, we focus on the unquestionably terrible, bigger pictures.
Like this one:
(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_686071_1483293736.png)
Yes, I look good!
No, you really, really don't.
You don't think that a 757 full of fuel is explosive?I only show at my website that structures cannot collapse from top
Without explosives. I agree.
They looked pretty explosive to me when they crashed into the towers.
Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
You sound like one!Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
You sound like one!Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
I understand everything.You sound like one!Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
What part of "everyone" don't you understand?
I understand everything.You sound like one!Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
What part of "everyone" don't you understand?
spoken like a true narcissist.You sound like one!Everyone sounds like a jealous twerp to you. In actual fact, no one is jealous of you.The picture was taken by my daughter with my camera to show how handsome I am. You sound like a jealous twerp.Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Whether DNO can swim or not, the picture I posted does not look good. It really doesn't.
What does any of that have to do with your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics or your obsession with poop? ???Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
What does any of that have to do with your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics or your obsession with poop? ???Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
Because you're going off topic again.What does any of that have to do with your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics or your obsession with poop? ???Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
No.Because you're going off topic again.What does any of that have to do with your lack of understanding of orbital mechanics or your obsession with poop? ???Photo was taken 01/01/17 just before my first swim in the Med this year. It was great. Can you swim? Do you ever take a bath?
Yes and yes. Do you have any other stupid things to say?
Not really. But send copy of your swim certificate and that you use soap when bathing and we can discuss topic - orbital mechanics. You stink like most posters here.
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
What do you think?
Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
That doesn't mean that he's wrong.Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
You sound like a guttersnipe.
Please claify, without asking more questions!That doesn't mean that he's wrong.Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
You sound like a guttersnipe.
Please claify, without asking more questions!That doesn't mean that he's wrong.Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
You sound like a guttersnipe.
Guttersnipes are evidently smarter than you.Please claify, without asking more questions!That doesn't mean that he's wrong.Topic was your lack of understanding in everything and your obsession with poop. Either way what you brought up was off topic and designed to distract from your failings.I think you're desperately trying to change the subject AGAIN because you're a senile curmudgeon.Why on Earth should the Donald Trump pay these people $$$? I assume they are paid not to ask qustions about the US orbital mechancis hoax.I think that your retarted.
What do you think?
I think governments should not subsidize private enterprises, particularly shipyards. It is just a waste of money.
Hm, topic was the difficulties of orbital mechanics and I extended it to Donald Trump giving money away to companies losing money and not able to compete. Nothing wrong with that.
You sound like a guttersnipe.
Gutters are smarter than him
Yup, there's the troll makin' fun of the dead. You're websites are a joke. There's nothing to challenge because it's nothing but junk science and everyone know you'll never admit it and never pay up.Gutters are smarter than him
Topic is of course something else, e.g. John Glenn, the US clown, later senator that orbited Earth 1962 without pissing in his suit and then went to space again later ... as a senator.
What a crap of shit - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19
John is dead, but Catherine is still around. What a story.
Yup, there's the troll makin' fun of the dead. You're websites are a joke. There's nothing to challenge because it's nothing but junk science and everyone know you'll never admit it and never pay up.Gutters are smarter than him
Topic is of course something else, e.g. John Glenn, the US clown, later senator that orbited Earth 1962 without pissing in his suit and then went to space again later ... as a senator.
What a crap of shit - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19
John is dead, but Catherine is still around. What a story.
You're a liar and a troll.
Mike
And, you write another lying troll post.Yup, there's the troll makin' fun of the dead. You're websites are a joke. There's nothing to challenge because it's nothing but junk science and everyone know you'll never admit it and never pay up.Gutters are smarter than him
Topic is of course something else, e.g. John Glenn, the US clown, later senator that orbited Earth 1962 without pissing in his suit and then went to space again later ... as a senator.
What a crap of shit - http://heiwaco.com/moontravelw1.htm#19
John is dead, but Catherine is still around. What a story.
You're a liar and a troll.
Mike
You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.
You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
You must have quite low standards if you think that your site is popular.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
You must have quite low standards if you think that your site is popular.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Mike
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Mike
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read (ignoring web crawlers, etc) talks about 12 000 visits/month and 17000 pages read/month. And >2.42 million visits since I installed the software a long time ago. I have a very positive feedback. 40% of the visitors only study two pages though: about fake US human space travel and about fake US a-bombs.
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Mike
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read (ignoring web crawlers, etc) talks about 12 000 visits/month and 17000 pages read/month. And >2.42 million visits since I installed the software a long time ago. I have a very positive feedback. 40% of the visitors only study two pages though: about fake US human space travel and about fake US a-bombs.
Mike
Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Mike
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read (ignoring web crawlers, etc) talks about 12 000 visits/month and 17000 pages read/month. And >2.42 million visits since I installed the software a long time ago. I have a very positive feedback. 40% of the visitors only study two pages though: about fake US human space travel and about fake US a-bombs.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.Your definition of "quite popular" is a joke. Your piddly little website ranks in the bottom ten thousandth of a percent for traffic. Even low traffic sites get more page views in a month then you have since your site started. Quit lying about how popular your website is.You sound like a terrorist. And my website http://heiwaco.com is good.Your website has been declared a weapon of mass ignorance.
Well, it is quite popular. You must be jealous.
Mike
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read (ignoring web crawlers, etc) talks about 12 000 visits/month and 17000 pages read/month. And >2.42 million visits since I installed the software a long time ago. I have a very positive feedback. 40% of the visitors only study two pages though: about fake US human space travel and about fake US a-bombs.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
Yes, I know people who witnessed the towers come down. My brother watched the second plane come over the harbor and into the south tower...as did a hundreds of thousands of other people.
Since you do shoddy research you wouldn’t have a clue what the truth is. You don't even have the common decency to actually get any evidence that those people didn’t die that day. You made up a story without any proof. YOU LIE ABOUT THE DEAD, LIE ABOUT THE PLANES, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF AE911 AND WHY NO OTHER “TRUTHER” SITE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!
Here’s a link to more proof of your lies and your incompetent engineering skills.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Thanks for playing.
Mike
Millions of visitors?!?! That's just too funny. By your own admission you had that many over the life time of your site. You misrepresent your site metrics. Yet another lie from Anders.There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
Yes, I know people who witnessed the towers come down. My brother watched the second plane come over the harbor and into the south tower...as did a hundreds of thousands of other people.
Since you do shoddy research you wouldn’t have a clue what the truth is. You don't even have the common decency to actually get any evidence that those people didn’t die that day. You made up a story without any proof. YOU LIE ABOUT THE DEAD, LIE ABOUT THE PLANES, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF AE911 AND WHY NO OTHER “TRUTHER” SITE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!
Here’s a link to more proof of your lies and your incompetent engineering skills.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Thanks for playing.
Mike
A much better link is http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Millions of visitors.
Ooooh nooooooo, Mr. Heiwa . . .That's some funny shit right there. ;D
? >2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 000 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO. What a twerp like you think is of no importance. Who pays you how much to go on like this? You sound like a paid terrorist.Millions of visitors?!?! That's just too funny. By your own admission you had that many over the life time of your site. You misrepresent your site metrics. Yet another lie from Anders.There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
Yes, I know people who witnessed the towers come down. My brother watched the second plane come over the harbor and into the south tower...as did a hundreds of thousands of other people.
Since you do shoddy research you wouldn’t have a clue what the truth is. You don't even have the common decency to actually get any evidence that those people didn’t die that day. You made up a story without any proof. YOU LIE ABOUT THE DEAD, LIE ABOUT THE PLANES, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF AE911 AND WHY NO OTHER “TRUTHER” SITE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!
Here’s a link to more proof of your lies and your incompetent engineering skills.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Thanks for playing.
Mike
A much better link is http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Millions of visitors.
High traffic sites do in a minute what your's has done in it's lifetime. Low traffic sites do that many page views in a month. You site doesn't even have enough traffic to be ranked so quit lying about it's popularity.
Mike
Another lie followed by an attack on the poster. Your typical post to avoid having an honest dialogue...you're incapable of honesty.? >2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 00 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO. What a twerp like you think is of no importance. Who pays you how much to go on like this? You sound like a paid terrorist.Millions of visitors?!?! That's just too funny. By your own admission you had that many over the life time of your site. You misrepresent your site metrics. Yet another lie from Anders.There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
Yes, I know people who witnessed the towers come down. My brother watched the second plane come over the harbor and into the south tower...as did a hundreds of thousands of other people.
Since you do shoddy research you wouldn’t have a clue what the truth is. You don't even have the common decency to actually get any evidence that those people didn’t die that day. You made up a story without any proof. YOU LIE ABOUT THE DEAD, LIE ABOUT THE PLANES, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF AE911 AND WHY NO OTHER “TRUTHER” SITE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!
Here’s a link to more proof of your lies and your incompetent engineering skills.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Thanks for playing.
Mike
A much better link is http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Millions of visitors.
High traffic sites do in a minute what your's has done in it's lifetime. Low traffic sites do that many page views in a month. You site doesn't even have enough traffic to be ranked so quit lying about it's popularity.
Mike
2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 00 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO.
Another lie followed by an attack on the poster. Your typical post to avoid having an honest dialogue...you're incapable of honesty.? >2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 00 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO. What a twerp like you think is of no importance. Who pays you how much to go on like this? You sound like a paid terrorist.Millions of visitors?!?! That's just too funny. By your own admission you had that many over the life time of your site. You misrepresent your site metrics. Yet another lie from Anders.There you go making shit up again. I never posted that I have met people who have been in space. That makes YOU THE LIAR.Another straw man. Ok, I'll bite. You said "You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about." Okay. What did I post that is incorrect?You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Most low end traffic sites do a million page views a month.
Mike
OK, my site has only 12 000 visits/month. Maybe it is due to no pornography and similar. But no, I try to be serious. You confirm you have not an idea what you are talking about. Typical of people working for the military industrial complex.
Mike
You have said/posted that you know people that (1) have seen tops of structures destroying the intact bottom (on 911) or (2) have met people who have been in space and then landed again assisted by NASA.
As both events are impossible, I simply think you are lying. You live in a fantasy world, Mike.
Yes, I know people who witnessed the towers come down. My brother watched the second plane come over the harbor and into the south tower...as did a hundreds of thousands of other people.
Since you do shoddy research you wouldn’t have a clue what the truth is. You don't even have the common decency to actually get any evidence that those people didn’t die that day. You made up a story without any proof. YOU LIE ABOUT THE DEAD, LIE ABOUT THE PLANES, AND THAT’S WHY YOU WERE KICKED OUT OF AE911 AND WHY NO OTHER “TRUTHER” SITE WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU!
Here’s a link to more proof of your lies and your incompetent engineering skills.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Thanks for playing.
Mike
A much better link is http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Millions of visitors.
High traffic sites do in a minute what your's has done in it's lifetime. Low traffic sites do that many page views in a month. You site doesn't even have enough traffic to be ranked so quit lying about it's popularity.
Mike
Mike
2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 00 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO.
Yes. We know. Your opinion is not actually worth that much in the real world tho.
2.4 million visitors since I installed the stat software years ao and >10 00 visitors/months today ... is very good IMHO.
Yes. We know. Your opinion is not actually worth that much in the real world tho.
LOL
I explain more at [heiwa.com] Very popular! >200 visitors/day.
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read talks about 12 000 visits/month
I installed the stat software years ago and >10 00 visitors/months today ...
It is hard for liars to keep their lies straight.
I explain more at [heiwa.com] Very popular! >200 visitors/day.
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read talks about 12 000 visits/month
I installed the stat software years ago and >10 00 visitors/months today ...
6,000/mo.? 12,000/mo.? 10,000/mo.? ???
I explain more at [heiwa.com] Very popular! >200 visitors/day.
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read talks about 12 000 visits/month
I installed the stat software years ago and >10 000 visitors/months today ...
6,000/mo.? 12,000/mo.? 10,000/mo.? ???
I explain more at [heiwa.com] Very popular! >200 visitors/day.
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read talks about 12 000 visits/month
I installed the stat software years ago and >10 000 visitors/months today ...
6,000/mo.? 12,000/mo.? 10,000/mo.? ???
It varies all the time. I am very popular!
It varies all the time. I am very popular!If your site was very popular, then it would be getting >10,000 hits a day, not a month.
I explain more at [heiwa.com] Very popular! >200 visitors/day.
You don't know what you are talking about. My very good software recording unique visits and pages read talks about 12 000 visits/month
I installed the stat software years ago and >10 000 visitors/months today ...
6,000/mo.? 12,000/mo.? 10,000/mo.? ???
It varies all the time. I am very popular!
Thanks for not asking a twerp question, as usual, but just adding a twerp opinion.It varies all the time. I am very popular!If your site was very popular, then it would be getting >10,000 hits a day, not a month.
What you don't seem to understand is that many of those >10,000 visitors/month are just spiders from different search engines indexing your site. In other words, you aren't getting as many human visitors as you think.Thanks for not asking a twerp question, as usual, but just adding a twerp opinion.It varies all the time. I am very popular!If your site was very popular, then it would be getting >10,000 hits a day, not a month.
IMHO >10 000 visitors/month to study my findings at my website is quite good. Even better is that I can improve my website all the time by input from my audience.
What you don't seem to understand is that many of those >10,000 visitors/month are just spiders from different search engines indexing your site. In other words, you aren't getting as many human visitors as you think.Thanks for not asking a twerp question, as usual, but just adding a twerp opinion.It varies all the time. I am very popular!If your site was very popular, then it would be getting >10,000 hits a day, not a month.
IMHO >10 000 visitors/month to study my findings at my website is quite good. Even better is that I can improve my website all the time by input from my audience.
Heiwa, you ignorant slut.
Anders?Same person. According to his "popular" web site, his real name is Anders Björkman. Since he keeps flogging the site, I don't consider it to be an inappropriate use of personal information to use his real name.
Or Heiwa.... ??
so... if he is not a flat earther...As I recall, he's here because some FE'er linked to his site in a moon landing hoax thread or some such nonsense. Somehow or other he got wind of it and has been here ever since. This is one of the very few forums where he hasn't been banned for sheer stupidity and/or membrating.
....is he here because he needs a friend?
He's here for the attention. That is why he resurrects dead threads after people stop responding. That is why he spams his website and brags about the paltry number of hits. That is why he constantly mentions his fraudulent challenges that nobody cares about. All signs of his narcissism.
I once posted Anders's facebook page. What a glorious day it was.A previous poster showed that the building Anders claims to live in is public housing.
I feel bad for the nurse that has to change his diaper every morning.You sound being obsessed with poop. You are not alone. Many twerps do it, too. Only thinking shit.
FYI "Swim in the Mediterranean" is the nurse's code for getting hoisted into the bath.
FYI "Swim in the Mediterranean" is the nurse's code for getting hoisted into the bath. "In good shape" is relative, and in this particular case means able to walk from his room to the common room unassisted unlike many of his co-residents.
Just thought I would clear that up for everyone. :D
I hope you get well Heiwa...Thanks! Luckily I am well. But I have doubts about the twerps swarming around here like sick, fat flies.
I'm going to stop being critical of your ideas, it's not healthy to feed into all of this...
Have a good one!
Be well
I hope you get well Heiwa...You know, this is probably a good approach. Clearly he is very sick. I shouldn't be so critical of him.
I'm going to stop being critical of your ideas, it's not healthy to feed into all of this...
Have a good one!
Be well
30 or so years ago a buddy and I went down to San Diego's Balboa_Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balboa_Park_(San_Diego)).
Saturday in the sun. Got drunk and wondered into the Museum of Photographic Arts.
We played critic way too loud.
"I enjoy how he didn't bother to compose the image."
"It takes special skill to demonstrate a short f/stop with a wide angle lens."
"This sunset says sunset more than those other sunset pictures."
There was a wall of nudes.
My buddy says, "NICE TITS !!!"
We got escorted out.
We had spent all morning volunteering at a local hospital giving CPR to children dying of heart failure.Boozing on a bench in a park. You are a loser!
Two of them were missing brow visors.
We needed some 'me' time.
We had spent all morning volunteering at a local hospital giving CPR to children dying of heart failure.Boozing on a bench in a park. You are a loser!
Two of them were missing brow visors.
We needed some 'me' time.
Walking in a park drinking stolen tequila! Why not? You are like the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committée yesterday giving out the prize to people believing in fake a-bombs - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . They must have been drunk as usual.We had spent all morning volunteering at a local hospital giving CPR to children dying of heart failure.Boozing on a bench in a park. You are a loser!
Two of them were missing brow visors.
We needed some 'me' time.
Park bench? I'll have you know we were walking around refilling classy flasks with a jug of tequila we had cleverly stashed in a ratty old back pack.
Walking in a park drinking stolen tequila! Why not? You are like the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committée yesterday giving out the prize to people believing in fake a-bombs - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm) . They must have been drunk as usual.We had spent all morning volunteering at a local hospital giving CPR to children dying of heart failure.Boozing on a bench in a park. You are a loser!
Two of them were missing brow visors.
We needed some 'me' time.
Park bench? I'll have you know we were walking around refilling classy flasks with a jug of tequila we had cleverly stashed in a ratty old back pack.
Lol this is great.
Lol this is great.
What is great?
Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.
No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Get well soon you poor idiot.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
And, you're a confirmed liar.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
Hm, my CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Quite good, isn't it ... and no lying.And, you're a confirmed liar.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
Nope. Don't believe it's true. You don't even understand the basic laws of motion and you want us to believe you're an engineer.Hm, my CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Quite good, isn't it ... and no lying.And, you're a confirmed liar.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
Hm,
Nope. Don't believe it's true. You don't even understand the basic laws of motion and you want us to believe you're an engineer.Hm, my CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Quite good, isn't it ... and no lying.And, you're a confirmed liar.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
You've lied about other things why not this too?
Mike
You've already proven that explanations of how that works is lost on you. You must be one of the worst engineers in history because you don’t comprehend the basic laws of motion. Therefore, discussing this with you is a lost cause because you wouldn’t understand.Nope. Don't believe it's true. You don't even understand the basic laws of motion and you want us to believe you're an engineer.Hm, my CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Quite good, isn't it ... and no lying.And, you're a confirmed liar.No, just one of the many that recognise:Lol this is great.
What is great?
Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything.
It sound serious. You must be joking or are another loser twerp.;D Your inability to grasp any kind of concept about anything. ;D
:P Of course, everyone understands perfectly that if Heiwa can't uderstand something, it must be impossible! :P
Well, you confirm you are another loser twerp. Like Donald Trump being worried about little 'rocket man'. Unable to grasp that nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles (and human space travel) do not work at all. I explain why since many years at my popular website ... and plenty twerps get upset about it. They should instead get happy! But no, they moan and groan that they cannot wipe out the enemy in a FLASH or fly to the Moon or Mars. It is sad so I must ROTFL.
You've lied about other things why not this too?
Mike
Mikerobrain, did you read my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm ? Re topic - orbital mechanics - we all know that planet Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days, while the Moon orbits the Earth in 28 days.
Now the problem - your spacecraft - orbiting Earth (don't ask me, how it got there) shall fly from orbiting planet Earth (orbiting the Sun) to the Moon (orbiting Earth) and land there. So what trajectory do you take?
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/AP11el.gif)
Do you take the shortest, fastest, straight trajectory or a slower more curved one as shown in picture above. And is your spacecraft orbiting anything during the trip? And what force do you apply to get out of orbit Earth? And how much fuel do you use? And how did you get that fuel into space? And how do you stop at the end of the trip.
Show that you know basic orbital mechanics!
You've already proven that explanations of how that works is lost on you. You must be one of the worst engineers in history because you don’t comprehend the basic laws of motion. Therefore, discussing this with you is a lost cause because you wouldn’t understand.
Mikerobrain, did you read my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm ? Re topic - orbital mechanics - we all know that planet Earth orbits the Sun in 365 days, while the Moon orbits the Earth in 28 days.
Now the problem - your spacecraft - orbiting Earth (don't ask me, how it got there) shall fly from orbiting planet Earth (orbiting the Sun) to the Moon (orbiting Earth) and land there. So what trajectory do you take?
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/AP11el.gif)
Do you take the shortest, fastest, straight trajectory or a slower more curved one as shown in picture above. And is your spacecraft orbiting anything during the trip? And what force do you apply to get out of orbit Earth? And how much fuel do you use? And how did you get that fuel into space? And how do you stop at the end of the trip.
Show that you know basic orbital mechanics!
Mike
If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
LOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
I knew you wouldn't be able to tell us what's wrong with the Apollo 11 Flight Plan. Further proof you have no idea what you're talking about.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
If only there were a branch of mathematics that described changing rates in a curved trajectory.....Hmmm...if only. ;D
And some kind of device that can do all the necessary calculations...My personal favorite is the HP-48GX but this works too. ;D
I knew you wouldn't be able to tell us what's wrong with the Apollo 11 Flight Plan. Further proof you have no idea what you're talking about.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
Mike
I disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.I knew you wouldn't be able to tell us what's wrong with the Apollo 11 Flight Plan. Further proof you have no idea what you're talking about.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
Mike
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Yes, twerps disagree with me. The NASA Apollo 11 plan is nonsense. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmI disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.I knew you wouldn't be able to tell us what's wrong with the Apollo 11 Flight Plan. Further proof you have no idea what you're talking about.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
Mike
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Mike
There it is...the red herring.Yes, twerps disagree with me. The NASA Apollo 11 plan is nonsense. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmI disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Mike
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.No, your "analysis" simply shows that manned space flight is very difficult. Nowhere do you show that it's impossible. The NASA flight plan, on the other hand, shows how many of those difficulties were overcome.
You asked for information, it was given to you. Your website says nothing but you don't understand so it must be fake.http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmhttps://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11fltpln_final_reformat.pdfLOL - so what force (N) is required to catapult a spacecraft with a certain mass (kg) and velocity (m/s) from orbit Earth to reach the Moon and for how long (s), in what direction (°) and when do you apply it?Simple is (1) un-mixed, (2) plain, (3) not highly developed, (4) easily done or understood, (5) innocent, straightforward, (6) inexperienced, (7) with nothing added, etc, etc, according my dictionary.Simple is not the same as easy.You really must study post #1 of this thread where a twerp proposes how simple a manned Moon trip is; you just orbit Earth in a spacecraft and fires a rocket and your orbit becomes elliptical and POUFF you are at the Moon. And here we are 2030 posts later and nobody can show what force is required and how much fuel is used, etc.Then you must be a twerp because you're the only one here suggesting that going to the moon is easy. Everyone else is saying that it's very hard, but very hard does not mean that it's impossible.If you replace 'twerp' with "[my] caretaker", Heiwa is hilarious.
You sound like having no ideas about orbital mechanics. Let me try:
(http://heiwaco.com/AP11el.gif)
What trajectory do you prefer going to the Moon - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does it take?
And what happens if you miss the Moon for any reasons?
Twerps say it is very easy to go the Moon.
Easy is (1) not difficult, (2) free from pain, etc, (3) not much in demand (concerning money, commerce, etc), etc, etc.
So you are right. Even twerps can be right! But not when we discuss orbital mechanics.
You might want to study module 4 of the following link. I might help you understand motion.
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/NNPTC/Physics/doe_phys.pdf
Mike
As (variable) gravity forces always act on your spacecraft, how do you account for them? Aren't they pulling you back to Earth changing your motion?
And what trajectory do you chose - straight, curved or very curved?
And how long does your trip take? A day, a week, a month?
Not one NASA twerp has been able to answer above. And I have asked several.
There it is...the red herring.Yes, twerps disagree with me. The NASA Apollo 11 plan is nonsense. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmI disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Mike
Here’s a fact for you. The complete flight plan is in that document. It lays out everything your challenge requires. You can’t prove it wrong. So, you just call it nonsense and post a link to your website...the textbook red herring fallacy.
You’re just proving you don’t know what you’re talking about, that you can’t handle the math presented in the Apollo 11 flight plan, and you’re afraid to even try.
Since you clearly don’t understand the Apollo 11 flight plan and certainly can’t show us what information in it you believe to be incorrect, you challenge has been beaten by NASA.
You lose.
Mike
You're just showing how little you know about how it works. Everything you need is there. You have to do a few calculations but it's obviously over your head.There it is...the red herring.Yes, twerps disagree with me. The NASA Apollo 11 plan is nonsense. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmI disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Mike
Here’s a fact for you. The complete flight plan is in that document. It lays out everything your challenge requires. You can’t prove it wrong. So, you just call it nonsense and post a link to your website...the textbook red herring fallacy.
You’re just proving you don’t know what you’re talking about, that you can’t handle the math presented in the Apollo 11 flight plan, and you’re afraid to even try.
Since you clearly don’t understand the Apollo 11 flight plan and certainly can’t show us what information in it you believe to be incorrect, you challenge has been beaten by NASA.
You lose.
Mike
Hm, the NASA flight plan does not describe the trajectory between leaving EPO, arriving to "x" and continuing to the Moon and what force was applied to get out of EPO and where, in what direction, when and how long to apply it.
It is just suggsted it was done when the crew was chatting about something else. So the spacecraft was catapulted away out of EPO ... and some checks later confirmed they were heading in the right direction ... that of course changed all the time ... etc, etc. The NASA flight report is fantasy.
To win my Challenge you have to do proper orbital mechanics calculations.
You're just showing how little you know about how it works. Everything you need is there. You have to do a few calculations but it's obviously over your head.There it is...the red herring.Yes, twerps disagree with me. The NASA Apollo 11 plan is nonsense. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htmI disagree with you. This is the full flight plan. It meets the conditions of your challenge so either disprove it or admit you're wrong.
Well, if you study my analysis in the link above of the NASA flight plan you should agree with me that the latter is pure fantasy/fakery.
Mike
Here’s a fact for you. The complete flight plan is in that document. It lays out everything your challenge requires. You can’t prove it wrong. So, you just call it nonsense and post a link to your website...the textbook red herring fallacy.
You’re just proving you don’t know what you’re talking about, that you can’t handle the math presented in the Apollo 11 flight plan, and you’re afraid to even try.
Since you clearly don’t understand the Apollo 11 flight plan and certainly can’t show us what information in it you believe to be incorrect, you challenge has been beaten by NASA.
You lose.
Mike
Hm, the NASA flight plan does not describe the trajectory between leaving EPO, arriving to "x" and continuing to the Moon and what force was applied to get out of EPO and where, in what direction, when and how long to apply it.
It is just suggsted it was done when the crew was chatting about something else. So the spacecraft was catapulted away out of EPO ... and some checks later confirmed they were heading in the right direction ... that of course changed all the time ... etc, etc. The NASA flight report is fantasy.
To win my Challenge you have to do proper orbital mechanics calculations.
Nice try.
Mike
Well, everything is not there, e.g. the time, location, force applied, its duration and direction, fuel required to get out of EPO to get started. What were the speeds and directions before and after this high speed translunar injection? What kind of orbital dynamics calculations are required to establish the details? It is the topic!
Go ahead! Welcome to the twerps against Heiwa/me.Well, everything is not there, e.g. the time, location, force applied, its duration and direction, fuel required to get out of EPO to get started. What were the speeds and directions before and after this high speed translunar injection? What kind of orbital dynamics calculations are required to establish the details? It is the topic!
Ha, I almost posted something that would have engaged me into this lunacy!!!!
That was a close one!
yeah...
I had typed out something.... I was a few lines deep... committing myself... and then.... it was when I hopped on to google to start doing research and I said... WOoo Woo Woo.... Hold your horses.... because I considered going to your website...
Then I called myself an asshole for allowing you to pull me in....
YOU ALMOST GOT ME!!!!!
yeah...If I want to look up something from his site I do it at archive.com.
I had typed out something.... I was a few lines deep... committing myself... and then.... it was when I hopped on to google to start doing research and I said... WOoo Woo Woo.... Hold your horses.... because I considered going to your website...
Then I called myself an asshole for allowing you to pull me in....
YOU ALMOST GOT ME!!!!!
I wouldn't want to acknowledge his work in any way....OIC
I wouldn't want to acknowledge his work in any way....But what drugs are you on?
yeah...
I had typed out something.... I was a few lines deep... committing myself... and then.... it was when I hopped on to google to start doing research and I said... WOoo Woo Woo.... Hold your horses.... because I considered going to your website...
Then I called myself an asshole for allowing you to pull me in....
YOU ALMOST GOT ME!!!!!
So what drugs are you on?
yeah...
I had typed out something.... I was a few lines deep... committing myself... and then.... it was when I hopped on to google to start doing research and I said... WOoo Woo Woo.... Hold your horses.... because I considered going to your website...
Then I called myself an asshole for allowing you to pull me in....
YOU ALMOST GOT ME!!!!!
So what drugs are you on?
My brain naturally produces morphine ;)
Anyone know what is in an "Ultra Sunrise" Monster Drink?
That's the truth I'm consuming
...and a bucket load of caffeine. ;DAnyone know what is in an "Ultra Sunrise" Monster Drink?
That's the truth I'm consuming
Probably pure cocaine
150mg per can it claims....150 isn't much. That barely more than a cup of coffee.
Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
Fixed that for you.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Onlytwerpspeople who understand orbital mechanics think #1, #2 and #3 are possible.
Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Thanks for playing...
I understood all of what you posted. I just disagree with it. The onus isn’t the rest of the world to prove that manned space flight is possible. The responsibility is on you to disprove manned space flight. You have not done that.Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Thanks for playing...
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible and when I ask them to prove it they become obnoxious.
Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Thanks for playing...
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible and when I ask them to prove it they become obnoxious.
I understood all of what you posted. I just disagree with it. The onus isn’t the rest of the world to prove that manned space flight is possible. The responsibility is on you to disprove manned space flight. You have not done that.
I don't care how long you've been doing it. It's rigged to ensure nobody can win regardless of the truth.Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Thanks for playing...
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible and when I ask them to prove it they become obnoxious.
I understood all of what you posted. I just disagree with it. The onus isn’t the rest of the world to prove that manned space flight is possible. The responsibility is on you to disprove manned space flight. You have not done that.
But I have done it since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . And I pay you €1M to show I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Result? 0!
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?I don't care how long you've been doing it. It's rigged to ensure nobody can win regardless of the truth.Say what ever you like to make yourself feel better. Everyone reading these threads knows the truth. Post all the impolite, name calling, personal attacks you want. It won't hide the truth and you're the only one believes you're right. Everyone else knows you for the lying crackpot conspiracy theorist that you really are.Nope...the title is about your lack of understanding of everything...as proved by your junk science and baseless conclusions of website. And, of course, your obsession with sanitary systems...poo.Third - if you manage to arrive at the Moon orbit and the Moon is there, how do you avoid that Moon gravity pulls you down so you crash?Pretty much the same way that Earth satellites deal with the fact that Earth gravity pulls them down.
This is a reminder that topic is my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and not the drugs used by some twerps. So your spacecraft is orbiting the Moon ... and you decide to land. OK! So you decide to use another spacecraft for it - a lander attached to your spacecraft - which undocks ... and lands. Like an eagle. Of course there is no air on the Moon. After having pissed on the Moon you take off again and ... find your spacecraft orbiting the Moon ... and dock with it. Magic. Then you undock the empty lander orbiting the Moon, while you hit the accelerator and return to planet Earth ... and splash down just in front of the POTUS. There are today five eagle landers orbiting the Moon and NASA says you can see them with a sharp telescope. I admit though I cannot understand how they managed to get there.
Mike
No, topic was my lack of understanding of orbital mechanics (see post #1) and when I then showed my understanding of the matter (post #2) some twerp later changed the topic. This is typical twerp tactics twerps TTTT. It happens to me all the time. You sound like a double TTTT = TTTTTTTT. Go and be ashamed and lock your self up.
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible. That's why they are twerps.
Thanks for playing...
So I have to repeat; it seems you don't understand my suggestion #1, i.e. that "no spacecraft of any kind can carry enough fuel for any trip anywhere in space and return safely to Earth".
My suggestion #2 is that "you cannot predict the trajectory between Earth and the target in space to ensure that the target is there, when you arrive". It means that you'll miss the target and continue into Universe.
My suggestion #3 is that "you cannot re-enter and land on the rotating Earth after a trip in space". You cannot find the location at the top of the atmosphere above Earth to start any landing attempt and regardless you cannot brake going through the atmosphere, so you are vaporized.
Only twerps think #1, #2 and #3 are possible and when I ask them to prove it they become obnoxious.
I understood all of what you posted. I just disagree with it. The onus isn’t the rest of the world to prove that manned space flight is possible. The responsibility is on you to disprove manned space flight. You have not done that.
But I have done it since many years - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . And I pay you €1M to show I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Result? 0!
You're just a crackpot and a troll and everyone knows it.
Mike
Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
Here we go. Point out anything thing I've lied about. Just one thing that I've posted that's a lie.The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
Easy. Your friends having first seen planes crashing into the WTC towers and then seen the towers collapse from top down cannot exist. You made them up in several posts.Here we go. Point out anything thing I've lied about. Just one thing that I've posted that's a lie.The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
All of that actually happened and if you didn't do shoddy research you'd know that. I know people who saw those things but your shoddy research didn’t include any investigation into eyewitnesses.Easy. Your friends having first seen planes crashing into the WTC towers and then seen the towers collapse from top down cannot exist. You made them up in several posts.Here we go. Point out anything thing I've lied about. Just one thing that I've posted that's a lie.The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
All of that actually happened and if you didn't do shoddy research you'd know that. I know people who saw those things but your shoddy research didn’t include any investigation into eyewitnesses.Easy. Your friends having first seen planes crashing into the WTC towers and then seen the towers collapse from top down cannot exist. You made them up in several posts.Here we go. Point out anything thing I've lied about. Just one thing that I've posted that's a lie.The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
You’re the liar here. You lied about investigating the plane impacts when all you did was look at video from the internet. Another example of you shoddy research.
You’ve been caught in so many lies it’s ridiculous and you have the gall to call me a liar for something you didn’t even do any research on.
How about you show everyone a lie I’ve posted that you can prove instead of one based on your shoddy research doesn’t count.
I on the other hand can show many situations where you’ve be caught in lies. You were caught lying by your own contradictory posts. This is one of many reasons you’ve been banned from so many forums.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
You make this so easy.
Mike
You're the one who needs to learn something so you will stop lying.All of that actually happened and if you didn't do shoddy research you'd know that. I know people who saw those things but your shoddy research didn’t include any investigation into eyewitnesses.Easy. Your friends having first seen planes crashing into the WTC towers and then seen the towers collapse from top down cannot exist. You made them up in several posts.Here we go. Point out anything thing I've lied about. Just one thing that I've posted that's a lie.The first. You are lying and inventing things here all the time, and I wonder why.Are you implying you are capable of diagnosing someone based on their posts? Or do you get your jollies by engaging in personal attacks? Which is it?
No, I am real and in good health. You sound the opposite. Sick! Why do you waste your time here? Who pays you?
Mike
You’re the liar here. You lied about investigating the plane impacts when all you did was look at video from the internet. Another example of you shoddy research.
You’ve been caught in so many lies it’s ridiculous and you have the gall to call me a liar for something you didn’t even do any research on.
How about you show everyone a lie I’ve posted that you can prove instead of one based on your shoddy research doesn’t count.
I on the other hand can show many situations where you’ve be caught in lies. You were caught lying by your own contradictory posts. This is one of many reasons you’ve been banned from so many forums.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
You make this so easy.
Mike
You sound like a poor, miserable twerp. Visit http://heiwaco.com and learn something!
Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
Only twerps believe so. Triathlon was invented in France 100 years ago and there are many variations. Mine is 2 km bike to the beach, then 5 km run, then 200 m swim and then bike home. It takes an hour. No judges. No trouble.No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
Only twerps believe so. Triathlon was invented in France 100 years ago and there are many variations. Mine is 2 km bike to the beach, then 5 km run, then 200 m swim and then bike home. It takes an hour. No judges. No trouble.No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
Twerps!Only twerps believe so. Triathlon was invented in France 100 years ago and there are many variations. Mine is 2 km bike to the beach, then 5 km run, then 200 m swim and then bike home. It takes an hour. No judges. No trouble.No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
blah blah blah who cares
Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
Pfft. Not much of a triathlon if you ask me. Not even a sprint.Only twerps believe so. Triathlon was invented in France 100 years ago and there are many variations. Mine is 2 km bike to the beach, then 5 km run, then 200 m swim and then bike home. It takes an hour. No judges. No trouble.No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age. Only twerps like you get jealous, upset, start to moan and groan, etc.Pfft. Not much of a triathlon if you ask me. Not even a sprint.Only twerps believe so. Triathlon was invented in France 100 years ago and there are many variations. Mine is 2 km bike to the beach, then 5 km run, then 200 m swim and then bike home. It takes an hour. No judges. No trouble.No. A triathlon is swim, bike then run. You can get into serious trouble with the judges if you do them in the wrong order.Heiwa, you lied when you talked about boats sinking. I've decided that this is not possible. Therefore, you're a liar. If you want I can find the posts as evidence that you lied.
Like all twerps you are mistaken.
Only a sad miserable twerp would say something like this. Boats don't sink.
You sound tired. Try triathlon. Swim, ran and bike. It will keep you out of trouble.
No judges. No trouble.
But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
(http://cdn.triathlete.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EnduraPix_8449_121013ELB2346F7C6-550x421.jpg)
Kona veteran Lew Hollander is pioneering the 85–89 age group on the Big Island this October.
After finishing the Ironman World Championship more than 20 times, you’d think 85-year-old Lew Hollander would love Kona. Notsomuch. “It’s horrible,” he says, laughing. “It’s the ugliest, toughest race. … Every year I say, ‘I’m never going to do this again. Never, never.’”
More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No, I just try to be funny.You accomplish that way better when you're not trying.
A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me
Real triathlon is for twerps.
Real triathlon is for twerps.
http://read.gov/aesop/005.html
Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
Only twerps run marathons? That doesn't make any sense. That is unless you like to put down people who can do things you can't. Yeah. I think that's the most likely truth here.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
http://read.gov/aesop/005.html
No. It takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon, or a proper triathlon. There is also a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that a twerp like you could never understand.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
Yes, I agree with you that it takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon - you have done it six times - or a proper triathlon, and that there must be a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that twerps could never understand.No. It takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon, or a proper triathlon. There is also a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that a twerp like you could never understand.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
Your "easy triathlon" is more like a "nice tryathlon".
Topic is of course my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and I wonder how you are getting along earning €1M at solving http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Like the camaraderie among endurance athletes, the math involved in planning and executing space flight is something that you just can't seem understand, so it's pointless to even try to explain.
How to fly through space from Earth orbiting the Sun to the Moon orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun? How do you keep track of flying between these moving heavenly bodies?
Do you just apply a force to your spacecraft to speed off and then brake and land? What about the fuel?
Well, I openly admit I cannot solve the n-body problem navigating between moving heavenly bodies so I offer anyone €1M to do it for me - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . And what is the result? Twerps say it's pointless to even try to explain it to me.Topic is of course my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and I wonder how you are getting along earning €1M at solving http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .Like the camaraderie among endurance athletes, the math involved in planning and executing space flight is something that you just can't seem understand, so it's pointless to even try to explain.
How to fly through space from Earth orbiting the Sun to the Moon orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun? How do you keep track of flying between these moving heavenly bodies?
Do you just apply a force to your spacecraft to speed off and then brake and land? What about the fuel?
Well, I openly admit I cannot solve the n-body problem navigating between moving heavenly bodies so I offer anyone €1M to do it for me - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . And what is the result? Twerps say it's pointless to even try to explain it to me.
But why not explain to others reading this message?
Well, I openly admit I cannot solve the n-body problem navigating between moving heavenly bodies so I offer anyone €1M to do it for me - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm . And what is the result? Twerps say it's pointless to even try to explain it to me.
Because you're a twerp.QuoteBut why not explain to others reading this message?
Because it's a lot of boooring math that gets even more boring if you want to do everything precisely and with real world data. It's not very complicated, just BOOOORING.
I think that your attitude towards marathons and proper triathlons is much like your attitude towards manned space flight and nuclear weapons. Endurance sports aren't for everyone, and that's fine. Not everyone has the time, patience or physiology to invest in the necessary training for such events. In a similar way, not everyone has the time, patience or intellect to properly research and investigate the finer points of manned space flight or nuclear weapons, and that's fine too. But that doesn't mean that you should shit on people who do, or deny their accomplishments.Yes, I agree with you that it takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon - you have done it six times - or a proper triathlon, and that there must be a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that twerps could never understand.No. It takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon, or a proper triathlon. There is also a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that a twerp like you could never understand.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
Your "easy triathlon" is more like a "nice tryathlon".
Topic is of course my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and I wonder how you are getting along earning €1M at solving http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
How to fly through space from Earth orbiting the Sun to the Moon orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun? How do you keep track of flying between these moving heavenly bodies?
Do you just apply a force to your spacecraft to speed off and then brake and land? What about the fuel?
Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?I think that your attitude towards marathons and proper triathlons is much like your attitude towards manned space flight and nuclear weapons. Endurance sports aren't for everyone, and that's fine. Not everyone has the time, patience or physiology to invest in the necessary training for such events. In a similar way, not everyone has the time, patience or intellect to properly research and investigate the finer points of manned space flight or nuclear weapons, and that's fine too. But that doesn't mean that you should shit on people who do, or deny their accomplishments.Yes, I agree with you that it takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon - you have done it six times - or a proper triathlon, and that there must be a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that twerps could never understand.No. It takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon, or a proper triathlon. There is also a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that a twerp like you could never understand.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
Your "easy triathlon" is more like a "nice tryathlon".
Topic is of course my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and I wonder how you are getting along earning €1M at solving http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
How to fly through space from Earth orbiting the Sun to the Moon orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun? How do you keep track of flying between these moving heavenly bodies?
Do you just apply a force to your spacecraft to speed off and then brake and land? What about the fuel?
Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?
Who pays you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.
Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?
Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
You can't possible believe any of this. Are you really that abusive to people? Why do you have to put people down all the time? Have a little decency for once. You shit on people all the time. Even in this very post so that makes you a hypocrite too.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?I think that your attitude towards marathons and proper triathlons is much like your attitude towards manned space flight and nuclear weapons. Endurance sports aren't for everyone, and that's fine. Not everyone has the time, patience or physiology to invest in the necessary training for such events. In a similar way, not everyone has the time, patience or intellect to properly research and investigate the finer points of manned space flight or nuclear weapons, and that's fine too. But that doesn't mean that you should shit on people who do, or deny their accomplishments.Yes, I agree with you that it takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon - you have done it six times - or a proper triathlon, and that there must be a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that twerps could never understand.No. It takes a special breed of idiot to run a marathon, or a proper triathlon. There is also a special camaraderie among endurance athletes that a twerp like you could never understand.Did I hit a nerve? Sounds like sour grapes to me. I've finished 6 full marathons, so your "easy triathlon" doesn't impress me in the slightest.More twerp questions! You cannot stop asking them, twerp! No, I just try to be funny. A good looking, rich, intelligent man like me - http://heiwaco.com - only does easy triathlon to be in physical shape. Real triathlon is for twerps.But it is a triathlon! People get impressed when they ask me what sports I do at my age.Yeah, it's easy to impress gullible people, isn't it?
No! Only twerps run marathons. You prove my point. More questions?
Your "easy triathlon" is more like a "nice tryathlon".
Topic is of course my lack of understanding in orbital mechanics and I wonder how you are getting along earning €1M at solving http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
How to fly through space from Earth orbiting the Sun to the Moon orbiting Earth and planet Mars orbiting the Sun? How do you keep track of flying between these moving heavenly bodies?
Do you just apply a force to your spacecraft to speed off and then brake and land? What about the fuel?
Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.
Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?Who pays you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
You said you don't shit on people, yet here you are shitting on someone and making unfounded personal attacks. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?Who pays you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you confirm that you are a twerp and a terrorist! But you are not alone!
Terror is great fear or an instant of great fear and a terrorist is a person using violence to cause terror for political purposes. Thus GWB, Dick Cheaney & Co are simple terrorists in my eyes. All alleged amateurs having filmed the terror of 911 are also terrorists. If you are American you live in a country governed by terrorists.
Only twerps do not understand it.
You said you don't shit on people, yet here you are shitting on someone and making unfounded personal attacks. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.
Who pays you?Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you confirm that you are a twerp and a terrorist! But you are not alone!
Terror is great fear or an instant of great fear and a terrorist is a person using violence to cause terror for political purposes. Thus GWB, Dick Cheaney & Co are simple terrorists in my eyes. All alleged amateurs having filmed the terror of 911 are also terrorists. If you are American you live in a country governed by terrorists.
Only twerps do not understand it.
Mike
You know I have the American version of your CV. I've linked it so you've seen it. The question is why would ask a question you already know the answer to. It makes me wonder.You said you don't shit on people, yet here you are shitting on someone and making unfounded personal attacks. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.
Who pays you?Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you confirm that you are a twerp and a terrorist! But you are not alone!
Terror is great fear or an instant of great fear and a terrorist is a person using violence to cause terror for political purposes. Thus GWB, Dick Cheaney & Co are simple terrorists in my eyes. All alleged amateurs having filmed the terror of 911 are also terrorists. If you are American you live in a country governed by terrorists.
Only twerps do not understand it.
Mike
You sound like a twerp conspirator inventing things in support of terrorism. I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite. Just study my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Have you got a CV?
You know I have the American version of your CV. I've linked it so you've seen it. The question is why would ask a question you already know the answer to. It makes me wonder.You said you don't shit on people, yet here you are shitting on someone and making unfounded personal attacks. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.
Who pays you?Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you confirm that you are a twerp and a terrorist! But you are not alone!
Terror is great fear or an instant of great fear and a terrorist is a person using violence to cause terror for political purposes. Thus GWB, Dick Cheaney & Co are simple terrorists in my eyes. All alleged amateurs having filmed the terror of 911 are also terrorists. If you are American you live in a country governed by terrorists.
Only twerps do not understand it.
Mike
You sound like a twerp conspirator inventing things in support of terrorism. I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite. Just study my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Have you got a CV?
BTW, you are a liar and hypocrite. You posted you don't shit on people and here you are doing it to me as you've done to everyone else here. That makes you a hypocrite.
You're a liar and have been caught lying over and over again. Here is the link to just a few examples.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Keep attacking me and I'll keep bring up the truth about you.
Mike
You have a very high opinion of yourself. BTW, your CV isn't that impressive. It's pretty average.You know I have the American version of your CV. I've linked it so you've seen it. The question is why would ask a question you already know the answer to. It makes me wonder.You said you don't shit on people, yet here you are shitting on someone and making unfounded personal attacks. That makes you a liar and a hypocrite.Well, you are a twerp, i.e. a contemptible, silly fool. Who pays you?Why would you say something so mean and hurtful? Have my achievements offended you?My employer pays me, but not for any sports that I may or may not participate in.
Who pays you?Endurance sports are only for twerps prepared to drug themselves to early deaths. We normal people love amateur sports for fun and recreation. Any training is done just for fun to keep you and your opponent in shape. Not to destroy you.I hate to tell you this, but probably 99% of all endurance athletes (including myself) are are normal people who are amateurs and have never taken any performance enhancing drugs. Why would you think that I ran marathons for anything more nefarious than fitness and the pride of being able to say that I belong to select, but growing, group of people who have done something that most people will never do in their lifetimes?Re manned space flights only twerps have done them according to their own testimonies. Just look and listen to them. Twerps.You shit on anyone who disagrees with your limited worldview and that's just plain wrong.
And nuclear weapons? Invented by several twerps I identify at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So that’s why I do not shit on people. Only twerps think so. I simply call a twerp a twerp.
Well, you confirm that you are a twerp and a terrorist! But you are not alone!
Terror is great fear or an instant of great fear and a terrorist is a person using violence to cause terror for political purposes. Thus GWB, Dick Cheaney & Co are simple terrorists in my eyes. All alleged amateurs having filmed the terror of 911 are also terrorists. If you are American you live in a country governed by terrorists.
Only twerps do not understand it.
Mike
You sound like a twerp conspirator inventing things in support of terrorism. I am neither a liar nor a hypocrite. Just study my CV at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
Have you got a CV?
BTW, you are a liar and hypocrite. You posted you don't shit on people and here you are doing it to me as you've done to everyone else here. That makes you a hypocrite.
You're a liar and have been caught lying over and over again. Here is the link to just a few examples.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Keep attacking me and I'll keep bring up the truth about you.
Mike
Hm, my true, impressive CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm since many years. It is much better than Donald Trump's, if you can find it. Donald is top to scare American twerps, like you, with all sorts of threats so you wet your pants, etc. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com//uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/5740861_orig.jpg)
(http://adonilisium.weebly.com//uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/5740861_orig.jpg)
Ugliest superhero of all time. Even supervillains look better.
Hm, on my website photo I have a nice head band, etc. http://heiwaco.com . Plenty women consider me good looking but I am just rich, healthy and intelligent. You appear to be a losing twerp. Pls provide a photo.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ifz0q33hffoegkn/HeiwaCENSORED.jpg?dl=1)(http://adonilisium.weebly.com//uploads/4/3/2/7/43271021/5740861_orig.jpg)
Ugliest superhero of all time. Even supervillains look better.
Hm, on my website photo I have a nice head band, etc. http://heiwaco.com . Plenty women consider me good looking but I am just rich, healthy and intelligent. You appear to be a losing twerp. Pls provide a photo.