Question for Heiwa

Correction

bje said:
When do we get to see your calculations for the 110,000 ton mass of the top section of WTC 2, Heiwa?
Click to expand...

The towers were quite similar. The mass of the top section of WTC2 (64,971 tonnes including floor 81-roof) can be readily determined from my article:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

See the spread sheet linked in the results section, if you want to play with the numbers. Actually WTC1 was a little heavier due to the antenna.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I think he's referring to a higher mass because the collapse started at a lower floor.
Click to expand...


Correct. I am referring to the mass of each block of each tower above the impact areas that began to fall at collapse initiation.
 
bje said:
Heiwa, perhaps you didn't understand me correctly. I am not asking you for a narrative in which you bring up claims and imaginative scenarios involving your speculations. I am asking for your actual data and calculations.

I will ask you again to provide us your calculations [equations, material specifications for each towers at the damage areas, structural damage from aircraft impacts and subsequent fires, etc.], you know, all the necessary calculations and data that you must have in order to draw any conclusions whatsoever. Without that, there is nothing to assess and nothing to evaluate against NIST's calculations, methodologies, and conclusions.

Surely you had to have made and provided similar calculations in your investigation and book on the Estonia disaster, am I correct?

Certainly, you can easily provide them either in a Excel file, Word document, or PDF file that you must already have, correct?
Click to expand...

The calculations for WTC1 are of course in my article we are discussing (intended for children, etc) and nobody has found any errors there. For WTC2 you have to multiply by 3 for certain factors but the result we are interested in is actually the same. So your request is OT. But thanks for your interest.
 
WildCat said:
Sorry, it just doesn't compete with:


Because to this layman a thorough report written by a who's who of highly credentialed experts in their fields takes on far more credence than a shipbuilder parroting truther sites and manufacturing math to fit their theories. Whatever the hell your "theory" is.
Click to expand...

The link is of course to NIST FAQ Appendix December 2007 and completely (intentionally?) misleading.

I actually in my article calculate the potential energy in the part above - abt 340 kWh - not very much actually - after an alleged fall of 3.7 meters, and points out that this energy is not applied to the structure below!!

Actually I show that there is no fall of 3.7 meters (!) as the wall columns at the initiation zone are still intact when the roof has fallen 3.7 meters!!

Strange! And before the wall columns at the initiation zone disappears out of sight, dust and smoke blow out through the windows adjacent to these intact columns!

And the top part above seems to disintegrate before that! Where according Nist the floors drop down - and the wall columns are intact???

Actually - what moves first is the roof! And then the wall columns at floors 94-97 are still intact for at least 5 seconds.

The Nist suggestion that the wall columns at floors 94-97 collapse first is simply BS. Nist has apparently missed that instant forensic evidence and that's why I ask Nist in my article (and also by direct mail to dr Kayser of Nist) to correct the Nist report.

Nothing conspiratorial about that! I am a serious person and want to assist.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
The link is of course to NIST FAQ Appendix December 2007 and completely (intentionally?) misleading.

I actually in my article calculate the potential energy in the part above - abt 340 kWh - not very much actually - after an alleged fall of 3.7 meters, and points out that this energy is not applied to the structure below!!

Actually I show that there is no fall of 3.7 meters (!) as the wall columns at the initiation zone are still intact when the roof has fallen 3.7 meters!!

Strange! And before the wall columns at the initiation zone disappears out of sight, dust and smoke blow out through the windows adjacent to these intact columns!

And the top part above seems to disintegrate before that! Where according Nist the floors drop down - and the wall columns are intact???

Actually - what moves first is the roof! And then the wall columns at floors 94-97 are still intact for at least 5 seconds.

The Nist suggestion that the wall columns at floors 94-97 collapse first is simply BS. Nist has apparently missed that instant forensic evidence and that's why I ask Nist in my article (and also by direct mail to dr Kayser of Nist) to correct the Nist report.

Nothing conspiratorial about that! I am a serious person and want to assist.
Click to expand...
You are a serious truther who has suspended reality to make up lies. Good for you, you are a 9/11 truth person of woo. Total woo, zero facts, no evidence you just make it up as you go! Why?

U B pure BS. You list of facts = zero = 0 cool (don't cry now)
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
You are a serious truther who has suspended reality to make up lies. Good for you, you are a 9/11 truth person of woo. Total woo, zero facts, no evidence you just make it up as you go! Why?

U B pure BS. You list of facts = zero = 0 cool (don't cry now)
Click to expand...

I have noted that you have written 5 865 messages of exactly the same type. Very impressive actually. But sad.
 
WildCat said:
Just quoting Gravy since Heiwa seems to have him on ignore.

Heiwa, are you still so wedded to your "theory" that you will ignore the testimony of people who were there that day? Still maintaining that alll the evidence against you is faked?
Click to expand...

My 'theory' is evidently the facts in my article about WTC1 that show that the wall columns in the initiation zone were pretty strong and didn't collapse as proposed by, e.g. Nist and Z P Bazant. They were intact after the top part above started to move and didn't cause the alleged release of potential energy from above.

The evidence for my 'theory' is there for anybody to watch on the videos.
I doubt there is any testimony of people to the contrary.
 
Heiwa said:
The calculations for WTC1 are of course in my article we are discussing (intended for children, etc) and nobody has found any errors there.
Click to expand...

Heiwa,

We are not children, as you well know. There are no data or calculations in your article. Obviously, needing that data and calculations, you must have used them to write any article since any conclusions you draw depend absolutely on them.

Please provide your data and calculations on both towers in either Word, Excel, or PDF format so that we may evaluate your conclusions, data, and methodology.

Certainly, you have no objection in doing that for us, do you, Heiwa?
 
bje said:
Correct. I am referring to the mass of each block of each tower above the impact areas that began to fall at collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

So am I.

The mass of the upper block of WTC1 was 32,800 tonnes (including floor 98-roof).

The mass of the upper block of WTC2 was 64,971 tonnes (including floor 81-roof).

These can be readily determined from my article:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

See the spreadsheet linked in the results section.
 
GregoryUrich said:
So am I.

The mass of the upper block of WTC1 was 32,800 tonnes (including floor 98-roof).

The mass of the upper block of WTC2 was 64,971 tonnes (including floor 81-roof).

These can be readily determined from my article:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf

See the spreadsheet linked in the results section.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've long been aware of the masses, even before your paper. Heiwa believes they are irrelevant in his calculations.
 
bje said:
Yes, I've long been aware of the masses, even before your paper. Heiwa believes they are irrelevant in his calculations.
Click to expand...

?? Not really - you have probably not read my article. I use 33 000 tons for the top part of WTC1 in my calculations (with the help of gurich).

So these 33 000 tons fall down through the 3.7 meters high initiation zone and impacts the structure below (we are told by NIST and Bazant) with an energy that is 1.221 GJ or GNm or 340 kWh as I have explained earlier.

NIST and Bazant think this is an enormous energi that impacts at high velocity but it is really only a bale of cotton hitting the floor!! Or LESS!

OK - the floor and its structure is according Bazant like a 370 meter high spring with spring constant C = 71 GN/m because there is plenty of structure below. 71 GN/m spring constant is pretty much, as you know (or probably not)? Read Bazant's paper.

Anyway - we physicians can calculate how much a spring with spring constant C = 71 GN/m compresses when you compress it with 1.221 GNm.

Can you guess how much? Guess! Does it break into 1000's pieces?

No, the answer is that the spring compresses 18.5 centimetres or 7.4 inches in US strange units. 0.05% total compression of the spring!! And after that it unloads to normal size.

So if the whole top part of WTC1 fell down on the part below it would have only compressed the part below 0.05% and then ... that would be it. The bale of cotton above could not cause any damage. No global collapse! The bale of cotton would bounce back!

Only fools, or people being fooled by their masters, or people who do not think at all or have inferior knowledge and education, believe that steel towers disintegrate in 1000 000's of pieces when a feather lands on the roof. Because that is what it was in physical terms.

Read my paper again. It's for children.
 
Heiwa said:
?? Not really - you have probably not read my article. I use 33 000 tons for the top part of WTC1 in my calculations (with the help of gurich).

So these 33 000 tons fall down through the 3.7 meters high initiation zone and impacts the structure below (we are told by NIST and Bazant) with an energy that is 1.221 GJ or GNm or 340 kWh as I have explained earlier.

NIST and Bazant think this is an enormous energi that impacts at high velocity but it is really only a bale of cotton hitting the floor!! Or LESS!

OK - the floor and its structure is according Bazant like a 370 meter high spring with spring constant C = 71 GN/m because there is plenty of structure below. 71 GN/m spring constant is pretty much, as you know (or probably not)? Read Bazant's paper.

Anyway - we physicians can calculate how much a spring with spring constant C = 71 GN/m compresses when you compress it with 1.221 GNm.

Can you guess how much? Guess! Does it break into 1000's pieces?

No, the answer is that the spring compresses 18.5 centimetres or 7.4 inches in US strange units. 0.05% total compression of the spring!! And after that it unloads to normal size.

So if the whole top part of WTC1 fell down on the part below it would have only compressed the part below 0.05% and then ... that would be it. The bale of cotton above could not cause any damage. No global collapse! The bale of cotton would bounce back!

Only fools, or people being fooled by their masters, or people who do not think at all or have inferior knowledge and education, believe that steel towers disintegrate in 1000 000's of pieces when a feather lands on the roof. Because that is what it was in physical terms.

Read my paper again. It's for children.
Click to expand...

For children, written by children

And, completely wrong by the way
 
Heiwa said:
So if the whole top part of WTC1 fell down on the part below it would have only compressed the part below 0.05% and then ... that would be it. The bale of cotton above could not cause any damage. No global collapse! The bale of cotton would bounce back!

Only fools, or people being fooled by their masters, or people who do not think at all or have inferior knowledge and education, believe that steel towers disintegrate in 1000 000's of pieces when a feather lands on the roof. Because that is what it was in physical terms.
Click to expand...


So there we have it - Heiwa's Law. Two top sections of skyscrapers, each no more than a "bale of cotton" in the effects on the lower structures of WTC 1 and WTC 2. And the world's structural engineers and forensic scientists are just fools, too dumb or brainwashed to see it.
 
bje said:
So there we have it - Heiwa's Law. Two top sections of skyscrapers, each no more than a "bale of cotton" in the effects on the lower structures of WTC 1 and WTC 2. And the world's structural engineers and forensic scientists are just fools, too dumb or brainwashed to see it.
Click to expand...

Amazing, isn't it? But that is exactly what NIST and Bazant proposes happens when 1.22 GJ (Giga Joule) energy (the 33 000 ton falling top part of WTC1) compresses the lower structure with spring constant C = 71 GN/m (Giga Newton per meter). There is an elastic compression of 19 centimetres ... and the top part should bounce back. Elementary. Giga powers! But it is like a feather falling on a straw. Physics.

And the world's structural engineers and forensic scientists should be embarrassed. But they are too clever and well paid for that or worry about their pensions or jobs or futures to say anything ... they just nod. It is embarassing. That's Heiwa's Law.

For Björkmans (a.k.a. as Heiwa) axiom - check Google and brush up your Swedish.
 
Amazing, isn't it Anders. You challenge people to debunk your theory and then run away from the post that shows your argument about steel being magically fireproof is a bit....well....let's call it suspect, shall we?
 
Heiwa said:
Actually I show that there is no fall of 3.7 meters (!) as the wall columns at the initiation zone are still intact when the roof has fallen 3.7 meters!!

Strange! And before the wall columns at the initiation zone disappears out of sight, dust and smoke blow out through the windows adjacent to these intact columns!

And the top part above seems to disintegrate before that! Where according Nist the floors drop down - and the wall columns are intact???

Actually - what moves first is the roof! And then the wall columns at floors 94-97 are still intact for at least 5 seconds.

The Nist suggestion that the wall columns at floors 94-97 collapse first is simply BS. Nist has apparently missed that instant forensic evidence and that's why I ask Nist in my article (and also by direct mail to dr Kayser of Nist) to correct the Nist report.

Nothing conspiratorial about that! I am a serious person and want to assist.
Click to expand...
This is my fourth time posting this video. Heiwa, what benefit do you gain from lying to people who know you're lying? That really is odd behavior. Why not stop?

 
Ever wonder what offspring would result if Malcolm Kirkman and Max Photon could mate? Wonder no more:

Heiwa said:
Amazing, isn't it? But that is exactly what NIST and Bazant proposes happens when 1.22 GJ (Giga Joule) energy (the 33 000 ton falling top part of WTC1) compresses the lower structure with spring constant C = 71 GN/m (Giga Newton per meter). There is an elastic compression of 19 centimetres ... and the top part should bounce back. Elementary. Giga powers! But it is like a feather falling on a straw. Physics.

And the world's structural engineers and forensic scientists should be embarrassed. But they are too clever and well paid for that or worry about their pensions or jobs or futures to say anything ... they just nod. It is embarassing. That's Heiwa's Law.

For Björkmans (a.k.a. as Heiwa) axiom - check Google and brush up your Swedish.
Click to expand...
 
Heiwa, what benefit do you gain from lying to people who know you're lying? That really is odd behavior. Why not stop?
Click to expand...
Gravy

I think it's because he's deluding himself that he's not been 100% debunked? A delusional engineer. Blinkin' great....

A.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Ever wonder what offspring would result if Malcolm Kirkman and Max Photon could mate?
Click to expand...

No.

I try not to imagine such things. My therapist says the damage done could well be permanent.
 
It has, in the words of the chants from the football terracing, "all gone quiet over there".....
 
bje said:
Heiwa,

I see you got Christopher Bollyn in on the Estonia stuff:

http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/01/estonia-particle-weapon-poofed-wtc.html

Seems appropriate.
Click to expand...

You are right about the Estonia. I was the first to debunk the official fantasies about the sinking 1994 already 1996 in an article in the biggest Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter for professional reasons and the authorities are still trying to wriggle out from their own net of lies. This has encouraged many other people of all kind to query the official conclusions and request corrections and clarifications and a completely new investigation. I am just following the developments from the side lines, as usual. It takes time to reveal cover-ups of this type, i.e. government trying to hide their own incompetence.

Latest steps by the authorities, actually the Swedish government, were 2006 to appoint some new 'experts' to explain the sinking based on the official lies and to ask the Swedish Police Laboratory to verify whether videos and pictures of the wreck as part of the investigation have been manipulated or enhanced (by the investigators?). We will know the results March 2008.

A very interesting development is that one Swedish Member of Parliament requested 2004 a completely new investigation (actually using copy/paste many of my findings). Same MP, Mr Tolgfors is today minister of defence ... and handling the matter in the (new) government.

Evidently the authorities and their agents have over the years called me personally unintelligent, unscientific, unreasonable, conspiratorial, a person wanting to bring down the government, etc, etc, and been trying to destroy my reputation and business ... but they failed I am glad to say. I am just a source of proven facts and true information based on sound principles and simple analysis. Nothing beats that. Good for my business. Safety at sea.

My venture into the 911 mine field - actually the WTC1 collapse - was just watching some kids jumping in my bed.

Hope you enjoyed my latest article. Some proposals made in this forum have actually improved it. That's why I participate here from time to time. Most contributions at JREF forum are of course just rubbish.
 
Heiwa said:
You are right about the Estonia. I was the first to debunk the official fantasies about the sinking 1994 already 1996 in an article in the biggest Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter for professional reasons and the authorities are still trying to wriggle out from their own net of lies.
Click to expand...
Don't be ridiculous. The Estonia didn't sink.

My venture into the 911 mine field - actually the WTC1 collapse - was just watching some kids jumping in my bed.
Click to expand...
Next time tell them not to jump on your head.
 
Heiwa some people whom I consider well-versed in relevant fields concerning 911 have called YOUR paper rubbish.

Perhaps the time is now for you to submit it to a legitimate peer review and prove them wrong? I mean seriously, how many experts would you need to call your paper rubbish before you actually begin to believe them?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Don't be ridiculous. The Estonia didn't sink.

Next time tell them not to jump on your head.
Click to expand...

Gravy has posted >12 300 comments since 03/2006 (20 per day) - all rubbish. A record?

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
twinstead said:
Heiwa some people whom I consider well-versed in relevant fields concerning 911 have called YOUR paper rubbish.

Perhaps the time is now for you to submit it to a legitimate peer review and prove them wrong? I mean seriously, how many experts would you need to call your paper rubbish before you actually begin to believe them?
Click to expand...

Some people whom I consider well-versed in the fields the paper is about think it is pretty good. Particularly how it is adapted for children. So there are differences of opinions. Nothing new there!

But let your people point out some factual errors in the article and I will of course look at them. Copy/paste the facts with corrections and explanations why they are relevant and why they make all rubbish. Be constructive, not obstructive.
 
Heiwa said:
Some people whom I consider well-versed in the fields the paper is about think it is pretty good. Particularly how it is adapted for children. So there are differences of opinions. Nothing new there!

But let your people point out some factual errors in the article and I will of course look at them. Copy/paste the facts with corrections and explanations why they are relevant and why they make all rubbish. Be constructive, not obstructive.
Click to expand...


But Heiwa, in another thread I put it to you - with technical references - that your views on the inherrently fire resistant nature of structural steelwork was unsupported by facts or professional opinion. Strangely you wholly failed to respond to this, despite your ongoing requests for a critique.

I can therefore only assume, as others have done, that you are unwilling or incapable of engaging in such a dialogue and thus query why you are wasting your time on this forum.

Of course that approach is, in itself, fairly typical of 99.9% of the Truth Movement when confronted by real facts, rather than make-believe and wishful thinking.

I do hope your Estonia paper is better informed, but from the suggestions of vast conspiracies and secret killings I really do have my doubts.
 
Can someone here please tell me how someone can reach the keys on a keyboard while wearing a straightjacket?

I Am He
 
I Am He said:
Can someone here please tell me how someone can reach the keys on a keyboard while wearing a straightjacket?

I Am He
Click to expand...
Voice recognition.

Let's see, Everyone thinks his ideas on the Estonia are nuts, the same is true for his view on 9/11. And he still doesn't see a pattern.
 
It must be good voice recognition software to understand what is being said through all that drool? :D

I Am He
 
Heiwa said:
My venture into the 911 mine field - actually the WTC1 collapse - was just watching some kids jumping in my bed.
Click to expand...


That was a bad decision, don't you think, Heiwa?

Tell us about your claim that no planes hit the WTC towers, no plane hit the Pentagon, and no plane crashed in Shankesville, PA on 9/11/2001. Do you still believe that?
 
Heiwa said:
I actually in my article calculate the potential energy in the part above - abt 340 kWh - not very much actually - after an alleged fall of 3.7 meters, and points out that this energy is not applied to the structure below!!
Click to expand...
What was it applied to, a giant tortoise?
 
Heiwa said:
But let your people point out some factual errors in the article and I will of course look at them.
Click to expand...


They have and you failed to address them. You also refused to provide the data I requested repeatedly. As with other 9/11 Truthers, it is perfectly consistent when you deliberately ignore inconvenient facts.

Why is that, Heiwa? Aren't you the least bit ashamed?
 
Heiwa said:
And the world's structural engineers and forensic scientists should be embarrassed. But they are too clever and well paid for that or worry about their pensions or jobs or futures to say anything ... they just nod. It is embarassing. That's Heiwa's Law Fantasy.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for ya! You don't have to thank me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom