Geography professor claims to have found Osama bin Laden

[barracuda]

He's a no-planer. Great.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Bjorkman even cites the Twin Towers as being designed to be impervious to a plane impact. He doesn't ever say "no planes" involved in his papers.

No, Anders Bjorkman not a "no-planer" by what was posted here. More BULLSHIT.
Just look at your link, jingofever. It's all massive disinfo!

Looks like a badjacketing effort by the usual suspects.
Bjorkman exposed a ship-sinking cover-up years ago and made big enemies in Europe before exposing the 9/11 controlled demolition.
That makes him an extra special candidate for discrediting.

How about that ship engineer new to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Read his articles on 9/11 and the ship sinking cover-up.

He's a crank.

Nothing there but badjacketing with alleged anonymous claims on two 9/11 disinfo websites.

Your link goes to DISINFO site-http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/#What%27s%20New?
(a disnfo site which claims the hundreds of architects and engineers at Richard Gage's site are all "loons")
...which CLAIMS that some username (!) at the James Randi site,
ANOTHER DISINFO SITE..
has made a whole list of ridiculous claims.
NONE OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE.

We can't even READ those alleged ridiculous claims listed on either DISNFO site because ALL the links always bring up-

JREF Forum Error
You are probably seeing this error because the Forum is busy and we have had to limit the number of "database connections", please try again in a minute or two.
There seems to have been a problem with the JREF Forum database.
Please try again by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser.

An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, whom you can also contact if the problem persists.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

Well, isn't that convenient.
Don't trust disinfo websites to tell you who is or isn't a truthful whistleblower.

From Bjorkman's own site and papers-

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

.....
6.1 The Towers were built very strong in the 1960's

The above is a clear indication how the Towers were originally built by serious architects and engineers in the 1960's. Compressive static stresses in the columns were less than 1/3 of the yield stress of the steel before (obviously) ... and after serious damage (not so obvious but shown here)! The buckling stress of the column is virtually the same as the yield stress as the columns were arranged with spandrels. One reason why the static stresses were so low was that the designers had no access to computers to optimize (slender down) the construction. Manual calculations were done and to be on the safe side you added steel and built strong! And steel was quite cheap at that time. And US steel was good quality. The assumed yield stress 248 MPa was probably much higher in reality. NIST never checked the yield stress of the steel from the initiation zone in the rubble!

There was therefore plenty redundancy. A plane may crash into the bird cage and nothing happens. A big fire may break out and nothing happens. Why? Because the normal compressive stress in the supporting vertical structure is so low and if any column breaks or buckles, its load is transmitted to adjacent columns via the spandrels and the stress in adjacent columns increase a little. No global collapse is possible under any circumstances.
.....

[jingofever]

It works for me.

Thanks for your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As you know by now I find it intriguing to speculate about how 9/11 was actually done and my present stand is CD - at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes. Same at Shanksville but no CD ... and no plane, of course. Keep it simple.

From here.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

It works for me.

Thanks for your intelligent contributions to the discussion. As you know by now I find it intriguing to speculate about how 9/11 was actually done and my present stand is CD - at WTC 1,2,7 and pentagon and no planes. Same at Shanksville but no CD ... and no plane, of course. Keep it simple.

From here.

Still won't open for me.
Consider-

Is "Heiwa" at the no-planer at JREF really Anders Bjorkman?
Or did someone try to discredit him as an anonymous imposter as has happened to other whistleblowers like Lisa Pease?

How to tell? Um, you could READ his own professional marine safety website-
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/
and HIS ACTUAL 9/11 PAPER there which is NOTHING like the claims touted by those two disinfo sites.

Clues-
> Two disnfo sites claim an anonymous username is this guy who seems to have the time to post hundreds of times at Randi's site which is 9/11 cover-up troll territory.

> Anders Bjorkman exposed a cover-up in the 1990s and was already a prime target for discrediting.

> Bjorkman's actual 9/11 paper with NONE of the alleged disinfo can be read at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which has 100% integrity and has been targeted relentlessly by USG cover-up disinfoteers for this very reason-
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Bjorkman's paper link at AE rips the NIST perps a new one including
Frank Greening, lots of clarity.

He also targets the PROFESSOR who came up with a cover-story 48 hours after 9/11 that NIST promoted, probably the template for the disinfo op article about a PROFESSOR and his absurd dispersion theory of bin Laden-

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm

......
It would appear that NIST, the US authority responsible for analyzing the collapse has abandoned the original suggestion of a rigid upper part free falling, impacting and causing a shock wave and instead suggests that 6-11 lower floors inside the upper part suddenly dropped down and overloaded the uppermost floor of the structure below. The above pictures evidently do not support such modified claim, where it is seen that the roof displaces 20-25 metres, while there is no visible effects at and below the initiation/impact zone at floor 94 (where the floors of the upper part are supposed to drop down). If only internal floors suddenly dropped down, evidently the roof would remain in position. It would appear that the core columns of the upper part above the initiation zone fail first, the upper part is compacted and the walls of the upper part telescopes into themselves. That the upper part does not remain intact should be obvious to anybody. However, a few days later an unknown professor announced exactly the opposite!

2.1 The false Theory and the misleading Assumptions

An American professor Z P Bazant published two days after the WTC destructions 911 a theory that was adopted by the authorities as true.
.....

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm
(The Case for Collapse / Crush-down Arrest and Clear Thinking.)

.....
.....
What I see is a fountain of debris and rubble thrown sideways in all directions - apparently caused by multiple controlled demolitions fired from top down and plenty of smoke, probably caused by the controlled demolition charges.s.

So, sorry! I cannot see anything that confirms your model and theory, Dr. G. But I wonder! Why do you invent such a stupid model and theory and publish it in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics? Are you working for the perpetrators of the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, 7 or some agents of those? Do you think you can convince anyone with your unscientific nonsense? Why do you do it? Why not simply shut up like most other poor bastards and don't say anything. I don't expect you to be like me that can do real structural damage analysis and quickly see that WTC 1 destruction is not caused by crush down or PE>SE that NIST suggests.


Anyway - I have just updated http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist7.htm . It seems NIST have destroyed all records how they analyzed and simulated the WTC 7 structural failures as presented in its November 20, 2008, report. There is no calculations, etc, of any kind left by NIST to support the WTC 7 final report! All destroyed ... if it ever existed. The NIST WTC7 report was laughable! A big section above floor 16 was dropping at free fall ... and deformed itself." (end of reply to G).

It is always nice with reader contacts! I will update this page when G clarifies his motives.
....

...more...a good read, very educational. Unlike JFREF.

[jingofever]

Is "Heiwa" at the no-planer at JREF really Anders Bjorkman?
Or did someone try to discredit him as an anonymous imposter as has happened to other whistleblowers like Lisa Pease?

How to tell? Um, you could READ his own professional marine safety website-

No need. I e-mailed him. He confirmed that he posts as Heiwa at JREF. He also seems like a nice guy.

[barracuda]

Nicely done, jingofever. The direct approach.

[jingofever]

Nicely done, jingofever. The direct approach.

It wasn't completely necessary. He pointed out to me that in his "Case for Collapse" paper which Hugh Manatee Wins links to above he acknowledges that he is 'Heiwa' though doesn't specify where the exchange took place.

[orz]

Hmm. What are the articles keywords?

Hugh you've NAILED the root problem with your theories there! The 'keywords' of a newspaper article are ANY WORDS IN THE ARTICLE RELATED TO THE SUBJECT THE READER IS INTERESTED IN OR RELATES IT TO. These vary and are NOT limited to the handful YOU PERSONALLY picked based on YOUR interests.

[Cosmic Cowbell]

No, more like-

"You Are Awesome!" ~ Your Own Mind

[alwyn]

"Mathematical models used to explain how animal species spread out say..." WTF? WTF does that have to do with a human terrorist on the lam?
NOTHING.

Mostly Hugh's psyops exercises are a little subtle for me, and I don't really understand them, but......... I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS ONE!!!


If you get network TV, there's a show called Numbers, that does just this kind of linking, using seemingly unrelated mathematical models to solve crimes. So, to the average TV viewer, this is going to make perfect sense.