The Heiwa Challenge

[Architect]

And it is off topic in here.

You guys can't have your cake and eat it.

Well, I don't think any of us here would consider a polite reminder - and it is excrutiatingly polite - to be bad form at all.

And, I have to ask you, why do you think Heiwa is avoiding the Ronan Point thread which originated in response to one of HIS posts?

A final word of advice; keep popping eveyone on ignore and bandying around the kind of sniping that you have been, and you'll be suspended in a few days. Steady the buffs, as Biggles always said.

[Dave Rogers]

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

Funny, that. So far you've said that you'll pay $1M to anyone who can disprove your axiom, but that this is separate to the Heiwa Challenge which is for fun only. Then you said that the Heiwa Challenge was closed. Now you're saying that the Heiwa Challenge is to show that the axiom is flawed, and is still open. You've also said that the Heiwa Challenge requires that a structure be designed that will exhibit crush-down, but you're now saying that the Heiwa Challenge can be won by showing that the Axiom is flawed, which the posted videos indisputably show.

Could you please try a little harder to keep track of which pack of lies you're telling at what time?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Are you completely unable to contribute without insult or irrelevance.

Heiwa has offered a million dollar prize to anyone who can disprove his axiom, but chosen to be the adjudicator. The conflict of interests is rather obvious, don't you think? That, together with the fact that Heiwa is now rejecting examples that clearly disprove his axiom on the basis of his own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, means that a discussion of his impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but I would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

Dave

[Heiwa]

That, together with the fact that Heiwa is now rejecting examples that clearly disprove his axiom on the basis of his own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, means that a discussion of his impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but I would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

Dave

Well, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1. Very simple - just design/build a structure, etc, etc. A practical exercise.

The result so far is disappointing for some and quite good for me, i.e. nobody has been able to design/build a structure ... where dropping the top destroys it.

Is it too difficult? I have even offered money if you can describe the phenomenon theoretically. No takers! Of course, the theoretical part is quite difficult, but the practical?

Bazant has done one attempt to do it theoretically. In 1-D. A line A that disappears or is compressed into another line B, when it is impacted by another line C. Very theoretical! Has nothing to do with reality.

NIST has provided a standard. KE of line/part C exceeds the strain energy absorption capacity of line/part A = A disappears. Asking NIST to clarify results in ... silence.

Some JREFers spam the forum with videos of controlled demolitions or demolitions caused by explosives or bad workmanship suggesting that WTC 1 & 2 were not destroyed by controlled demolitions. I see no logic there.

Dave suggests that I am now rejecting examples that clearly disprove my axiom on the basis of my own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, and that it means that a discussion of my impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but, Dave argues, would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

A bit unclear and off topic. I wonder why Dave cannot design/build a structure to prove his point, whatever it is. That's the purpose of this long and interesting thread; The Heiwa Challenge.

[Architect]

I wonder why Heiwa can't go to the Ronan Point thread and defend his position regarding Ronan Point?

[Justin39640]

the Heiwa challenge is not about real buildings according to you now
which would probably be fine... unless... YOURE POSTING YOUR STUPID CHALLENGE IN A 9/11 CONSPIRACY FORUM (you know where 4 very real buildings are discussed), not a tinkertoy forum

which in turn, based on your latest dodges and goal post shifts, MAKES THE BULK OF YOUR (almost) 3000 POSTS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC
thank you for wasting everyone's time for the last 2 years

[EnJaySee]

Some JREFers spam the forum with videos of controlled demolitions or demolitions caused by explosives or bad workmanship suggesting that WTC 1 & 2 were not destroyed by controlled demolitions. I see no logic there.


I see no logic in this challenge.

Dave suggests that I am now rejecting examples that clearly disprove my axiom on the basis of my own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, <snip>

This has been proven many many times in this thread.

A bit unclear and off topic. I wonder why Dave cannot design/build a structure to prove his point, whatever it is. That's the purpose of this long and interesting thread; The Heiwa Challenge.

I'm struggling to see why this challenge is even in this forum.

[Heiwa]

I see no logic in this challenge.


This has been proven many many times in this thread.


I'm struggling to see why this challenge is even in this forum.

The reason is explained in post #1.

On other threads at JREF we can see how structures (buildings) are easily destroyed in France and none of these structures (buildings) fulfill The Heiwa Challenge condition § 4 (see below). Reason is that in France, when you destroy buildings, the structure is prepared for destruction by removing primary structural elements so that the structure becomes like a 'house of cards' that only needs a little kick to collapse. No explosives, etc, etc. are needed. Just a little kick! And then you are really certain that destruction will follow!

Thus these French structures (buildings) do not comply with § 4 of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. : 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart.

Hopefully this clarifies the situation for many people? Now, carry on with your designs/constructions for The Heiwa Challenge.

[WildCat]

Hopefully this clarifies the situation for many people?.
It's quite clear. Your challenge was fraudulent from the get-go.

[TruthersLie]

The reason is explained in post #1.

On other threads at JREF we can see how structures (buildings) are easily destroyed in France and none of these structures (buildings) fulfill The Heiwa Challenge condition § 4 (see below). Reason is that in France, when you destroy buildings, the structure is prepared for destruction by removing primary structural elements so that the structure becomes like a 'house of cards' that only needs a little kick to collapse. No explosives, etc, etc. are needed. Just a little kick! And then you are really certain that destruction will follow!

Thus these French structures (buildings) do not comply with § 4 of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. : 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart.

Hopefully this clarifies the situation for many people? Now, carry on with your designs/constructions for The Heiwa Challenge.

So it took you 2 days to try to weasle out of it. Nice try twoof. I bet you were sooooooo :mad:

But as we can see, they have only weakened 2 floors in most of the buildings.

Provide PROOF that they have weakened ANY other floors.

I await your citation to back that crapola up.

Be able to withstand a SMALL lateral impact at the top w/out falling apart.

how SMALL?

I mean in one of them , they had to TEAR OUT THE FREAKING WALL :jaw-dropp to make it collapse. Until the WALL WAS TORN COMPLETELY OUT, I think that counts as a "small" lateral impact. (until the whole wall was torn out)

hahahahahaha.

shift them goalposts. Very nice. But complete and utter bs.

[Heiwa]

So it took you 2 days to try to weasle out of it. Nice try twoof. I bet you were sooooooo :mad:

But as we can see, they have only weakened 2 floors in most of the buildings.

Provide PROOF that they have weakened ANY other floors.

I await your citation to back that crapola up.

Be able to withstand a SMALL lateral impact at the top w/out falling apart.

how SMALL?

I mean in one of them , they had to TEAR OUT THE FREAKING WALL :jaw-dropp to make it collapse. Until the WALL WAS TORN COMPLETELY OUT, I think that counts as a "small" lateral impact. (until the whole wall was torn out)

hahahahahaha.

shift them goalposts. Very nice. But complete and utter bs.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

[stateofgrace]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

Why not ? That's all you ever do.

[TruthersLie]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

Spam?

I just answered your statement that they failed to meet requirement #4 (a small lateral impact).

They had to TEAR OUT THE FREAKING wall.

that is MUCH MORE THAN a "small lateral impact."

Until the wall was fully torn out, it was taking much more stress and strain than a "small lateral impact" (which you NEVER defined, how small, how lateral, etc....)

My replies are NOT spamming. They are pointed and directed at your challenge. They are real world examples which REFUTE your bs axiom and challenge.

are you now shift shift shifting those goalposts?

[EnJaySee]

The Heiwa Challenge


It is assumed at JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Forum that a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it!


This has been proven.

Heiwa obviously gets his jollies seeing this thread bumped. He dodges, ducks, dips, dives and dodges to avoid admitting he's wrong. It's incredibly ridiculous. This Challenge is baloney and this thread does nothing except inflate Heiwa's ego everytime it gets bumped.

[Heiwa]

This has been proven.



It has? Has it? Been proven! Link!

[willhaven]

No, you do not win! You have to design/build your own structure, etc, etc. You can of course copy WTC 1 or 2 and I look forward to that, i.e. how your structure is designed/built and how you think it will fail, when top is dropped. The path of failures is evidently of interest, to be verified at the real test. Good luck! We are really moving forward here.Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that I must build the structure myself?

Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that the structure couldn't have been constructed before the Heiwa Challenge existed?

Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that I can't use the WTC towers 1 and 2 as an submission?

I think the WTC towers 1 and 2 fit the challenge and you are unwilling to accept them because they do seem to qualify.

[TruthersLie]

It has? Has it? Been proven! Link!

You have 8 proven REAL world examples which have been posted.

You claim they have been preweakened below where they initiated the collapse.

CITATION PLEASE.

Can 49% crushdown 51%? How about 33% crushing down 67%? Come on anders

[Newtons Bit]

You have 8 proven REAL world examples which have been posted.

You claim they have been preweakened below where they initiated the collapse.

CITATION PLEASE.

Can 49% crushdown 51%? How about 33% crushing down 67%? Come on anders

US building codes requires that all buildings that are inhabited by workers must have a code-defined minimum of lateral capacity. This is typically not less than 50% of the design wind force for the shortest term construction events.

That more than qualifies for a resistance to a "small" lateral force. Apparently Heiwa wants to discount that because he doesn't have a video of someone pushing on the top. Why can't he just admit that he's wrong already and move on? What a coward.

[TruthersLie]

Newton...

I can already see his next dodge.
"but those buildings were in FRANCE, so US building codes don't apply"

ROFLMAO.

[Sam.I.Am]

Why can't he just admit that he's wrong already and move on?

He's got a million internet bucks riding on it. He will never admit it for that reason alone.

[releaseeabode]

Well, I don't think any of us here would consider a polite reminder - and it is excrutiatingly polite - to be bad form at all.

And, I have to ask you, why do you think Heiwa is avoiding the Ronan Point thread which originated in response to one of HIS posts?

A final word of advice; keep popping eveyone on ignore and bandying around the kind of sniping that you have been, and you'll be suspended in a few days. Steady the buffs, as Biggles always said.

You've become a Moderator now have you?

I can be suspended for using the ignore function?

I'll take your definition of "sniping" as meaning pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrits so, you can share the honour of joining my ignore list. When you have learnt to show good form I'll be prepared to politely remove it.

One final piece of advice, if I have broken the rules then report me! Simple isn't it.

Unlike others Heiwa, I am not derailing to obfuscate and harrass other posters and while I regret the temporary thread derail it had to happen to put some people back in their box.

[releaseeabode]

Really ?

So on your planet comments like this are not insulting and are relevant right?

I would be honoured to be added to your list.

In truth, it's not the way I would phrase it but, given the nonsense that Heiwa has had to field for over 2000 posts I would give him a little more slack than I would the sniping Jackals who should know better! Realistice?

It is unfortunate that sometimes there are people who are right who can make otherwise objectionable statements. It is not Heiwa's motivation you should be attacking, it is his argument.

Emotive politicking arguments aside, all you have to do to nail him is prove him wrong. I notice you all now avoid the Moderated threads on these topics like the plague, that tells me you are afraid of the argument and prefer to attack the arguer.

I have given you a little more slack in terms of ignore because you made an excellent post earlier in the thread and I think you might even have a truly open mind. When I read your more recent posts I find a pattern that cannot be ignored so, I have to ignore it (that sentence is almost poetic).

I award you your badge of honour. You may pin it to your chest alongside your "I was banned at LCF" distinguished service medal.

[Dave Rogers]

Thus these French structures (buildings) do not comply with § 4 of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. : 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart.

This is a lie. If the structures were unstable, as you suggest, they would collapse due to the small lateral impacts involved in installing the hydraulic jacks. The fact that they are standing prior to collapse initiation is prima facie evidence of their stability. Therefore, Heiwa is deliberately rejecting structures which can be proven to meet the terms of his challenge on spurious grounds. Therefore, if the challenge were to have any meaning, an independent adjudicator would be necessary. Since Heiwa has refused to address this issue, his challenge is a fraud.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

In truth, it's not the way I would phrase it but, given the nonsense that Heiwa has had to field for over 2000 posts I would give him a little more slack than I would the sniping Jackals who should know better! Realistice?

It is unfortunate that sometimes there are people who are right who can make otherwise objectionable statements. It is not Heiwa's motivation you should be attacking, it is his argument.

Emotive politicking arguments aside, all you have to do to nail him is prove him wrong.

This has been done repeatedly. Heiwa simply invents spurious grounds for rejection of all successful entries. This is fraud, pure and simple. If you disagree, please explain how a standing structure can be claimed not to be capable of bearing its own weight, as Heiwa repeatedly implies about the Verinage examples.

Dave

[Architect]

You've become a Moderator now have you?

I can be suspended for using the ignore function?

I'll take your definition of "sniping" as meaning pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrits so, you can share the honour of joining my ignore list. When you have learnt to show good form I'll be prepared to politely remove it.

One final piece of advice, if I have broken the rules then report me! Simple isn't it.

Unlike others Heiwa, I am not derailing to obfuscate and harrass other posters and while I regret the temporary thread derail it had to happen to put some people back in their box.

Aha. Everyone who disagrees goes on ignore. I see.

[zooterkin]

I'll take your definition of "sniping" as meaning pointing out your hypocrisy. I don't like hypocrits so, you can share the honour of joining my ignore list. When you have learnt to show good form I'll be prepared to politely remove it.


How will you know?

[stateofgrace]

In truth, it's not the way I would phrase it but, given the nonsense that Heiwa has had to field for over 2000 posts I would give him a little more slack than I would the sniping Jackals who should know better! Realistice?

It is unfortunate that sometimes there are people who are right who can make otherwise objectionable statements. It is not Heiwa's motivation you should be attacking, it is his argument.

Emotive politicking arguments aside, all you have to do to nail him is prove him wrong. I notice you all now avoid the Moderated threads on these topics like the plague, that tells me you are afraid of the argument and prefer to attack the arguer.

I have given you a little more slack in terms of ignore because you made an excellent post earlier in the thread and I think you might even have a truly open mind. When I read your more recent posts I find a pattern that cannot be ignored so, I have to ignore it (that sentence is almost poetic).

I award you your badge of honour. You may pin it to your chest alongside your "I was banned at LCF" distinguished service medal.

Thank you I am truly honoured to be on such a list.

Since I am now being ignored by you, unfortunately you will not be able to see my reply. It would be easy for me to attack you and call your gesture the most pathetic thing I have seen for some time. Rather than do that I prefer to attack your argument that members here should cut your clueless guru some slack. There will be no slack cut or not quarter given to a disgrace to the engineering trade who accuses those who disagree with him of being complicate in mass murder. Nor will there be any slack given to an individual who makes pathetic gestures in an almost cringe worthy attempt to defend such obnoxious and odious acts. He is wrong to make such dreadful accusations and you are wrong to defend such actions but on planet crazy this appears to be the norm. I guess as in most insignificant cults those that are foolish and gullible to buy into such rubbish feel the need to defend their leaders irrespective of how repulsive they are to normal sane individuals. Your clueless guru as been pulled apart on this forum, his and your refusal to accept this is indicative of the entire ilk that laughably call themselves truth seekers.

I find it highly humorous that you decide to defend such actions and feel that you can take the moral high ground and lecture anybody about morality and ask that this sort of post should be excused and some slack cut. It is inexcusable and there will be no slack cut to such an individual. Nobody forces your Guru to come here, nobody forces him to post. He does it of his own free will. If he is unable to conduct himself in a civil and courteous manner he will receive the same treatment in return. If he is unable to substantiate his claims he will be called on it. If he continues to repeat the same rubbish over and over again and not answer his critics he will be called out. If you wish to defend such actions you too will be called on it. Anybody who accuses innocent people of being involved in mass murder deserves nothing but scorn and utter contempt, as does anybody who lamely tries to defend such actions.

I always find that the truthers who, so readily and quickly, choose to ignore members here are the least capable of carrying forward an argument and substantiating their beliefs and this is confirmed by your action. After one post, of three sentences you are unable to answer and resort to type, of course I can't call you a clueless twoofer who blindly defends this master, so I won't.

Oh well since I am on ignore, I guess you won't see this post, but you and I know you will and guess what? I am laughing at you and your ridiculous gesture. I will be waiting for you to reply, because you know you want to. Only problem is though you have stated you have put me on ignore. Oh dear, what should you do?

Reply or Ignore?

[Heiwa]

AA. Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that I must build the structure myself?

BB. Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that the structure couldn't have been constructed before the Heiwa Challenge existed?

CC. Where does the Heiwa Challenge say that I can't use the WTC towers 1 and 2 as an submission?

DD. I think the WTC towers 1 and 2 fit the challenge and you are unwilling to accept them because they do seem to qualify.

AA. Nowhere! Daddy may help you!

BB. Nowhere. But then you could not enter it in The Heiwa Challenge until later.

CC. Nowhere. But they have to comply with the rules - see post #1.

DD. WTC 1 & 2 are already destroyed. But you/Daddy can copy them! I will assist you!

Thus: Build a core on ground! Then make four external walls on ground around core. You connect the walls in the corners. Then put/bolt floors, say 100 off, between core/external walls! Put a hat truss on top. This structure is h meters high! Good. Do lateral test!

Then cut core and walls at 1/10 h from top and lift top part a little using hat truss.

You'll note that core and walls of top, 1/10 h high, now hangs from the hat truss! And that 10 floors are positioned between walls/core about h/100 apart.

OK, now you are supposed to drop the 1/10 h top, part C, on lower 9/10 h structure, part A.

Now - what contacts what at impact? The top C core probably contacts part A core! Do the C walls contact the A walls? The walls are pretty thin! Maybe two C walls contact the top A floor just inside the walls and the other two C walls contact nothing? And maybe two A walls contact the bottom C floor? Pls tell me, what contacts what.

What happens then? Well, it depends on what contacts what at impact.

It seems contacts/impact are a bit unsymmetrical, to say the least, e.g. nothing contacts the top A floor at two walls!!

Pls, tell me then how the top A floor will be damaged?

Pls, read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for further tips.

Good luck with your structure/test/entry to The Heiwa Challenge!

[Architect]

Reply or Ignore?

Well, we know what Heiwa will do.

[Heiwa]

Well, we know what Heiwa will do.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

[stateofgrace]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.
Like this nonsense?

What's your opinion about B(azant)? What part does it/he plays in this mass murder? And yourself? What is your agenda?

Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.

Is this yet another condition you have suddenly introduced into this thread whereby you can accuse who ever you wish of being involved in mass murder and nobody can respond? And if they do you can simply ignore the response?

Heiwa can accuse anybody he wishes of being involved in mass murder with total impunity, right ?

[Architect]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

Excuse me, but you are the one spouting nonsense re: Ronan Point and avoiding a thread where your poor grasp of structural issues is being held up to scrutiny. Do feel free to post there, failing which i don't plan on going away.

[Architect]

Lads, we're talking about the man who got caught talking bollocks about Ronan Point - a nice progressive collapse - and is avoiding the thread about it like a plague. He's just a troll.

Lads, lads, lads.

Do you all remember the thread(s) with ChristopherA where we decided that he was quiet clearly mentally ill and stopped posting? Argument, no matter how well reasoned, was making no difference and arguably making things worse.

Well, with respect, I think we've reached the same point with Heiwa. All our arguments are simply washing over him, he's repeating the same bollocks time and time again, and completely ignores his own mistakes.

Let's just leave the poor chap alone. Let's stop posting. He's ill or sufficiently deluded to qualify as ill.

No more posts, please. Stop feeding his illness/habit.

Kittens are acceptable, per normal forum convention at such points.

[Heiwa]

Like this nonsense?


Is this yet another condition you have suddenly introduced into this thread whereby you can accuse who ever you wish of being involved in mass murder and nobody can respond? And if they do you can simply ignore the response?

Heiwa can accuse anybody he wishes of being involved in mass murder with total impunity, right ?

No,just try to produce a structure as per post #1 and be a Heiwa Challenge winner and not a whiner or NWOner.

Just follow the US new standards in the NIST 911 reports and be guided by prof. Bazant's theory about one-way crushing structures and you are one your way to fame. To avoid future mass murders! Isn't that a good, positive thing?

[Newtons Bit]

No,just try to produce a structure as per post #1 and be a Heiwa Challenge winner and not a whiner or NWOner.

There's already plenty of real-world examples of this phenomon happening. It's well documented. Why should we waste 100's of hours and 1000's of dollars to replicate this phenomenon?

Just follow the US new standards in the NIST 911 reports and be guided by prof. Bazant's theory about one-way crushing structures and you are one your way to fame. To avoid future mass murders! Isn't that a good, positive thing?

WTF?

[stateofgrace]

No,just try to produce a structure as per post #1 and be a Heiwa Challenge winner and not a whiner or NWOner.

Just follow the US new standards in the NIST 911 reports and be guided by prof. Bazant's theory about one-way crushing structures and you are one your way to fame. To avoid future mass murders! Isn't that a good, positive thing?

I take it that as well as Prof Bazant, you are now accusing those who worked on the NIST reports of being involved in mass murder? Since you raised this topic it is now on topic. So, care to name names?

Your nonsensical challenge as been shown to be, just like yourself, one big fraud and deserves zero attention.

[Heiwa]

AA. There's already plenty of real-world examples of this phenomon happening. It's well documented.

BB. Why should we waste 100's of hours and 1000's of dollars to replicate this phenomenon?

CC. WTF?

AA. Are there? Then just copy and be a Heiwa Challenge winner!

BB. Why not? We don't want to be a Heiwa Challenge winner?

CC. ? Wave The Flag!

[Justin39640]

AA. Are there? Then just copy and be a Heiwa Challenge winner!

BB. Why not? We don't want to be a Heiwa Challenge winner?

CC. ? Wave The Flag!

CC. "Wow, Titanic Failure"

[stateofgrace]

AA. Are there? Then just copy and be a Heiwa Challenge winner!

BB. Why not? We don't want to be a Heiwa Challenge winner?

CC. ? Wave The Flag!

Enough is enough, welcome back on to ignore you deluded fool.There are plenty of examples not just in this thread but the other threads you are avoiding.

I agree with other members you are not worth the effort of replying to. Seek help, seriously.

[Heiwa]

Enough is enough, welcome back on to ignore you deluded fool.There are plenty of examples not just in this thread but the other threads you are avoiding.

I agree with other members you are not worth the effort of replying to. Seek help, seriously.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

[Justin39640]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

in the context of the 9/11 subforum this whole thread is spam

[willhaven]

AA. Nowhere! Daddy may help you!Good, so it qualifies on those grounds.

BB. Nowhere. But then you could not enter it in The Heiwa Challenge until later.Not a problem. I'll enter it now eventhough my submission was tested nearly eight years ago. There is plenty of documentation floating around. Surely you've seen much of it.

CC. Nowhere. But they have to comply with the rules - see post #1.So they comply with the rules and the WTC towers are valid entries? Great!

DD. WTC 1 & 2 are already destroyed. But you/Daddy can copy them! I will assist you!The rules don't state that the structure couldn't have already been built and destroyed at a previous date.

The original WTC towers 1 and 2 appear to meet the Heiwa challenge in accordance with Post #1. Wouldn't you agree?


Therefore, Heiwa is deliberately rejecting structures which can be proven to meet the terms of his challenge on spurious grounds.Case in point. :)

[Newtons Bit]

AA. Are there? Then just copy and be a Heiwa Challenge winner!

BB. Why not? We don't want to be a Heiwa Challenge winner?

CC. ? Wave The Flag!

Heiwa, provide me with approximately $20 million and I'll replicate one of those structures for you. If you can't provide the funds for a replica of the buildings that are on video collapsing, then please do us all a favor and shut up.

[EnJaySee]

Aha. Everyone who disagrees goes on ignore. I see.

Not entirely true. He put me on his ignore list for being flippant.

[JohnG]

Not entirely true. He put me on his ignore list for being flippant.


He put me on ignore for my making fun of his tendency to put people on ignore.

[Architect]

Lads, lads, lads.

Do you all remember the thread(s) with ChristopherA where we decided that he was quiet clearly mentally ill and stopped posting? Argument, no matter how well reasoned, was making no difference and arguably making things worse.

Well, with respect, I think we've reached the same point with Heiwa. All our arguments are simply washing over him, he's repeating the same bollocks time and time again, and completely ignores his own mistakes.

Let's just leave the poor chap alone. Let's stop posting. He's ill or sufficiently deluded to qualify as ill.

No more posts, please. Stop feeding his illness/habit.

Kittens are acceptable, per normal forum convention at such points.

Come on, guys.

[Heiwa]

So they comply with the rules and the WTC towers are valid entries?



No, the structures have to comply with the rules to become valid entries. That's your (and Daddy's) job.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, provide me with approximately $20 million and I'll replicate one of those structures for you. If you can't provide the funds for a replica of the buildings that are on video collapsing, then please do us all a favor and shut up.

Every participate in The Heiwa Challenge must fund his own structure. So keep them simple.

I made a model for abt. $400:- . See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6

[TruthersLie]

shift shift shift twoofie.

now that we know how full of crapola you (and your daddy) are, I can easily put you on ignore.

[A W Smith]

Conditions:

1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
the french demos qualify
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
the french demos qualify
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
the french demos qualify
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
the french demos qualify, The buildings were both safe enough to occupy by workmen, able to withstand wind loads, and were able to withstand a small lateral impact at the top via the hydraulic rams acting as temporary bracing.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
the french demos qualify, In fact they exceed this requirement because they were still braced with structural elements between the two.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.
the french demos qualify
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
the french demos qualify
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush part A (if you can! That's the test).
the french demos qualify
9. In order to easily repeat the test/challenge drop height should be <1.1 h, i.e. C can only be dropped from 2h above ground on A that is 0.9 h high.
the french demos qualify, They were not even dropped from this height.
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.the french demos qualify, They were crushed in entirety with no elements remaining intact.
NwFHEoiUZ7o

[GlennB]

the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify,
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify
the french demos qualify, They were not even dropped from this height. the french demos qualify, They were crushed in entirety with no elements remaining intact.
NwFHEoiUZ7o

No! The French demos don't qualify, because you didn't build + demolish them yourself. Only little contraptions you construct in your garden can qualify, not real buildings.
Foolish foolish AW Smith ;)

[Newtons Bit]

Every participate in The Heiwa Challenge must fund his own structure. So keep them simple.

I made a model for abt. $400:- . See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6

You already forget what you posted?

AA. Are there? Then just copy and be a Heiwa Challenge winner!

Yea, make a copy of a 10 story+ building for $400.

Look Heiwa, you're not an attractive blond woman so you can't get away with intentionally acting stupid. It's not cute, it's annoying.

[releaseeabode]

How will you know?

Good question, I'll give it a couple of seconds consideration....

....I concluded that I don't really care. :)

[Heiwa]

You already forget what you posted?



Yea, make a copy of a 10 story+ building for $400.

Look Heiwa, you're not an attractive blond woman so you can't get away with intentionally acting stupid. It's not cute, it's annoying.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

[Newtons Bit]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

I remind you that that the "Heiwa Challenge" has already been satisfied to everyone.

Shut up already.

[Heiwa]

the french demos qualifythe french demos qualifythe french demos qualifythe french demos qualify, The buildings were both safe enough to occupy by workmen, able to withstand wind loads, and were able to withstand a small lateral impact at the top via the hydraulic rams acting as temporary bracing.the french demos qualify, In fact they exceed this requirement because they were still braced with structural elements between the two.the french demos qualifythe french demos qualifythe french demos qualifythe french demos qualify, They were not even dropped from this height. the french demos qualify, They were crushed in entirety with no elements remaining intact.
NwFHEoiUZ7o

Good, just copy any French structure(s), design/build your (French) structure, do the lateral test, disconnect the 1/10 top C and drop it on the 9/10 bottom part A and record the results and enter your structure in The Heiwa Challenge. Here C never one-way crushes down A ... unless you really weaken A like a house of cards!

BTW - do you understand the French language? Ce n'est pas difficile!

[Heiwa]

I remind you that that the "Heiwa Challenge" has already been satisfied to everyone.

Shut up already.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

I wonder why JREF moderators do not intervene?

[Architect]

Why don't you ask them, but if I had to stick a finger in the air I'd guess it was because they knew you were talking bollocks.

[Heiwa]

Why don't you ask them, but if I had to stick a finger in the air I'd guess it was because they knew you were talking bollocks.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

I wonder why JREF moderators do not intervene?

[Architect]

See previous post. Feel free to report me. In the meantime, get your beam end over the Ronan Point thread, where we've been waiting for you for some considerable time.

[releaseeabode]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

I wonder why JREF moderators do not intervene?

Don't think of it as Spam, think of it as getting on record the intellectual level that the JREF operates at.

The ignore function eliminates most of the nonsense.

[stateofgrace]

Don't think of it as Spam, think of it as getting on record the intellectual level that the JREF operates at.

The ignore function eliminates most of the nonsense.

Correct.

This message is hidden because Heiwa is on your ignore list (http://forums.randi.org/profile.php?do=editlist).

May I also remind you that this thread is about the Heiwa Challenge stop spamming it with your nonsense.

Opps I forgot you have got me on ignore so you can't see this message can you ?

[Architect]

Strange, Heiwa is still posting but hasn't been able to find his way to the Ronan Point thread.

[Justin39640]

Don't think of it as Spam, think of it as getting on record the intellectual level that the JREF operates at.

The ignore function eliminates most of the nonsense.

what, sticking your fingers in your ears and copy/pasting the same thing over and over is intellectual?
you should really apply some of your ideas to your fellow truthers

[releaseeabode]

what, sticking your fingers in your ears and copy/pasting the same thing over and over is intellectual?
you should really apply some of your ideas to your fellow truthers

...so Heiwa, you left click the posters name and select to ignore, ok? Just like I did to Justin39640.

Did you get that? It is far more effective at getting rid of unwanted noise than Dolby A, B or C.

[Justin39640]

...so Heiwa, you left click the posters name and select to ignore, ok? Just like I did to Justin39640.

Did you get that? It is far more effective at getting rid of unwanted noise than Dolby A, B or C.

case in point, ty

[stateofgrace]

...so Heiwa, you left click the posters name and select to ignore, ok? Just like I did to Justin39640.

Did you get that? It is far more effective at getting rid of unwanted noise than Dolby A, B or C.

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

Oh this is easy and getting very very boring, here is a kitten

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/gifs/shoot_kitten.jpg

Which of course you won't see.

[Justin39640]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

Oh this is easy and getting very very boring, here is my kitten

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/gifs/shoot_kitten.jpg

Which of course you won't see.

now thats a cute kitten
awwww

[Newtons Bit]

I remind you that this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Pls do not spam it with your nonsense.

I wonder why JREF moderators do not intervene?

I remind you that that the "Heiwa Challenge" has already been satisfied to everyone.

Shut up already.

[WUBRINY63]

I remind you that that the "Heiwa Challenge" has already been satisfied to everyone.

Shut up already.

Not really.

[Newtons Bit]

Not really.

Excuse me.

It's been satisfied to everyone that matters.

[rwguinn]

Excuse me.

It's been satisfied to everyone that matters who has more than 2 active brain cells.
fixed it for ya

[UNLoVedRebel]

AA. Nowhere! Daddy may help you!

BB. Nowhere. But then you could not enter it in The Heiwa Challenge until later.

CC. Nowhere. But they have to comply with the rules - see post #1.

DD. WTC 1 & 2 are already destroyed. But you/Daddy can copy them! I will assist you!

Thus: Build a core on ground! Then make four external walls on ground around core. You connect the walls in the corners. Then put/bolt floors, say 100 off, between core/external walls! Put a hat truss on top. This structure is h meters high! Good. Do lateral test!

Then cut core and walls at 1/10 h from top and lift top part a little using hat truss.

You'll note that core and walls of top, 1/10 h high, now hangs from the hat truss! And that 10 floors are positioned between walls/core about h/100 apart.

OK, now you are supposed to drop the 1/10 h top, part C, on lower 9/10 h structure, part A.

Now - what contacts what at impact? The top C core probably contacts part A core! Do the C walls contact the A walls? The walls are pretty thin! Maybe two C walls contact the top A floor just inside the walls and the other two C walls contact nothing? And maybe two A walls contact the bottom C floor? Pls tell me, what contacts what.

What happens then? Well, it depends on what contacts what at impact.

It seems contacts/impact are a bit unsymmetrical, to say the least, e.g. nothing contacts the top A floor at two walls!!

Pls, tell me then how the top A floor will be damaged?

Pls, read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for further tips.

Good luck with your structure/test/entry to The Heiwa Challenge!

You had me at "pizza boxes".

[Newtons Bit]

fixed it for ya

It's really the same thing.

[rwguinn]

It's really the same thing.
My fix was more precisely accurate...

[willhaven]

No, the structures have to comply with the rules to become valid entries. That's your (and Daddy's) job.

Which condition does the WTC tower 1 or 2 break?

The original WTC towers as they collapsed on 9/11/2001 don't appear to break any of the conditions you have set up for your challenge.

So, do I win the challenge or not?


The Heiwa Challenge


It is assumed at JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Forum that a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it!

Conditions:

1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush part A (if you can! That's the test).
9. In order to easily repeat the test/challenge drop height should be <1.1 h, i.e. C can only be dropped from 2h above ground on A that is 0.9 h high.
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

[MIKILLINI]

Every participate in The Heiwa Challenge must fund his own structure. So keep them simple.

I made a model for abt. $400:- . See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#6

For $400 you made a flawed model that beat your own challenge?

[willhaven]

Every participate in The Heiwa Challenge must fund his own structure.The rules don't say you must fund your own structure. Care to add some rules to your challenge?

[Sam.I.Am]

*snickers*

Heiwa: I wonder why JREF moderators do not intervene?

Oh the irony...

[tsig]

*snickers*



Oh the irony...

Ask and ye shall receive.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Now Heiwa can't bump his stupid threads. Let's just let them die.

[Heiwa]

AA. Which condition does the WTC tower 1 or 2 break?

BB. The original WTC towers as they collapsed on 9/11/2001 don't appear to break any of the conditions you have set up for your challenge.

CC. So, do I win the challenge or not?

AA. 8, 9 or 10?

BB. See AA.

CC. Have another try. Please read post #1 carefully.

[Jonnyclueless]

There needs to be some type of crockaduck or pigasus award for Heiwa.

Oh to see his face upon seeing that last NatGeo speciel on 9/11 conspiracies.

[triforcharity]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

hasn't he claimed recently that it was just a challenge, and no money was promised?? I see that he is as much a liar as Redibis.

[Justin39640]

the french have decimated him
let it die

[Sam.I.Am]

Man... It must hurt when the French defeat you, because, like, that never happens...

[Jonnyclueless]

hasn't he claimed recently that it was just a challenge, and no money was promised?? I see that he is as much a liar as Redibis.

And I believe there were about 6 examples too. That would be a $6 million payout.

http://www.sadtrombone.com

[GlennB]

Man... It must hurt when the French defeat you, because, like, that never happens...

I was going to say that the French invaded us quite nicely in 1066, but in reality the Normans were really Vikings :D
So, yep, we're still looking.

[TruthersLie]

The Heiwa Challenge
Conditions:

1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush part A (if you can! That's the test).
9. In order to easily repeat the test/challenge drop height should be <1.1 h, i.e. C can only be dropped from 2h above ground on A that is 0.9 h high.
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.


So which part of the Verinage techniques in France are against your 10 rules?

what part again? I can see how it is close to #7... the best we have been able to find is 2 floors crushing down 13 floors... so that isn't quite 10%.

But weren't you stating emphatically that you didn't care because 49% couldn't crushdown 51% of ANY STRUCTURE EVER?

I would swear that Bill S (before I had her on ignore) was your wonderful parrot. Come on Heiwa, either man up and admit that 1/3 can crush down 2/3, or provide the rationale on how none of the verinage techniques meet your requirements.

[Architect]

Let it die. He's lost and you're just encouraging him to spam us still further.

[RedIbis]

hasn't he claimed recently that it was just a challenge, and no money was promised?? I see that he is as much a liar as Redibis.

Crossthread taunting is a sure sign I'm deep in your head.

[triforcharity]

Oh, yeaah, that's it Red, you are deep into my head......Right....

You're more like deep in something that comes from a bulls rear end, and it stinks really bad.

[Heiwa]

So which part of the Verinage techniques in France are against your 10 rules?



The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part. Thus you remove/weaken connections of a fair amount of primary structural elements of the lower part before destruction is initiated by the famous 'kick' by hydraulics knocking off primary structural elements between upper/lower parts allowing upper, strong part to crush lower, weak part.

So lower part has not identical structure as upper part ... which means the process does not conform to The Heiwa Challenge rules 2 and 4.

It can be added that not only the structure is modified prior destruction. Asbestos and similar dangerous material must be removed before destruction. Evidenly valuable material, cables, pipes, are also removed and re-cycled before destruction.

It can finally be added that the technique vérinage is not suitable for structures where the primary structural elements are steel.

[triforcharity]

The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part. Thus you remove/weaken connections of a fair amount of primary structural elements of the lower part before destruction is initiated by the famous 'kick' by hydraulics knocking off primary structural elements between upper/lower parts allowing upper, strong part to crush lower, weak part.

So lower part has not identical structure as upper part ... which means the process does not conform to The Heiwa Challenge rules 2 and 4.

It can be added that not only the structure is modified prior destruction. Asbestos and similar dangerous material must be removed before destruction. Evidenly valuable material, cables, pipes, are also removed and re-cycled before destruction.

It can finally be added that the technique vérinage is not suitable for structures where the primary structural elements are steel.

Someone, I am not sure whom, pointed out that they did NOT weaken the lower structure at all. So, there goes that out the window.
Secondly, asbestos and other things like pipes, cable, and things of that nature provide NO structural support WHATSOEVER!! None, notta, zilch, so that should have no bearing on the Heiwa Challenge.

Last, but certainly not least, the Heiwa Challenge does NOT in fact say that all the material must be steel framed. NOWHERE. Not once, not ever.

So, with that in mind, it ABSOLUTELY does comply with your little challenge. I believe that you owe some French demo guys some money. ALOT of money!!

[twinstead]

The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part. Thus you remove/weaken connections of a fair amount of primary structural elements of the lower part before destruction is initiated by the famous 'kick' by hydraulics knocking off primary structural elements between upper/lower parts allowing upper, strong part to crush lower, weak part.

So lower part has not identical structure as upper part ... which means the process does not conform to The Heiwa Challenge rules 2 and 4.

It can be added that not only the structure is modified prior destruction. Asbestos and similar dangerous material must be removed before destruction. Evidenly valuable material, cables, pipes, are also removed and re-cycled before destruction.

It can finally be added that the technique vérinage is not suitable for structures where the primary structural elements are steel.

Until you can show that they DID weaken the lower floors, this post of yours is utter crap, Heiwa. I'm sorry.

[Heiwa]

Someone, I am not sure whom, pointed out that they did NOT weaken the lower structure at all. So, there goes that out the window.
Secondly, asbestos and other things like pipes, cable, and things of that nature provide NO structural support WHATSOEVER!! None, notta, zilch, so that should have no bearing on the Heiwa Challenge.

Last, but certainly not least, the Heiwa Challenge does NOT in fact say that all the material must be steel framed. NOWHERE. Not once, not ever.

So, with that in mind, it ABSOLUTELY does comply with your little challenge. I believe that you owe some French demo guys some money. ALOT of money!!

Evidently a structure of The Heiwa Challenge can be composed of anything BUT smaller upper part must be virtually identical to bigger lower part prior test; only extra requirement is that lower part must be able to carry upper part statically before. Then just drop upper part on lower part, a dynamic event, and watch! No one-way crush down will take place. Pls, note the jolt that occurs when upper part contacts lower part! The jolt, decelaration, of the upper moving part differs at the bottom of the upper part than at the top of the upper part! It is smaller at the top. The reason is that the upper part is elastic and that it's top reacts slower than it's bottom part contacting the lower structural part.

I have asked NIST, FEMA, FBI, CIA, NATO, NASA, Bazant, Seffen ... and Mackey ... to produce a structure that behaves differently, but it seems these very clever authorites and individuals are not up to it! I wonder why? Have they ever anlysed collisions of two structural parts?

Thanks for your concern about the money aspct. Now, just design a structure that behaves as per the 911 OCT and enter it in The Heiwa Challenge! If you manage, which I doubt, you'll become a HERO!

[D'rok]

The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part. Thus you remove/weaken connections of a fair amount of primary structural elements of the lower part before destruction is initiated by the famous 'kick' by hydraulics knocking off primary structural elements between upper/lower parts allowing upper, strong part to crush lower, weak part.

So lower part has not identical structure as upper part ... which means the process does not conform to The Heiwa Challenge rules 2 and 4.

Heiwa, please address this, from the description of the verinage technique patent. Pay particularly attention to the bolded parts:

The purpose of the present invention is to cure this lack by proposing a process and equipment of demolition which can be appropriate for any type of buildings without limitation height. It is of course about a process which does not have recourse to the explosive ones, involving a demolition which does not exceed the influence of the building on the ground, having a very low cost of putting in work to that of caving since it is not required to envisage the evacuation of a perimeter of safety, nor the interruption of the circulation, and whose completion date is relatively rapid. In addition, this process is also without danger to the operators since it is not required to weaken the structure of the building. Moreover, it can be supplemented by a safety device which makes it possible to restore the stability of the building on the assumption that a technical incident would intervene front the final phase of demolition. Quote:
one remote control rotation of the aforesaid winch arranged to draw on the cable from reeving, reflecting this tractive effort on the strands and pulleys of reeving so as to cut down the load-bearing walls in a defined direction causing the collapse the flagstones and the walls of the upper stages on those of the low stages which collapse on themselves under 1 ' effect of the weight of the upper stages. Quote:
In reference on figure 1, building 1 to demolish consists of a whole of load-bearing walls 2 refer currently the veils and of a whole of flagstones 3 defining the numbered stages of the ground floor in 17th. The load-bearing walls 2 and flagstones 3 form schematically a squaring of parts 4. The process of demolition according to 1 ' invention consists in demolishing this building by collapse of high to the bottom, while exerting with a selected stage for example in the last third one of the building and precisely in the example illustrated with the 13th stage, a traction between two parallel load-bearing walls directed in the diagonal one, resulting in ' cutting down these two load-bearing walls in the direction the arrow F, involving the collapse of the other load-bearing walls and the flagstones the upper stages which subside the ones on the other ones and, by their weight, cause the collapse of the low stages. This operation of slaughtering is enough to demolish the building in only one operation. The possible remaining parts are then demolished with the hydraulic shovel.



Thanks to Horatius here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5063274#post5063274

[TruthersLie]

The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part. Thus you remove/weaken connections of a fair amount of primary structural elements of the lower part before destruction is initiated by the famous 'kick' by hydraulics knocking off primary structural elements between upper/lower parts allowing upper, strong part to crush lower, weak part.

So lower part has not identical structure as upper part ... which means the process does not conform to The Heiwa Challenge rules 2 and 4.

It can be added that not only the structure is modified prior destruction. Asbestos and similar dangerous material must be removed before destruction. Evidenly valuable material, cables, pipes, are also removed and re-cycled before destruction.

It can finally be added that the technique vérinage is not suitable for structures where the primary structural elements are steel.

ROFLMAO.
I love it... dodge dodge dodge. shift shift shift.

the lower part of the structure is made the same way as the upper part of the struture.

Did you not read the french documents H found?

PROVIDE A CITATION WHICH STATES they weaken the lower portion of the building.

[Heiwa]

Evidently any structure subject to the French, patented technique vérinage is welcome to participate in The Heiwa Challenge.

It seems the patent is not subject to scale or size! So just design a structure, arrange it as per the patent and drop/kick the top on the bottom part, etc, etc.

But ensure that you follow the rules of post #1.

And do not forget the Björkman's axiom:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Good luck!

[Unsecured Coins]

provide a citation which states they weaken the lower portion of the building.

do it

[Justin39640]

ROFLMAO.
I love it... dodge dodge dodge. shift shift shift.

the lower part of the structure is made the same way as the upper part of the struture.

Did you not read the french documents H found?

PROVIDE A CITATION WHICH STATES they weaken the lower portion of the building.

cmon he already told us they remove asbestos wires and plumbing prior to demo
every one knows thats the backbone of any structure lol

[BigAl]

cmon he already told us they remove asbestos wires and plumbing prior to demo
every one knows thats the backbone of any structure lol

I'm trying to imagine how little structure french plumbing would hold up.

[TruthersLie]

Evidently any structure subject to the French, patented technique vérinage is welcome to participate in The Heiwa Challenge.

It seems the patent is not subject to scale or size! So just design a structure, arrange it as per the patent and drop/kick the top on the bottom part, etc, etc.

But ensure that you follow the rules of post #1.

And do not forget the Björkman's axiom:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Good luck!

Oh twoof.
No where in your rules do you state that I have to build the structure. NOT ONE PLACE.

So I will submit the 6 videos already shown.

shift shift shift, handwave it away twoof.

ROFLMAO. (and yes, I am laughing AT YOU, you hack. No I take that back... calling you a hack is an insult to hacks.)

[Heiwa]

Oh twoof.
No where in your rules do you state that I have to build the structure. NOT ONE PLACE.

So I will submit the 6 videos already shown.

shift shift shift, handwave it away twoof.

ROFLMAO. (and yes, I am laughing AT YOU, you hack. No I take that back... calling you a hack is an insult to hacks.)

Videos? You have to provide a structure and then comply with rules 1-10 of post #1 ... and then prove it. Pls, no videos. When is a video a structure or a structure or video?

Videos/films are produced by, e.g. Hollywood or CIA & Co and can show anything. You are supposed to show a structure that destructs itself by dropping a piece on it.

BTW. What is a hack?

[Mr.Herbert]

BTW. What is a hack?


Here ya go:

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/strip.jpg

[Heiwa]

Here ya go:

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/strip.jpg

?? Photoshop?

[TruthersLie]

Videos? You have to provide a structure and then comply with rules 1-10 of post #1 ... and then prove it. Pls, no videos. When is a video a structure or a structure or video?

Videos/films are produced by, e.g. Hollywood or CIA & Co and can show anything. You are supposed to show a structure that destructs itself by dropping a piece on it.

BTW. What is a hack?

shift shift shift.

No where in YOUR rules do you state that I have to construct the structure.

Now it is that you won't accept them because they are on video completely destroying your bs? Really?

ROFLMAO.

[Heiwa]

shift shift shift.

No where in YOUR rules do you state that I have to construct the structure.

Now it is that you won't accept them because they are on video completely destroying your bs? Really?

ROFLMAO.

The rules are at post #1. They are simple, friendly and lively, JREF style. Whatever structure you enter in The Heiwa Challenge, self-design/construct or copy/paste/same/same you have to drop the top, only using gravity and demonstrate by counting, 1, 2 3 ..., the results. Not too difficult.

Videos of controlled demolitions, CD, of all kinds do not count as they just support the opposite of the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge! We all know about CD. The WTC destructions on 911 look like very bad CD with parts blowing out in all directions like a fountain.

Anybody knows that gravity alone cannot produce that. The Challenge is to prove the opposite. Gravity acting on a small top part being dropped destroys the bigger lower part ... only by gravity. Prove it. Drop the top and show it. Can you produce a fountain of broken elements of the lower part by dropping the top, then just do it!

Clear?

[tuc0]

Clear?
Yes, it's very clear now that you don't even understand the rules to your own challenge. The rules you have written yourself. This is getting funnier and funnier.

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, it's very clear now that you don't even understand the rules to your own challenge. The rules you have written yourself. This is getting funnier and funnier.

There's a difference between being unable to understand something and intentionally misunderstanding something so that you don't have to admit fault.

I'd argue that Heiwa suffers from the latter.

[TruthersLie]

The rules are at post #1. They are simple, friendly and lively, JREF style. Whatever structure you enter in The Heiwa Challenge, self-design/construct or copy/paste/same/same you have to drop the top, only using gravity and demonstrate by counting, 1, 2 3 ..., the results. Not too difficult.

Videos of controlled demolitions, CD, of all kinds do not count as they just support the opposite of the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge! We all know about CD. The WTC destructions on 911 look like very bad CD with parts blowing out in all directions like a fountain.

Anybody knows that gravity alone cannot produce that. The Challenge is to prove the opposite. Gravity acting on a small top part being dropped destroys the bigger lower part ... only by gravity. Prove it. Drop the top and show it. Can you produce a fountain of broken elements of the lower part by dropping the top, then just do it!

Clear?

I must have missed it in your 10 rules... where again does it say that I have to construct the structure, or that I cannot use video evidence of said structures crushdown?

Citation please.

of course, you also offered a million bucks to anyone who could prove it happens (you lied about that btw) and are full of crapola.

[Jonnyclueless]

Heiwa, you lost, face it. You could at l;east buy someone 6 pizzas instead of the money you offered. And you could keep the boxes to build your next project.

[tuc0]

There's a difference between being unable to understand something and intentionally misunderstanding something so that you don't have to admit fault.

I'd argue that Heiwa suffers from the latter.

You're probably right but it's funny either way. And since total incompetence is more entertaining than clumsy dodging I'll keep pretending he's the real deal and not just another troll.

[Horatius]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5081630#post5081630

[Justin39640]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5081630#post5081630

brilliant lol

[Dave Rogers]

The French technique de vérinage is quite simple and ensures destruction of the composite structure - mostly bricks of various types and concrete, some of it reinforced. In order to do so you have to modify the lower structural part to become weaker than the upper structural part.

And there you have the classic Heiwa technique. When reality disagrees with your fantasies, simply tell barefaced lies, and hope that the feeble-minded believe you.

Dave

[apathoid]

And there you have the classic Heiwa technique. When reality disagrees with your fantasies, simply tell barefaced lies, and hope that the feeble-minded believe you.

Dave


But you don't understand Dave! You see, since the smaller part A cannot globally crush-down the larger part C, per Heiwa's world famous axiom(you can google it you know, and if it's in Google - it must be troo!), it's apparent that the structure must somehow be pre-weakened in the verniage technique. It has to be. It simply doesn't matter what the demo crews said in their interviews about not pre-weakening the lower sections of the buildings. Evidently, they do because.....

....the smaller part A cannot globally crush-down the larger part C, per Heiwa's world famous axiom!


Hope that clears it up for you!

/sarcasm

[240-185]

How can this thread be alive??? :eye-poppi

[tsig]

How can this thread be alive??? :eye-poppi

It's on life-support?

[Heiwa]

I must have missed it in your 10 rules... where again does it say that I have to construct the structure, or that I cannot use video evidence of said structures crushdown?

Citation please.

of course, you also offered a million bucks to anyone who could prove it happens (you lied about that btw) and are full of crapola.

A video of building being destroyed by controlled demolition doesn't comply with the rules in post #1. I need more details of structure + drop of top C on bottom A by gravity + analysis of broken parts, to verify that only gravity forces initiated by the drop broke 70% of the elements/connections.

It is correct that I offered $1M (not bucks) to one, not anyone, prospective challenger but she/he (Japanese) didn't accept the offer. If you are Japanese, I'll extend the offer to you too. If you are not Japanese, pls tell me what you are, and I may include you too, but only you, in the $1M selected ones. Get working on the structure you intend to enter in The Heiwa Challenge!

[Justin39640]

a video of building being destroyed by controlled demolition doesn't comply with the rules in post #1. I need more details of structure + drop of top c on bottom a by gravity + analysis of broken parts, to verify that only gravity forces initiated by the drop broke 70% of the elements/connections.

It is correct that i offered $1m (not bucks) to one, not anyone, prospective challenger but she/he (japanese) didn't accept the offer. If you are japanese, i'll extend the offer to you too. If you are not japanese, pls tell me what you are, and i may include you too, but only you, in the $1m selected ones. Get working on the structure you intend to enter in the heiwa challenge!
lies!

[dtugg]

Heiwa, you fraud, you offered, in this thread, a million dollars to anyone who could disprove your retarded axiom. Someone who beat your moronic challenge would also disprove your stupid axiom. You are a liar and a fraud.

[TruthersLie]

A video of building being destroyed by controlled demolition doesn't comply with the rules in post #1. I need more details of structure + drop of top C on bottom A by gravity + analysis of broken parts, to verify that only gravity forces initiated by the drop broke 70% of the elements/connections.

It is correct that I offered $1M (not bucks) to one, not anyone, prospective challenger but she/he (Japanese) didn't accept the offer. If you are Japanese, I'll extend the offer to you too. If you are not Japanese, pls tell me what you are, and I may include you too, but only you, in the $1M selected ones. Get working on the structure you intend to enter in The Heiwa Challenge!

A video of a demoliton of a KNOWN building with a KNOWN location is perfectly acceptable.

There is NOTHING in your (stupid) rules which state it is NOT acceptable.

So shift shift shift yet again twoof.

so it doesn't violate any of the 10 rules posted. Thank you for playing twoofie.

[The Lone Bolt]

Heiwa,

I'm mostly a lurker and a humble mental health clinician and even I can see that your hypothesis has been completely disproven here.

I'd also like to point out that your "challenge" is seriously flawed. You are the only judge of whether the criteria of the challenge have been met, but you also have a vested financial and political interest in seeing that nobody wins. This is a conflict of interests. You and the JREF forum posters need to collaborate in choosing judges that are unbiased and acceptable to all participants.

Furthermore the prize money should be placed in that hands of a legal firm who can insure that it is payed out to whoever wins the challenge (per the judge's verdict).

The fact that you have not established these mechanisms brings the legitimacy of your challenge into serious question.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

I'm mostly a lurker and a humble mental health clinician and even I can see that your hypothesis has been completely disproven here.

I'd also like to point out that your "challenge" is seriously flawed. You are the only judge of whether the criteria of the challenge have been met, but you also have a vested financial and political interest in seeing that nobody wins. This is a conflict of interests. You and the JREF forum posters need to collaborate in choosing judges that are unbiased and acceptable to all participants.

Furthermore the prize money should be placed in that hands of a legal firm who can insure that it is payed out to whoever wins the challenge (per the judge's verdict).

The fact that you have not established these mechanisms brings the legitimacy of your challenge into serious question.

Thanks for comments. There's no prize money in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. One selected, potential challenger has been offered monetary encouragement, though, but failed to provide a structure ++.

Of course I have initiated The Heiwa Challenge but the judges are the JREF members incl. you! So far nobody has been able to present a structure where top C one-way crushes bottom A.

Reason is, of course, that it is impossible, but, and that's the problem, it was possible according to GWB, Condi, FBI, FEMA, NIST ... and Mackey ... on 911.

So how did they do it on 911 and why can't anybody reproduce the phenomenon afterwards? I have asked all concerned and they are not able to produce any structure that meets rules in post #1 of The Heiwa Challenge!

It says all, don't you agree?

[The Lone Bolt]

Thanks for comments. There's no prize money in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. One selected, potential challenger has been offered monetary encouragement, though, but failed to provide a structure ++.

Of course I have initiated The Heiwa Challenge but the judges are the JREF members incl. you!

This is clearly untrue, as many on this very thread have judged the criteria of your challenge to have been met and you have rejected their opinions, therefore you are the sole judge in this matter.

If the posters here are the judges, then you must abide by their opinions regardless of your own.

But I can see that the $1,000,000 prize money was not an official condition of the "challenge" so I retract that claim.

[Heiwa]

This is clearly untrue, as many on this very thread have judged the criteria of your challenge to have been met and you have rejected their opinions, therefore you are the sole judge in this matter.

If the posters here are the judges, then you must abide by their opinions regardless of your own.



So far as I am concerned no structure has been presented that is destroyed as per rules of post #1. Or did I miss it? Plenty of pictures of cats presented by the judges ... but no structures.

[MIKILLINI]

Flawed challenge Heiwa. That's all you've ever had with this thread.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

A video of building being destroyed by controlled demolition doesn't comply with the rules in post #1. I need more details of structure + drop of top C on bottom A by gravity + analysis of broken parts, to verify that only gravity forces initiated by the drop broke 70% of the elements/connections.

It is correct that I offered $1M (not bucks) to one, not anyone, prospective challenger but she/he (Japanese) didn't accept the offer. If you are Japanese, I'll extend the offer to you too. If you are not Japanese, pls tell me what you are, and I may include you too, but only you, in the $1M selected ones. Get working on the structure you intend to enter in The Heiwa Challenge!

OK, what will your excuse be this time?
fJLm5-be4LM

Here's another fine example:

prwvj-npt5s

Where's my one million twoofer bucks?

[Sam.I.Am]

You know what, I think that I have figured out what Heiwa's weasel wording of "$1M (not bucks)" means. M is one thousand in roman numerals so he means one thousand dollars. Several countries use the $ sign so he might mean Hong Kong Dollars (he is in Asia right?) which is (at current exchange rates) $129.03 USD. Other countries also use the $ sign whose exchange rates are much worse than the HKD.

Heiwa, am I correct in my assumptions or did you mean that you would pay out one million dollars USD? No answer to this question by you means that you never intended to pay out $1 million in USD and that you are a fraud.

[240-185]

You know what, I think that I have figured out what Heiwa's weasel wording of "$1M (not bucks)" means. M is one thousand in roman numerals so he means one thousand dollars. Several countries use the $ sign so he might mean Hong Kong Dollars (he is in Asia right?) which is (at current exchange rates) $129.03 USD. Other countries also use the $ sign whose exchange rates are much worse than the HKD.

Heiwa, am I correct in my assumptions or did you mean that you would pay out one million dollars USD? No answer to this question by you means that you never intended to pay out $1 million in USD and that you are a fraud.

Let's hope it's not Zimbabwean dollars :D

[The Lone Bolt]

So far as I am concerned no structure has been presented that is destroyed as per rules of post #1. Or did I miss it? Plenty of pictures of cats presented by the judges ... but no structures.


That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that the judges that you have appointed (the forum posters) have ruled that the criteria of your challenge have been met. Your opinion on this matter has no bearing.

Unless you want to admit that you are the sole judge in this matter and therefore your opinion (as bolded above) overrules that of the forum posters.

[Cuddles]

Do not derail threads. Further kittening is likely to result in more severe moderator action.

On reflection, this thread has become rather long and has therefore been closed. Please feel free to continue the discussion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5085329).