Question for Heiwa

Lennart Hyland

Muse
Lennart Hyland
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
831
Location
Sweden
Since you stated that these pictures are faked:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879047797a8d614f3.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879047797c0d6b77c.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045fd54c927534.jpg

Heiwa said:
I must agree with Tony Szamboti - the pictures or rather the deformations look strange to me. Hollywood manipulations?
Click to expand...

(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101791&page=6)

Can you please tell me where these pictures are faked and how they faked them?

Oh and when you have done that (not likely) you could show us the real pictures.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Since you stated that these pictures are faked:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879047797a8d614f3.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879047797c0d6b77c.jpg
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045fd54c927534.jpg



(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101791&page=6)

1. Can you please tell me where these pictures are faked and how they faked them?

2. Oh and when you have done that (not likely) you could show us the real pictures.
Click to expand...

1. Origin and history of the pages are unknown to me. As I understand it, it is quite easy to photoshop digital pictures nowadays. So before you link pictures to me, establish their reliability, etc.

2. Sorry, I was at Freiberg, Saxony on 911 and could not take any pictures at NY.

Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place. One or more floors connected to the wall cannot deform the wall, e.g. due to alleged 'sagging' of the floor due to heat.

Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.

The 'sagging' floor is pulling the wall inwards? You must be joking! The wall box column is much too strong for that.

Remind you that Nist FAQ December 2007 suggests that the floors are still connected to the walls. It is only later that they suddenly falls down, etc. 700 bolts/floor suddenly fails.

BTW - what's wrong with my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?
 
Heiwa said:
1.As I understand it, it is quite easy to photoshop digital pictures nowadays.
Click to expand...

actually its quite difficult. not only must teh "faker" match the color pallete, lighting and compression of the original image, they must also be able to add in their "fakery" without disturbing the original image so much, to make it believable.

Any image that is "faked" in photoshop can be detected. It takes a keen eye to spot the manipulation of pixels to do so. Any image saved in very low resolution will be easier to notice the fakery.



The image from the NIST report of the WTC south wall is not faked in any sense of the word. The only thing they added, which you can see upon the closer examination is hte lines to designate where the floors should have been.

The rest of the building, nothing is faked about it.

(I have 15 years of graphics experience and have used Photoshop since version 3.0 - when layers were introduced)

Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place. One or more floors connected to the wall cannot deform the wall, e.g. due to alleged 'sagging' of the floor due to heat.

Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.
Click to expand...


based on what source?


The 'sagging' floor is pulling the wall inwards? You must be joking! The wall box column is much too strong for that.
Click to expand...

based on what?
 
If the towers had been built from an 9/11 CT advocate's store of personal incredulity, they'd still be standing.
 
FAILED - peer review; redo

Heiwa said:
BTW - what's wrong with my article http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?
Click to expand...
It is a joke! Your paper is a joke. I like how you ignore the impact damage. Good job.

BTW, the WTC did fail due to impact and fire. This makes your paper a failure! BTW, if you were smart you would figure out 9/11 truth is a bunch of liars, and there were no explosives in the WTC towers.

Since you failed to come up with the correct conclusion you paper is false; you have failed! And you do not even understand! Bird cage, oops, you are funny!

The mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - immediately break up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below and should just fall straight down.
Click to expand...
WRONG! (as an engineer I have graded this section of your paper as FAILED)
 
Arus808 said:
actually its quite difficult. not only must teh "faker" match the color pallete, lighting and compression of the original image, they must also be able to add in their "fakery" without disturbing the original image so much, to make it believable.

1. Any image that is "faked" in photoshop can be detected. It takes a keen eye to spot the manipulation of pixels to do so. Any image saved in very low resolution will be easier to notice the fakery.



The image from the NIST report of the WTC south wall is not faked in any sense of the word. The only thing they added, which you can see upon the closer examination is hte lines to designate where the floors should have been.

The rest of the building, nothing is faked about it.

(I have 15 years of graphics experience and have used Photoshop since version 3.0 - when layers were introduced)




2. based on what source?




3. based on what?
Click to expand...

1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.
 
Heiwa said:
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.
Click to expand...

Stop playings games,child. WHO faked the photographs?

Your claim,back it up.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa doesn't even understand the principle of the towers design or how they differ from nearly every other multistorey steel frame structure that has ever been built.

With such ignorance on show, I cannot take anything Heiwa says seriously.
 
Heiwa said:
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.

2. I am the source. Read my paper.

3. My calculations.
Click to expand...


NYC police department helicopters are one source. You may have heard of them. They lost 22 police that day. Do you assert that they are part of the coverup?
 
Heiwa,

You understand the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'

You have claimed that the pictures which show the buckling of the perimeter columns (and thus blow your fantasy out of the water) are faked.

Prove it.
 
Heiwa said:
1. You avoid the question. What are the origins of the photos and history, etc.
Click to expand...

and how does this pertain whether or not that the images are faked? YOu claim they are faked, back it up. The photographs are legit, considering how many years of media GRAPHICS experience I have.

IM claiming that because IM an expert in seeing if an image is faked or not, BASED ON MY opinion, the photographs are NOT faked.



2. I am the source. Read my paper.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you can't even analyze a photograph correctly, why should I trust what YOU say? I rather trust the findings of 200 scientists, than someone who can't even prove a photograph has been faked.


3. My calculations.
Click to expand...

sorry, but your :calculations: are bupkiss. Better calculations have been provided by more EXPERIENCED experts here.
 
beachnut said:
It is a joke!

Your paper is a joke. I like how you ignore the impact damage. Good job.

BTW, the WTC did fail due to impact and fire. This makes your paper a failure! BTW, if you were smart you would figure out 9/11 truth is a bunch of liars, and there were no explosives in the WTC towers.

Since you failed to come up with the correct conclusion you paper is false; you have failed! And you do not even understand! Bird cage, oops, you are funny!

WRONG! (as an engineer I have graded this section of your paper as FAILED)
Click to expand...

So prove that the content of the paper is wrong instead of getting upset (and vulgar in the other thread).

Bazant proposes 5 stages before suddenly something happens and there are many errors there = wrong assumptions.

Nist has made two suggestions - mass above hammers intact structure below, or, floors above fall down ... and both towers collapse.

I have looked at many videos of WTC1. It seems first the roof collapses and the mast falls. That's the start. Nothing happens at floor 94 - the initiation zone - then.

After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.

Nothing has happened at floor 94 at that time.

Then there is a lot of dust and smoke spewing out so we cannot see what actually happens at the initiation zone; hammer hitting or floors falling down. This should happen after 5-6 seconds.

So why does dust and smoke spew out sideways at floors 98+. Floors falling down? But they are intact and shall hit floor 94? Where does the dust come from?

As far as I am concerned the roof and the floors above floor 98 were not damaged by a plane or suffered any fire damage.

Why do they fail before the columns in the so called initiation zone?

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood what we are discussing.
 
Heiwa said:
So prove that the content of the paper is wrong instead of getting upset (and vulgar in the other thread).

Bazant proposes 5 stages before suddenly something happens and there are many errors there = wrong assumptions.

Nist has made two suggestions - mass above hammers intact structure below, or, floors above fall down ... and both towers collapse.

I have looked at many videos of WTC1. It seems first the roof collapses and the mast falls. That's the start. Nothing happens at floor 94 - the initiation zone - then.

After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.

Nothing has happened at floor 94 at that time.

Then there is a lot of dust and smoke spewing out so we cannot see what actually happens at the initiation zone; hammer hitting or floors falling down. This should happen after 5-6 seconds.

So why does dust and smoke spew out sideways at floors 98+. Floors falling down? But they are intact and shall hit floor 94? Where does the dust come from?

As far as I am concerned the roof and the floors above floor 98 were not damaged by a plane or suffered any fire damage.

Why do they fail before the columns in the so called initiation zone?

Sorry, I think you have misunderstood what we are discussing.
Click to expand...

NO child you misunderstand.

YOU claimed the photograghs were obvious fakes. Now prove it , it is simple.

You paper is worthless unless you now prove your claim, so get to it.
 
Heiwa said:
After a few seconds, actually 3-4 seconds the whole mass above floor 98 seems to self-destruct. Or is it the floors falling down? I doubt that, but Nist thinks so.
Click to expand...

Why? You've already shown that you know bugger all about the construction of multistorey steel framed structures when you claimed that the wtc towers were a conventional design. Your opinion on the events of that day are no more compelling than those of a 15 yr old LCF member.
 
A W Smith said:
NYC police department helicopters are one source. You may have heard of them. They lost 22 police that day. Do you assert that they are part of the coverup?
Click to expand...

I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
 
Heiwa said:
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Stop derailing this thread, stop avoiding the subject. Your junk is being dicussed in another thread.

This thread is about YOUR claim that the photograghs are fake, now get to it and prove your claim.

You need to prove you are right and back up your claim.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!
Click to expand...

for cryng out loud. HE's showing you one of the SOURCES of the images in the NIST report. IT could be from the FOOTAGE taken by NYPD helicopters that WERE CIRCLING the towers on that day! holy jeezes
 
A W Smith said:
two of those images in that third link appear to be taken from around the 7 second mark in this video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x396lf_the-antenna-topples-as-wtc-1-falls_tech

is another on.

It seems the roof falls first at second 0, then the parts above floor 98 disintegrates at seconds 3-4 - smoke/dust spewing out - and that the 'buckled wall columns' at floor 94 are still standing then. A little after that - seconds 5-6, smoke and dust comes out of the windows at floor 94 and we do not see that buckled wall columns collapsing.

According Nist the whole part above floor 94 should be coming down as one piece, alternatively 6 or 11 floors above floor 94 were dropping down, neither of which is seen on the videos.

Why does the roof move before anything happens at floor 94?
 
Arus808 said:
for cryng out loud. HE's showing you one of the SOURCES of the images in the NIST report. IT could be from the FOOTAGE taken by NYPD helicopters that WERE CIRCLING the towers on that day! holy jeezes
Click to expand...

Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.
 
Heiwa said:
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time. Reason of course is my calculation to the opposite. Prove me wrong!

Evidently I do not assert anything else than what is shown in my article, i.e. that the Bazant and Nist suggestions are incorrect and should be improved. NYPD has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...

Anders Bjorkman, You have been proven wrong. Time to conform to reality or get psychological help.

Buckling Steel
According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns
Click to expand...

Is this officer lying? it is a simple question. The photos taken from police helicopters disprove your assertion. You can no longer hand wave it away. Your Doubt does not negate reality. Your entire work is an argument from incredulity.
 
Heiwa said:
Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.
Click to expand...

Irrelevent, you have seen the photographs , you claimed they were fake.

Now back up your claim or retract it.
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Stop derailing this thread, stop avoiding the subject. Your junk is being dicussed in another thread.

This thread is about YOUR claim that the photograghs are fake, now get to it and prove your claim.

You need to prove you are right and back up your claim.
Click to expand...

You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.
 
Heiwa said:
Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.
Click to expand...

Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats
 
Heiwa said:
You are right that my paper was subject of another thread and I stopped writing there for reasons given there. Now we are discussing photos (and videos) ... that do not conform to the calculations in my paper.

It seems the photos of the 'buckled wall columns' are extracted from a video showing the collapse but this video starts a little late, i.e. a couple of seconds after the roof on WTC1 started to drop (not seen on the video). I assume the wall columns we are talking about was not buckled a few seconds earlier.

Anyway - according to Nist and Bazant the wall at the initiation zone should fail at the same time as the roof starts to fall ... and that does not seem to be the case.

Then the part above the initiation zone should fall down intact and hit the structure below ... and that does not seem the case either.

It seems the part above is disintegrating before it hits floor 94.

I do not see any part above falling down where the columns are deformed!

Before the columns then buckle, it seems more smoke and dust are spewing out before that. Floors falling down from above? I cannot see that.

So the photos are maybe not really faked! Just taken out of the sequence of events? Taken after the roof started to fall.
Click to expand...

YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?
 
Heiwa said:
Reason for that? The floor is just bolted to the columns. The force/moment transmitted by the floor to the column does not change due to sagging/heat. No deformation of the wall can therefore take place.
Click to expand...

The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.
 
uk_dave said:
Bowing of the columns indicates an imminent failure

Stick to boats
Click to expand...

Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM
 
Prove 9-11 was an inside job or leave, mirage.

You talk smack, but you haven't proved and can't prove that 9-11 was an inside job.

Cite evidence. We'll wait.
 
lack of knowledge?

Miragememories said:
Bowing of the columns indicates bowing of the columns.

"Imminent failure" expectation is nothing but speculation, and is often applied to the bowing column observation as a means of bolstering the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis.

There were no boats.

MM
Click to expand...
Poor research is showing again. The guy who this OP is for is a boat guy (The writer is a structural engineer for Heiwa Coalbeit in the shipbuilding). He thinks things float! He has no respect for gravity and thinks mass can be ignored. If you could understand his paper you could show us his errors. But your lack of knowledge on his paper is only exceeded by you lack of facts on 9/11.

We have a shipbuilder making errors on a topic he proves he has poor grasp on, 9/11 WTC failure due to impact and fire. Read his paper, as an engineer I suggest he remove his paper before his company finds out he can not think rationally on an important topic. He needs to correct errors even a lay person can catch; why not try and tell us his error MM?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Reason why any picture of deformation of the south wall is faked is that the mass above is too small to deform the wall in the first place.
Click to expand...

Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?
 
Heiwa said:
I doubt very much the information that any crew on a police hkp saw the WTC1 south wall at floor 94 being deformed at any time.
Click to expand...

Yet another twoofer calls the first responders liars.

So we now have the NYPD lying about the columns and the FDNY lying about WTC7.

But don't ever accuse twoofer pukes of insulting the New York police and firefighters.
 
stateofgrace said:
YOU said the photograghs were obvious fakes, are you now retracting that statement yes or no?
Click to expand...

Both videos referred to above are evidently edited. Pictures extracted from the first video showing that the wall is deformed are apparently taken after the roof starts to fall!! Clever manipulation!

I always trust my own calculations and not those of 200 'experts' or similar. US authorities have got different things wrong many times since 911 and the explanation of the WTC1 collapse is just one in a long row of mistakes.
 
bje said:
Heiwa,

What is the actual mass above and whose calculations did you use?

What are the calculations you used to determine the mass was too small?
Click to expand...

All is explained in my article at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

The mass above is 33 000 tons, the stresses in the wall columns are 22.5% of the yield stress, the wall columns are not heated very much, slenderness ratio is very low = no buckling or deformation can take place.
 
Mancman said:
The amount of force does not change when the floors sag but the direction of the force does.
Click to expand...

The direction of the load on the floor is evidently that of gravity and does not change. This load/force is then transmitted to the wall column via two bolts.

It is suggested that a floor between the wall and the core sags due to heat and the load on the floor and that a horizontal force is added in the floor and that this force should pull the wall inwards. OK, show how much the direction changes and then make a little calculation of how the wall column should deflect due to that!
 
Heiwa said:
Did the police hkp video film or take photos of WTC1 before and during the collapse? Pls provide more info.
Click to expand...


Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Astounding level of ignorance. Not only did they take photos, but one of the three photos in the original OP is from the NYPD Aviation Unit, as clearly stated on the photograph which NIST have stamped (c) 2001. New York Police Department. All Rights Reserved.

Could you possibly be more incompetent?

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.
 
Heiwa said:
Well, one photo is apparently from a video film and it is not clear when that frame was taken. You see, there are many strange things here, e.g. (repeat):

Nist says that (A) potential energy is released when the columns at the initiation zone starts to crumble but it is clear that the mass above, e.g. the roof, starts to move down before the columns crumble, actually the columns are not seen to crumble at all.
Then Nist suggests that this potential energy (B) exceeds the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (undefined) forgetting that the potential energy released (no value) must be applied to the (other) structure to affect it.
Just looking at videos of the collapse we see many effects (C) taking place in intact structure before any (A) potential energy released from above is (B) applied to structure.
(A) is for example seen throwing dust sideways and upward which is not according to laws of physics.
So the Nist suggestion that global collapse ensued due to (A) and (B) is not proven and not even seen on the videos, while (C) is observed but not explained.
My article accuses nobody of anything; just recommends the relevant parties to improve and/or correct their work.
Click to expand...
Keep trying to fool the children. That's obviously your speed. Us adults know your agenda.
 
Heiwa said:
the wall columns are not heated very much
Click to expand...
Anders, again you have made this claim, despite being shown photos and being directed to studies that show otherwise. You don't strike me as a stupid person, so I can only guess that when you look at these photos and say the columns are not heated very much, either mental illness has afflicted you or you are lying to try to support an untenable position.

Please describe what YOU see when you look at these photos, Anders. I'm genuinely interested to know.

8790477b839294822.jpg



Five minutes before collapse.
8790477b82f38893b.jpg




​
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom