I won Heiwa's €1,000,000 challenge

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Any chance of pointing me to the explanation?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Hm, goalposts are same since the beginning. You shall fly to the Moon. Of course you take off from Earth and enter an elliptic orbit around Earth, in which speed, direction and location change all the time. At a certain time, direction, speed and location in this orbit you see the Moon coming towards you in its circular, constant speed orbit around Earth. And then you fire your rocket engine for a certain time at the right thrust and moment and - BINGO! - you leave your orbit around Earth to enter another orbit around the Moon, so you can later land on the Moon. One question is how much fuel is used for this orbits jump and can you really carry it with you?

And what happens, if you miss the jump and go off in the wrong direction at the wrong moment and start orbiting the Sun? Or Jupiter?

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 01:30:36 AM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Hm, goalposts are same since the beginning. You shall fly to the Moon. Of course you take off from Earth and enter an elliptic orbit around Earth, in which speed, direction and location change all the time. At a certain time, direction, speed and location in this orbit you see the Moon coming towards you in its circular, constant speed orbit around Earth. And then you fire your rocket engine for a certain time at the right thrust and moment and - BINGO! - you leave your orbit around Earth to enter another orbit around the Moon, so you can later land on the Moon. One question is how much fuel is used for this orbits jump and can you really carry it with you?

Been provided dozens and dozens of times across many forums. People can look you up elsewhere on the forums I mentioned and see the fraud you are.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Any chance of pointing me to the explanation?

You want me to dig up stuff that you can find yourself? Dig back through all the explanations already given here, on Cluesforum, apollohoax, that myriad users have already provided to Heiwa. If you want 9/11 Heiwa stuff, go to https://www.ae911truth.org/. Heiwa has been banned from all of these forums (with the sole exception of here) and they are all conspiracy forums which one would think would cotten to his machinations. Apparently not. It's one thing to have your own theory and dismiss conventional physics and such and make up your own (you) and another thing to try and use conventional physics and such and just get everything wrong (Heiwa). That's why he is loathed across the web. Even diehard conspiracy theorists won't embrace his conspiracy theories.

For specifics about space flight, read about the Hohmann transfer orbit. You won't believe any of it, nor anything from the aforementioned forum posts, because the physics that posters describe and cite and that physicists provide won't fit with your narrative. You will dismiss it all out of hand before you even scratch the surface. Your prerogative of course.

So I'm not sure why you're even interested.

Quote from: Stash on September 01, 2021, 12:32:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:55:21 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:42:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:23:47 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 31, 2021, 05:45:50 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on August 30, 2021, 10:28:38 PM

... and explain how to change orbits and land, etc.

Why should anyone bother explaining what has already been explained countless times?

It hasn't been explained.

It really has been explained…ad nauseam. Dozens of times, if not more, across all of the forums Heiwa has been banned from. Not to mention explained in the general realm of engineering and physics apart from his fake challenge.

Now if the countless number of unified explanations out there don’t fit with your personal narrative, that’s fine. That’s an entirely different issue.

But yeah, the so-called challenge has been met, exceeded, so many times it’s silly. As the sole judge/arbiter, Heiwa just slides the goalposts around whilst quietly changing the parameters on his god-awful 1996 aol-ish site.

Any chance of pointing me to the explanation?

You want me to dig up stuff that you can find yourself? Dig back through all the explanations already given here, on Cluesforum, apollohoax, that myriad users have already provided to Heiwa. If you want 9/11 Heiwa stuff, go to https://www.ae911truth.org/. Heiwa has been banned from all of these forums (with the sole exception of here) and they are all conspiracy forums which one would think would cotten to his machinations. Apparently not. It's one thing to have your own theory and dismiss conventional physics and such and make up your own (you) and another thing to try and use conventional physics and such and just get everything wrong (Heiwa). That's why he is loathed across the web. Even diehard conspiracy theorists won't embrace his conspiracy theories.

For specifics about space flight, read about the Hohmann transfer orbit. You won't believe any of it, nor anything from the aforementioned forum posts, because the physics that posters describe and cite and that physicists provide won't fit with your narrative. You will dismiss it all out of hand before you even scratch the surface. Your prerogative of course.

So I'm not sure why you're even interested.

Ok, so I asked you for some info on how the supposed spacecraft orbit Earth and manage to alter course for the supposed moon and then slow down and orbit the supposed moon. And you bring up 9/11 ?

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

To win my €1M Challenge you simply have to explain how to change an orbit around Earth to an orbit around the Moon, etc.

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Did you somehow miss this: "Dig back through all the explanations already given here, on Cluesforum, apollohoax, that myriad users have already provided to Heiwa." And this: "For specifics about space flight, read about the Hohmann transfer orbit."

I only mentioned the 9/11 bit in passing as an example as to how even 9/11 conspiracy theorists can't tolerate his conspiracy theories - Which at a meta level is telling. I literally simply wrote, "If you want 9/11 Heiwa stuff, go here..." And that's the only thing you latch on to?

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

But what do you say about an asteroid slamming into your house at 20km/s?

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 04:59:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

But what do you say about an asteroid slamming into your house at 20km/s?

No problem. My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off. You sound like another loser. Do you have a house?

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 04:59:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

But what do you say about an asteroid slamming into your house at 20km/s?

No problem. My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off. You sound like another loser. Do you have a house?

I do but it's not as strong as yours. If an asteroid slammed into it at 20km/s there would be a giant crater in the ground

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 04:59:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

But what do you say about an asteroid slamming into your house at 20km/s?

No problem. My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off. You sound like another loser. Do you have a house?

I do but it's not as strong as yours. If an asteroid slammed into it at 20km/s there would be a giant crater in the ground

You just have to follow local building rules. I assume your neighbors were happy when you were wiped out.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 06:02:25 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 05:39:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

Quote from: Shifter on September 02, 2021, 04:59:46 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 01, 2021, 08:31:30 PM

Quote from: Shifter on September 01, 2021, 01:16:31 PM

Worth posting so you can gauge Heiwas brain

Quote from: Rayzor on July 13, 2016, 07:18:04 PM

From one of the 911 sites  https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world

We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority, or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers or the Pentagon or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer.

Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion. And again.

Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, then denies making that claim.

Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again.

Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum.

Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist.

Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible, even by nuclear weapons. And again. And again.

However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations.

Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really.

Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact.

Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics.

Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it.
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires."

Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers.

Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed.

Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese, pizza boxes, match boxes, rubber balls, sponges, a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed, a tower of sushi, and a tower of limes.

Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942

He is banned from just about every internet forum there is.  To expect him to understand kerbal, is going to be a stretch I fear,  it is simply beyond his ability.

I especially like how he thinks his house could survive an asteroid impact. A giant rock several times the size and many times the weight, slamming into his house at around 20km/s and it's the asteroid which comes off 2nd best

Actually the Björkman famous axiom is much simpler.
A 1/10th top of any structure A being dropped by gravity on the 9/10th bottom part of A will just bounce (except on 9/11 at NYC).

But what do you say about an asteroid slamming into your house at 20km/s?

No problem. My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off. You sound like another loser. Do you have a house?

I do but it's not as strong as yours. If an asteroid slammed into it at 20km/s there would be a giant crater in the ground

You just have to follow local building rules. I assume your neighbors were happy when you were wiped out.

Sadly for my neighbours, their houses were built to the same code. And an asteroid impact of several tonnes slamming into my house at 20km/s would likely take out a whole swathe of the neighbourhood along with me

My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off.

How many asteroids have you bounced off your house?

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2021, 04:50:30 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off.

How many asteroids have you bounced off your house?

Assteroids smaller than 2 mm, i.e.  microassteroids fall on my roof all the time and bounces off and drop into the street, where cleaners sweep them away like dog shit. I don't keep counting them.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 01:42:42 AM

Quote from: markjo on September 02, 2021, 04:50:30 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 02, 2021, 05:31:15 AM

My house is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off.

How many asteroids have you bounced off your house?

Assteroids smaller than 2 mm, i.e.  microassteroids fall on my roof all the time and bounces off and drop into the street, where cleaners sweep them away like dog shit. I don't keep counting them.

I was asking specifically about an asteroid several times the size of your house and weighing many tonnes more

You also qualified your statement with 'any' asteroid

OK. Lets roll with that. The asteroid that is alleged to have ended the dinosaurs?


What would happen to your house if that slammed into it? If it would bounce off, it's a shame the Dinosaurs couldn't build a house to Heiwa spec. They might still be alive today

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 09:36:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Thanks for asking.
My axiom is described in http://heiwaco.com/ArtikelJEM1.pdf .

Re ae911truth.org I was an early supporter and friend of Richard Gage back in 2001, but when I suggested no planes at all were involved with the incident, he banned me. http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 10:43:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 09:36:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Thanks for asking.
My axiom is described in http://heiwaco.com/ArtikelJEM1.pdf .

You mention, "Adjacent floors are separated by springs." What "springs" are these?

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 11:12:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 10:43:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 09:36:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Thanks for asking.
My axiom is described in http://heiwaco.com/ArtikelJEM1.pdf .

You mention, "Adjacent floors are separated by springs." What "springs" are these?

Thanks for asking. The "springs" are described further down in the article. They are elements connecting the floors in the tower. The springs represent the load carrying elements of the tower structure, e.g. walls, pillars and columns.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 12:54:17 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 11:12:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 10:43:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 09:36:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Thanks for asking.
My axiom is described in http://heiwaco.com/ArtikelJEM1.pdf .

You mention, "Adjacent floors are separated by springs." What "springs" are these?

Thanks for asking. The "springs" are described further down in the article. They are elements connecting the floors in the tower. The springs represent the load carrying elements of the tower structure, e.g. walls, pillars and columns.

The only mention of "springs" anywhere are in the models as a part of simulations. There were no actual springs in the prefabbed floor construction nor in placement within the super structure.

So is that what mean? Or are you referring to the viscoelastic dampers?

Where did the weight (mass) of each floor come from?

I can see why even Gage thought you were crazy:

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 12:54:17 PM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 11:12:50 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 10:43:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on September 03, 2021, 09:36:44 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on September 03, 2021, 03:37:25 AM

Thanks for asking. My axiom says that a small top, say 1/10th of any structure A cannot crush the intact 9/10th structure A below.

Can you direct us to the math and simulations where you came up with your axiom?

How come you got banned from https://www.ae911truth.org/?

Thanks for asking.
My axiom is described in http://heiwaco.com/ArtikelJEM1.pdf .

You mention, "Adjacent floors are separated by springs." What "springs" are these?

Thanks for asking. The "springs" are described further down in the article. They are elements connecting the floors in the tower. The springs represent the load carrying elements of the tower structure, e.g. walls, pillars and columns.

The only mention of "springs" anywhere are in the models as a part of simulations. There were no actual springs in the prefabbed floor construction nor in placement within the super structure.

So is that what mean? Or are you referring to the viscoelastic dampers?

Where did the weight (mass) of each floor come from?

I can see why even Gage thought you were crazy:

You have to read my article again. It is a simple static and dynamic structural analysis and the determination of the effects of loads on a physical tower structure and their components.

The load bearing elements are the “springs”. The floors are just point loads. It seems you don’t grasp that. But when you do, you will understand that no planes removed “springs” in the WTC towers at NY.  Just look at the video footage of the progressive ‘collapses’ from top down. LOL.

Re Richard Gage of Ae911 - he never considered me crazy. We just have different opinions about what caused the structural collapses of the three WTC towers. And we agree that tower no 7 were destroyed from bottom up using explosives. No plane there!

My head is 10 times stronger than any asteroid slamming into it, so any asteroid will just bounce off.