The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

What about this, liar?:

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

[dtugg]

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

So basically you were lying when you said, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely."

Got it.


ETA: Oh and this quote is taken from this thread, liar:

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

[Heiwa]

So basically you were lying when you said, "I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely."

Got it.


ETA: Oh and this quote is taken from this thread, liar:

You are mixing up A as in Axiom and C as in Challenge. No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Can't you read?

Re Axiom - see other link. 2000 posts and nobody managed to disprove it! What does THAT prove?

[bill smith]

Well, it is from another thread and JREF was not willing to sponsor the idea. But it is a good idea. $1M! However, Heiwa Challenge conditions are a little different. You lose face, when you can't keep things apart.

But ... $1M, if I get the patent's rights. I'll think about it. Now back to your structural designs, boys and girls.

Heiwa this is Steven Jones's lecture in Boston in december 2007. He talks about the dynamics of the collapse for the first two thirds and and intriduces his red chip discovery for the first time in the last section.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston ecture

[dtugg]

You are mixing up A as in Axiom and C as in Challenge. No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Can't you read?

Re Axiom - see other link. 2000 posts and nobody managed to disprove it! What does THAT prove?

Wow, Anders, you are getting even more dishonest by the moment. Is it OK to lie for The Truth TM? Is that how you justify it?

Here is what you said in full:

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement and total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and that C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise - as per Challenge conditions - and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies! C has too little!

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

If someone beat your stupid challenge they would also have disproved your stupid axiom. Thus they would be owed one million dollars as you yourself said.

Your lies are fooling nobody.

[nicepants]

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree. All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

So other than the 3.7m you agree with his other terms (in post #142)?

Who will be holding your $100,000 in escrow?

When will you be contacting Myriad with the contact information for your legal representative so that the contract may be drafted?

Edit: Apparently I (wrongly) assumed that this Heiwa challenge was the same as the other Heiwa challenge in which $1M was offered.

No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Apparently Heiwa isn't confident enough in his claims to put his money where his mouth is. At least he's willing to admit that.

[Newtons Bit]

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!

Hmm. An offer to pay $1M from this very thread. Now where did people get the idea that he'd offer to pay $1M?

[Minadin]

Clearly, $1M is One Monopoly Dollar, very different from $1,000,000 USD. The money being offered is as worthless as anything else coming from Heiwa.

[Heiwa]

So other than the 3.7m you agree with his other terms (in post #142)?

Who will be holding your $100,000 in escrow?

When will you be contacting Myriad with the contact information for your legal representative so that the contract may be drafted?

Edit: Apparently I (wrongly) assumed that this Heiwa challenge was the same as the other Heiwa challenge in which $1M was offered.



Apparently Heiwa isn't confident enough in his claims to put his money where his mouth is. At least he's willing to admit that.

Heiwa Challenge (as per conditions in this thread) is evidently to produce a physical, real structure that one-way crushes down - C crushing A, etc. Something for NASA or Pentagon?

If you (or NASA or Pentagon) can do that you are on a good way to the next invitation to disprove the Axiom (that is discussed in another thread), which can (not?) be done, e.g. mathematically - no structure really required - but actually more difficult. Something for MIT?

Re legal aspects, e.g. where any disputes will be heard, if necessary, Heiwa selects location. It will not be the JREF forum.

[Heiwa]

Clearly, $1M is One Monopoly Dollar, very different from $1,000,000 USD.

Pls, start another thread about this interesting conspiracy.

[nicepants]

Heiwa Challenge (as per conditions in this thread) is evidently to produce a physical, real structure that one-way crushes down - C crushing A, etc. Something for NASA or Pentagon?

So the challenge is to get someone here to spend their time & money to try to teach something to Heiwa that he should have learned in engineering school.

I have a better idea. Why don't you (Heiwa) take your claims and a printout of your paper(s) to your nearest university and have a chat with a physics professor about your theories. Report back to us with your results.

[Heiwa]

So the challenge is to get someone here to spend their time & money to try to teach something to Heiwa that he should have learned in engineering school.

No, the challenge is to produce a structure A that is crushed down by a piece C of it. In engineering schools it is taught that it is not possible ... or it is taken for granted. Otherwise the whole school would just be crushed down if a piece of it dropped on it.

[Newtons Bit]

No, the challenge is to produce a structure A that is crushed down by a piece C of it. In engineering schools it is taught that it is not possible ... or it is taken for granted. Otherwise the whole school would just be crushed down if a piece of it dropped on it.

Please produce a textbook quote with "Heiwa's Axiom" in it. It doesn't have to say "Heiwa's Axiom" in it. It can just paraphrase your B.S.

Engineering schools teach LOADPATHS. Actual, real, observed engineering.

[Heiwa]

Please produce a textbook quote with "Heiwa's Axiom" in it. It doesn't have to say "Heiwa's Axiom" in it. It can just paraphrase your B.S.

Engineering schools teach LOADPATHS. Actual, real, observed engineering.

You mean Björkman's Axiom regarding structures? Just google!

[Newtons Bit]

You mean Björkman's Axiom regarding structures? Just google!

Welcome to ignore. You are a waste of my brain power.

[nicepants]

No, the challenge is to produce a structure A that is crushed down by a piece C of it. In engineering schools it is taught that it is not possible ... or it is taken for granted. Otherwise the whole school would just be crushed down if a piece of it dropped on it.

So the challenge is to produce a structre whose collapse is nothing at all like the way the WTC towers collapsed.

Why don't you (Heiwa) take your claims and a printout of your paper(s) to your nearest university and have a chat with a physics professor about your theories. Report back to us with your results.

[thewholesoul]

whoever puts up the money naturally gets to name the challenge. Respectfully,
Myriad

just an idea. if you are genuinely interested in attempting the challenge. why dont you make a cost analysis of all the material you will need. and we all pitch in a small donation towards the effort. (I can personally vouch for 20 dollars). in that we way, both truthers and debunkers are all united in pursuit of the truth. i imagine the money could be accumulated as soon as christmas if marketed right.

peace

[A W Smith]

Send me the money!

A Model fell down twice!!

XfcAkr7PXh0

[nicepants]

just an idea. if you are genuinely interested in attempting the challenge. why dont you make a cost analysis of all the material you will need. and we all pitch in a small donation towards the effort. (I can personally vouch for 20 dollars). in that we way, both truthers and debunkers are all united in pursuit of the truth. i imagine the money could be accumulated as soon as christmas if marketed right.

peace

I say whoever wants this model built can pay for it. Perhaps heiwa would share the cost with you.

[thewholesoul]

I say whoever wants this model built can pay for it. Perhaps heiwa would share the cost with you.

i would certainly hope so. but every dollar counts even the one you could donate, provided of course you would want to see the heiwa challenge tested.

besides it was just an idea. however if there was a secure location to place the money i am sure that nearly all truthers would donate a dollar. and i would expect most interested jreffers to contribute also.

peace

[nicepants]

i would certainly hope so. but every dollar counts even the one you could donate, provided of course you would want to see the heiwa challenge tested.

It would be fun to see, but hardly relevant or necessary, and not worth spending my money on....not when have my choice of many delicious items on the taco bell value menu which can be purchased with that dollar.


besides it was just an idea. however if there was a secure location to place the money i am sure that nearly all truthers would donate a dollar. and i would expect most interested jreffers to contribute also.

peace

You would probably need more than $1 from every truther.
Richard Gage can't even get $6,000 for his booth at the AIA convention. Then there's the fact that $1 donations are impractical due to the processing fees (if electronic) and the postage fees (if physical money is used).

I think a much more valueable use of resources would be for Heiwa to jaunt down to the physics department at his nearest university with a couple of his papers to see what some of the experts think about them.

[MIKILLINI]

Heiwa this is Steven Jones's lecture in Boston in december 2007. He talks about the dynamics of the collapse for the first two thirds and and intriduces his red chip discovery for the first time in the last section.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&ei Boston ecture

You're showing Heiwa the red paint chips? Or is it iron oxide? You really need to catch up.

[bill smith]

No, the challenge is to produce a structure A that is crushed down by a piece C of it. In engineering schools it is taught that it is not possible ... or it is taken for granted. Otherwise the whole school would just be crushed down if a piece of it dropped on it.

Heiwa this is a discussion between Les Robertson and Steven Jones.I'm not certain when.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

[tfk]

roundhead,


Heiwa knows that only anti science can explain the 9/11 jibberish NIST excretes.

His Million is safe

You are right.

His money is, in fact, safe.

So is my Unicorn.

They are both safe for exactly the same reason. Neither exists.

;-)

tk

[tfk]

Heiwa,


You are mixing up A as in Axiom and C as in Challenge. No money in the Heiwa Challenge as clearly indicated in the conditions.

Can't you read?


You better have a chat with ole Billy.

He's been publicly putting you on the hook for a cool $1 million USD.

I will refer you to his post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post88841

In which he states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS ("... because that the way Billy rolls"):

"Heiwa, aka Anders Bjorkmann, internationallly reknowned engineer has offered one Million Dollars to anybody who can verify Bazant's hypothesis of he collapse of WTC1."

And now for the BETTER NEWS.

[I am laughing so hard that I can barely type....!!!]

And it appears that someone we might know has been a busy little bee.

Look what I've found over at the 9/11 Citizen Investigation...
http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20002&postcount=64

"Heiwa is Anders Bjorkmn, a Swedish Naval architect specialising in structural damage analysis. He has advised the UN and has an international reputation.
**************************
The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?
<snip>

The Challenge is to prove me wrong! "
___

Will you look at that, Anders.

"... I offer $1 million..."
"... MY axiom ..."
"... Prove ME wrong ..."


All in the FIRST PERSON. How about that.

You know, Heiwa, Billy concluded his post above with the following:

"This news [of YOUR $1 million challenge] will quickly run through the world's engineering community and should cause hundreds of thousands of engineers to really look into the collapse hypothesis for the first time."

Old Billy was talking about this "going viral across the internet". Of course, he plays the role of Typhoid Annie.

You know, Heiwa, this may be the very first time that Billy's been right about anything... There may very well be "hundreds of thousands of engineers" out there in the world looking to pay off their mortgage, put their kids thru school, retire to Bora Bora. Who might just figure to let you finance their plans...

Bwahahahahahahaha...

It could not possibly happen to a pair of more deserving guys.

heh...
heh...
heh...

tk

PS. I would like a little recognition [perhaps the James Randi Million dollars?) for my psychic powers, in that I predicted, back on May 24th, that you would find some contrived reason to (is "welsh on a bet" a perjorative against the fine people of Wales??) back out of the challenge.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post89728

Heiwa doesn't have $1 million. The business world doesn't reward technically incompetent people. There WILL come out some obscure, bizarre reason, some excuse that Heiwa will generate to rationalize, in his mind anyway, canceling this challenge.


Unfortunately, I must admit that I was totally wrong. It was a momentary lapse of precision. If I'd hadn't been distracted, I am sure that I would have gotten it right, because these are the sort of details that I (as do most engineers) pride myself on getting just right.

I said that you'd "cancel the challenge".

I should have phrased it that you'd "find some way to back out of paying off if/when you lost the bet".

DAMN crystal ball must be broken...

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,



You better have a chat with ole Billy.

He's been publicly putting you on the hook for a cool $1 million USD.

I will refer you to his post:

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post88841

In which he states IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS ("... because that the way Billy rolls"):

"Heiwa, aka Anders Bjorkmann, internationallly reknowned engineer has offered one Million Dollars to anybody who can verify Bazant's hypothesis of he collapse of WTC1."

And now for the BETTER NEWS.

[I am laughing so hard that I can barely type....!!!]

And it appears that someone we might know has been a busy little bee.

Look what I've found over at the 9/11 Citizen Investigation...
http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=20002&postcount=64

"Heiwa is Anders Bjorkmn, a Swedish Naval architect specialising in structural damage analysis. He has advised the UN and has an international reputation.
**************************
The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?
<snip>

The Challenge is to prove me wrong! "
___

Will you look at that, Anders.

"... I offer $1 million..."
"... MY axiom ..."
"... Prove ME wrong ..."


All in the FIRST PERSON. How about that.

You know, Heiwa, Billy concluded his post above with the following:

"This news [of YOUR $1 million challenge] will quickly run through the world's engineering community and should cause hundreds of thousands of engineers to really look into the collapse hypothesis for the first time."

Old Billy was talking about this "going viral across the internet". Of course, he plays the role of Typhoid Annie.

You know, Heiwa, this may be the very first time that Billy's been right about anything... There may very well be "hundreds of thousands of engineers" out there in the world looking to pay off their mortgage, put their kids thru school, retire to Bora Bora. Who might just figure to let you finance their plans...

Bwahahahahahahaha...

It could not possibly happen to a pair of more deserving guys.

heh...
heh...
heh...

tk

PS. I would like a little recognition [perhaps the James Randi Million dollars?) for my psychic powers, in that I predicted, back on May 24th, that you would find some contrived reason to (is "welsh on a bet" a perjorative against the fine people of Wales??) back out of the challenge.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post89728


Unfortunately, I must admit that I was totally wrong. It was a momentary lapse of precision. If I'd hadn't been distracted, I am sure that I would have gotten it right, because these are the sort of details that I (as do most engineers) pride myself on getting just right.

I said that you'd "cancel the challenge".

I should have phrased it that you'd "find some way to back out of paying off if/when you lost the bet".

DAMN crystal ball must be broken...

Moderator, why not put this thread on moderation!

[tsig]

Moderator, why not put this thread on moderation!

The post you responded to was directly on point.

Just produce evidence that you have the million dollars and the questions go away.

Simple, really.

[GlennB]

Moderator, why not put this thread on moderation!

Your challenge has been accepted as long as you show - in a truly legal sense - that you are able to pay even a mere $100,000. Yet you have avoided that whole issue. Why?

p.s. I asked you to demonstrate the bona fides of your so-called "European Agency for Safety at Sea". A v.a.t. or company registration number for example. Please respond.

[tfk]

Moderator, why not put this thread on moderation!


What, did that sting a bit...?

;-)

tk

[mark4mark]

No, the challenge is to produce a structure A that is crushed down by a piece C of it. In engineering schools it is taught that it is not possible ... or it is taken for granted. Otherwise the whole school would just be crushed down if a piece of it dropped on it.

Why don't you just build your own structure and prove Bazant incorrect?

[Newtons Bit]

Why don't you just build your own structure and prove Bazant incorrect?

He's already done that! With cardboard pizza boxes and ..er... lemons.

[mark4mark]

He's already done that! With cardboard pizza boxes and ..er... lemons.

Oh...my...
And he presented it...here?! Doesn't he claim to be an engineer?

[A W Smith]

Oh...my...
And he presented it...here?! Doesn't he claim to be an engineer?
oh yeah. the hits they keep on coming

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home


We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept) spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html), or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812102&postcount=369) or the Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2841126&postcount=603) or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2855198&postcount=686).
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790443&postcount=184). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790551&postcount=188). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790578&postcount=192). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810500&postcount=345). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2862138&postcount=748). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2859665&postcount=731). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2860029&postcount=736). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3826994&postcount=182).
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3825166&postcount=166). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496396&postcount=1926).
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4316711&postcount=40) then denies making that claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4451427&postcount=73).
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291419&postcount=227). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291508&postcount=232). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3293085&postcount=2). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3294816&postcount=33). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296094&postcount=86). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296247&postcount=96).
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280881&postcount=94).
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247678&postcount=22).
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58), even by nuclear weapons (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315786&postcount=16). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408851&postcount=21). However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3450180&postcount=242).
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640)
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3827588&postcount=3).
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3284995&postcount=73).
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318).
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3295295&postcount=50)
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296220&postcount=95).
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150032&postcount=184).
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3829279&postcount=4), pizza boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4176763#post4176763), match boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4211688#post4211688), rubber balls (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4135933&postcount=153), sponges (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408013&postcount=17), a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3310807&postcount=234), a tower of sushi (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4495024&postcount=192), and a tower of lemons (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaLemon.jpg).
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams (http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html)" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942).



Hes like a Frankenstein with avaitors trying to conduct physics experiments
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth.jpg/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth-full;init:.jpg


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=40709145

[Newtons Bit]

oh yeah. the hits they keep on coming

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home


We've seen the staggeringly ignorant and outright bizarre nonsense (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept) spewed by Gage and the "experts" whose opinions he promotes. Is Björkman's promotion by AE911Truth another fallacious appeal to authority (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html), or has he done some sensible analysis of the events of 9/11? Bjorkman posts as "Heiwa" on the JREF forum:

Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812102&postcount=369) or the Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2841126&postcount=603) or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2855198&postcount=686).
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790443&postcount=184). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790551&postcount=188). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790578&postcount=192). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810500&postcount=345). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2862138&postcount=748). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2859665&postcount=731). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2860029&postcount=736). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3826994&postcount=182).
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3825166&postcount=166). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496396&postcount=1926).
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4316711&postcount=40) then denies making that claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4451427&postcount=73).
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291419&postcount=227). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291508&postcount=232). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3293085&postcount=2). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3294816&postcount=33). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296094&postcount=86). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296247&postcount=96).
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280881&postcount=94).
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247678&postcount=22).
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58), even by nuclear weapons (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315786&postcount=16). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408851&postcount=21). However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3450180&postcount=242).
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640)
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3827588&postcount=3).
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3284995&postcount=73).
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318).
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3295295&postcount=50)
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296220&postcount=95).
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150032&postcount=184).
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3829279&postcount=4), pizza boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4176763#post4176763), match boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4211688#post4211688), rubber balls (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4135933&postcount=153), sponges (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408013&postcount=17), a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3310807&postcount=234), a tower of sushi (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4495024&postcount=192), and a tower of lemons (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaLemon.jpg).
Björkman has been nominated for the JREF forum "Stundie," an award for the looniest conspiracist statement of the month, far more times than anyone, and has been voted the "winner" several times. His avoidance of mountains of facts and expertise, his complete ignorance of the most basic engineering concepts, and his insistence that special laws of physics apply in his world, are perhaps surpassed only by the inimitable Judy "Star Wars Beams (http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html)" Wood. Read about the errors he makes in his website paper here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4503873&postcount=1942).



Hes like a Frankenstein with avaitors trying to conduct physics experiments
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth.jpg/HeiwaAndersBjorkmanae911truth-full;init:.jpg


http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=40709145


That's quite the list you've got going...

[Furcifer]

Say what you will about Heiwa, he looks pretty good for a guy with 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis. Especially one that eats pizza and drinks lemonade in front of a CRT screen all day.

[twinstead]

Say what you will about Heiwa, he looks pretty good for a guy with 40 years experience in steel structural design and structural damage analysis. Especially one that eats pizza and drinks lemonade in front of a CRT screen all day.

Hey. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like that. I would bet the man has an LCD screen.

[ozeco41]

Hey. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like that. I would bet the man has an LCD screen.

some oldfarts still use CRT Monitors
http://conleys.com.au/webstuff/office05t.jpg

...and collect charity "Teddy Bears" ;) :blush:

[dafydd]

Good to know we can still count on Heiwa for a good laugh once in a while. :D

Yes,some things never change.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by bill smith
"Heiwa has an international reputation"
As an ill-informed,ill-educated troofer?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by bill smith
"Heiwa has an international reputation"
As an ill-informed,ill-educated troofer?

No, as a one-time maritime insurance assessor who graduated to ship's welding and now claiming to run the unrecognised "European Agency for Safety at Sea", while having marine safety articles rejected by respected journals as "probably libellous". Oh ... yes ... you were right. Sorry.

[Furcifer]

Hey. You should be ashamed of yourself for lying like that. I would bet the man has an LCD screen.

I just assumed the radiation from a CRT was responsible for his... way of thinking.

@oz- it's scientific fact teddy bears absorb radiation so no worries.

[RedIbis]

Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.

[TheRedWorm]

Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.


Do you really believe that's what happened on 9/11?

[Furcifer]

Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.

No progress, you keep talking about crushing when the rest of us are talking about progressive collapse or cascade failure.

[stateofgrace]

Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.

Red, do you imagine that the rest of this thread simply went away?

Why are you asking the same thing that was answered pages ago?

[RedIbis]

Ok, that's three more posts and no one has provided an example.

[TheRedWorm]

Do you really believe that's what happened on 9/11?


Bump.

[Furcifer]

Ok, that's three more posts and no one has provided an example.

I already provided a link to a 100 year old news paper article in which a single beam was being put into place, fell onto the lower and caused a progressive collapse of the entire structure. That's less than 10% causing the "crushing" of more than 90%.

You do understand what progressive means right? And collapse? That's the real issue, not Heiwa's fantasy challenge.

[stateofgrace]

Ok, that's three more posts and no one has provided an example.

Red, what the heck is wrong with you? Are you simply trying to wind people up? What is the point of restating questions and pretending they have not been answered the first time around?

What part of "this did not happen on Sept 11th" don't you understand?

[KreeL]

You will never see the challenge met.

If NIST couldn't do it with millions of dollars, the non-toofers here don't have a chance.

:D

[Furcifer]

You will never see the challenge met.

If NIST couldn't do it with millions of dollars, the non-toofers here don't have a chance.

:D


They didn't come up with a simple solution to Fermat's Last Theorem or a Theory of Everything.

Oh wait, they weren't asked to do any of those either. :D

[alex04]

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

Heiwa, out of curiosity, have you tried this experiment yourself?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, out of curiosity, have you tried this experiment yourself?

Yes, of course. Several times with various structures. Result is always as expected. Part C cannot crush part A. C (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c) sometimes bounces on A, i.e. C cannot even apply sufficient energy to cause failures, or C (eggs, glasses, &c) is destroyed in pieces, while A is not one-way crushed down.

Pls note that conditions have been modified a little. Drop height should be 3.7 m regardless of h to ensure impact velocity 8.52 m/s. So you need a ladder or similar to drop C on A.

[Lennart Hyland]

How do you know that the results do not differ if you use a real structure (skyscraper) instead of lemons?

[alex04]

Sorry Heiwa, i should have been more specific.

Can you please give me a detailed example of a structure that you built, that adheres to the conditions that you've provided?

I'm trying to get an idea of,

- the size of the structure
- the materials, and construction
- any photos or videos? (this isn't necessary, i'm only asking)




Off topic - much props to you for making a submission to the ASCE. I'll be interested to hear the feedback you get.

[alex04]

Pls note that conditions have been modified a little. Drop height should be 3.7 m regardless of h to ensure impact velocity 8.52 m/s. So you need a ladder or similar to drop C on A.


Heiwa, surely this drop height put some limits to the scale you could work with? Can i get an idea of what you consider reasonable build sizes to be (that would be fair to your experiment)?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, surely this drop height put some limits to the scale you could work with? Can i get an idea of what you consider reasonable build sizes to be (that would be fair to your experiment)?

Any scale, any size, any structure are sufficient, as long as C<1/10A, C and A have same internal structure (material, elements, joints, &c) and C is dropped on A (say from 3.7 m) and tries to one-way crush down A.

I have in kitchen and backyard tried with various composite structures; steel, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, bricks, wood logs, glass, eggs and combinations of all them and reported at JREF. Result is always part A remains uncrushed.

My business associates have by bad luck dropped big Cs on really bigger As. Same result. C never crushes A. A always crushes C.

[Heiwa]

Off topic - much props to you for making a submission to the ASCE. I'll be interested to hear the feedback you get.

Submission was made 3 Feb 2009. Feedback 8 April was submission still under peer review. I also look forward to further feedback. Editor Ross Corotis has advised he will publish.

[Heiwa]

How do you know that the results do not differ if you use a real structure (skyscraper) instead of lemons?

I always use real structures in my experiments and models. What else can you use? NWO structures?

BTW Who is this LH 1919-1953? RIP.

[Jonnyclueless]

I always use real structures in my experiments and models. What else can you use? NWO structures?

BTW Who is this LH 1919-1953? RIP.

And you use real toppings on them like pepperoni and sausage!

[Lennart Hyland]

I always use real structures in my experiments and models. What else can you use? NWO structures?

BTW Who is this LH 1919-1953? RIP.

Well I think there is a difference between a tower of lemons and a skyscraper.

How do you know that your result in the test will be the same for a 400m skyscraper?

[WilliamSeger]

Heiwa, I know that one example that satisfies your challenge was brought to your attention once before, but in that case you dismissed it because it was a reinforced concrete building, whereas you were claiming in that thread that steel buildings were impervious to progressive vertical collapse. However, this challenge isn't arbitrarily restricted, so it's a fair example. The example was Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads, VA., in 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse). The temporary wooden shoring was pulled from under the 23rd floor before it was fully cured. At the time, the 24th floor was being poured, and I don't know how far that had progressed, but go ahead and assume that it had been poured, so two floors fell onto the 22nd floor. That floor would have been poured two weeks earlier, so it was close to fully cured, and the 21st floor was three weeks earlier so it was fully cured. Nonetheless, the two falling floors took out everything below, down into the sub-basement (so it was really more than 22 floors destroyed), by destroying them one at a time. If you look at the picture, you will see that part of the building remained standing. But that doesn't save your indestructibility hypothesis because the collapse included everything up to an expansion joint. In a reinforced concrete building, expansion joints effectively create separate buildings so that thermal stresses don't crack the concrete, and the floor slabs on each side of the expansion joint would have been poured separately (probably on successive days in this case), so the collapse was everything in that independent section of the building. In fact, the collapse also triggered a progressive horizontal collapse in an attached parking garage, which was also destroyed.

So, what was the prize for meeting you challenge? I accept PayPal.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, I know that one example that satisfies your challenge was brought to your attention once before, but in that case you dismissed it because it was a reinforced concrete building, whereas you were claiming in that thread that steel buildings were impervious to progressive vertical collapse. However, this challenge isn't arbitrarily restricted, so it's a fair example. The example was Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads, VA., in 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse). The temporary wooden shoring was pulled from under the 23rd floor before it was fully cured. At the time, the 24th floor was being poured, and I don't know how far that had progressed, but go ahead and assume that it had been poured, so two floors fell onto the 22nd floor. That floor would have been poured two weeks earlier, so it was close to fully cured, and the 21st floor was three weeks earlier so it was fully cured. Nonetheless, the two falling floors took out everything below, down into the sub-basement (so it was really more than 22 floors destroyed), by destroying them one at a time. If you look at the picture, you will see that part of the building remained standing. But that doesn't save your indestructibility hypothesis because the collapse included everything up to an expansion joint. In a reinforced concrete building, expansion joints effectively create separate buildings so that thermal stresses don't crack the concrete, and the floor slabs on each side of the expansion joint would have been poured separately (probably on successive days in this case), so the collapse was everything in that independent section of the building. In fact, the collapse also triggered a progressive horizontal collapse in an attached parking garage, which was also destroyed.

So, what was the prize for meeting you challenge? I accept PayPal.

Fairfax County hired Professor Ingvar Schoushoe of the University of Illinois, a concrete specialist, to investigate the cause of the collapse. He determined that the collapse occurred because of the premature removal of shoring from beneath newly poured floors.

It seems no structural part C was dropped on a similar structural part A (C<1/10A). Where's the picture? And part A standing? It must be one-way crushed down by part C. Attached parking garage horizontally collapsed? Not necessary.

Anyway - take a reinforced concrete structure with whatever expansion joints you like, take part C of it and drop it on remainder part A. If part C one-way crushes A, pls provide full details and advise your Paypal account. The money will be on its way.

[Heiwa]

Well I think there is a difference between a tower of lemons and a skyscraper.



Not when you drop a part C of it on remainder part A.

[Grizzly Bear]

Not when you drop a part C of it on remainder part A.

Solid masses vs composite system = apples and planets

[WilliamSeger]

It seems no structural part C was dropped on a similar structural part A (C<1/10A). Where's the picture? And part A standing? It must be one-way crushed down by part C. Attached parking garage horizontally collapsed? Not necessary.

Anyway - take a reinforced concrete structure with whatever expansion joints you like, take part C of it and drop it on remainder part A. If part C one-way crushes A, pls provide full details and advise your Paypal account. The money will be on its way.

Sorry, I thought the Wiki had a picture. Here one:
http://www.physorg.com/news93273014.html

You can find a lot of links about the collapse, but it seems to be mostly redundant. (Google both "Skyline Plaza" which was the name of the whole complex and "Skyline Towers" which was the name of these particular condominium buildings in the Plaza.)

Part C was the 23rd and 24th floors. Part A was the sub-basement up to the 22nd floor. Does that not meet your challenge?

[240-185]

Not when you drop a part C of it on remainder part A.

Please, tell us what the similarities are between these:

http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/lemons.jpg

and these:

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311600/Images/twintowers1.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

Just out of curiosity: is there an example of 10% of anything crushing the other 90% of what's remaining?

I don't mean to redirect this back to the original challenge, but I'm just checking in to see if we've made any progress with this.

Can you enlighten me as to why people like yourself assign percentages assuming loads are directly proportional to those percentages when the conditions the masses are being exposed to are dynamic as opposed to static? Does dynamic weight exist in your version of physics? Is the weight of the object at rest the same as when it accelerates and then slams into another object? Just checking to see if we've made any progress here.

[Wildy]

Heiwa

I noticed earlier in the thread that you were offering money to someone who successfully completes your "challenge".

Did you ever get around to proving that you had the money in question? I mean even the JREF challenge proves that they have the money in question.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa

I noticed earlier in the thread that you were offering money to someone who successfully completes your "challenge".

Did you ever get around to proving that you had the money in question? I mean even the JREF challenge proves that they have the money in question.

Conditions are at posts #1 and #239. In this Challenge only honour is at stake. A money award is mentioned in another thread.

[Minadin]

Conditions are at posts #1 and #239. In this Challenge only honour is at stake. A money award is mentioned in another thread.

Really? Because earlier you said:

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!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg

[240-185]

Please Heiwa, tell us what the similarities are between these:

http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/lemons.jpg

and these:

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311600/Images/twintowers1.jpg

bump

[KreeL]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:

[Redtail]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:

Yeah... To some it appears that Dane Cook is funnier than Richard Pryor, but a cocktail of weed, acid, ecstasy, and stupid is a helluvadrug.

[Heiwa]

Really? Because earlier you said:



Yes, not part of the conditions, though. Just a little personal encouragement to some poster with a Japanese signature. Never heard from him since! Probably trying to put a one-way crush down C+A structure together?

And that's the real Challenge. Imagine big A just collapsing, if you drop little C (a bit of A) on it. I really wonder what kind of structure that can be???

I have never heard of one! Have you? :)

[TheRedWorm]

Please, tell us what the similarities are between these:

http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/lemons.jpg

and these:

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311600/Images/twintowers1.jpg


bump2

[240-185]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:

If "pwning" means to you, "not answering the questions", yes, I am pwnt at this moment.

[twinstead]

KreeL, my definition of 'pwning' would be if your folks got some actual, respected scientists and engineers from real scientific and engineering organizations to agree with you. Playing rhetorical games and refusing to answer questions on a relativaly obscure internet forum isn't 'pwning' crap.

Until you folks aren't considerd kooks and charlatens by just about everybody who knows what they are talking you 'pwn' NOTHING.

[Unsecured Coins]

Yeah... To some it appears that Dane Cook is funnier than Richard Pryor, but a cocktail of weed, acid, ecstasy, and stupid is a helluvadrug.

I second this notion. And for the record - Richard Pryor was the funniest man on the planet

[WilliamSeger]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.


Yeah, he pwns me a $million but I don't think he's gonna pay.

[Grizzly Bear]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:

One must wonder the kind of mentality required of someone in order to support a comparison between pizza boxes, sponges, & lemons to full-sized buildings. But fear not, you've earned my respect for having the balls to support such comparisons -- you see... not everyone is able to support that level of idiocy with such honesty

I commend you. :)



And that's the real Challenge. Imagine big A just collapsing, if you drop little C (a bit of A) on it. I really wonder what kind of structure that can be???

I have never heard of one! Have you? :)

I think this question is relevant enough, I asked this very question to two other members, but I fear they won't demonstrate the intellectual honesty of genuinely answering it. Perhaps you could?

By assigning proportions (percentages, relative size, etc) to the upper section in order to state that a smaller part is incapable of crushing the larger, are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest? In other words if I can carry 100 pounds at rest, does this mean that I can carry the same mass falling into my arms from 10 feet?

Any conspiracy theorist is welcome to tackle this.... I'm afraid until you understand that the size is to an extent less important than the force the mass imparts when it accelerates that any "competition" with you would be worthless

[Gamolon]

Heiwa, you posted this quote from another thread.

NIST thinks that if you drop a mix of air, floors, walls, furniture, AC, cables and humans on a solid steel column or 280+ steel columns, the latter are destroyed.

Reason should be that the potential energy, PE, of the mix of air, floors, walls, furniture, AC, cables and humans exceed the strain energy, SE, that can be absorbed by the steel columns! PE > SE.

However, the suggestion is absurd! Like most propaganda. BUT, as 80%+ of the US population has no idea of PE and SE, they believe it.

I assume you belong to this gullible 80%.

Heiwa, I have a couple of questions.

You state the the floors that fell downward were composed of a mix of air, floors, walls, funriture, AC, cables, and humans.

Why did you not include the 10000 lb. elevators motors, the transformers, the thicker concrete pads, the roof slabs, the roof structural steel, the window washing equipment, etc?

When I think of the top part of the structure starting to collapse, I have no problem thinking that a 10000 lb. or transformer would be able to break a steel connection as it fell onto it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?

[Heiwa]

One must wonder the kind of mentality required of someone in order to support a comparison between pizza boxes, sponges, & lemons to full-sized buildings. But fear not, you've earned my respect for having the balls to support such comparisons -- you see... not everyone is able to support that level of idiocy with such honesty

I commend you. :)

I think this question is relevant enough, I asked this very question to two other members, but I fear they won't demonstrate the intellectual honesty of genuinely answering it. Perhaps you could?

By assigning proportions (percentages, relative size, etc) to the upper section in order to state that a smaller part is incapable of crushing the larger, are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest? In other words if I can carry 100 pounds at rest, does this mean that I can carry the same mass falling into my arms from 10 feet?

Any conspiracy theorist is welcome to tackle this.... I'm afraid until you understand that the size is to an extent less important than the force the mass imparts when it accelerates that any "competition" with you would be worthless

Konitchi wa! In structural analysis we study structures of various materials (different properties); steel, concrete, paper, wood, organic materials, &c. The principles are the same. Thus pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c., experiments are quite useful. I made a structural analysis of a 400+ years old wooden frame structure (my house) just for fun. They built very strong in 1590! A canon ball apparently damaged the structure December 1641.

Re question : "are you implying that the force of an object in motion when it encounters a sudden change in acceleration is the same as when the object is at rest?"

The total forces on an object at constant velocity including velocity 0 (at rest) when added together is 0 or equilibrium.

To change the velocity (up/down) of the object you must apply a force for a while (to decelerate or accelerate the object). When you remove the force, i.e. total force is again 0, the required velocity (incl. rest) may be achieved.

You can change acceleration of an object with mass m by changing the force you apply. Say that force F on mass m produces acceleration a, then force 2F on mass m produces acceleration 2a.

You can also change acceleration of an object driven by a force F by changing its mass.

When you carry 100 lbs at velocity 0, let's say it is bale of wool, the bale of wool apply a force on you corresponding to 100 lbs. Equilibrium.

Now, if 100 lbs (say 45 kg) drops on you from 10 feet (say 3 m), it will impact you with a velocity of 7.68 m/s. The pressure it applies on you depends on the properties of the structures involved, i.e. you and the 100 lbs.
Say 100 lbs of wool drop on you! I think it will knock you off your feet but nobody will really be hurt. However, replace the 100 lbs with a block of depleted uranium and you have no chance.

Anata wa toto wakarimasu ka?

[240-185]

Please Heiwa, tell us what (UPDATE: and where) the similarities are between these:

http://images.craveonline.com/article_imgs/Image/lemons.jpg

and these:

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0311600/Images/twintowers1.jpg

BÜMP

I will think that "if you don't answer, therefore you don't exist" ©...

[alex04]

Any scale, any size, any structure are sufficient, as long as C<1/10A, C and A have same internal structure (material, elements, joints, &c) and C is dropped on A (say from 3.7 m) and tries to one-way crush down A.

I have in kitchen and backyard tried with various composite structures; steel, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, bricks, wood logs, glass, eggs and combinations of all them and reported at JREF. Result is always part A remains uncrushed.

My business associates have by bad luck dropped big Cs on really bigger As. Same result. C never crushes A. A always crushes C.


Heiwa, i'd really like to have a go at this experiment. It's just that it doesn't seem very clear to me what's allowed to be constructed.

For instance, can you specifically tell me how you built the egg structure? One of the points i'm concerned about is the following;

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.

How did you build the egg structure, in a manner such that it was not affected by the condition above?

I'm not trying to insult you or be argumentative. I'm just trying to find a starting point - and a clear and comprehensive example of an experiment that you have performed, so that i can at least attempt to replicate it. (i.e. something a bit more in depth than, "i used eggs")

I just don't want to go to the trouble (and time) of attempting to build a particularly complicated structure that just happens to perfectly suits your conditions, when you've already created something relatively simple. I'd like to mention also, that i have no interest in money/prizes.


Regards,
Alex

[Wildy]

Conditions are at posts #1 and #239. In this Challenge only honour is at stake. A money award is mentioned in another thread.

I believe that you did mention money in this thread. It also seems that the money award is tied into this one, because completing the criteria for this one would simultaneously complete the criteria for that one.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you posted this quote from another thread.



Heiwa, I have a couple of questions.

You state the the floors that fell downward were composed of a mix of air, floors, walls, funriture, AC, cables, and humans.

Why did you not include the 10000 lb. elevators motors, the transformers, the thicker concrete pads, the roof slabs, the roof structural steel, the window washing equipment, etc?

When I think of the top part of the structure starting to collapse, I have no problem thinking that a 10000 lb. or transformer would be able to break a steel connection as it fell onto it. Am I wrong in thinking this way?

Upper part C structure can consist of anything you can think of, transformers, lemons, pizza boxes making up some sort of composite structure. Just ensure that the lower part A (A>10C) composite structure is identical in composition.

And then drop C on A. No way C can crush down A.

But if you drop a 10 000 lb transformer on a pizza box, the pizza box is probably crushed. But if you drop the pizza box on the transformer, the pizza box only bounces. That is what would have happened to WTC 1 on 911. Upper part was ... like a pizza box, compared with the lower structure (also pizza boxes but a little stronger).

Rule 1 for Heiwa Challenge. Do not mix transformers with pizza boxes.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, i'd really like to have a go at this experiment. It's just that it doesn't seem very clear to me what's allowed to be constructed.

For instance, can you specifically tell me how you built the egg structure? One of the points i'm concerned about is the following;



How did you build the egg structure, in a manner such that it was not affected by the condition above?

I'm not trying to insult you or be argumentative. I'm just trying to find a starting point - and a clear and comprehensive example of an experiment that you have performed, so that i can at least attempt to replicate it. (i.e. something a bit more in depth than, "i used eggs")

I just don't want to go to the trouble (and time) of attempting to build a particularly complicated structure that just happens to perfectly suits your conditions, when you've already created something relatively simple. I'd like to mention also, that i have no interest in money/prizes.


Regards,
Alex

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.

[Heiwa]

I believe that you did mention money in this thread. It also seems that the money award is tied into this one, because completing the criteria for this one would simultaneously complete the criteria for that one.

Yes, only with Grizzly Bear! To cheer him up. Banzai! Aussies must comply with conditions in posts #1 and 239!

[Wildy]

Yes, only with Grizzly Bear! To cheer him up. Banzai! Aussies must comply with conditions in posts #1 and 239!

So what exactly is the incentive for me to do your challenge then?

And if I did this challenge and successfully completed it, would I get the prize from the other challenge?

[Gamolon]

Upper part C structure can consist of anything you can think of, transformers, lemons, pizza boxes making up some sort of composite structure. Just ensure that the lower part A (A>10C) composite structure is identical in composition.

And then drop C on A. No way C can crush down A.

But if you drop a 10 000 lb transformer on a pizza box, the pizza box is probably crushed. But if you drop the pizza box on the transformer, the pizza box only bounces. That is what would have happened to WTC 1 on 911. Upper part was ... like a pizza box, compared with the lower structure (also pizza boxes but a little stronger).

Rule 1 for Heiwa Challenge. Do not mix transformers with pizza boxes.

Ok.

Are you trying to tell me that a pizza box scales accordingly to one of the floors of the towers?

What if I reconstructed a scaled model of the lower two thirds of the towers using balsa wood components in place of the steel beams and columns. Then I constructed the upper third using the same balsa wood components for the structural members. Going forward, I add large solid steel cubes to the upper portion of the top third of the tower (to represent the elevator motors and transformers). I then drop the part with the solid steel cubes on top of the lower two thirds. What happens to the solid steel cubes along with the rest of the connected basla wood members?

[alex04]

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.

Thanks Heiwa, much appreciated. Holy rule 10, that's a lot of eggs to waste. I'll see if i can get some out of shrinkage at a local store:D

[Gamolon]

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.

You forgot something. Add a couple of steel ball bearings to the upper part you are dropping to represent the 10000 lb. elevator motors and transformers. NOW what happens?

[TheRedWorm]

in addition:

He/she needs to explain this...

Yx_XMV6Etgo

ETA: Start at 40 seconds

[Shrinker]

in addition:



ETA: Start at 40 seconds

Ah, card towers are explicitly excluded from the challenge because... well... because they'd win of course.

[Lennart Hyland]

Not when you drop a part C of it on remainder part A.

How do you know that? How do you know that if you drop 1 lemon on 10 lemons the result will be the same for a 93 floor high skyscraper that got 17 floors dropping on it?

[Heiwa]

How do you know that? How do you know that if you drop 1 lemon on 10 lemons the result will be the same for a 93 floor high skyscraper that got 17 floors dropping on it?

That's the result of basic physics/solid mechanics + structural damage analysis/elastic elements that deform and fail - combined + experience.

I have never dropped a 17 floors structure (63 m tall) on another 93 floors structure (344 m tall) but I have investigated a fair number of smaller collisions after drops and done plenty experiments with more easy to handle objects and done some theoretical analysis. Result is always the same - smaller, dropping part C cannot crush bigger, static part A.

If you don't believe me, enter The Heiwa Challenge and present a structure that behaves differently, e.g. is crushed down by a piece dropping on it.

OT - read my book at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm for more info about similar governments' cover-ups.

[Lennart Hyland]

I have never dropped a 17 floors structure (63 m tall) on another 93 floors structure (344 m tall) but I have investigated a fair number of smaller collisions after drops and done plenty experiments with more easy to handle objects and done some theoretical analysis. Result is always the same - smaller, dropping part C cannot crush bigger, static part A.


Well its that I'm questioning. How can you know that your smaller structure dropps will behave just like a skyscraper!?

Just like your pizza-box experiment. It has nothing to do with a real skyscraper like the WTC!

I'm wondering this from my laymans view. Because I have zero knowledge in structural engineering.

[twinstead]

I'm wondering this from my laymans view. Because I have zero knowledge in structural engineering.

Cool. You appear to have a lot in common with Heiwa, then. ;)

[Lennart Hyland]

Cool. You appear to have a lot in common with Heiwa, then. ;)

haha good one. But are my questions any relevant? Or is it just like Anders says "That's the result of basic physics/solid mechanics + structural damage analysis/elastic elements that deform and fail - combined + experience.
"?

[Jonnyclueless]

It appears that Heiwa pwns the non-toofers.

Again.:yikes:


And yet He is complete unable to publish any of his beliefs in any legitimate publication. As opposed to legitimate engineers who have done so showing how the towers collapsed. Isn't that interesting? I guess you're impressed by pizza boxes. Maybe he could publish something in a pizza peer reviewed journal! International Journal of pizza just might accept his papers.

[KreeL]

Haewa's observations have already been published years ago. You can find them by googling Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy.

Have fun - don't stay pwnd too long.

[Heiwa]

Are you trying to tell me that a pizza box scales accordingly to one of the floors of the towers?


No!

[Heiwa]

What if I reconstructed a scaled model of the lower two thirds of the towers using balsa wood components in place of the steel beams and columns. Then I constructed the upper third using the same balsa wood components for the structural members. Going forward, I add large solid steel cubes to the upper portion of the top third of the tower (to represent the elevator motors and transformers). I then drop the part with the solid steel cubes on top of the lower two thirds. What happens to the solid steel cubes along with the rest of the connected basla wood members?

Well, the structure does not conform with The Heiwa Challenge conditions BUT put also some solid steel cubes in the lower part and you are almost there. And then adjust the sizes: Thus:

Upper part C = composite balsa wood + steel cubes elements joined together
Lower part A = composite balsa wood + steel cubes elements joined together
C<1/10 A

Drop C on A and demonstrate C crushes down A. Pls send photos, &c.

In my opinion A crushes C ... as usual.

[Newtons Bit]

Haewa's observations have already been published years ago. You can find them by googling Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy.

Have fun - don't stay pwnd too long.

Using conservation of momentum, I've proved that the collapse could indeed happen:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584

This is OLD discussions. They ended a long time ago because the truthers lost it. People like Heiwa have to cheat to get the math to say otherwise.

[Heiwa]

How can you know that your smaller structure dropps will behave just like a skyscraper!?

I'm wondering this from my laymans view. Because I have zero knowledge in structural engineering.

Gravity forces do not differ between skyscrapers or lemons or whatever. They attract everything. And the result is always the same.

[Gamolon]

Well, the structure does not conform with The Heiwa Challenge conditions BUT put also some solid steel cubes in the lower part and you are almost there. And then adjust the sizes: Thus:

Upper part C = composite balsa wood + steel cubes elements joined together
Lower part A = composite balsa wood + steel cubes elements joined together
C<1/10 A

Drop C on A and demonstrate C crushes down A. Pls send photos, &c.

In my opinion A crushes C ... as usual.
The steel cubes would only be on 1 floor in the first third of the tower and on one floor of the second third.

Are you telling me that the 10000 lb. elevator motors (5 tons) wouldn't rip through the steel structure and break connections?

[Heiwa]

Using conservation of momentum, I've proved that the collapse could indeed happen:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=97584

This is OLD discussions. They ended a long time ago because the truthers lost it. People like Heiwa have to cheat to get the math to say otherwise.

GOOD! VERY GOOD. But OT. Apply your knowledge and enter The Heiwa Challenge. Conditions are in posts #1 and 239!

[Heiwa]

The steel cubes would only be on 1 floor in the first third of the tower and on one floor of the second third.

Are you telling me that the 10000 lb. elevator motors (5 tons) wouldn't rip through the steel structure and break connections?

When an elevator motor free falls it doesn't apply any force on anything!

If elevator motor impacts something, i.e. free fall is terminated, pls compare moving company dropping grand piano from window on to pavement below in old Hollywood movies. Very funny!

PS - grand piano is broken into pieces.

[Gamolon]

When an elevator motor free falls it doesn't apply any force on anything!

If elevator motor impacts something, i.e. free fall is terminated, pls compare moving company dropping grand piano from window on to pavement below in old Hollywood movies. Very funny!

PS - grand piano is broken into pieces.

How is a 5 ton motor hitting a steel beam connecting steel columns together the same as a piano hitting solid ground?

Are you telling me that if a 5 ton motor hit the cross member of a steel structure, the motor would shatter into pieces?

So let me get this straight. According to you:

1. Solid ground = structual steel beams
2. A piano = a 5 ton elevator motor

Is that correct?

[TheRedWorm]

in addition:
He/she needs to explain this...

Yx_XMV6Etgo


ETA: Start at 40 seconds


BumP

[FineWine]

Easter is past (unless you are in Egypt or Russia) and all eggs have been eaten, but anyway. Take an egg, make a hole in it and empty it and you get an empty egg. Make same thing with 39 similar eggs.

Now glue 40 empty eggs together in a structure with four eggs at bottom (2x2) and another 9 similar layers of eggs on top. You have a nice egg structure 10 eggs high (4x10). Test it that it doesn't collapse. The eggs are the elements, the glue are the joints.

Now carefully remove the top 4 egg layer - that is part C - from the 36 egg tower below - that is part A. Now drop part C on part A!

If part C crushes part A, you have won the Challenge.

You can also use eggs full of white and yellow, if you like - raw or boilt - but they must all be same throughout and glued together. BTW you dont have to glue C to A to test structure but just test A for lateral stability (that all eggs are glued). Then drop part C (4 eggs glued together) on your part A World Easter Egg Tower and report! Photos are welcome.

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?

[GlennB]

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?

You got it. But I suspect the elephant tower would spontaneously collapse during construction. This would lose you your challenge, as you didn't even have to drop the top part. A doggie tower might be on the borderline for a 10-layer furry creature tower. Weasels ? ;)

p.s. don't forget to glue the weasels to the plates. It's part of the challenge.

[FineWine]

You got it. But I suspect the elephant tower would spontaneously collapse during construction. This would lose you your challenge, as you didn't even have to drop the top part. A doggie tower might be on the borderline for a 10-layer furry creature tower. Weasels ? ;)

p.s. don't forget to glue the weasels to the plates. It's part of the challenge.

All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.

[TheRedWorm]

All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.


Or, more troubling for a supposed naval engineer, the difference between an ice cube and an iceberg.

[Furcifer]

All kidding aside, I don't think he sees any difference between snow and an avalanche. They both come down.

Basically, he claims there is no such thing as a progressive collapse. An avalanche is a progressive collapse. They think there is no way the same principle can be applied to a steel structure. This is of course at odds with what the rest of the world knows. But it makes for great entertainement as can be seen here : www.hewai.triandpooped.com

[dtugg]

I believe that you did mention money in this thread. It also seems that the money award is tied into this one, because completing the criteria for this one would simultaneously complete the criteria for that one.

Yes, only with Grizzly Bear! To cheer him up. Banzai! Aussies must comply with conditions in posts #1 and 239!

Quit lying, liar.

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement and total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and that C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise - as per Challenge conditions - and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies! C has too little!

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

So where is the money Heiwa? You made this post in this very thread. If somebody beat your stupid challenge, they would also disprove your stupid axiom and be owed a million dollars. So do you have a million dollars or are you a lying fraud?

[WilliamSeger]

Haewa's observations have already been published years ago. You can find them by googling Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy.

LOL, actually Heiwa does this magic trick where he makes momentum and energy disappear. It's not much of a magic trick, though: He just claims it disappeared, so the trick only works on children and... well, never mind...

I really think Heiwa is on the wrong side of the magic energy thing, though: I hear there's a lot of money to be made by claiming you can make energy appear.

Have fun - don't stay pwnd too long.

He still pwns me a $million, but he seems to be ignoring me now.

[Furcifer]

He still pwns me a $million, but he seems to be ignoring me now.

The line starts here :cool:

[Heiwa]

Basically, he claims there is no such thing as a progressive collapse. An avalanche is a progressive collapse. They think there is no way the same principle can be applied to a steel structure. This is of course at odds with what the rest of the world knows. But it makes for great entertainement as can be seen here : www.hewai.triandpooped.com

Funny that you mention avalanches. Nobody thought about it before I made the comparison at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#72 some years back.

Here topic is The Heiwa Challenge where a part C shall vertically one-way crush down of part A of same structure, where A previously carried C.

You can try to build a structure of snow and then drop more snow on it; question is how to make it stable one moment and unstable another moment, &tc. and you have to ask yourself if C really has the same structure than A during the one-way crush down? In an avalanche that is not really the case, you see?

[Heiwa]

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?

Live structural elements? Why not? You have to connect them with joints of some kind, though! Glue? Then drop C on A. Send photos of your one-way crush down contraption. Thanks for taking part in The Heiwa Challenge!

[Heiwa]

How is a 5 ton motor hitting a steel beam connecting steel columns together the same as a piano hitting solid ground?

Are you telling me that if a 5 ton motor hit the cross member of a steel structure, the motor would shatter into pieces?

So let me get this straight. According to you:

1. Solid ground = structual steel beams
2. A piano = a 5 ton elevator motor

Is that correct?

It is similar! An object C impacts an object A; in your case evidently of different structural types, which doesn't qualify them for The Heiwa Challenge!

[Wildy]

Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?

[Fjolle]

I dont understand. You seem to talk a lot about how the C part should be intact, but that doesn't appear in the challenge?

Edit: and can i use a card tower?

[TheRedWorm]

I dont understand. You seem to talk a lot about how the C part should be intact, but that doesn't appear in the challenge?

Edit: and can i use a card tower?


Like, say, this one:

He/she needs to explain this...

Yx_XMV6Etgo

[Heiwa]

I dont understand. You seem to talk a lot about how the C part should be intact, but that doesn't appear in the challenge?

Edit: and can i use a card tower?

In The Heiwa Challenge the final result must be that the part A structure is crushed by part C. Whether part C remains intact or not is of no importance.

Card structures are welcome but joints between cards cannot rely solely on friction. I recommend a little glue between the cards but not too much so that the joints become stronger than the cards.

Joints in part C must have equal strength of joints in part A. Do not cheat and make part C joints stronger than the part A joints.

Problem with card structures is that their masses are small. Better is a structure of steel plates glued together = more mass = more potential energy to break the fu...ng joints. Tip - chose a plate element that is stiff and does absorb minimum energy in elastic compression = loss of energy. You want the energy to break the joints, not to compress the elements.

So now you have a tower of stiff steel plates glued together. Every plate is glued to at least two other plates (except the top ones). Tip - keep number of joints minimum to reduce strain energy in joints of structure! Next condition is that it must withstand a small lateral impact without getting damaged. It ensures that the the joints are up to challenge standard.

Note that there are about 10 times more joints/elements in part A than in part C.

Now, remove joints between parts C and A and, TEST TIME, you drop C on A! Many things may happen. C bounces (try bigger drop height), some joints are damaged and some steel plate elements drop down (not good enough - try higher drop height) ... or all 100% joints are damaged in part A and you have a heep of steel plate elements on the ground of what was C and A.

If 70% of all the joints between elements in part A are broken after drop you are a winner.

It sounds easy but breaking joints with loose steel elements is not easy. The loose steel plate/card element (two joints broken) has really only one chance if it becomes loose and drops and maybe it decides to just slide off and not destroy a joint. &c, &c.

You'll learn a lot while building your structure. Go for heavy elements and weakest possible, fixed joints that withstand lateral force (the lateral test) but minimum vertical load. OK, upper part C must be as weak as the lower part A, so what happens at contact is of interest. Will part C actually apply all its energy on part A at impact and destroy A joints ... or will the energy be applied on something else ... or just pass through all elements/joints in part A and be absorbed by the ground? What really happens at impact? And later. You'll find out. This is a very educational Challenge.

[TheRedWorm]

Why is this not a valid demonstration?

He/she needs to explain this...

Yx_XMV6Etgo

[Heiwa]

Why is this not a valid demonstration?

He forgot the fixed joints between card elements. See above. And then he should drop upper part C, &c.

[TheRedWorm]

Why? Do you think that is a realistic scenario for what happened on 9/11?

[Fjolle]

In The Heiwa Challenge the final result must be that the part A structure is crushed by part C. Whether part C remains intact or not is of no importance.

Card structures are welcome but joints between cards cannot rely solely on friction. I recommend a little glue between the cards but not too much so that the joints become stronger than the cards.

Joints in part C must have equal strength of joints in part A. Do not cheat and make part C joints stronger than the part A joints.

Problem with card structures is that their masses are small. Better is a structure of steel plates glued together = more mass = more potential energy to break the fu...ng joints. Tip - chose a plate element that is stiff and does absorb minimum energy in elastic compression = loss of energy. You want the energy to break the joints, not to compress the elements.

So now you have a tower of stiff steel plates glued together. Every plate is glued to at least two other plates (except the top ones). Tip - keep number of joints minimum to reduce strain energy in joints of structure! Next condition is that it must withstand a small lateral impact without getting damaged. It ensures that the the joints are up to challenge standard.

Note that there are about 10 times more joints/elements in part A than in part C.

Now, remove joints between parts C and A and, TEST TIME, you drop C on A! Many things may happen. C bounces (try bigger drop height), some joints are damaged and some steel plate elements drop down (not good enough - try higher drop height) ... or all 100% joints are damaged in part A and you have a heep of steel plate elements on the ground of what was C and A.

If 70% of all the joints between elements in part A are broken after drop you are a winner.

It sounds easy but breaking joints with loose steel elements is not easy. The loose steel plate/card element (two joints broken) has really only one chance if it becomes loose and drops and maybe it decides to just slide off and not destroy a joint. &c, &c.

You'll learn a lot while building your structure. Go for heavy elements and weakest possible, fixed joints that withstand lateral force (the lateral test) but minimum vertical load. OK, upper part C must be as weak as the lower part A, so what happens at contact is of interest. Will part C actually apply all its energy on part A at impact and destroy A joints ... or will the energy be applied on something else ... or just pass through all elements/joints in part A and be absorbed by the ground? What really happens at impact? And later. You'll find out. This is a very educational Challenge.

Hmm. I missed that. Does anyone know how i scale a bolt to 1/4000? :jaw-dropp

[Dave Rogers]

Hmm. I missed that. Does anyone know how i scale a bolt to 1/4000? :jaw-dropp

If only some conspiracy theorists could figure out after two thousand posts what you've figured out after only ten...

Dave

[Heiwa]

Why? Do you think that is a realistic scenario for what happened on 9/11?

This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge! Just drop C on A and try to one-way crush down A. No fires, no buckling of elements, no pulverization of concrete, &c. Just a simple structure A to be crushed by a small part C of itself that is dropped on A. You can try a WTC 1 similar structure but I try to keep it general.

PS Re 9/11 I think WTC 1 was demolished from top down using energy applied from inside and not from a something dropping down from above. The ulitimate objective of The Heiwa Challenge is to produce substance to this hypothesis.

[TheRedWorm]

ok, the top part of the card tower is part C, the rest of the tower is part A. How would raising it change anything, if it completely collapsed from a resting position?

ETA: Aren't you the guy that thinks that friction alone would arrest collapse of the two towers? If true, why do you object to the card tower essentially being held up by friction?

[Heiwa]

Hmm. I missed that. Does anyone know how i scale a bolt to 1/4000? :jaw-dropp

Don't forget the nut! Yes, bolted joints are also permitted with nuts secured properly (not only friction). Any size. Don't forget the lateral test before drop. :)

[TheRedWorm]

see my edit.

[Heiwa]

ok, the top part of the card tower is part C, the rest of the tower is part A. How would raising it change anything, if it completely collapsed from a resting position?

ETA: Aren't you the guy that thinks that friction alone would arrest collapse of the two towers? If true, why do you object to the card tower essentially being held up by friction?

The structure must before drop test pass the lateral strength test without collapsing. See conditions. Then split structure in A and C and drop, &c.

The structure consists of elements and joints and is standing up and shall be crushed down. Such a structure cannot rely on joints of friction. It will not pass the lateral test.

Yes, friction or the lack of it will make The Heiwa Challenge difficult.

Friction between loose or displaced elements will evidently absorb energy and make one-way crush down difficult or even impossible.

Lack of friction between elements will make application of energy to destroy joints between elements impossible.

You cannot have it both ways. You must really consider friction. Otherwise part C will just slip off part A. :)

[TheRedWorm]

Do you think there is any way to actually pass your challenge? If not, what's the point? If so, your challenge must have a strong resemblance to what happened on 9/11, which it seems to lack. You can't have it both ways.

[GlennB]

Don't forget the nut! Yes, bolted joints are also permitted with nuts secured properly (not only friction). Any size. Don't forget the lateral test before drop. :)

How do nuts+bolts function, Heiwa ?

[GlennB]

ETA: Aren't you the guy that thinks that friction alone would arrest collapse of the two towers? If true, why do you object to the card tower essentially being held up by friction?

Good point.

Wish I had thought of that, Worm :)

[Newtons Bit]

How do nuts+bolts function, Heiwa ?

Sometimes through friction :)

Those are called slip-critical. They're pretty common in buildings in the U.S.

[Heiwa]

Do you think there is any way to actually pass your challenge? If not, what's the point? If so, your challenge must have a strong resemblance to what happened on 9/11, which it seems to lack. You can't have it both ways.

Pls, re-read post #1. Many OCT-ists believe structural one-way crush downs are not only possible but frequent and natural events but they cannot prove it. So it is a matter of faith for them. I, of course, know a one-way crush is impossible, so I start The Heiwa Challenge just to confirm it.

Result so far? Problems with nuts and bolts and scale, &c! All posts like that just confirm my knowledge.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Pls, re-read post #1. Many OCT-ists believe structural one-way crush downs are not only possible but frequent and natural events but they cannot prove it. So it is a matter of faith for them. I, of course, know a one-way crush is impossible, so I start The Heiwa Challenge just to confirm it.

Result so far? Problems with nuts and bolts and scale, &c! All posts like that just confirm my knowledge.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4620667#post4620667
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4561435#post4561435
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4614294#post4614294

[GlennB]

Sometimes through friction :)

Those are called slip-critical. They're pretty common in buildings in the U.S.

Thanks. It always occurred to my non-engineering brain that the thread of a nut/bolt was like putting something on a slope. The shallower the slope the less likely it was to slide. And then again I suppose you can add adhesive, welding, split-pins and stuff and other means of securing.

Is it possible to tighten a nut/bolt so tight that it kind of self-welds? Just wondering, for my own education ;)

[TheRedWorm]

Pls, re-read post #1. Many OCT-ists believe structural one-way crush downs are not only possible but frequent and natural events but they cannot prove it. So it is a matter of faith for them. I, of course, know a one-way crush is impossible, so I start the Heiwa challenge just to confirm it.

Result so far? Problems with nuts and bolts and scale, &c! All posts like that just confirm my knowledge.


Do you actually understand scaling? Not just in buildings, but in the everyday world?

[tsig]

Do you think there is any way to actually pass your challenge? If not, what's the point? If so, your challenge must have a strong resemblance to what happened on 9/11, which it seems to lack. You can't have it both ways.

Before I'd waste any time on "The Heiwa Challenge " I'd make sure there is " the Heiwa Money"

[FineWine]

Live structural elements? Why not? You have to connect them with joints of some kind, though! Glue? Then drop C on A. Send photos of your one-way crush down contraption. Thanks for taking part in The Heiwa Challenge!


You skated right past the part where the tower of elephants collapsed. How can you act so confident when what you say is obviously wrong? Are you really an engineer?

[Newtons Bit]

Thanks. It always occurred to my non-engineering brain that the thread of a nut/bolt was like putting something on a slope. The shallower the slope the less likely it was to slide. And then again I suppose you can add adhesive, welding, split-pins and stuff and other means of securing.

Is it possible to tighten a nut/bolt so tight that it kind of self-welds? Just wondering, for my own education ;)

High-strength bolts are tightened to the point that the bolt itself yields in tension (but before tension rupture). This ensures constant behavior with the bolt.

Bolts have two failure modes in typical shear only loading - slip critical and bearing. Slip is generally a service level failure for most applications: the load on the bolt is such that it exceeds the resisting maximum force of friction. The other is bearing, the bolt literally shears in half.

[Heiwa]

Do you actually understand scaling? Not just in buildings, but in the everyday world?

Yes. You can chose any scale or size for The Heiwa Challenge structure to demonstrate one-way crush down.

[Heiwa]

You skated right past the part where the tower of elephants collapsed. How can you act so confident when what you say is obviously wrong? Are you really an engineer?

I am definietely not working at a zoo or cirkus. Topic is The Heiwa Challenge!

[Minadin]

The author of and donor to the Heiwa Challenge is a charlatan, offering Monopoly money only and consistently moving the goal posts to make certain he never has to pay up to Parker Brothers for another box.

There have been at least 2, possibly 3, scenarios which would win this challenge clearly put forth in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg

NORAD reports that the Goal Posts are now somewhere over the Indian Ocean. NATO cautions travelers in the area due to violence in Sri Lanka.

[Heiwa]

There have been at least 2, possibly 3, scenarios which would win this challenge clearly put forth in this thread.



Scenarios do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge, which is about structures, where a part C of the structure one-way crushes down part A of the identical structure after being dropped on it (C<1/10A) by gravity.

According the OCT these structures should be common, &c, and the gravity driven one-way crush down phenomenon is a frequent event in these structures. The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm the OCT suggestion ... or conclude that it is untrue.

There are now >400 posts on this thread and no structure presented that one-way crushes down!

[beachnut]

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?
It depends on how much super-thermite the mice ate. Good to start with mice, the elephants eat too much super-thermite.

[Minadin]

The author of and donor to the Heiwa Challenge is a charlatan, offering Monopoly money only and consistently moving the goal posts to make certain he never has to pay up to Parker Brothers for another box.

There have been at least 2, possibly 3, scenarios which would win this challenge clearly put forth in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg

NORAD reports that the Goal Posts are now somewhere over the Indian Ocean. NATO cautions travelers in the area due to violence in Sri Lanka.

[Wildy]

Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?

No answer?

[Swing Dangler]

Sure it has. But there are plenty of idiots that ignore it because it destroys their fantasy.

You realize your example and support of NIST in response to the challenge is ridiculous. They modeled up to the point of initiation and then stopped. Much to the sadness of the structural engineering community I'm sure. End conclusion: lots of fireproofing stops global collapses from happening. :newlol

Now what you should do is investigate whether owners of high rise steel structures around the globe heeded NIST's advice and immediately began to increase the amount of fireproofing materials within their structures. After all, millions of lives depend upon fireproofing preventing global collapse.


NIST did notmodel the global collapse. Their excuse was that it was "too chaotic" for the computer models. So they ignored the science and let the world speculate. They could have provided other means to model the collapse say like the challenge offered to you, but they didn't take advantage of that. They didn't offer any math behind it, but relied on the Bazant paper that is full of flaws. And now they simply avoid the issue all together.

And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.


Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

[Disbelief]

And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.


Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

You still haven't learned to read yet. Myriad did in fact accept the challenge, at only 1/10th the price, but it is your hero who is backing out. He is the one who is not coming to the table with proof of having the money, and he seems unwilling to do as was asked to ensure the money is safe for disbursement.

[dtugg]

You realize your example and support of NIST in response to the challenge is ridiculous. They modeled up to the point of initiation and then stopped.

Yeah. They were charged with finding out why the collapse happened. So that's what they did. It is completely obvious to anybody that is not an idiot twoofer that after it started, that it couldn't be stopped.


Much to the sadness of the structural engineering community I'm sure. End conclusion: lots of fireproofing stops global collapses from happening. :newlol

I must have missed the sadness from the structural engineering community. Where is it? Or can I just assume that you made it up.


Now what you should do is investigate whether owners of high rise steel structures around the globe heeded NIST's advice and immediately began to increase the amount of fireproofing materials within their structures. After all, millions of lives depend upon fireproofing preventing global collapse.

Please. What happened at the WTC was totally unique and extremely unlikely to repeat itself.


NIST did notmodel the global collapse.

They weren't asked to.

Their excuse was that it was "too chaotic" for the computer models.

And it was.

So they ignored the science and let the world speculate.

They didn't ignore any science. And by "world" you mean a bunch of idiots on the internet, right?


They could have provided other means to model the collapse say like the challenge offered to you, but they didn't take advantage of that.

Please. This challenge is completely stupid. It would need to be scaled appropriately to mean anything and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to scale such large buildings correctly. Heiwa, who is supposedly an engineer has no clue about scale, which is one of the many reasons he fails with every single post that he makes. If they did make the model, you guys would just say it was rigged anyway.


They didn't offer any math behind it, but relied on the Bazant paper that is full of flaws. And now they simply avoid the issue all together.

Point out the flaws in Bazant's paper and explain why I should listen to some morons on the Internet over a world renowned expert.


And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

No. Actually it wouldn't be simple. And nobody has an real reason to go out of their way to try just to prove something to some morons.


And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.

Myriad accepted the challenge. But as it turns out, Heiwa is a fraud and a liar. Why should Myriad go out of his way, spending his time and money to just to prove something to a bunch of morons?


Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because nobody cares enough to go out of their way and spend a bunch of their valuable time and hard earned money just to prove something to a group of morons.


Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

See above. I personally don't care about shutting Heiwa up. It would actually be shame, because he is comedy gold. I mean, we are talking about the guy who is supposedly an engineer and compares lemons, pizza boxes, sponges, ect. to 110 story skyscrapers. It doesn't get much funnier than that.

[TheRedWorm]

Yes. You can chose any scale or size for the heiwa "challenge" structure to demonstrate one-way crush down.

That's not what I asked. Here it is again:

Do you actually understand scaling? Not just in buildings, but in the everyday world?


Do you understand the importance of scale?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

[WilliamSeger]

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.

Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.


I offered Heiwa some reality: Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads VA, 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse). Two collapsing floors took out 22+ floors, one at a time, all the way into the sub-basement. After it got started, there was no reason it couldn't have taken out any number of floors, since each collision had more energy than the one before. Heiwa's fantasy physics have nothing to do with reality, which is why he now ignores the Skyline Towers collapse. I was working as a structural draftsman in an office a few miles away in Alexandria. There was a lot of talk among the structural engineers about how it might have gotten started, but what happened after that was pretty danged obvious, even to those of us who are not engineers and even without theoretical models. All it takes is some real-world common sense about heavy masses in motion, and some understanding that very few buildings are designed to withstand that kind of abuse -- not because it isn't possible but because it would make the construction very expensive.

[Heiwa]

That's not what I asked. Here it is again:




Do you understand the importance of scale?

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes! :) You are probably smaller than you believe.

[Fjolle]

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

Stop lying.

You mentioned the prize in posts #34 and #117 in this thread.

[twinstead]

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes!

this answer actually makes me think you have no idea.

[Wildy]

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

It has been mentioned that you offered a million dollars to the successful applicant in this thread.

So if I were to enter this challenge and if I were successful, would that mean that you would give me a million dollars?

[TheRedWorm]

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes! :) You are probably smaller than you believe.



Then why do you compare pizza boxes, lemons, sponges and the like to the twin towers?

[Heiwa]

Stop lying.

You mentioned the prize in posts #34 and #117 in this thread.

Post #34 is personal encouragement to one poster. #117 is refering to another thread. No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour.

[Heiwa]

It has been mentioned that you offered a million dollars to the successful applicant in this thread.

So if I were to enter this challenge and if I were successful, would that mean that you would give me a million dollars?

Pls enter the challenge and be successful! Question has been discussed many times before with other contenders. Pls check the relevant threads.

[Heiwa]

Then why do you compare pizza boxes, lemons, sponges and the like to the twin towers?

Good question! You see the part C and A structures must be same, only C<1/10A size wise. Internally they have same size - all elements/joints are 1/1 in C and A.

So when C and A are pizza boxes', lemons', sponges', &c, structures C/A collide/impact in experiments/models, there are no one-way Crush downs, ever.

Same apply to WTC 1 structure and its parts C/A.

It is the phenomenon one-way Crush down we discuss.

The WTC 1 C and A parts will behave exactly like pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, when they impact/collide.

My 12 years old kids crowd understand that 100%. What's your age?

[D'rok]

The WTC 1 C and A parts will behave exactly like pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, when they impact/collide.

:jaw-dropp

[phunk]

Good question! You see the part C and A structures must be same, only C<1/10A size wise. Internally they have same size - all elements/joints are 1/1 in C and A.


So you're not looking for something similar to WTC 1 & 2?

[Heiwa]

So you're not looking for something similar to WTC 1 & 2?

A structure is always a structure. That's what structural analysis is all about. Structual damage analysis is about damaged structures.

If you believe that WTC 1 differs from any other structures in universe, you have not understood much!

WTC 1 is not a unique structure in the universe! It is just like pizza boxes, &c. This one off one way Crush down once in the universe is just Hollywood stuff.

But I appreciate your interest in this thread - The Heiwa Challenge. We in old Europe solved it a long time ago. It seems the knowledge got lost in the Atlantic? So I just remind you ... over there!

[Lennart Hyland]

WTC 1 is not a unique structure in the universe! It is just like pizza boxes, &c. This one off one way Crush down once in the universe is just Hollywood stuff.



I think Leslie Robertson will take that as an insult.

[dtugg]

Post #34 is personal encouragement to one poster. #117 is refering to another thread. No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour.

But if somebody did beat your stupid challenge, he would simultaneously disprove your stupid axiom, and thus be owed a million dollars. So where is the money?

[beachnut]

...
If you believe that WTC 1 differs from any other structures in universe, you have not understood much!

WTC 1 is not a unique structure in the universe! It is just like pizza boxes, &c. This one off one way Crush down once in the universe is just Hollywood stuff.
... More delusions from our delusion making pizza-box engineer. The challenge is dumb, the WTC towers falling on 911 prove Heiwa's ideas are crazy and there is no money.



...
WTC 1 is not a unique structure ... It is just like pizza boxes,
...

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm an innovative structural model: a rigid "hollow tube" of closely spaced steel columns with floor trusses extended across to a central core. The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all. Oh?

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildingsâ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core. For the elevators, to serve 110 stories with a traditional configuration would have required half the area of the lower stories be used for shaftways. Otis Elevators developed an express and local system, whereby passengers would change at "sky lobbies" on the 44th and 78th floors, halving the number of shaftways.
what?

[Heiwa]

But if somebody did beat your stupid challenge, he would simultaneously disprove your stupid axiom, and thus be owed a million dollars.

Go for the stupid money, if you are stupid. But you have to beat The Heiwa Challenge and get the honours before that.

[dtugg]

Go for the stupid money, if you are stupid. But you have to beat The Heiwa Challenge and get the honours before that.

Prove you have the money, fraud.

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa, Do you believe that the lead engineer for WTC, Leslie Robertson, is deluded when he tells us that he agrees with NIST?

[TheRedWorm]

The WTC 1 C and A parts will behave exactly like pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, when they impact/collide.



That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

ETA: also, here is visual evidence that I can, in fact, throw a bullet at a watermelon. (Correct scale)
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6537/bulletso.jpg

[Jonnyclueless]

Heiwa, Do you believe that the lead engineer for WTC, Leslie Robertson, is deluded when he tells us that he agrees with NIST?

What would have happened to Leslie had he made a prototpe of the WTC using pizza boxes? Oh right, he would have been laughed out of a career and ended up working on boat accidents.

[FineWine]

I am definietely not working at a zoo or cirkus. Topic is The Heiwa Challenge!


In other words, you realize that the tower of mice does not collapse, but the tower of elephants does. I think a circus would hire you.

[Heiwa]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

ETA: also, here is visual evidence that I can, in fact, throw a bullet at a watermelon. (Correct scale)
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6537/bulletso.jpg

The Heiwa Challenge is not about scale but whether a structural one-way crush down is possible in any size. It seems nobody can produce a structure say 1, 2 or 5 meters tall that will one-way crush down, and I conclude the same applies to 100, 200 and 500 meters tall structures. Conclusion: WTC 1 destruction was not a one-way crush down.

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge is not about scale but whether a structural one-way crush down is possible in any size. It seems nobody can produce a structure say 1, 2 or 5 meters tall that will one-way crush down, and I conclude the same applies to 100, 200 and 500 meters tall structures. Conclusion: WTC 1 destruction was not a one-way crush down.
What do you mean?

Was the gravity collapse of the WTC a one-way crush down?

The WTC did collapse on 911 due to impacts and fires; this is a fact. Do you mean this can't happen?

What is your point in simple terms?

Does the gravity collapse of the WTC towers meet your challenge since they were due to impacts and fires; no explosives, no thermite?

[dtugg]

The Heiwa Challenge is not about scale but whether a structural one-way crush down is possible in any size. It seems nobody can produce a structure say 1, 2 or 5 meters tall that will one-way crush down, and I conclude the same applies to 100, 200 and 500 meters tall structures. Conclusion: WTC 1 destruction was not a one-way crush down.

You are a joke; the laughing stock of this forum. Assuming that you are an engineer, you are the most incompetent engineer in the world. An engineer that doesn't realize that scale matters? That compares huge skyscrapers to pizza boxes, sponges, and lemons? Really?

[boloboffin]

syzKBBB_THE

I'd like my million dollars, please. Let me know when you're ready to send the cashier's check and I'll provide an address. Feel free to take the postage and insurance out of the total sum.

[alex04]

nice find, interesting vid!

[Heiwa]

syzKBBB_THE

I'd like my million dollars, please. Let me know when you're ready to send the cashier's check and I'll provide an address. Feel free to take the postage and insurance out of the total sum.

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, Do you believe that the lead engineer for WTC, Leslie Robertson, is deluded when he tells us that he agrees with NIST?

Yes!

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so.

I see you've learned to count to six since the first time you saw the video. It's nice to know you're capable of some form of progress.

Dave

[beachnut]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop. The WTC was not a complete crush either.

That was a drop. He wins.

You are a fraud.

I presented the WTC on 911 as the full scale model; I won! You can't prove it was not a gravity collapse. You lost; I want the money now!

I wonder if that lawyer in France wants to sue you for 50 percent of the money we won?

You don't have the money; you have delusions.

[Heiwa]

The WTC was not a complete crush either.

That was a drop. He wins.

You are a fraud.

I presented the WTC on 911 as the full scale model; I won! You can't prove it was not a gravity collapse. You lost; I want the money now!

I wonder if that lawyer in France wants to sue you for 50 percent of the money we won?

You don't have the money; you have delusions.

YOU brought WTC 1 down? Bad boy! You dropped part C on part A? Very naughty. What does your mother say about THAT?
Now, just repeat the performance and you win The Heiwa Challenge!

[Fjolle]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop.

Now tell me. What is the difference from C=A to C=1/10A?

With C=1/10A, shoulden it then be able to destroy 1/10 of A again, which in turn will be able to destroy 2/10 of A and so on?

When i drop 10 pizza boxes on 10 pizza boxes they still bounce off. The same happens with lemons.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.


Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

[Heiwa]

Now tell me. What is the difference from C=A to C=1/10A?

With C=1/10A, shoulden it then be able to destroy 1/10 of A again, which in turn will be able to destroy 2/10 of A and so on?

When i drop 10 pizza boxes on 10 pizza boxes they still bounce off. The same happens with lemons.

C=1/10A! Normally C bounces on A. Max damage C can ever do to A is to destroy 1/10A depending on structure. It happens only to very weak C/A structures. After that C is in pieces, which cannot do further harm, i.e. further damage 2/10A.

C=A! Same thing has for C=1/10A. C may bounce on A (compare pizza boxes, &c) or partly or completely destroy A, when C=A. Depends on the structure.

C can never crush down A without damaging itself.

In WTC1 C about 1/8A!

[Swing Dangler]

I offered Heiwa some reality: Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads VA, 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse). Two collapsing floors took out 22+ floors, one at a time, all the way into the sub-basement. After it got started, there was no reason it couldn't have taken out any number of floors, since each collision had more energy than the one before. Heiwa's fantasy physics have nothing to do with reality, which is why he now ignores the Skyline Towers collapse. I was working as a structural draftsman in an office a few miles away in Alexandria. There was a lot of talk among the structural engineers about how it might have gotten started, but what happened after that was pretty danged obvious, even to those of us who are not engineers and even without theoretical models. All it takes is some real-world common sense about heavy masses in motion, and some understanding that very few buildings are designed to withstand that kind of abuse -- not because it isn't possible but because it would make the construction very expensive.

William, what you fail to realize apparently is that the Skyline Towers did not suffer a global collapse nor did they have 1/10 of something crush down the remaining 9/10. The collapse was partial not global. The collapse took place during construction because of the early removal of a shore up of a concrete column, not 20+ years after construction. Arlington County investigated the incident and blamed the accident on insufficient wooden shoring to hold up concrete being poured to form the floor above it. Not only that, your source describes survivors of this process after the collapse that "rode" the collapse down several floors, not blown apart into pieces like WTC 1. You state that the collapse would have kept going....that is probably true because the area beneath, the parking garage, was still under construction!! But I agree that if you remove the support beneath a structure via explosives or due to incomplete construction, you may just get your global collapse but certainly not due to gravity alone. ;)

What you have done, William, is inadvertently supported Hewia's assessment of the WTC 1 collapse.

And you have proposed reality that is not even close to the reality of 9/11. I'm sorry but your example for Hewia's challenge fails miserably.

[Shrinker]

Damn, Heiwa added a no-removal-of-concrete-shore-ups clause to the challenge now? Our structures have to stand for 20+ years? The parking garage has to be complete? People have to die in the upper part?

Why don't you just cut to the chase? Unless its an exact replica of the WTC, and ends up in exactly the same shaped heap, it doesn't count.

[twinstead]

But I agree that if you remove the support beneath a structure via explosives or due to incomplete construction, you may just get your global collapse but certainly not due to gravity alone.


Or a fully-loaded jet impact at high speed and resulting unfought fires

[boloboffin]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop.

Yes, I thought you'd say that. So my solution is that my design is of the Balzac/Vitry building, but 62 floors high. Then Part A is the correct proportion, it would obviously destroy part C all the way down, and any remaining section left standing would be in the same proporton as what was left standing when the towers collapsed. Please let's get this taken care of. I've got my eye on a nice world cruise.

[Heiwa]

Yes, I thought you'd say that. So my solution is that my design is of the Balzac/Vitry building, but 62 floors high. Then Part A is the correct proportion, it would obviously destroy part C all the way down, and any remaining section left standing would be in the same proporton as what was left standing when the towers collapsed. Please let's get this taken care of. I've got my eye on a nice world cruise.

Maybe you have mixed up C and A? Anyway, your structure is 62 floors high so part A is the 56 floors below and part C the six floors on top. C/A = 6/56 = 0.107 > 1/10 but OK, I accept that. What kind of elements are you using?

I suggest that floor height is, say only 0.05 m so structure becomes total 3.1 m high, easy to build. Part A = 2.8 m and part C = 0.3 m. Very good. Then it is quite easy to detach part C, lift it up 3.7 m for a drop.

Say one floor + small supports weighs 10 kgs! Part A thus weighs 560 kgs and part C 60 kgs. OK, to lift 60 kgs require assistance.

Note that part A bottom supports to ground must carry 620 kgs, while part C bottom supports only carries 60 kgs, i.e. the part A bottom supports are 10 times stronger than part C bottom supports.

At impact part C (60 kgs) applies 2180 J to part A (560 kgs) and itself (the total system - 620 kgs), total system will first compress elastically and then you think part A will globally collapse?

I doubt it. But have a try!

[boloboffin]

Maybe you have mixed up C and A? Anyway, your structure is 62 floors high so part A is the 56 floors below and part C the six floors on top. C/A = 6/56 = 0.107 > 1/10 but OK, I accept that. What kind of elements are you using?

Now, how do you intend to drop part C on A? Using a crane? Pls, advise progress!

That building, the same way. Removing the columns and down it goes.

[Swing Dangler]

Damn, Heiwa added a no-removal-of-concrete-shore-ups clause to the challenge now? Our structures have to stand for 20+ years? The parking garage has to be complete? People have to die in the upper part? Why don't you just cut to the chase? Unless its an exact replica of the WTC, and ends up in exactly the same shaped heap, it doesn't count.

No of course not. Those parameters don't need to exist. Just take 1/10 of something and crush down the remaining 9/10. Very simple, eh?

I understand your disappointment by trying to accept the example below, the resulting process, and end results that doesn't meet Heiwa's challenge thereby disproving the official story.

The model-example doesn't meet the requirements....1/10 of something crushing the 9/10 of something else in a global collapse.

But if you accept the example cited below as a model for Hewia's challenge, then it disproves the official story. Is this why you are perturbed? ;)

[Heiwa]

That building, the same way. Removing the columns and down it goes.

Yes, part C drops, if you remove its bottom supports, but what about part A? You are supposed to crush 56 sets of supports in part A + floors. You do not seriously believe that part C can do THAT?

[Swing Dangler]

Or a fully-loaded jet impact at high speed and resulting unfought fires

I understand your belief system, but NIST didn't model the global collapse to conclusively prove that 1/10 part crushing the 9/10 part in a complete global collapse. "Too chaotic...." for those darn computers.

Do you blame them? I don't. I know why they didn't, but I don't blame them. Why didn't they? It can't be done. If it could, it would, but it can't so it wont.

Nobody I know or around these parts can model it either because it can't be done. I'm sure there are many who continue to rely on the faulty Bazant paper, but then that reliance becomes a politico-religion based upon faith, not fact or science.

Model it and they will agree don't model equals conspiracy! :lolsign:

[Gamolon]

The Heiwa Challenge


...a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it...

Question.

Is your above statement supposed to be a simplified description of the WTC towers? That the towers were the same all the way through from top to bottom?

If so, in my opinion, people should have a problem with your experiment as the towers were not the same as I have said before. In order to replicate the tower's collapse, I have suggested that the upper 1/10 of the structure include solid steel cubes to represent the transformers and 5 ton elevator motors located at the top of the towers. Why do you not want us to include this aspect of the structures in the experiment?

Someone came up with making a structure out of emptied eggs and then taking the upper 1/10 of siad structure and dropping it on the sturcture below. What if we added steel ball bearings to the upper 1/10 to replicate the 5 ton motors and transformers? Would that make a difference as far as what would happen?

[phunk]

Good question! You see the part C and A structures must be same, only C<1/10A size wise. Internally they have same size - all elements/joints are 1/1 in C and A.

So you're not looking for something similar to WTC 1 & 2?

A structure is always a structure. That's what structural analysis is all about. Structual damage analysis is about damaged structures.

If you believe that WTC 1 differs from any other structures in universe, you have not understood much!

WTC 1 is not a unique structure in the universe! It is just like pizza boxes, &c. This one off one way Crush down once in the universe is just Hollywood stuff.

But I appreciate your interest in this thread - The Heiwa Challenge. We in old Europe solved it a long time ago. It seems the knowledge got lost in the Atlantic? So I just remind you ... over there!

Clearly you didn't understand my point. In the WTC collapses, C and A were not the same structure, but you're making that a requirement of the challenge.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?


Bump

[phunk]

Question.

Is your above statement supposed to be a simplified description of the WTC towers? That the towers were the same all the way through from top to bottom?

If so, in my opinion, people should have a problem with your experiment as the towers were not the same as I have said before. In order to replicate the tower's collapse, I have suggested that the upper 1/10 of the structure include solid steel cubes to represent the transformers and 5 ton elevator motors located at the top of the towers. Why do you not want us to include this aspect of the structures in the experiment?

Don't forget the hat truss...

[Swing Dangler]

Bump
The difference in your example are two different material compositions.

What is your point? Bullets penetrate soft materials easier if shot by gun rather than thrown by hand? :newlol

[Heiwa]

Clearly you didn't understand my point. In the WTC collapses, C and A were not the same structure, but you're making that a requirement of the challenge.

Condition is that structure of both parts C and A is identical and not different. You have to make part A a little stronger to carry part C, etc. as pointed out in the conditions but otherwise the structure should be more or less same in the Challenge. Now, back to the drawing board!

[beachnut]

Yes, part C drops, if you remove its bottom supports, but what about part A? You are supposed to crush 56 sets of supports in part A + floors. You do not seriously believe that part C can do THAT?
I won with the reminder the WTC towers fell due to gravity after fire and impacts. I win. You lost; your idea is dirt dumb stupid.

I lie your drop it 2 miles and it stops a the top of the building delusion best. Good for you, don't let engineering, physics or gravity get in the way of your delusions. Keep up the good work here at a skeptic forum where your work and ideas was found to be pure poppycock the moment you posted your first kids jumping on a bed for the reason the WTC can not gravity collapse.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg
And you don't think planes hit the WTC either. Good for you still in denial for over 7 years and not a single piece of evidence to support your inside job delusions as you apologize for terrorists.

I present the WTC fell on 911 as a gravity collapse supported by 99.999 percent of all world engineers and scientist. Send me the money.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?


Is the question really that hard to answer, "heiwa"?

[Heiwa]

Question.

Is your above statement supposed to be a simplified description of the WTC towers? That the towers were the same all the way through from top to bottom?

If so, in my opinion, people should have a problem with your experiment as the towers were not the same as I have said before. In order to replicate the tower's collapse, I have suggested that the upper 1/10 of the structure include solid steel cubes to represent the transformers and 5 ton elevator motors located at the top of the towers. Why do you not want us to include this aspect of the structures in the experiment?

Someone came up with making a structure out of emptied eggs and then taking the upper 1/10 of siad structure and dropping it on the sturcture below. What if we added steel ball bearings to the upper 1/10 to replicate the 5 ton motors and transformers? Would that make a difference as far as what would happen?

Structure was generally the same throughout WTC Towers; floors and columns (columns getting stronger lower down). As part C of WTC 1 has mass say 33 000 tons, I doubt that an extra elevator motor 5 tons make much difference or 0.015%.

As part A of WTC 1 may have mass say 220 000 tons I have a feeling a 5 ton solid weight cannot do much damage to it.

[Heiwa]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.


Scale? It seems you change the velocity of the bullet in the two examples, while everything else remains same. In the Heiwa Challenge the impact velocity is 5.82 m/s corresponding to drop 3.7 m. See post #239. Adjust your structure accordingly.

[beachnut]

Scale? It seems you change the velocity of the bullet in the two examples, while everything else remains same. In the Heiwa Challenge the impact velocity is 5.82 m/s corresponding to drop 3.7 m. See post #239. Adjust your structure accordingly.
Does all the weight of the upper floors rest on the lower floor at the impact point?

Do you mean 8.52 m/s? Oops, there goes the kinetic energy up.

[boloboffin]

Yes, part C drops, if you remove its bottom supports, but what about part A? You are supposed to crush 56 sets of supports in part A + floors. You do not seriously believe that part C can do THAT?

Well, why wouldn't it? Part A in the original building is crushed, and as the video makes clear, all before any substantial crushing of C. I don't see any reason, if the 6 floors below part B didn't arrest Part C, why 60 floors below Part B would suddenly stop Part C at all. Part C gains more momentum plus the mass of the crushed floors as it goes down.

I hope that we don't have to get lawyers involved. There are an awful lot of witnesses here and your terms would be quite understandable to an impartial judge.

ETA: A second video of the demolition. The slow motion shows quite clearly that Part C is crushing Part A before being crushed itself. Why do you think Part A would have stopped Part C at all?

http://www.strimoo.com/video/12509995/Mort-d-un-batiment-MySpaceVideos.html

[TheRedWorm]

Yes, the only thing that scales in the watermelon experiment is the velocity of the bullet. But you didn't answer any of my questions, please do so:

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

[Heiwa]

Well, why wouldn't it? Part A in the original building is crushed, and as the video makes clear, all before any substantial crushing of C. I don't see any reason, if the 6 floors below part B didn't arrest Part C, why 60 floors below Part B would suddenly stop Part C at all. Part C gains more momentum plus the mass of the crushed floors as it goes down.

I hope that we don't have to get lawyers involved. There are an awful lot of witnesses here and your terms would be quite understandable to an impartial judge.

ETA: A second video of the demolition. The slow motion shows quite clearly that Part C is crushing Part A before being crushed itself. Why do you think Part A would have stopped Part C at all?

http://www.strimoo.com/video/12509995/Mort-d-un-batiment-MySpaceVideos.html

Well, in this video you destroy three floors by controlled demolition and then upper part (C 6 floors) drops into this rubble and after a while contacts lower part A (6 floors) and both C and A are damaged. No one-way crush down takes place. This is exactly what happens in controlled demolitions.

The Heiwa Challenge is different! C<1/10A. Try one-way Crush down.

I have commented upon the Balzac/Vitry video at least 10 times.

[boloboffin]

Well, in this video you destroy three floor by controlled demolition and then upper part C 6 floors) drops and after a while contacts lower part A (6 floors) and both C and A are damaged. No one-way crush down takes place. This is exactly what happens in controlled demolitions.

The Heiwa Challenge is different! C<1/10A. Try one-way Crush down.

I have commented upon the Balzac/Vitry video at least 10 times.

You said it didn't matter that C is damaged, as long as A was destroyed. That's what you said.

But as we can all see, the Heiwa Challenge is Calvinball by any definition.

[Heiwa]

You said it didn't matter that C is damaged, as long as A was destroyed. That's what you said.

But as we can all see, the Heiwa Challenge is Calvinball by any definition.

Pls, try to do it yourself with C<1/10A . If you succeed you'll win a prize. Do not present what others do using controlled demolition.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

You don't seem to be very good at giving honest answers.

[boloboffin]

Pls, try to do it yourself with C<1/10A . If you succeed you'll win a prize. Do not present what others do using controlled demolition.

Maybe when you get all the rules sorted out, someone will want to play with you. Let's consider that your prize.

[phunk]

Condition is that structure of both parts C and A is identical and not different. You have to make part A a little stronger to carry part C, etc. as pointed out in the conditions but otherwise the structure should be more or less same in the Challenge. Now, back to the drawing board!

But parts A and C were not identical in the WTC. Part C had a large hat truss and lots of heavy equipment in it.

[Gamolon]

Structure was generally the same throughout WTC Towers; floors and columns (columns getting stronger lower down). As part C of WTC 1 has mass say 33 000 tons, I doubt that an extra elevator motor 5 tons make much difference or 0.015%.

As part A of WTC 1 may have mass say 220 000 tons I have a feeling a 5 ton solid weight cannot do much damage to it.

And there is where you are making a big mistake in my opinion. The research I have found so far reveals the following:

1. On the 101st floor or secondary machine room level, there were 6 M.G. SET & Starter components (names taken from the bluerprints) weighing approximately 4,150 lbs. a piece.

2. On the 102nd floor or main machine room, were 6 gearless motors weighing apporximately 8,500 lbs a piece (I have seen some reference to 10,000 lbs., but am not sure if this weight is for the local elevators or the express elevators).

3. On the 108th floor or secondary machine room level, there were 6 M.G. Set & Starter components at another 4,150 lbs. a piece.

4. On the 109th floor or main machine room, there were 6 gearless motors weighing 8,500 lbs. a piece.

5. In the 109th floor area there was an M.G. Set & Starter weighing in at 8,500 lbs. with a motor weighing about 10,000 lbs. for the #50 freight elevator.

6. Now comes the relay and control panels for the elevators. The relay and controller panels for the 101st and 102nd levels were a combined 12,000 lbs. The relay/dispatch/controller panels for the 108th and 109th floor areas was a combined 7,800 lbs.

All this comes to about 84 tons (short tons). So it's not just "one" motor. There are also two transformers that I see mentioned on the blueprints. I also see concrete pads and steel bracing. What about the window washing machine and track? Roof structure? I may be wrong, but doesn't 8,500# approx. weight listed on a drawing mean 8,500 lbs.? Doesn't the "#" mean lbs.?

If I am wrong on any one this, someone please point out my mistakes.

I find it hard to believe that if this stuff broke free, that it wouldn't crash through the steel beams below and sever connections.

So again. Why aren't you including something in your upper 1/10th of your experiment to be the motors, panels, transformers, etc.?

[Gamolon]

Structure was generally the same throughout WTC Towers; floors and columns (columns getting stronger lower down). As part C of WTC 1 has mass say 33 000 tons, I doubt that an extra elevator motor 5 tons make much difference or 0.015%.

As part A of WTC 1 may have mass say 220 000 tons I have a feeling a 5 ton solid weight cannot do much damage to it.

Your math doesn't add up either. if part A is 220,000 tons and part C is 33,000 tons, doesn't that make the totol tower weight 253,000 tons?

If that is the case, shouldn't 1/10th of 253,000 tons be 25,300 tons?

[tsig]

Damn, Heiwa added a no-removal-of-concrete-shore-ups clause to the challenge now? Our structures have to stand for 20+ years? The parking garage has to be complete? People have to die in the upper part?

Why don't you just cut to the chase? Unless its an exact replica of the WTC, and ends up in exactly the same shaped heap, it doesn't count.


The need for killing 3000 people kinda rules out an exact replication of the collapses.

[WilliamSeger]

Pls, try to do it yourself with C<1/10A . If you succeed you'll win a prize. Do not present what others do using controlled demolition.

Tell me again: Why was the Skyline Towers disqualified?

[tsig]

You said it didn't matter that C is damaged, as long as A was destroyed. That's what you said.

But as we can all see, the Heiwa Challenge is Calvinball by any definition.




It goes Calvinball one better: not only is there no rules there is also no way to win.

[Heiwa]

And there is where you are making a big mistake in my opinion. The research I have found so far reveals the following:

1. On the 101st floor or secondary machine room level, there were 6 M.G. SET & Starter components (names taken from the bluerprints) weighing approximately 4,150 lbs. a piece.

2. On the 102nd floor or main machine room, were 6 gearless motors weighing apporximately 8,500 lbs a piece (I have seen some reference to 10,000 lbs., but am not sure if this weight is for the local elevators or the express elevators).

3. On the 108th floor or secondary machine room level, there were 6 M.G. Set & Starter components at another 4,150 lbs. a piece.

4. On the 109th floor or main machine room, there were 6 gearless motors weighing 8,500 lbs. a piece.

5. In the 109th floor area there was an M.G. Set & Starter weighing in at 8,500 lbs. with a motor weighing about 10,000 lbs. for the #50 freight elevator.

6. Now comes the relay and control panels for the elevators. The relay and controller panels for the 101st and 102nd levels were a combined 12,000 lbs. The relay/dispatch/controller panels for the 108th and 109th floor areas was a combined 7,800 lbs.

All this comes to about 84 tons (short tons). So it's not just "one" motor. There are also two transformers that I see mentioned on the blueprints. I also see concrete pads and steel bracing. What about the window washing machine and track? Roof structure? I may be wrong, but doesn't 8,500# approx. weight listed on a drawing mean 8,500 lbs.? Doesn't the "#" mean lbs.?

If I am wrong on any one this, someone please point out my mistakes.

I find it hard to believe that if this stuff broke free, that it wouldn't crash through the steel beams below and sever connections.

So again. Why aren't you including something in your upper 1/10th of your experiment to be the motors, panels, transformers, etc.?

Nothing wrong. When ships collide they are driven by very heavy engines normally located in the aft end. Collisions most often concern the forward end of one and the side of the other vehicle, where the structural damages take place, i.e. local structural elements fail. Same for a vertical drop collision. All elements in upper part C drop but only those that later are in contact with part A gets damaged. A heavy object in part C far away from contact interface is supposed to be attached to its foundation where it is. It is not assumed to break loose, start to accelerate faster than the remainder of the part C and shoot through part A. It may happen, but then part C must stop and only sub-parts of part C move on, &c.

[Heiwa]

Your math doesn't add up either. if part A is 220,000 tons and part C is 33,000 tons, doesn't that make the totol tower weight 253,000 tons?

If that is the case, shouldn't 1/10th of 253,000 tons be 25,300 tons?

Or in this particular case, part A may be heavier? Anyway, in The Heiwa Challenge C<1/10A size wise and also mass C <1/10 mass A. But as I say in post #239, conditions can be changed, e.g. C<1/6A, to facilitate for contenders.

There must be a distinct size/mass difference C/A, while the C/A structures themselves (elements/joints) are same! Objective is then to show that part C can one-way crush down part A of same structure. Or that elements/joints in C can destroy all or 70% of the elements/joints in A.

Can you propose a suitable structure?

[Dave Rogers]

Tell me again: Why was the Skyline Towers disqualified?

Because it doesn't support the required conclusion.

Dave

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

Whenever you get the time, "heiwa"

[Bananaman]

Heiwa:
When ships collide they are driven by very heavy engines normally located in the aft end. Collisions most often concern the forward end of one and the side of the other vehicle, where the structural damages take place, i.e. local structural elements fail. Same for a vertical drop collision.

Where DOES one start. Is the poor chap on drugs?

Bananaman.

[Bananaman]

I really feel it is only fair, after chastising Heiwa's insanity, to amplify a bit.

Heiwa, get it through your skull that skyscrapers a quarter of a mile high are not ships. OK? Got that? Good.

Bananaman.

[Heiwa]

I really feel it is only fair, after chastising Heiwa's insanity, to amplify a bit.

Heiwa, get it through your skull that skyscrapers a quarter of a mile high are not ships. OK? Got that? Good.

Bananaman.

The Heiwa Challenge allows any structure to participate. Just find one where C crushes A as per conditions and you are a winner. Do not be a whiner!

[KreeL]

Bwahahaha! If bananaman can't understand the challenge, he shouldn't participate.;)

[Bananaman]

Funnily enough, Kreel, I do understand the challenge, which makes the whole thing more peculiar.

Bananaman.

[KreeL]

Then traipse out your model, dude. What are you waiting for?

[Bananaman]

I thought you were supposed to be presenting a model that better explained things than the NIST report. I can't improve on that, can you? If you're going to shoot something down in flames you'd better have pretty good weaponry.

It's not my shout, Kreel, it's yours.

Bananaman.

[Heiwa]

I thought you were supposed to be presenting a model that better explained things than the NIST report. I can't improve on that, can you? If you're going to shoot something down in flames you'd better have pretty good weaponry.

It's not my shout, Kreel, it's yours.

Bananaman.

No, purpose of Challenge is to produce a structure C/A - not model - that behaves as NIST suggests, i.e. potential energy, PE, applied exceeds that structure's capability to absorb is as strain energy, SE, so that global collapse of the structure C/A ensues. It is part C that applies the PE, and part A that absorbs it as SE. Part C should be 1/10 or 1/6 of part A and the structure should be same in A and C.

I can evidently produce a structure that performs as NIST suggests, when C>A or C is stronger or heavier than A, but I cannot do it when C<1/6A and when C and A have equal strength (SE capability) and density.

Ultimate purpose is to show that the NIST report is simply wrong in its suggestion. Nothing wrong with a friendly and lively discussion about that, I assume!

[Bananaman]

Hiewa, if any of them can be bothered to do it again, I'll let the experts dissect your nonsense once more.

Not that you'll take a blind bit of notice.

My real curiosity is in why you do it. Why do you insist on repeating lies? I don't get it.

Bananaman.

[KreeL]

Apparently they can't do it...or they would.:D

[Redtail]

Apparently they can't do it...or they would.:D

Why? What's the point for doing it?

[Bananaman]

Kreel, open your eyes.

Hiewa's tattered opinions should leave you embarrassed by their lack of truthfulness.

He's nothing short of a joke to the scientific community, those of them that have bothered to guffaw at his outpourings.

That's the truth. Try and understand that.

Bananaman (who is only trying to help).

[Heiwa]

Hiewa, if any of them can be bothered to do it again, I'll let the experts dissect your nonsense once more.

Not that you'll take a blind bit of notice.

My real curiosity is in why you do it. Why do you insist on repeating lies? I don't get it.

Bananaman.

This is a friendly and lively Challenge! Not a lying contests. No lies in the Challenge. If you consider it nonsense, just ignore the Challenge! Like NIST and Bazant & Co. I have asked them to produce their magic structure. They ignored it. I offered them $1M to prove their suggestions right. They ignored that too!

[Bananaman]

Hiewa:
I offered them $1M to prove their suggestions right.

Let's get this straight. You have the money, right? We could do this in a court of law. That'd be fun. I could use a new couch.

Bananaman.

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?


Hey Kreel, how come your hero can't answer these questions?

[Heiwa]

Hey Kreel, how come your hero can't answer these questions?

The Heiwa Challenge is independent of scale! Small or big!

[Bananaman]

Hiewa:
The Heiwa Challenge is independent of scale! Small or big!

It appears to be independant of anything.

Bananaman.

[TheRedWorm]

the heiwa "challenge" is independent of scale! Small or big!


That doesn't answer the questions, please try to remedy that:

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.
Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

[Klimax]

Are notebooks allowed?
Something like:
|
|
|

[Belz...]

It is just like pizza boxes

PRECISELY like pizza boxes.