Heiwas lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 05:38:28 AM

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?

Here is where it became part of the conversation:

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.

Putting the name of the "axiom" you named after yourself in bold letters makes you feel really good, doesn't it? This is pathetic.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 04:16:26 AM

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.

No. Why should it? Please, explain yourself.

Do you really suggest that a small top C of any structure A, can destroy, compress, bla, bla, bla, the intact structure A below ... by gravity? But A keeps C in place since 30 years! Why would C suddenly destroy A?

Sorry DNO you sound like a stupid FBI, CIA, NSA tewwowist.

No.  I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?

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.

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

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.

No, I am not 400 m tall with a little, 40 m light,weight top C, that drops on the 360 m bottom A(nders) and crushes it (me) into dust, bla, bla, bla.

Job? http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .

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.

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.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 12:41:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

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.

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.

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.

LOL

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 01:03:21 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 12:41:41 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

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.

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.

LOL

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

Hey! Let's all LOL, agree that Heiwa's claims were a joke, and put this nonsense behind us!

LOL

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.

Not with a core structure like wtc 1 and 2 that analogy only works with a building without a core. Even NIST admits the pancake hypothesis is a fantasy.

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

Anywhoo back on topic.

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.

Well, I didn't say that. I just suggest that a top C of a structure cannot crush the bottom A of same structure, when A keeps C in place statically, even if you drop C on A. It is the famous Björkman's axiom.

Only idiots believe that if you drop 10 top floors and the roof (C) of a building on the 90 floors below (A), the top C crushes the bottom A into dust by gravity.

They say they have seen it on TV.

LOL. They do not understand it was just a Hollywood movie. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm . Same thing with US orbital mechanics. Just a Hollywood movie.

Since were pushing it, the logic of the pancake collapse is demonstrably false as seen in brick breaking karate demonstrations. It takes more force to break the larger stack than a smaller stack. This is self evident.



If the pancake hypothesis is correct then the force to break a small brick stack should be exactly equal to the force it takes to break a large stack.

This is not the case cause Newton.
@ Heiwa calling people idiots does not win you any points.

Edit. Lets have a quick look at what happens when the force applied isn't sufficient to break an entire stack of bricks.

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.

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.

Did you read this?

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

Edit Hardmode: why dont Karate-ka break solid concrete slabs, why do they use lots of individual bricks?

Edit. Superhard mode. Why doesnt that occur here?



2:40.

Anyway I won't hijack the thread here, we can continue this discussion if you like (I'd like to.)

Debating in support of the O/S is a lot like


We all went through it. Also please note the distinct lack of posters willing to defend the O/S. I don't want you to end up hating or resenting me.

P.S did I get Rayzor sacked?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 05, 2017, 12:46:57 AM

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.

Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 12:49:26 AM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 05, 2017, 12:46:57 AM

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

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 11:39:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 04:16:26 AM

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.

No.  I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?

Who named it after you? It was not you, right?

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 11:39:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 04:16:26 AM

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.

No.  I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?

Who named it after you? It was not you, right?

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.

damn you, heiwa.

Delusional

Quote from: Kami on July 05, 2017, 03:59:59 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 11:39:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 04:16:26 AM

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.

No.  I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?

Who named it after you? It was not you, right?

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.

What, exactly, does any of this nonsense have to do with the subject?  Which is your complete lack of understanding of orbital mechanics.
But just for grins, can you link to your scientific, peer reviewed paper?  I mean, somewhere other than your insane website?

I'd also like to see it, Heiwa. Surely a link?

Here's a few real papers.
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

However I agree we should keep this on topic. This is also a subject Heiwa has a lack of understanding on to be fair, as is almost every subject.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 05, 2017, 12:46:57 AM

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?

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.

Secondly, there is already an active 9/11 thread to discuss these things.

Quote from: Kami on July 05, 2017, 03:59:59 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 12:21:20 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 04, 2017, 11:39:09 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on July 04, 2017, 04:16:26 AM

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.

No.  I am very proud of the Axiom named after me. Björkman's axiom. Shouldn't you?

Who named it after you? It was not you, right?

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.

I am very curious who got the idea to name it björkman's axiom. Could you tell me?

EDIT: maybe we could rename the thread to Heiwa's lack of understanding in everything and his obsession with poop.