The Heiwa Challenge

[Jonnyclueless]

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

And independent of engineering or reality.

f only they had built the WTC out of large pizza boxes. Say, why don't you recommend building buildings out of large pizza boxes and see how much work you get.

[Newtons Bit]

And independent of engineering or reality.

f only they had built the WTC out of large pizza boxes. Say, why don't you recommend building buildings out of large pizza boxes and see how much work you get.

Pizza boxes are exceptionally stout, but unfortunately, they're not economical for tall buildings. Building designers experimented with pizza box construction during the late 20th century. They had overcome the dripping mozzarella problem and the greasy pepperoni headbanger problem and then some jerk came along and developed structural steel and all that work on the super-duper awesome structural pizza box when out the window.

[Heiwa]

Pizza boxes are exceptionally stout, but unfortunately, they're not economical for tall buildings. Building designers experimented with pizza box construction during the late 20th century. They had overcome the dripping mozzarella problem and the greasy pepperoni headbanger problem and then some jerk came along and developed structural steel and all that work on the super-duper awesome structural pizza box when out the window.

The Heiwa Challenge is about a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of same structure, where C=1/10A volume/mass wise and dropped on A using gravity. Only structure inside A and C shall be same. As already pointed out many times structures like pizza boxes, sponges, lemons, mice, elephants, &c, do not perform as requested. You'll have to find another structure using your engineering skills and brains (if any). Go for it! I'll take vaccation until end May.

[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 say goodbye, and I say hello

[Jonnyclueless]

The Heiwa Challenge is about a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of same structure, where C=1/10A volume/mass wise and dropped on A using gravity. Only structure inside A and C shall be same. As already pointed out many times structures like pizza boxes, sponges, lemons, mice, elephants, &c, do not perform as requested. You'll have to find another structure using your engineering skills and brains (if any). Go for it! I'll take vaccation until end May.

You mean like a 110 story building identical to the WTC towers?

[KreeL]

I'm sorry, but I mistakenly thought non-toofers were intelligent enough to understand the Challenge. Mackey understands it, and Mackey knows it can't be done. As for the others? No chance.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm sorry, but I mistakenly thought non-toofers were intelligent enough to understand the Challenge. Mackey understands it, and Mackey knows it can't be done. As for the others? No chance.

You're right... Heiwa demonstrates his knowledge with pizza boxes after all -- the ultimate and most delicious model of a building evar. How real professionals could ever doubt the integrity of lemons, pizza, and coconuts is absolutely beyooond baffling.

[Jonnyclueless]

I'm sorry, but I mistakenly thought non-toofers were intelligent enough to understand the Challenge. Mackey understands it, and Mackey knows it can't be done. As for the others? No chance.

Says a guy who understands it less than anyone here to the point that he takes it seriously and without laughing.

[Minadin]

You're right... Heiwa demonstrates his knowledge with pizza boxes after all -- the ultimate and most delicious model of a building evar. How real professionals could ever doubt the integrity of lemons, pizza, and coconuts is absolutely beyooond baffling.

At first, I think that living in a Pizza Box Tower would be a novel idea. I love pizza; it's probably my favorite food, and I find the aroma of the toasted crust, roasted tomatos, cheese, fennel, oregano and the other toppings I like to be simply intoxicating. However, I think it would lose it's appeal fairly quickly when you either a) eventually tired of the smell, losing any desire to eat pizza for the rest of your life, or b) were hit with your first stout breeze.

[Minadin]

Please note: I don't think I would put lemons and coconuts on the same pie.

[WildCat]

Does gravity exist in Heiwa's world?

[Furcifer]

Does gravity exist in Heiwa's world?

Only as a force that can be easily overcome with enough displacement.

[WildCat]

Only as a force that can be easily overcome with enough displacement.
:dl:

[Heiwa]

It seems there are few contenders in the Heiwa Challenge! To assist I have made a new show at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm !

[beachnut]

I'm sorry, but I mistakenly thought non-toofers were intelligent enough to understand the Challenge. Mackey understands it, and Mackey knows it can't be done. As for the others? No chance.
On 911 two towers prove Heiwa is a fraud; you on the other hand lack the knowledge to understand the same proved by your post. In the 7 years, 7 months and 20 days after 911 you could have earned a degree, two degrees in Engineering by you have decided to spew delusions on 911 and remain in ignorance with 911Truth.

Heiwa make crazy ideas about 911 with drops of 2 miles that would be arrested by the structure and you jumped on his sinking ship of nut case ideas on 911. And you can't swim.

[Myriad]

From http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm:

Right we see a Funny m structure/tower on ground with n = 22 Funny m assemblies.

The total mass of this structure is n m (or 22 m)

The potential energy of each m is its distance above ground times g, where g is gravity acceleration.

The total Potential Energy, PE, stored in the structure is the sum of the PE of each m or n * m * n * h * g /2 or

PE = (n2mhg)/2

Okay so far...

The springs... can compress 0.003h elastically and 0.005h plastically before they break (in this example) as already explained.

In the intact tower right all springs compression is d = 0.001h, i.e. hardly visible. Thus n m will compress the tower n d or 0.001nh.

The spring constants C for all springs are thus known. Each spring can in fact carry 3 times more m than it is certified for, before it starts to deform plastically.

Still okay so far...

Thus, the total elastic and plastic Strain Energy, SE, stored in the intact tower structure is known. It is actually the PE mentioned above!

Wrong.

It is in fact .001 times that amount.

That's the factor by which the the height of each mass is reduced, due to the compression of the springs.

PE at all times equals (n2mhg)/2, where h is the actual height per floor taking any compression of the columns into account. If we call the height per floor with no mass loading and therefore no spring compression h0, and we know each spring compresses by .001*h0, then

PE = (n2m(h0*.999)g)/2
SE = (n2m(h0*.001)g)/2

Following through with your analysis after correcting this error,

SEmax = 3(n2m(h0*.001)g)/2

and the remaining 99.7% of the PE is ample for continuing to compress the springs through their plastic limit and then to failure.

Thus, the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 are: that sucker's coming down.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

From http://heiwaco.tripod.com/funnym.htm:



Okay so far...



Still okay so far...



Wrong.

It is in fact .001 times that amount.

That's the factor by which the the height of each mass is reduced, due to the compression of the springs.

PE at all times equals (n2mhg)/2, where h is the actual height per floor taking any compression of the columns into account. If we call the height per floor with no mass loading and therefore no spring compression h0, and we know each spring compresses by .001*h0, then

PE = (n2m(h0*.999)g)/2
SE = (n2m(h0*.001)g)/2

Following through with your analysis after correcting this error,

SEmax = 3(n2m(h0*.001)g)/2

and the remaining 99.7% of the PE is ample for continuing to compress the springs through their plastic limit and then to failure.

Thus, the results of Experiments 1, 2, and 3 are: that sucker's coming down.

Respectfully,
Myriad

OK, so the Funny m Tower SE (or strenght!) is just 1/1000th of what I suggest but it still manages to keep the tower standing. Quite good!
I hope you agree that you can still load the Funny m Tower , i.e. increase m to 3 m in every assembly n and that the Tower still stands (assuming the ground will resist it)? The foundation/ground is assumed rigid in this little show, so it will resist!

And I hope you also agree that if you put 6 m up on the top Funny m assembly, it is only the springs below that element that breaks?

And what's the difference of adding potential energy up top or dropping the top part = apply kinetic energy to achieve the same result?

And, finally, I hope you agree that the top part C of the Funny m Tower is not rigid (as assumed by Bazant in his peer reviewed papers) as it contains the weakest springs in the whole Tower?

BTW - how are you getting along with your 10 meters tall crush-down model?

Beware that it doesn't collapse on you during construction! :)

[GlennB]

OK, so the Funny m Tower SE (or strenght!) is just 1/1000th of what I suggest but it still manages to keep the tower standing.

Did you just admit your calculations were wrong by a factor of 1,000 ?

[Heiwa]

Did you just admit your calculations were wrong by a factor of 1,000 ?

I am just assisting Myriad as a (the only?) Heiwa Challenge contender and to ensure that Myriad will not kill himself when assembling his structure. It seems we have have different opinions what SE is and how to calculate it and what it means! My suggestion is ... always ... calculate 10 times before building and check each calculation 10 times. Safety first! And then check 10 times again! Maybe Myriad doesn't know what SE really is and is 1000 times wrong?

[WilliamSeger]

Do not, under any circumstances, board any ship designed by Anders Björkman. (Fortunately, it seems that experiment has never been attempted.)

Heiwa, I'm still waiting for your explanation for how two floors of the Skyline Towers building managed to crash through 22+ floors, and why you eliminated that example from your phony "challenge."

[Myriad]

OK, so the Funny m Tower SE (or strenght!) is just 1/1000th of what I suggest but it still manages to keep the tower standing. Quite good!


I agree that the model as described would stand, yes.

I hope you agree that you can still load the Funny m Tower , i.e. increase m to 3 m in every assembly n and that the Tower still stands (assuming the ground will resist it)? The foundation/ground is assumed rigid in this little show, so it will resist!


I agree that the model would still stand in that case. However, with no safety margin, the slightest variation in column loads (such as might be caused by light breezes, or elevators moving up and down) would case cumulative plastic deformations of the columns. Eventually it would collapse from metal fatigue.

And I hope you also agree that if you put 6 m up on the top Funny m assembly, it is only the springs below that element that breaks?


The springs below that element break first. Then a top-down progressive collapse would ensue.

And what's the difference of adding potential energy up top or dropping the top part = apply kinetic energy to achieve the same result?


Congratulations. After years of arguing from ignorance about this matter, you've finally hit on the right question. It's a bizarre question for any trained engineer to have to ask, but it's a good question in the sense that if you understand the answer, you'll understand why you've been wrong all this time.

The simple answer is that imparting kinetic energy creates dynamic loads, while adding potential energy (without exceeding the structure's capacity to bear) does not. But you've been told that many times before, and you don't seem to understand, or care about understanding, the difference.

It might help to think of it instead in terms of power. Power by definition is an amount of energy that's being converted (from some form to some other form) per unit time.

If power equals zero, it doesn't matter how much energy you have. You aren't doing anything to anything. Water behind a dam just sits there. A moving mass with nothing in its way just keeps going. To accelerate something, to break something, to heat something, to deform something, you need power. Energy being converted. When gravity can act on the water to get it moving, you have power. When the moving mass collides with something in its way, you have power. Energy being converted.

Adding potential energy to the top of a building that is able to statically handle the load does not generate power. Adding kinetic energy to (that is, accelerating) a significant part of a building does generate power, lots of power, because that kinetic energy is going to have to get converted and transferred rather quickly.

And, finally, I hope you agree that the top part C of the Funny m Tower is not rigid (as assumed by Bazant in his peer reviewed papers) as it contains the weakest springs in the whole Tower?


Failure at 0.5% compression is pretty rigid, which is why progressive collapse happens in your model even though you haven't specified a scale! (In effect, by specifying the ratios of strain to floor height for static conditions and for column failure, you've managed to invent a model that self-compensates for mass and height -- although finding materials with the specified properties for small heights or small masses might be difficult).

I agree that in experiment 1, the top springs might break first, but that would not prevent a complete progressive collapse from occurring since even dropping just one mass alone would be sufficient. In experiment 3, simultaneous crush-up and crush-down might occur at first but crush-down would predominate once a few floors were crushed.

BTW - how are you getting along with your 10 meters tall crush-down model?

Beware that it doesn't collapse on you during construction! :)


I've invited you to discuss my 10-meter model in the appropriate thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

1. I agree that the model as described would stand, yes.

2. I agree that the model would still stand in that case. However, with no safety margin, the slightest variation in column loads (such as might be caused by light breezes, or elevators moving up and down) would case cumulative plastic deformations of the columns. Eventually it would collapse from metal fatigue.

3. The springs below that element break first. Then a top-down progressive collapse would ensue.

4. Congratulations. After years of arguing from ignorance about this matter, you've finally hit on the right question. It's a bizarre question for any trained engineer to have to ask, but it's a good question in the sense that if you understand the answer, you'll understand why you've been wrong all this time.

The simple answer is that imparting kinetic energy creates dynamic loads, while adding potential energy (without exceeding the structure's capacity to bear) does not. But you've been told that many times before, and you don't seem to understand, or care about understanding, the difference.

It might help to think of it instead in terms of power. Power by definition is an amount of energy that's being converted (from some form to some other form) per unit time.

If power equals zero, it doesn't matter how much energy you have. You aren't doing anything to anything. Water behind a dam just sits there. A moving mass with nothing in its way just keeps going. To accelerate something, to break something, to heat something, to deform something, you need power. Energy being converted. When gravity can act on the water to get it moving, you have power. When the moving mass collides with something in its way, you have power. Energy being converted.

Adding potential energy to the top of a building that is able to statically handle the load does not generate power. Adding kinetic energy to (that is, accelerating) a significant part of a building does generate power, lots of power, because that kinetic energy is going to have to get converted and transferred rather quickly.

Failure at 0.5% compression is pretty rigid, which is why progressive collapse happens in your model even though you haven't specified a scale! (In effect, by specifying the ratios of strain to floor height for static conditions and for column failure, you've managed to invent a model that self-compensates for mass and height -- although finding materials with the specified properties for small heights or small masses might be difficult).

5. I agree that in experiment 1, the top springs might break first, but that would not prevent a complete progressive collapse from occurring since even dropping just one mass alone would be sufficient. In experiment 3, simultaneous crush-up and crush-down might occur at first but crush-down would predominate once a few floors were crushed.

I've invited you to discuss my 10-meter model in the appropriate thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

1. Good!
2. Good!
3. Good! But are you really sure progressive collapse will follow? Why not arrest?
4. Good! So the structure can statically absorb a certain amount of potential energy and still stand -say 1/3 of total - and that means it can also absorb the same amount of kinetic energy and still stand ... or even three times. We are moving ahead. But what happens then? After the weakest spring has broken? Is the energy then released applied on the structure below or applied somewhere else, e.g. the loose part just drops beside the structure, or is the destruction simply arrested? For you to find out!
5. Good!

Good luck with your model! Ensure it doesn't drop on you during assembly.

[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?

Don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello.

[Myriad]

3. Good! But are you really sure progressive collapse will follow? Why not arrest?


Because the bottom 20 floors, despite the springs, cannot decelerate a single floor (let alone two floors) that has fallen a distance h to a stop without undergoing displacement sufficient to break the s20 springs. The remaining 19 floors cannot decelerate two floors falling another distance h, so the s19 springs break. And so forth. Calculations to follow, later today.

4. Good! So the structure can statically absorb a certain amount of potential energy and still stand -say 1/3 of total - and that means it can also absorb the same amount of kinetic energy and still stand ... or even three times.


Nope. It absolutely does not mean that.

The structure does not "absorb" potential energy. Put a weight on the top floor, and the system now has added potential energy. The potential energy doesn't go anywhere. As long as the weight stays there and the structure continues to support it, the potential energy still there.

Thinking that potential energy is "absorbed" -- somehow rendered inert merely because the forces are in static balance -- is basically the same error you made on your web page when you miscalculated the gravitational potential energy in your model by a factor of 1,000. Gravitational potential energy is the summation of mgh over all the structure's mass. Period. It is reduced or "absorbed" only by removing mass or displacing it downwards. (Displacing it downwards turns the potential energy into kinetic energy. Removing it requires power from another source, such as a crane.)

And the structure absorbs all but the smallest amounts of kinetic energy by breaking.

We are moving ahead.


Perhaps. I do think your new "funny springs" model is far superior to all the models and analogies you've offered before. Unlike your vague analogies about colliding ships or stacked fruit, this model is sufficiently well described to be analyzed.

Of course, because it can be analyzed, the analysis will show that progressive collapse occurs in all the experiments you described.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

1. Because the bottom 20 floors, despite the springs, cannot decelerate a single floor (let alone two floors) that has fallen a distance h to a stop without undergoing displacement sufficient to break the s20 springs. The remaining 19 floors cannot decelerate two floors falling another distance h, so the s19 springs break. And so forth. Calculations to follow, later today.




2. Nope. It absolutely does not mean that.

The structure does not "absorb" potential energy. Put a weight on the top floor, and the system now has added potential energy. The potential energy doesn't go anywhere. As long as the weight stays there and the structure continues to support it, the potential energy still there.

Thinking that potential energy is "absorbed" -- somehow rendered inert merely because the forces are in static balance -- is basically the same error you made on your web page when you miscalculated the gravitational potential energy in your model by a factor of 1,000. Gravitational potential energy is the summation of mgh over all the structure's mass. Period. It is reduced or "absorbed" only by removing mass or displacing it downwards. (Displacing it downwards turns the potential energy into kinetic energy. Removing it requires power from another source, such as a crane.)

3. And the structure absorbs all but the smallest amounts of kinetic energy by breaking.




4. Perhaps. I do think your new "funny springs" model is far superior to all the models and analogies you've offered before. Unlike your vague analogies about colliding ships or stacked fruit, this model is sufficiently well described to be analyzed.

5. Of course, because it can be analyzed, the analysis will show that progressive collapse occurs in all the experiments you described.

Respectfully,
Myriad

1. I look forward to your calculations

2. Mass m always, static or moving, applies a force F = mg on the springs s that compress and therefore 'absorbs' it as strain energy. The maximum potential energy that m can apply in a single Funny m element is mgh (by removing all springs) and then the force is applied on the ground.

3. Well, a lot of energy is absorbed as compression! In Experiment 1 there are 84 springs to consider and they will all compress! And then there is more energy required to break a spring. I am glad that you think that the four springs #22 in Part C may break first! Now a surprise. Two of the four #22 springs on one side are a little stronger! What do you think happen then?

4. Glad that you like Funny m element. It is quite similar to a pizza box, though.

5. See 1.

[tsig]

1. I look forward to your calculations

2. Mass m always, static or moving, applies a force F = mg on the springs s that compress and therefore 'absorbs' it as strain energy. The maximum potential energy that m can apply in a single Funny m element is mgh (by removing all springs) and then the force is applied on the ground.

3. Well, a lot of energy is absorbed as compression! In Experiment 1 there are 84 springs to consider and they will all compress! And then there is more energy required to break a spring. I am glad that you think that the four springs #22 in Part C may break first! Now a surprise. Two of the four #22 springs on one side are a little stronger! What do you think happen then?

4. Glad that you like Funny m element. It is quite similar to a pizza box, though.

5. See 1.

So you think the top should have bounced off the bottom?

[phunk]

2. Mass m always, static or moving, applies a force F = mg on the springs s that compress and therefore 'absorbs' it as strain energy. The maximum potential energy that m can apply in a single Funny m element is mgh (by removing all springs) and then the force is applied on the ground.


If you really believe this, I invite you to place a brick gently on your head, and experience the 'mg' for that brick, then lift it 2 feet above your head and drop it, and see if you feel more than 'mg'.

By the way, if your theory is correct that mass m always applies mg, static or moving, than you've just disproven any possible collapse arrest. Way to go!

[Myriad]

Mass m always, static or moving, applies a force F = mg on the springs s that compress and therefore 'absorbs' it as strain energy.


The "it" in that sentence is unclear. The springs absorb what as strain energy? Force? No. Forces are not absorbed as energy, they are balanced by other forces (or else cause accelerations). Mass? No. Mass is not absorbed (at least, not in a case like this; if we were talking about liquids and sponges then maybe). What the springs absorb as strain energy is a small fraction of the gravitational potential energy. How small a fraction? You've specified it in your model: it's m times g times .001 which is the fraction of its height by which each mass is lowered due to the compression of the springs. So the springs absorb a tenth of a percent of the gravitational potential energy.

By the way, the compression energy of the springs is also potential energy! So actually no potential energy has been "absorbed" at all. Instead, a small fraction of it has been converted from gravitational potential energy to elastic strain energy. The total potential energy has not changed.

That, of course, is in the initial static state. When things start moving, all the springs put together can only absorb 2.2 percent of the structure's total potential energy before they break (making very liberal assumptions about how much energy is absorbed in plastic deformation between strains of .003 and .005).

The maximum potential energy that m can apply in a single Funny m element is mgh (by removing all springs) and then the force is applied on the ground.


Your model uses h to mean the height of one floor, but the h in the gravitaitonal potential energy equation mgh refers to the total height off the ground. Be careful not to confuse the two values.

If you remove all the springs then the masses fall, so the force applied on the ground is zero, until the masses hit the ground.

Also, you're mixing up potential energy and force again. Increase the h, and the potential energy increases while the force against the ground does not change. This should make it obvious that there is no consistent proportional relationship between potential energy and the force required to contain it.

3. Well, a lot of energy is absorbed as compression!


Yes. A whole 2.2 percent of it. (Actually only about 1.3 percent is truly absorbed in the springs' plastic deformation, because the portion used to compress the springs elastically is released again when the springs break, and is still available to do work -- although it's such a small fraction that it hardly matters.)

In Experiment 1 there are 84 springs to consider and they will all compress! And then there is more energy required to break a spring.


Yes. It requires 2.2 percent of the structure's total gravitational potential energy to break all those springs.

What do you think the other 97.8% of that potential energy is going to do?


I am glad that you think that the four springs #22 in Part C may break first! Now a surprise. Two of the four #22 springs on one side are a little stronger! What do you think happen then?


They'll break second.

To determine anything beyond that, we need more scale information to determine the angular momentum of a funny mass unit, relative to m and h. Should we use the angular momentum of a 200-foot-square 4" thick steel-trussed concrete slab, a 47" square 5" thick concrete slab inside a wooden tray, a pizza box, or a lemon?

4. Glad that you like Funny m element. It is quite similar to a pizza box, though.


No it's not.

Your funny model has only three assigned parameters, to which you've assigned values of .001, .003, and .005. (Yet, those are enough to determine that it will progressively collapse, even without knowing m or h!) Test the corresponding pizza boxes for the corresponding physical properties and you'll find those values are nowhere close. Test steel columns and trussed concrete floors and they'll be a lot closer. What does that tell you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

Your funny model has only three assigned parameters, to which you've assigned values of .001, .003, and .005. (Yet, those are enough to determine that it will progressively collapse, even without knowing m or h!) Test the corresponding pizza boxes for the corresponding physical properties and you'll find those values are nowhere close. Test steel columns and trussed concrete floors and they'll be a lot closer. What does that tell you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

And just to cheer you up I have changed those parameters to make the Funny m assembly a little softer! So it will break up! But a one-way crush down by little C of big part A is not possible in Experiment 1. Big strong part A destroys little weak part C. And what happens then?

If you use LS DYNA, you can probably find out. Always good to do computer simulations before building a 10 meters tall model.

But let's face it. Funny m is just an example to get feel for the real problem. In reality the springs s will punch holes in element m and that's another problem ... to be solved.

Maybe I should make another Funny m assembly where m is split up into smaller elements?

[Heiwa]

If you really believe this, I invite you to place a brick gently on your head, and experience the 'mg' for that brick, then lift it 2 feet above your head and drop it, and see if you feel more than 'mg'.

By the way, if your theory is correct that mass m always applies mg, static or moving, than you've just disproven any possible collapse arrest. Way to go!

Thanks for your contribution. The gravity force F on a mass m is always mg. If this mass collides with anything, e.g. you, and energy is transmitted then other forces of short duration develops. If you are strong, then m will bounce away from you thanks to these forces. You arrested m! Thanks for proving my point.

[Heiwa]

So you think the top should have bounced off the bottom?

It is likely. Every time I try with various structures it happens. The Heiwa Challenge is to produce a structure, where it doesn't happen. See post #1.

[FineWine]

Thanks for your contribution. The gravity force F on a mass m is always mg. If this mass collides with anything, e.g. you, and energy is transmitted then other forces of short duration develops. If you are strong, then m will bounce away from you thanks to these forces. You arrested m! Thanks for proving my point.


He didn't prove your point.

[Heiwa]

He didn't prove your point.

What do you expect from a religious fundamentalist? Lobster and champagne?

[Myriad]

And just to cheer you up I have changed those parameters to make the Funny m assembly a little softer! So it will break up! But a one-way crush down by little C of big part A is not possible in Experiment 1. Big strong part A destroys little weak part C. And what happens then?


Ah, interesting changes. From the web site:

Due to mass m the springs s compress elastically d = 0.03h.

The structural Funny m assembly is really funny or at least the spring elements. They can compress 0.09h elastically and 0.1h plastically before they break (in this example). It means you must put on 3 m for the springs to start deforming plastically!


That is pretty funny. I see you've realized your previous model would progressively collapse in all three experiments, so you've fixed the design by making the columns 30 times more elastic! They now compress 30 times more under the static load than before, and it would take about 15% of the buildings total gpe to break them all.

That makes your funny model units a lot more like pizza boxes... and a lot less like the floors of a WTC tower. If their columns were that elastic, the towers would have been about 40 feet shorter -- more than three stories -- due to elastic compression of the columns! Each ceiling more than four inches lower! And I'd hate to think of what would have happened in a high wind, or try to figure out how to keep the window glass intact as the walls flex. Heck, the whole building would have bounced every time a cargo elevator stopped. And if a tenant wanted to put something heavy (like a UPS room or a paper file archive) on one side, they'd have to put something equally heavy on the opposite side, or else all the floors above them would lean. (Just a little, but I bet the tenants upstairs would notice!)

But rubber buildings do have one advantage, they are much less likely to progressively collapse! With the new values, progressive collapse can be arrested in your model under certain conditions. (Make the columns even more flexible, and maybe the planes could bounce off too!)

That extra durability might explain why so many new cruise liners are being built out of rubber! (http://www.seaeagle.com/images/SR/Stability.jpg)

Respectfully,
Myriad

[FineWine]

What do you expect from a religious fundamentalist? Lobster and champagne?

That makes as much sense as everything else you post, so I guess I'm not disappointed.

[phunk]

Thanks for your contribution. The gravity force F on a mass m is always mg. If this mass collides with anything, e.g. you, and energy is transmitted then other forces of short duration develops. If you are strong, then m will bounce away from you thanks to these forces. You arrested m! Thanks for proving my point.

Yes we all know that the force of gravity is mg, but that's not what you said in what I quoted. You said the force that the mass exerts on the springs is always mg, whether it's static or moving. This is very clearly wrong.

[phunk]

Wait, who's the religious fundamentalist?

[Heiwa]

Ah, interesting changes. From the web site:




That is pretty funny. I see you've realized your previous model would progressively collapse in all three experiments, so you've fixed the design by making the columns 30 times more elastic! They now compress 30 times more under the static load than before, and it would take about 15% of the buildings total gpe to break them all.

That makes your funny model units a lot more like pizza boxes... and a lot less like the floors of a WTC tower. If their columns were that elastic, the towers would have been about 40 feet shorter -- more than three stories -- due to elastic compression of the columns! Each ceiling more than four inches lower! And I'd hate to think of what would have happened in a high wind, or try to figure out how to keep the window glass intact as the walls flex. Heck, the whole building would have bounced every time a cargo elevator stopped. And if a tenant wanted to put something heavy (like a UPS room or a paper file archive) on one side, they'd have to put something equally heavy on the opposite side, or else all the floors above them would lean. (Just a little, but I bet the tenants upstairs would notice!)

But rubber buildings do have one advantage, they are much less likely to progressively collapse! With the new values, progressive collapse can be arrested in your model under certain conditions. (Make the columns even more flexible, and maybe the planes could bounce off too!)



Respectfully,
Myriad

The purpose of the article is only to establish what spring breaks first in this 3-D structure of Funny m assemblies assuming, unrealistically, that part C actually free fall drops on part A! What happens afterwards is another story.
And it seems it is always a spring in part C that breaks first regardless of how flexible or stiff the structure is. So you have evidently learnt something.

Evidently a floor cannot be represented by one m element in the Funny m assembly. It was only there to provide mass to compress the springs. And assuming that the springs just compress and break somewhere ... and do not slip off or damage their connections - are simplifications.

So far the only other models I am aware of are by Bazant and Seffen, which are just in 1-D! Lines C and A with some funny density/mass per meter where only line A is getting shorter - no springs/floors, etc. Imagine a line with no cross area colliding with another line with no cross area! How do they meet?

Hopefully Bazant and Seffen will no try to improve. It is line C that is getting shorter - if the lines fuse!

[bill smith]

Heiwa....any word back from the ASCE on the publication of your paper ?

[FineWine]

Heiwa....any word back from the ASCE on the publication of your paper ?

Can we assume that when his paper is rejected it will prove that ASCE is part of the conspiracy?

[Heiwa]

Can we assume that when his paper is rejected it will prove that ASCE is part of the conspiracy?

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

[GlennB]

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

I suspect they're lost for words.

[Myriad]

The purpose of the article is only to establish what spring breaks first in this 3-D structure of Funny m assemblies assuming, unrealistically, that part C actually free fall drops on part A! What happens afterwards is another story.


And yet, your claims in the article's conclusions go well beyond which spring breaks first in that particular ultra-unrealistic model.

Conclusions:
...
A tower or any steel structure of elements joined together cannot collapse due to structural failures up top and by gravity!


And it seems it is always a spring in part C that breaks first regardless of how flexible or stiff the structure is. So you have evidently learnt something.


I never said a spring in part C breaks first. It might under some conditions and not under others.

You asked about a case in which an overload mass was added to the top of the tower, and my assessment was that in that case the top springs of the tower (there is no "part C" in that scenario, just one tower with some mass on the top floor) would break first. That's hardly sufficient to establish a universal rule.

Evidently a floor cannot be represented by one m element in the Funny m assembly. It was only there to provide mass to compress the springs. And assuming that the springs just compress and break somewhere ... and do not slip off or damage their connections - are simplifications.


I'm glad you agree that your model is insufficiently detailed to support the broad conclusions you stated in the article. However, that makes me wonder how you do support those conclusions, and why you stated those conclusions in the article without supporting them with evidence in the article.

So far the only other models I am aware of are by Bazant and Seffen, which are just in 1-D! Lines C and A with some funny density/mass per meter where only line A is getting shorter - no springs/floors, etc.


Your model is likewise 1-D. You drew some 2-D pictures to illustrate it (as others including Bazant have done for their 1-D models as well), but the model itself includes no information for a second horizontal dimension, not even e.g. a height to width ratio.

Bazant (or one of his co-authors; I forget which paper this appeared in) did address the possibility of the toppling of "part A" and calculated that it's not a possibility that need be considered for the tower collapses. I've explained in other threads the dependence on scale of the ratio of angular momentum of "part A" to the torques involved (so that smaller scale models might topple where larger ones, like the real tower tops, could not). The importance of angular momentum in that question should be self-evident. You have not even addressed that issue in your funny model.

As I said before, your funny model is a big improvement over the ones you've offered previously. However, your analysis of it and the conclusions you've drawn from it are as sloppy and unjustified as ever.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[WilliamSeger]

Well, the paper was sent to ASCE/editor Ross Corotis (Journ. of. Eng. Mech) on 3 February who said he would publish it after some sort of review of his peers. Early Arpril I contacted ASCE/Corotis and was informed the review was still going on. Now it is early May. I haven't heard anything. No questions asked, no clarifications or corrections requested. No comments of any kind.

It's pro'lly still at the proofreaders, having all the exclamation marks removed.

[Heiwa]

1. Your model is likewise 1-D. You drew some 2-D pictures to illustrate it (as others including Bazant have done for their 1-D models as well), but the model itself includes no information for a second horizontal dimension, not even e.g. a height to width ratio.

2. Bazant (or one of his co-authors; I forget which paper this appeared in) did address the possibility of the toppling of "part A" and calculated that it's not a possibility that need be considered for the tower collapses. I've explained in other threads the dependence on scale of the ratio of angular momentum of "part A" to the torques involved (so that smaller scale models might topple where larger ones, like the real tower tops, could not). The importance of angular momentum in that question should be self-evident. You have not even addressed that issue in your funny model.

3. As I said before, your funny model is a big improvement over the ones you've offered previously. However, your analysis of it and the conclusions you've drawn from it are as sloppy and unjustified as ever.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thanks for comments!

1. Well the four springs are spaced apart and the Funny m assemblies, heigh h, are stacked on top of each other and that makes it 3-D in my view.

2. If you modify the springs on one level, the weaker ones will always fail before the stronger ones and toppling of part C (!) will take place.

3. This is clear from the Super Funny m Tower described in the article (updated at request of fans).

Hope above is helpful when you build your 10 meters model! Suggest you include at least 16 vertical support columns, 4 internal and 12 external, to really make your model 3-D and that the weakest support ones are located below the top element outer corners. And that the bottom #1 assemby supports are 22 times stronger than the equivalent #22 top assembly supports, etc.

Wish you luck to show that my conclusions are unjustified and sloppy. Based on experience always the weakest element in a collision interface fails first!

Good luck.

[GlennB]

Hope above is helpful when you build your 10 meters model! Suggest you include at least 16 vertical support columns, 4 internal and 12 external, to really make your model 3-D and that the weakest support ones are located below the top element outer corners. And that the bottom #1 assemby supports are 22 times stronger than the equivalent #22 top assembly supports, etc.



Have you changed the terms of "The Heiwa Challenge" to incorporate these new conditions?

What I foresee (gasp, I'm psychic all of a sudden :eek:) is that your final conditions will require a 400m tall steel-framed "tube in tube" construction, with concrete lined steel floor pans, somewhere in Lower Manhattan. Hit by a virtually fully fuel-laden commercial aircraft flying at top speed, and allowed to burn for a good while ...

I suspect your "peer reviewers" can't finish their work because they keep passing out from laughter.

[Heiwa]

Have you changed the terms of "The Heiwa Challenge" to incorporate these new conditions?

What I foresee (gasp, I'm psychic all of a sudden :eek:) is that your final conditions will require a 400m tall steel-framed "tube in tube" construction, with concrete lined steel floor pans, somewhere in Lower Manhattan. Hit by a virtually fully fuel-laden commercial aircraft flying at top speed, and allowed to burn for a good while ...

I suspect your "peer reviewers" can't finish their work because they keep passing out from laughter.

No, conditions are unchanged. I am just advising Myriad to get his particular structure together, i.e. to be siimilar to WTC 1 but not identical, of course, (only 16 tiny columns instead of 280+) and easy to simulate with FEA, e.g. LS DYNA or ANSYS.
Re article the editor, prof. Ross Corotis, is very friendly. So let's wait what happens to article. I can always publish it on my web site.

[George152]

I suspect they're lost for words.

Not lost for words. It's just that the applicable words are unprintable

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Pardon my confusion.

Are you, or are you not, offering $1 million for a structure that will meet your criteria?

tom

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Pardon my confusion.

Are you, or are you not, offering $1 million for a structure that will meet your criteria?

tom

Yes, many JREF posters are confused like religious fundamentalists and apparently also interested in, or influenced by, flouss. Conditions of The Heiwa Challenge are in post #1 as amended in later posts (#239?). Just get working!

[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?

Or anyone who thinks like him.

[Swing Dangler]

Do not, under any circumstances, board any ship designed by Anders Björkman. (Fortunately, it seems that experiment has never been attempted.)

Heiwa, I'm still waiting for your explanation for how two floors of the Skyline Towers building managed to crash through 22+ floors, and why you eliminated that example from your phony "challenge."

Have you studied that collapse? The building was under construction, not a fully complete structure. It did not collapse globally of course from the partial collapse.
It's sort of missing that complete global collapse feature that Hewia is looking for.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1997/3737/1024/241416/Skylinep.jpg:mgduh

[tfk]

Yes, many JREF posters are confused like religious fundamentalists and apparently also interested in, or influenced by, flouss. Conditions of The Heiwa Challenge are in post #1 as amended in later posts (#239?). Just get working!
So, apparently you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

[Heiwa]

So, apparently you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

[phunk]

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

Translation from heiwaspeak: no, of course there's no prize, you're expected to spend your own money on building this for no good reason.

[tfk]

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.
.

PROVING AGAIN that you are incapable of providing a direct, simple answer to a direct, simple question...

Let me try again. I'll make it easier.

A. "yes, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am offering $1 million to the winner"
B. "no, I, Anders Bjorkmann, am not offering $1 million to the winner".

You can copy & paste your reply.

tk

PS. Do you really think that your schoolboy attempts at "clever", evasive answers will outlast my asking this simple question over & over. And YOU making yourself look like an idiot for evading the answer?

PPS. In order to "atari your next stone"...
Do you really think that you have garnered sufficient good will from the posters here that, when you petulantly put me on "ignore", NO ONE else will pick up the question until you a) answer it directly or b) have EVERYONE on ignore and yourself looking - if possible - even more buffoonish?

PPPS. Trust me. You DO want to answer this simple question for me. It is in YOUR immediate financial interest. ESPECIALLY if the answer is B. above.

You will understand perfectly as soon as I see your reply.

[WilliamSeger]

Have you studied that collapse?

Yep. In fact, I was working as a structural draftsman in an A&E office in Alexandria at the time, just a few miles away. The structural engineers talked about it for weeks.

The building was under construction, not a fully complete structure.

The "Heiwa Challenge" was originally for any self-supporting structure where 10% falling would destroy the other 90%. The weaseling came later.

It did not collapse globally of course from the partial collapse.
It's sort of missing that complete global collapse feature that Hewia is looking for.
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1997/3737/1024/241416/Skylinep.jpg:mgduh

It collapsed completely up to an expansion joint. In reinforced concrete buildings, expansion joints create virtually independent buildings, to avoid cracking from thermal stresses The slabs on each side were also poured separately, which was important in this case because the shoring under that part of the building was removed before the concrete had cured enough to support itself plus the next floor above that was being poured. Everything on that side of the expansion joint collapsed "globally." I don't think anyone sane expects Heiwa to pay the $million for any case, but the Skyline Towers collapse clearly demonstrates the principle that Heiwa denies: Buildings are not designed to withstand that kind of abuse. If Heiwa were really an engineer, he would understand that they could be designed to withstand a global collapse, provided the owner is willing to pay for it. Which means they hardly ever are -- they're just designed "to code."

[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?

I hope you're in for the long haul, tfk.

[tfk]

I hope you're in for the long haul, tfk.

I can't figure out why he's weaseling around this issue.

It's not as if his reply #416 is any secret. Where he says:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416
"No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

I fully expected that he had rescinded his prize money, and was simply trying to get him to confirm or deny this.

Because if he HAS rescinded his prize money, he's in for a rather rude surprise.

It turns out that ole Bill Smith is still posting around the internet that Heiwa is offering $1 million.

And Bill's posting this anonymously, WHILE SIGNING HEIWA's NAME to the posts.

I figured that Mr. Bjorkmann might want to know that.

I thought he'd be grateful to me...

tom

[Newtons Bit]

Yep. In fact, I was working as a structural draftsman in an A&E office in Alexandria at the time, just a few miles away. The structural engineers talked about it for weeks.



The "Heiwa Challenge" was originally for any self-supporting structure where 10% falling would destroy the other 90%. The weaseling came later.



It collapsed completely up to an expansion joint. In reinforced concrete buildings, expansion joints create virtually independent buildings, to avoid cracking from thermal stresses The slabs on each side were also poured separately, which was important in this case because the shoring under that part of the building was removed before the concrete had cured enough to support itself plus the next floor above that was being poured. Everything on that side of the expansion joint collapsed "globally." I don't think anyone sane expects Heiwa to pay the $million for any case, but the Skyline Towers collapse clearly demonstrates the principle that Heiwa denies: Buildings are not designed to withstand that kind of abuse. If Heiwa were really an engineer, he would understand that they could be designed to withstand a global collapse, provided the owner is willing to pay for it. Which means they hardly ever are -- they're just designed "to code."

1) You're absolutely correct about the expansion joints. For structural purposes, they are in fact two separate buildings.

2) You're really old.

[TheRedWorm]

I can't figure out why he's weaseling around this issue.

It's not as if his reply #416 is any secret. Where he says:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416
"No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

I fully expected that he had rescinded his prize money, and was simply trying to get him to confirm or deny this.

Because if he HAS rescinded his prize money, he's in for a rather rude surprise.

It turns out that ole Bill Smith is still posting around the internet that Heiwa is offering $1 million.

And Bill's posting this anonymously, WHILE SIGNING HEIWA's NAME to the posts.

I figured that Mr. Bjorkmann might want to know that.

I thought he'd be grateful to me...

tom


To adopt a phrase from the late (now banned pom) he's a conspiracy LIAR. he is pathologically incapable of telling the truth.

[MIKILLINI]

??? The Heiwa Challenge conditions are quite clear! Pls read post #1.

What kind of structure are you putting up?

Pls ask your religious fundamentalist secret society for support to get it together.

Dodge much Heiwa? When a person(s) create a structure agreeable to both parties and the structure progressively collapses onto the ground until it is left as a rubble pile, are you paying the challenger who built the structure $1million dollars?

[Heiwa]

Dodge much Heiwa? When a person(s) create a structure agreeable to both parties and the structure progressively collapses onto the ground until it is left as a rubble pile, are you paying the challenger who built the structure $1million dollars?

See post #1.

[tfk]

Hey Heiwa,

How about a simple answer.

Are you offering $1 million or not?

It AIN'T that hard a question.

tk

[Heiwa]

Hey Heiwa,

How about a simple answer.

Are you offering $1 million or not?

It AIN'T that hard a question.

tk

Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.

[Dave Rogers]

Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.

Perhaps, then, you could start a new thread - I would suggest "Heiwa's Million Dollar Challenge" as a thread title, to avoid any ambiguity - in which you could reiterate the conditions to which the million dollar offer, which you admit above to having made, will be subject. Failure to do so, after a reasonable request for clarification, might be reasonably taken as an admission that at no time had you any intention of honouring your offer.

Dave

[tfk]

Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.

Heiwa,

Neither one of these sentence fragments is an answer to the question that I asked.

I cannot imagine that there would be any reason for you to be this evasive? Either there is a $1 million prize, or there is not.

If there are people who are pursuing this task, it is certainly in your interest to be crystal clear about this issue AHEAD of time. Rather than getting a bunch of people into a legal fur-ball after the fact.

There is a lovely old Shaker hymn, "tis a joy to be simple". You should take a lesson from it.

Honest people speak directly, clearly, simply.
Lawyers, politicians & shysters play games with words.

You are destroying any lingering shred of credibility by playing this purposeless game.

tk

[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?


Paranoia is total awareness.

[ihaunter]

Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.

From this thread
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!
Now this appears to be an offer to only HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP, however later (and still in this thread) you wrote:

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>


So you offered $1 million in this thread. So it is on topic to ask if you are actually offering the money.

We all know the answer, we just want to see if you can say it without resorting to word games.

[Heiwa]

From this thread

Now this appears to be an offer to only HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP, however later (and still in this thread) you wrote:



So you offered $1 million in this thread. So it is on topic to ask if you are actually offering the money.

We all know the answer, we just want to see if you can say it without resorting to word games.

Yes, offer was in connection with my famous axiom (in another thread). It seems nobody managed to prove it wrong. I agree The Heiwa Challenge is related - but in the Heiwa Challenge you really have to produce a structure that will self-destruct*. It is not possible as per my axiom but you can always try. Myriad in another thread is really trying.

*>70% of the elements must be fully disconnected from one another. Not so easy!

[apathoid]

Is anybody here actually surprized that there was never really a million dollars to begin with? I suspected this was the case, given the little information we know about Heiwa. Can't be alot of $$$ in investigating ship accidents as a private contractor(lets face it, the NTSB and their EU counterparts have probably got the market cornered).

How about this idea: Heiwa re-proposes his challenge to say $25,000, enough to cover Myriad's expenses. Got 25K lying around Heiwa?

[1337m4n]

I think it only fair that if Myriad beats Heiwa's challenge, Heiwa should at least pay for the costs of the necessary components.

[nicepants]

I think it only fair that if Myriad beats Heiwa's challenge, Heiwa should at least pay for the costs of the necessary components.

Too bad the requirements of the challenge keep changing.

"I'll give you X if you do Y"

"What I meant was I'll give you X if you do Y + Z"

"What I meant was I said I'd give someone X if you do Y + Z + A + B + C"...

[Heiwa]

Too bad the requirements of the challenge keep changing.

"I'll give you X if you do Y"

"What I meant was I'll give you X if you do Y + Z"

"What I meant was I said I'd give someone X if you do Y + Z + A + B + C"...

Conditions have not changed. Some clarifications have been given, e.g., what is an element, etc.

[tfk]

Heiwa,

You started this thread. On your own.
You offered a monetary pay-off. On your own.
You have APPARENTLY rescinded your pay-off. On your own.

SEVERAL people, including me, are simply trying to get you to clarify this confused situation.

For some reason, you are being peversely evasive.

It's a simple question.

Are you offering $1 million, here or anywhere, for someone who builds a structure that meets your "Heiwa Challenge" conditions?

Yes or no?


tk

PS. Your axiom. "... famous ..."?? Please.

Not in the opinion of anyone who actually understands engineering.

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, offer was in connection with my famous axiom (in another thread). It seems nobody managed to prove it wrong. I agree The Heiwa Challenge is related - but in the Heiwa Challenge you really have to produce a structure that will self-destruct*.

It seems to me, therefore, that any structure satisfying the terms of the Heiwa Challenge will necessarily also disprove your axiom - in fact, the terms of the Heiwa Challenge are very much more restrictive, as they place greater constraints on the relative sizes of the two parts of the structure (your axiom only requires that the upper part be smaller than the lower if I recall correctly). Is your offer of $1M for disproof of your axiom (which any successful Challenge application will therefore necessarily do) a genuine one?

Dave

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

You started this thread. On your own.
You offered a monetary pay-off. On your own.
You have APPARENTLY rescinded your pay-off. On your own.

SEVERAL people, including me, are simply trying to get you to clarify this confused situation.

For some reason, you are being peversely evasive.

It's a simple question.

Are you offering $1 million, here or anywhere, for someone who builds a structure that meets your "Heiwa Challenge" conditions?

Yes or no?


tk

PS. Your axiom. "... famous ..."?? Please.

Not in the opinion of anyone who actually understands engineering.

Yes, I started the thread. No money mentioned in post # 1. It is a practical exerzise.

So far only two structures (sic) are trying to comply:

1. The psik model - a mass C is dropping on other similar masses A held in place by some support connection (a tooth pick on a vertical rod) a certain distance apart! Quite clever! C drops on top A mass, breaks the connection; thus C + one A mass drop on second A mass and break the second connection, etc. After a while the breaking of connection stops. C + A masses only manage to damage a certain number of connections. At every breaking of a connection, which takes time, there is a jolt, C slows down (energy is required to break the connection). The psik model clearly shows how top part C loses energy at every breaking of a connection ... and therefore cannot drop free fall or x% of free fall ... and C is actually slowed down.
The psik model doesn't crush down the vertical rod keeping the connections in place so it does not fullfil the Heiwa Challenge conditions.
The psik model is note really a structure in the sense of the Heiwa Challenge, but it clarifies the difficulties involved.

2. The Myriad structure - see other thread. Myriad will encounter the psik effect in his/her structure. Thus part C will be slowed down and stopped and not one-way crush down A. As the Myriad structure also includes vertical supports as elements between horizontal elements/masses, they will break but ... in only one location. Thus the Myriad structure is not a winner in the Heiwa Challenge.

Re money, yes $1M has been offered to anybody that can prove theoretically that a part C of a structure A can one-way crush down A only assisted by gravity. Prof. Bazant made an attempt only two days after 9/11 but his explanation is pure fake and fraud!! Bazant makes C rigid (not same structure as A) and then he makes A very fragile and soft and yes ... C crushes A (and A cannot crush C). So C has to be crushed when it hits ground. Bazant will not earn $1M by that!

You wonder whether prof. Bazant was/is part of the terrorist team that destroyed WTC 1! Bazant's very timely contribution was to explain that what you could see on 9/11 - the destruction of the WTCs - was just a natural phenomenon due to C dropping, in turn due to fire and local failures, one-way crushing down A. And the public believed that. Then it was easy to blame the destruction on other parties in some caves in Absurdistan. And many JREF posters still believe the Bazant absurdities.

But let's face it. It is physically impossible that part C of a structure A (A>10C) can one-way crush down A.

[alienentity]

Heiwa, you've been caught making fraudulent claims of a bogus 1 million dollar offer, which you seem to have avoided on this thread.

Unless you have proof that you actually have the money, you're just a liar.

Your behavior merits being ridiculed and/or ignored, not engaged and humored.

You are clearly a fraudster. Where is the 1 million dollars? What a liar...

[alienentity]

Once again, for the record, the fraudster Heiwa has accused Bazant of a fake and fraudulent explanation in his last post.

I see no reason to pull punches here. It is Heiwa who is fraudulently claiming to have 1 million dollars to award.

His attempts to link his name with someone like Bazant is rather pathetic, IMHO.

Onto ignore you go, fraudster.

[D'rok]

Just to inject some lawyer-speak into this thread...

Offer (Heiwa) + Acceptance (Myriad) + Consideration ($1 mil) = Contract. The offer and terms were communicated. The offer was accepted. The acceptance was communicated. A legal contract exists.

@Heiwa. You may wish to invoke the Pepsi defence and claim that your offer was not serious.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.






*None of this is to be considered professional legal advice. Talk to an actual lawyer.

[Myriad]

Meh. Let's not go overboard here, so to speak. No contract exists that is even close to legally enforceable, in my also-not-a-lawyer opinion. That's why my posts on the subject have frequently mentioned the need for a detailed written agreement in order for the 10-meter demonstration project to proceed.

Though I'm disappointed that it now seems I won't get to spend a few weeks putting game development on hold and doing a cool Mythbusters-like science fair project funded ultimately by Heiwa's prize money instead, I can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. I certainly have no intention of trying to take anyone to court on the strength of idle Internet boasts!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[D'rok]

Meh. Let's not go overboard here, so to speak. No contract exists that is even close to legally enforceable, in my also-not-a-lawyer opinion. That's why my posts on the subject have frequently mentioned the need for a detailed written agreement in order for the 10-meter demonstration project to proceed.

Though I'm disappointed that it now seems I won't get to spend a few weeks putting game development on hold and doing a cool Mythbusters-like science fair project funded ultimately by Heiwa's prize money instead, I can't say I'm surprised it turned out this way. I certainly have no intention of trying to take anyone to court on the strength of idle Internet boasts!

Respectfully,
Myriad

Actually, a contract really does exist. A detailed written agreement is not required. Behold, the beauty of the Common Law! Of course, it's obviously not worth pursuing legal action, but all of the required legal elements for a contract are present and accounted for.

[Myriad]

Actually, a contract really does exist. A detailed written agreement is not required. Behold, the beauty of the Common Law! Of course, it's obviously not worth pursuing legal action, but all of the required legal elements for a contract are present and accounted for.


Maybe in some technical sense, but enforceability matters. Saying you have a contract but it's just not enforceable is like saying you have ice cubes but they're just not frozen.

Among the likely problems with enforceability in this case are: numerous unclear and contradictory terms, jurisdictional issues (Heiwa and I are citizens of different nations), my anonymity on the forum, and the supposed offer passing the "no reasonable person" test (as in, no reasonable person would believe Heiwa was truly offering a million dollars for demonstrating something that every structural engineer in the world already knows).

Respectfully,
Myriad

[D'rok]

Maybe in some technical sense, but enforceability matters. Saying you have a contract but it's just not enforceable is like saying you have ice cubes but they're just not frozen.

Among the likely problems with enforceability in this case are: numerous unclear and contradictory terms, jurisdictional issues (Heiwa and I are citizens of different nations), my anonymity on the forum, and the supposed offer passing the "no reasonable person" test (as in, no reasonable person would believe Heiwa was truly offering a million dollars for demonstrating something that every structural engineer in the world already knows).

Respectfully,
Myriad

Stop arguing Heiwa's case, dammit! :p

[tsig]

Stop arguing Heiwa's case, dammit! :p

Some people are just too fact oriented.

[nicepants]

Conditions have not changed. Some clarifications have been given, e.g., what is an element, etc.

Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?

[alienentity]

Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?

He won't do it. He doesn't have the money either. You know it. We all know it.

What he WILL do is deflect you onto something else,hoping that you'll give him some more attention. And he'll be right back in business again.

You guys are keeping him going, you do realize that, don't you?

[alienentity]

So it's been adequately demonstrated that H. is dishonest, deceptive and generally a waste of time.

What next? More discussion with him? Please! Enough already.

[D'rok]

Some people are just too fact oriented.Facts be damned. There's an agenda to promote! ;)

[Heiwa]

Sure they have:

First it was that 1/10 must crush the other 9/10...then it was that a certain number of elements must separate, then it was that a certain amount of "rubble" be created.

I'm still waiting for heiwa to post a detailed, written explanation of each and every requirement that must be met in order to receive the $1M payout. Randi can do it...why can't you?

No condition re "rubble". Pls read post #1. Just a simple structure that self-destructs from top to bottom.

[Heiwa]

Almost 600 posts and no serious contender except Myriad trying!

In principle it should be VERY EASY! You just have to read the NIST report! Only a few pages. According NIST global collapse (of a structure) ensues when potential energy applied on and released inside exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. According NIST that happened on 9/11 and it should not be to difficult to verify ... or?

Further hints how to do it you find in the Bazant, Mackey and Seffen papers. Just drop upper part C on lower part A and part A is compressed into ... broken pieces.

There are also numerous JREF posters that suggest that part C easily one-way crushes down part A. They have SEEN numerous examples of structures that just do that. It shouldn't be to difficult to copy one such structure and win The Heiwa Challenge ... or?

[GlennB]

Almost 600 posts and no serious contender except Myriad trying!

In principle it should be VERY EASY! You just have to read the NIST report! Only a few pages. According NIST global collapse (of a structure) ensues when potential energy applied on and released inside exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. According NIST that happened on 9/11 and it should not be to difficult to verify ... or?

Further hints how to do it you find in the Bazant, Mackey and Seffen papers. Just drop upper part C on lower part A and part A is compressed into ... broken pieces.

There are also numerous JREF posters that suggest that part C easily one-way crushes down part A. They have SEEN numerous examples of structures that just do that. It shouldn't be to difficult to copy one such structure and win The Heiwa Challenge ... or?

Or .... the structures would need to be seriously large. Many tonnes in weight, many metres tall. Buildings, perhaps, as opposed to piles of lemons or pizza boxes?

Edited for Rule 12.

[Heiwa]

Or .... the structures would need to be seriously large. Many tonnes in weight, many metres tall. Buildings, perhaps, as opposed to piles of lemons or pizza boxes?

Edited for Rule 12.

No, not really. Just ensure that potential energy applied and released by part C exceeds the strain energy that part A can absorb (A>10C of same structure) as suggested by NIST.

The problem is that A and C have same structure so part C can absorb even less strain energy than A and will therefore have great difficulties to apply potential/kinetic energy to A without destroying itself (C) ... first. Actually the NIST proposal is nonsense.

Bazant/Seffen/Mackey overcomes this little problem by making - by assumption - C stronger than A, i.e. C can absorb much more strain energy than A and can therefore start to destroy A via some sort of shock wave. But that is cheating. C is suddenly another type of structure. Has nothing to do with science, physics or structural intact/damage analysis. Or The Heiwa Challenge!

BTW - now tell, how do you do with the religion?

[bill smith]

Evidently not in The Heiwa Challenge as per post #1 of this thread. But $1M was mentioned in another thread as encouragement, which see.

Pls keep to topic of thread.

I see my groupie tfk has been pestering you with stories about my anonymous postng of your challenge. Apparently the anonymous thing does not work very well if t. can see straight through it like that. lol

[tsig]

So it's been adequately demonstrated that H. is dishonest, deceptive and generally a waste of time.

What next? More discussion with him? Please! Enough already.

The Heiwa challenge makes no sense and has no cents.

[tfk]

bill,

I see my groupie tfk has been pestering you with stories about my anonymous postng of your challenge. Apparently the anonymous thing does not work very well if t. can see straight through it like that. lol


Your typical confusion on display.

I am the guy who consistently picks apart your poor excuses for "arguments" and finds your careless, frivolous disregard for the truth to be reprehensible.

This groupie must be someone else. Probably a figment of your imagination.
__

Regarding the anonymous postings:

Heiwa rescinded his offer of $1 million reward on April 16 in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416 when he says: "... No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

17 days after he rescinded his offer, you posted (on May 3rd) that he was still offering $1 million dollars here: http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21952&postcount=202

What is worse, is that you phrased everything in the first person, signing off:

"Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa"
__

The fact that you were signed in to this thread as "Unregistered Guest", you did NOT sign your name to the post, and left the readers no way to contact you for confirmation means that it is anonymous.

The fact that you DID sign someone else's name to the post means that your are unscrupulous.

The fact that you chose to put other people's money (if they lose) and reputation (when they "welch" on the bet) at risk shows irresponsibility.

The fact that you didn't notice (or didn't care) that Heiwa had rescinded his offer shows that you are "informationally incompetent" (or "truthiness challenged").

The fact that you did all of this AFTER Heiwa rescinded his offer, and led people to outdated information that had been subsequently contradicted, shows that you are informationally incompetent, irresponsible and unscrupulous.

Hundreds of previous postings have already left no doubt that you are regularly & casually dishonest.

Glad to clear that up for ya.

[bill smith]

bill,




Your typical confusion on display.

I am the guy who consistently picks apart your poor excuses for "arguments" and finds your careless, frivolous disregard for the truth to be reprehensible.

This groupie must be someone else. Probably a figment of your imagination.
__

Regarding the anonymous postings:

Heiwa rescinded his offer of $1 million reward on April 16 in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4623727&postcount=416 when he says: "... No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour."

17 days after he rescinded his offer, you posted (on May 3rd) that he was still offering $1 million dollars here: http://www.rinf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21952&postcount=202

What is worse, is that you phrased everything in the first person, signing off:

"Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa"
__

The fact that you were signed in to this thread as "Unregistered Guest", you did NOT sign your name to the post, and left the readers no way to contact you for confirmation means that it is anonymous.

The fact that you DID sign someone else's name to the post means that your are unscrupulous.

The fact that you chose to put other people's money (if they lose) and reputation (when they "welch" on the bet) at risk shows irresponsibility.

The fact that you didn't notice (or didn't care) that Heiwa had rescinded his offer shows that you are "informationally incompetent" (or "truthiness challenged").

The fact that you did all of this AFTER Heiwa rescinded his offer, and led people to outdated information that had been subsequently contradicted, shows that you are informationally incompetent, irresponsible and unscrupulous.

Hundreds of previous postings have already left no doubt that you are regularly & casually dishonest.

Glad to clear that up for ya.

I was unaware that the financial element of the challenge had been withdrawn and for that I apologise to Heiwa. For the rest your post is pure ad-hominem. As for you being still my very own stalking groupie....well..we shall see.

[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?


Too big of a coward?

[tfk]

I was unaware that the financial element of the challenge had been withdrawn and for that I apologise to Heiwa. For the rest your post is pure ad-hominem. As for you being still my very own stalking groupie....well..we shall see.
.
Gee billy,

I guess the fact that you were did exactly the same thing earlier on two other websites, and that I told you then that he had rescinded the money...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4602624&postcount=275

... just didn't sink in, eh?

"Ad hominem"...?

Nah, just verifiable fact.

[tfk]

I would like to introduce my submission for the Heiwa challenge.

Here is my structure:

Fig 1. Top View

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?pictureid=1023&albumid=194&dl=1241955953&thumb=1

_____

Fig 2. Side View

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?pictureid=1024&albumid=194&dl=1241955953&thumb=1


The structure that I have in mind will have two towers of post-tensioned concrete flat slabs supported on steel columns. So as not to confuse them in discussion with the WTC towers, I will refer to my structures as the "East Tower" and the "West Tower". My towers will be connected by pour strips. Each tower will be a rectangle of roughly 60' x 110' and 12 stories high. The reason for having two towers is that we can also mimic the lateral progression of failure that happened in WTC7. When the West Tower collapses progressively to the ground (mimicking the Towers), the failure will progress laterally, dragging down the East Tower behind it, just like what occurred in WTC7. Modeling like this gives us a "two-fer".

It is my contention that I will be able to drop just one floor (the 12th) by removing one of its two supports, and that the drop of this floor will result in a total progressive collapse of BOTH towers. Moreover, I contend that this collapse will happen in "near free fall time" (perhaps 5 seconds), and each tower will generally fall within the footprint of its original, standing structure.

In my model, the concrete floors are supported by wedges that are permenently welded to the columns. Figure 2 above shows 7 floors of welded supports in the West Tower, and 8 floors in the East Tower. The 8th thru the 11th floors of the West Tower have "damage", i.e., removed floors, that statically mimics the damaged floors in the WTC towers.

Fig 2 shows the equivalent of one collapsed floor (the 8th) resting on Floor 7. This collapsed floor does not cause the slab-to-column supports to fail at Floor 7. The support wedges are able to support the static load. However, as a result of its collapse, there is now a 2.5 story fall possible if the upper slabs (9/10/11th floor) give way. This situation mimics the 3 story columns that were used in the towers. Since those columns failed as units, then the distance that the floors can fall is equivalent to at least 1 column height.

In order to meet the Heiwa Challenge criteria, there will be 12 total stories of concrete slab supported by steel columns. In my model, only ONE story (the 12th) will fail. When the 12th story fails, it drops only a couple of feet, strikes the 3 floor, closely spaced stack (9th thru 11th floors) and all four floors fall approximately 2.5 stories, striking the 7th story. This leads to a prompt failure of the 7th story supports, and a progressive failure of the entire West Tower to the ground.

At the same time, the failure propagates laterally into the East Tower. This entire structure will also be dragged down to the ground in a total collapse. The time for each Tower to collapse alone will be "near free fall time". The time for BOTH towers to collapse will be approximately 5 - 8 seconds.

Heiwa, do you accept that this assembly meets your criteria?

tom

[bill smith]

I would like to introduce my submission for the Heiwa challenge.

Here is my structure:

Fig 1. Top View

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?pictureid=1023&albumid=194&dl=1241955953&thumb=1

_____

Fig 2. Side View

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?pictureid=1024&albumid=194&dl=1241955953&thumb=1


The structure that I have in mind will have two towers of post-tensioned concrete flat slabs supported on steel columns. So as not to confuse them in discussion with the WTC towers, I will refer to my structures as the "East Tower" and the "West Tower". My towers will be connected by pour strips. Each tower will be a rectangle of roughly 60' x 110' and 12 stories high. The reason for having two towers is that we can also mimic the lateral progression of failure that happened in WTC7. When the West Tower collapses progressively to the ground (mimicking the Towers), the failure will progress laterally, dragging down the East Tower behind it, just like what occurred in WTC7. Modeling like this gives us a "two-fer".

It is my contention that I will be able to drop just one floor (the 12th) by removing one of its two supports, and that the drop of this floor will result in a total progressive collapse of BOTH towers. Moreover, I contend that this collapse will happen in "near free fall time" (perhaps 5 seconds), and each tower will generally fall within the footprint of its original, standing structure.

In my model, the concrete floors are supported by wedges that are permenently welded to the columns. Figure 2 above shows 7 floors of welded supports in the West Tower, and 8 floors in the East Tower. The 8th thru the 11th floors of the West Tower have "damage", i.e., removed floors, that statically mimics the damaged floors in the WTC towers.

Fig 2 shows the equivalent of one collapsed floor (the 8th) resting on Floor 7. This collapsed floor does not cause the slab-to-column supports to fail at Floor 7. The support wedges are able to support the static load. However, as a result of its collapse, there is now a 2.5 story fall possible if the upper slabs (9/10/11th floor) give way. This situation mimics the 3 story columns that were used in the towers. Since those columns failed as units, then the distance that the floors can fall is equivalent to at least 1 column height.

In order to meet the Heiwa Challenge criteria, there will be 12 total stories of concrete slab supported by steel columns. In my model, only ONE story (the 12th) will fail. When the 12th story fails, it drops only a couple of feet, strikes the 3 floor, closely spaced stack (9th thru 11th floors) and all four floors fall approximately 2.5 stories, striking the 7th story. This leads to a prompt failure of the 7th story supports, and a progressive failure of the entire West Tower to the ground.

At the same time, the failure propagates laterally into the East Tower. This entire structure will also be dragged down to the ground in a total collapse. The time for each Tower to collapse alone will be "near free fall time". The time for BOTH towers to collapse will be approximately 5 - 8 seconds.

Heiwa, do you accept that this assembly meets your criteria?

tom

Will you link Figs 1 and 2 again T. ?

[tfk]

Will you link Figs 1 and 2 again T. ?
For you?

no.

If someone else requests it, I'll be happy to.

[Heiwa]

I would like to introduce my submission for the Heiwa challenge.


Heiwa, do you accept that this assembly meets your criteria?

tom

Why not? Another challenger! Welcome! The horizontal elements - the slabs - must be permanently connected to the vertical supports and the structure must pass the lateral test.

The wedges introduce a third type of elements in the structure and are apparently connected to the vertical supports or horizontal slabs some way.

You must record the number of connections between separate elements and all elements in the structure part A (both towers) (as 70% of all connections or elements must be broken for a successful crush down).

Tip - calculate the strain energy required to break 70% of all connections or elements of part A and ensure that part A and part C has the available potential energy to break those and, very important, the capability to apply the energy/forces to break the connections or elements of part A during test in the sequence and manner you foresee.

Note that the upper part C should include 10% of all elements in the structure, e.g. one slab, 10% of all supports and wedges, etc.

Good luck!

[bill smith]

For you?

no.

If someone else requests it, I'll be happy to.

Calm down T. I'll check back from time to time. Hows that ? I only want to play devil's advocate with your model.

[tfk]

Why not? Another challenger! Welcome! The horizontal elements - the slabs - must be permanently connected to the vertical supports and the structure must pass the lateral test.

The wedges introduce a third type of elements in the structure and are apparently connected to the vertical supports or horizontal slabs some way.

You must record the number of connections between separate elements and all elements in the structure part A (both towers) (as 70% of all connections or elements must be broken for a successful crush down).

Tip - calculate the strain energy required to break 70% of all connections or elements of part A and ensure that part A and part C has the available potential energy to break those and, very important, the capability to apply the energy/forces to break the connections or elements of part A during test in the sequence and manner you foresee.

Note that the upper part C should include 10% of all elements in the structure, e.g. one slab, 10% of all supports and wedges, etc.

Good luck!
.

I have, in essence, produced a model of the towers after ONE set of vertical beams in the initial collapse zone (Part D, that you don't recognize) has failed.

There will be 24 columns per tower, located on the intersections of each A thru H line and 1 thru 13 line shown in the Top View (figure 1 above). Each permanent support has two angle bracket at each column which will welded to each column, and support each concrete floor from below. When the steel wedges are used on the upper floors, there will be two wedges per column that will FIRST be loaded (so that they are well seated) and then tack-welded to the column.

I need to be able to simulate floor to column connections that are weakened by BOTH fire temperatures AND column & floor deformations. This is the job of the wedges. The steel wedges are jammed (from below) between the floors and the columns. Regenerative friction causes them to lock into place. The heavier the loads, the harder the wedges lock the floors. Once they have taken up the load of the floors, they are then tack-welded to the columns. This simulates a connection that, while solid, is not quite as strong as the permanent supports. And therefore model the connections that were weakened on the fire floors of the WTC.

In the WTC towers, we had at least 6 stories that were weakened by fire. All of these floors were in danger of failure. If/when they did fail, all of their weight was available as a downward moving mass to propagate a progressive collapse to the ground.

When I start the collapse, I'll be pulling one of the two wedges on the 12th floor. This will cause that floor to drop a couple of feet. This will cause the other 3 closely spaced floor slabs to let go, one after the other. Note that in my model, I am being conservative again by not having the floors "free fall" between these collisions, and thereby gather up lots of momentum. The weight alone will be causing the progressive failure. Then these slabs will fall approximately 2.5 stories onto the 7th floor.

In essence, this is a much LESS challenging failure, because I have eliminated the upper skeleton of Part C, that effectively punches holes in the lower structure by concentrating the weight onto low area "spikes". I am simply providing the weight of the 3 upper stories onto the lower stories. In addition, I am also eliminating the weight of 12 stories of Part C. The point is that, once the upper segments have successfully destroyed the eight stories below, the momentum of the descending mass will be so great that it will automatically go all the way to the ground.

You have said, Heiwa, that it doesn't matter how far the upper segment falls. I'm having it fall ONE column height - 3 stories. (Actually a little less, 2.5 stories). And I am only using the mass of the upper concrete floors. Again, conservative because I have not included the live load / contents of the structure.

Does this model match your requirements?

tom

[Heiwa]

.

I have, in essence, produced a model of the towers after ONE set of vertical beams in the initial collapse zone (Part D, that you don't recognize) has failed.

There will be 24 columns per tower, located on the intersections of each A thru H line and 1 thru 13 line shown in the Top View (figure 1 above). Each permanent support has two angle bracket at each column which will welded to each column, and support each concrete floor from below. When the steel wedges are used on the upper floors, there will be two wedges per column that will FIRST be loaded (so that they are well seated) and then tack-welded to the column.

I need to be able to simulate floor to column connections that are weakened by BOTH fire temperatures AND column & floor deformations. This is the job of the wedges. The steel wedges are jammed (from below) between the floors and the columns. Regenerative friction causes them to lock into place. The heavier the loads, the harder the wedges lock the floors. Once they have taken up the load of the floors, they are then tack-welded to the columns. This simulates a connection that, while solid, is not quite as strong as the permanent supports. And therefore model the connections that were weakened on the fire floors of the WTC.

In the WTC towers, we had at least 6 stories that were weakened by fire. All of these floors were in danger of failure. If/when they did fail, all of their weight was available as a downward moving mass to propagate a progressive collapse to the ground.

When I start the collapse, I'll be pulling one of the two wedges on the 12th floor. This will cause that floor to drop a couple of feet. This will cause the other 3 closely spaced floor slabs to let go, one after the other. Note that in my model, I am being conservative again by not having the floors "free fall" between these collisions, and thereby gather up lots of momentum. The weight alone will be causing the progressive failure. Then these slabs will fall approximately 2.5 stories onto the 7th floor.

In essence, this is a much LESS challenging failure, because I have eliminated the upper skeleton of Part C, that effectively punches holes in the lower structure by concentrating the weight onto low area "spikes". I am simply providing the weight of the 3 upper stories onto the lower stories. In addition, I am also eliminating the weight of 12 stories of Part C. The point is that, once the upper segments have successfully destroyed the eight stories below, the momentum of the descending mass will be so great that it will automatically go all the way to the ground.

You have said, Heiwa, that it doesn't matter how far the upper segment falls. I'm having it fall ONE column height - 3 stories. (Actually a little less, 2.5 stories). And I am only using the mass of the upper concrete floors. Again, conservative because I have not included the live load / contents of the structure.

Does this model match your requirements?

tom

First I cannot read your drawings - too small. But it seems your structure will just pancake - horizontal elements may break their connections to the supports and the supports will remain intact. How many elements do your structure consist of? 24 vertical supports, 10-11 horizontal slabs, 240/264 connections/wedges?

Do not forget the lateral test.

Then you cut the supports below the top slab and let it + 24 pieces of support drop ... on the top slab below ... or on the support stubs? What is going to contact what?

If breakage of 24 connections per slab will take place simultaneously due to gravity is not certain. Result may be unsymmetrical and the gravity force(s) will shift out of your required path leaving connections intact.

Suggest you make bigger drawings; then try to visualize the first structural failure(s) at first impact, then check what element(s) get loose, where they move and what failure(s) they will produce, etc, etc.

If the 24 support elements of part A are not broken, then your structure fails the Challenge. Result may only be 10/11 slabs piled up on top of each other on ground, 24 intact support elements falling besides, also on ground, and 240/264 weak connections broken. Actually all support elements are undamaged - just connections are broken.

Reason is that gravity did not apply any load on the vertical supports, just broke the connections between slabs and supports.

But maybe you can come up with some crush down that also breaks the supports in pieces?

[GlennB]

If the 24 support elements of part A are not broken, then your structure fails the Challenge. Result may only be 10/11 slabs piled up on top of each other on ground, 24 intact support elements falling besides, also on ground, and 240/264 weak connections broken. Actually all support elements are undamaged - just connections are broken.


My bolding.

When will you stop lying Heiwa? Your conditions are available in the OP ...

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.

Breakage of the elements is not a requirement, just disconnection. Now you're saying that disconnection is not good enough? Shame on you. Lying is bad enough, but lying repeatedly in print, in public, is also very stupid. It's so easy to expose.

[tfk]

First I cannot read your drawings - too small. But it seems your structure will just pancake - horizontal elements may break their connections to the supports and the supports will remain intact. How many elements do your structure consist of? 24 vertical supports, 10-11 horizontal slabs, 240/264 connections/wedges?

Do not forget the lateral test.

Then you cut the supports below the top slab and let it + 24 pieces of support drop ... on the top slab below ... or on the support stubs? What is going to contact what?

If breakage of 24 connections per slab will take place simultaneously due to gravity is not certain. Result may be unsymmetrical and the gravity force(s) will shift out of your required path leaving connections intact.

Suggest you make bigger drawings; then try to visualize the first structural failure(s) at first impact, then check what element(s) get loose, where they move and what failure(s) they will produce, etc, etc.

If the 24 support elements of part A are not broken, then your structure fails the Challenge. Result may only be 10/11 slabs piled up on top of each other on ground, 24 intact support elements falling besides, also on ground, and 240/264 weak connections broken. Actually all support elements are undamaged - just connections are broken.

Reason is that gravity did not apply any load on the vertical supports, just broke the connections between slabs and supports.

But maybe you can come up with some crush down that also breaks the supports in pieces?
.

Of course it will "pancake".

What do you think that the Towers did?

Pancake is a progressive collapse to the ground, started by a smaller piece (Part C) destroying a larger part (Part A), one section at a time, where Part C is 1/4th of total structure.

You are the one that said that "broken parts lose their ability to crush down other parts".

What happened to (snicker) Heiwas's axiom: "smaller part cannot crush down bigger part".

Why all the qualifications all of a sudden...?

tk

[Heiwa]

.

Of course it will "pancake".

What do you think that the Towers did?

Pancake is a progressive collapse to the ground, started by a smaller piece (Part C) destroying a larger part (Part A), one section at a time, where Part C is 1/4th of total structure.

You are the one that said that "broken parts lose their ability to crush down other parts".

What happened to (snicker) Heiwas's axiom: "smaller part cannot crush down bigger part".

Why all the qualifications all of a sudden...?

tk

The Towers didn't pancake. They were one-way crushed down and this is what the Heiwa Challenge is about.

[Heiwa]

My bolding.

When will you stop lying Heiwa? Your conditions are available in the OP ...

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.

Breakage of the elements is not a requirement, just disconnection. Now you're saying that disconnection is not good enough? Shame on you. Lying is bad enough, but lying repeatedly in print, in public, is also very stupid. It's so easy to expose.

Yes, you read the conditions right. Try to disconnect 70% of the elements in part A by gravity only using the pancake method as per pfk. There are 34 elements or so - 24 should be completely disconnected, e.g. all the supports.
For that all 240 connections must be broken. Just do that!

[tfk]

The Towers didn't pancake. They were one-way crushed down and this is what the Heiwa Challenge is about.
.

I am NOT talking about "collapse initiation". I am talking about the collapse propagation.

Please provide YOUR distinction between "crushed down" and "pancaked".

tom

[bill smith]

.

I am NOT talking about "collapse initiation". I am talking about the collapse propagation.

Please provide YOUR distinction between "crushed down" and "pancaked".

tom

As I see it a ' pancake' collapse is one where the floors fall like s series of spaced records on a spindle. One breakiing the next off the spindle from he top dpwn. You end up with an upright spindle and a stack of floors around it at the bottom. A 'Crush Down' is a sequence in which the spindle is also somehow crushed floor-by-floor from the top down leavng only wreckage on the ground.

[GlennB]

As I see it a ' pancake' collapse is one where the floors fall like s series of spaced records on a spindle. One breakiing the next off the spindle from he top dpwn. You end up with an upright spindle and a stack of floors around it at the bottom. A 'Crush Down' is a sequence in which the spindle is also somehow crushed floor-by-floor from the top down leavng only wreckage on the ground.

Not a totally bad description, imo, though you're showing your age I would say. What with stacked vinyl on a record player, and all.....

Heiwa, however, is utterly fixated* on the exact terminology of "crush-down" models that were never intended to describe the actual collapse mechanism but merely to analyse a limiting case, i.e. that most favourable to collapse arrest.

* to the extent of offering $1,000,000 of his own money.

[tfk]

As I see it a ' pancake' collapse is one where the floors fall like s series of spaced records on a spindle. One breakiing the next off the spindle from he top dpwn. You end up with an upright spindle and a stack of floors around it at the bottom. A 'Crush Down' is a sequence in which the spindle is also somehow crushed floor-by-floor from the top down leavng only wreckage on the ground.
Ah, you think the survival of the spindle distinguishes the two...?

I'll wait for Heiwa's response. Perhaps it'll make more sense.

Then again...

[bill smith]

Ah, you think the survival of the spindle distinguishes the two...?

I'll wait for Heiwa's response. Perhaps it'll make more sense.

Then again...

I think you said this in a recent post. 'Of course it will "pancake". So how about you describe what you mean by 'pancaking' considering that NIST ruled out the 'pancake effect'

[phunk]

I think you said this in a recent post. 'Of course it will "pancake". So how about you describe what you mean by 'pancaking' considering that NIST ruled out the 'pancake effect'

No, what NIST ruled out is pancaking of the floors being the initial trigger of the global collapse.

[bill smith]

No, what NIST ruled out is pancaking of the floors being the initial trigger of the global collapse.Pancaking is a floor dropping on a floor and then those two dropping on the floor below etc all the way down. A Crush Down is an overbearing weight on top crushing everyhing in it's path as it comes to it. So do NIST support pancaking ?

[BigAl]

Pancaking is a floor dropping on a floor and then those two dropping on the floor below etc all the way down. A Crush Down is an overbearing weight on top crushing everyhng in it's path as it comes to it. So do NIST support pancaking ?

So what? Do you claim that any differences between of any of the theories for exactly how fire caused the WTC towers to collapse can be explained by the addition of man-made demolition charges?

[bill smith]

They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.

[Newtons Bit]

They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the buildng. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.

You really don't understand much about dynamics do you?

The WTC had a period of about 11seconds. Which means that if some force caused the building to displacement some distance it would take 11 seconds for the building to cycle through maximum displacement and then back to it's original displacement.

The structure will then continue vibrating, though each cycle will have a maximum displacement reduced by the damping of the structure. For the WTC, the damping ratio is about 3% for elastic displacements of the moment frame.

It takes quite awhile to damp out this much motion.

I know you'll never do it, but I still recommend that you go get a very fundamental education in physics and engineering. This stuff is trivial. Pretending to know something about it when you obviously don't must be incredibly embarrassing for you. Though, like most truthers, I don't think shame is an emotion you're vulnerable to.

[jhunter1163]

They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.

How much does a .45 slug weigh in comparison to a human body?

[bill smith]

You really don't understand much about dynamics do you?

The WTC had a period of about 11seconds. Which means that if some force caused the building to displacement some distance it would take 11 seconds for the building to cycle through maximum displacement and then back to it's original displacement.

The structure will then continue vibrating, though each cycle will have a maximum displacement reduced by the damping of the structure. For the WTC, the damping ratio is about 3% for elastic displacements of the moment frame.

It takes quite awhile to damp out this much motion.

I know you'll never do it, but I still recommend that you go get a very fundamental education in physics and engineering. This stuff is trivial. Pretending to know something about it when you obviously don't must be incredibly embarrassing for you. Though, like most truthers, I don't think shame is an emotion you're vulnerable to.

Don't worry about it too much.Others will no doubt pay heed to your words on the matter. Or they will use their own heads like me.

[stateofgrace]

The Towers didn't pancake.

Wrong.

They were one-way crushed downWrong.

and this is what the Heiwa Challenge is about.And this is why your challenge is complete nonsense.

[beachnut]

They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
IF you could do math and physics you would understand and you could calculate that. Sad all you do is post lies, hearsay and delusional twaddle from 911Truth sites.

The impacts were equal in energy to 1300 pounds and 2000 pounds of TNT.

qYLYAa4LxAY
Like the energy of this blast!

[MIKILLINI]

Don't worry about it too much.Others will no doubt pay heed to your words on the matter. Or they will use their own heads like me.

Translation: I know nothing of damping, so it means nothing.

[tsig]

Don't worry about it too much.Others will no doubt pay heed to your words on the matter. Or they will use their own heads like me.

I don't think so. Running full tilt into a brick wall with your head down is not everyone's cup of tea.

[Dave Rogers]

Or they will use their own heads like me.

Before employing a piece of apparatus, it's best to check it's in working condition.

Dave

[Heiwa]

.

I am NOT talking about "collapse initiation". I am talking about the collapse propagation.

Please provide YOUR distinction between "crushed down" and "pancaked".

tom

See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.

[Jackanory]

See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.

And the humoring continues

[nicepants]

So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.


[Announcer voice] Tell them what they win!

[tsig]

[Announcer voice] Tell them what they win!

Take your pick:

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=moz2&va=blue+footed+booby+bird&sz=all

[Minadin]

How much does a .45 slug weigh in comparison to a human body?

It weighs about 13g or 0.5oz, depending on which system you use, while your average human is 75kg or 165lbs. So, that's roughly a .00017 ratio.

[jhunter1163]

It weighs about 13g or 0.5oz, depending on which system you use, while your average human is 75kg or 165lbs. So, that's roughly a .00017 ratio.

So a .45 slug weighs one-sixth of one-tenth of one percent as much as a human being. How could something like that possibly hurt a human being? :rolleyes:

[tfk]

Pancaking is a floor dropping on a floor and then those two dropping on the floor below etc all the way down. A Crush Down is an overbearing weight on top crushing everyhing in it's path as it comes to it. So do NIST support pancaking ?
Yup.

Didn't think you knew what you were talking about.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[tfk]

See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.
Once again, I asked you to provide YOUR definition of the ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between "pancaking" & "crush down".

Please don't answer different questions.

[tfk]

[Announcer voice] Tell them what they win!
That only works if Don Pardo says it...

:D

tom

[bill smith]

Yup.

Didn't think you knew what you were talking about.

Thanks for the confirmation.

The best thing is just for me to wait for Heiwa to educate you. I will be interested to see where I am wrong. I hope that you are not dealing in your usual semantics though.

[Heiwa]

Once again, I asked you to provide YOUR definition of the ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between "pancaking" & "crush down".

Please don't answer different questions.

But I just did! Pancaking is, apparently, when one element in a structure gets loose and drops and contacts another identical element that also gets loose; the two identical elements then apparently fuse, drop and contact a third identical element that gets loose. The loose elements fuse, drop and contact a fourth identical element that gets loose, and so on. At the end of pancaking - when a pile of pancaked elements hits the ground - apparently these loose, identical elements are crushed up (!) by the ground. The rest of the structural elements are not affected by pancaking.

Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A). The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C. The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A. If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A and as part A previously carried part C, the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A. That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

The Heiwa Challenge is to provide a structure (C+A) that doesn't follow the above description of a crush down. Conditions are in post #1.

[tfk]

The best thing is just for me to wait for Heiwa to educate you. I will be interested to see where I am wrong. I hope that you are not dealing in your usual semantics though.
.

The "best thing" would be for you to stop trying to pass off your usual uninformed blather as tho it were anything but nonsense.

... like THAT's ever gonna happen...

[GlennB]

The Heiwa Challenge is to provide a structure (C+A) that doesn't follow
the above description of a crush down. Conditions are in post #1.

Apart from when you contradicted your own "conditions" by stating that the structural elements needed to themselves be broken, not merely disconnected.

[oldhat]

I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

lBuH8NNIBys

[bill smith]

I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

lBuH8NNIBys

I thought that was very good. He got his point across nicely.

[Heiwa]

Apart from when you contradicted your own "conditions" by stating that the structural elements needed to themselves be broken, not merely disconnected.

Actually, a connection in a structure is another element! It is up to the designer of the structure that can one-way crush down and win The Heiwa Challenge to decide whether the elements or their connections (other elements) are broken to provide the required result, i.e. that part C crushes part A. Anybody familiar with structural design and static and dynamic analysis of intact and partly damaged structures knows of course that this is impossible but maybe we are wrong?

I have asked NIST to provide a standard for a structure that can one-way crush down! Reason is of course to ensure that such structures are not used in, e.g. buildings. Safety first is my motto.

[oldhat]

I thought that was very good. He got his point across nicely.

This is why you're a Truther and I am not.

[tfk]

Please explain how you distinguish "pancake failure" from "crush down failure".

.

But I just did!


You did nothing of the sort.

When I am asked "what is the difference between A & B", my answer will have in it phrases such as:

"A is ___ ." And "B is ___ ." The main differences between A and B are ___ ."

In your post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4710195#post4710195 , there is nothing that even remotely resembles these phrases.

BTW, it is a secret to nobody that evasion is simply a game you play. I've asked you at least 5 times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer as to whether or not you were paying $1M for your challenge. You gave at least 4 separate replies - NONE of which said simply "yes" or "no".

Your evasion is not endearing. It's not clever. It doesn't win you points. And it has apparently become such a habit with you that you don't even recognize it any more.


Pancaking is, apparently, when one element in a structure gets loose and drops and contacts another identical element that also gets loose; the two identical elements then apparently fuse, drop and contact a third identical element that gets loose. The loose elements fuse, drop and contact a fourth identical element that gets loose, and so on. At the end of pancaking - when a pile of pancaked elements hits the ground - apparently these loose, identical elements are crushed up (!) by the ground. The rest of the structural elements are not affected by pancaking.


Perhaps my monitor is broken. But there are no words that come close to resembling these in any previous post to me.

Second, your "apparent" definition above is wrong.

Or, I should say, "OK, I accept this as YOUR personal definition." It's as silly as all get-out. No two objects are ever "identical". Short of the center of suns and nuclear weapons, few things truly "fuse". I've seen lots of structures that have collapsed, even several that have been described as "having pancaked". Not one of them has ever had "the rest of the structural elements unaffected by the pancaking".

The reality is that "pancaking" is a poorly defined, non-specific term. And none of your silly qualifiers are part of any "accepted definition" of the term.

Here, for example, is a structural engineer who (in Figure 6, pg 5) describes a "pancake collapse" of a concrete structure that possesses none of the qualifiers that you attempt to apply "pancake". And it precisely meets your definition of "crush down".
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT16/B1263.PDF

Here's an architect who uses a generic definition of pancake that most architects & engineers would accept. Notice that this definition also possesses NONE of your qualifiers.
"Once the steel structure “softened” and deflected under the weight from the floors above, a pancake collapse occurred as one floor fell on to the next floor, each lower floor’s structural system unable to bear the sudden weight of the upper floors dropping on it."
http://www.freestone-inc.com/pubs/Skyscraper_Collapse.pdf


Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A). The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C. The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A. If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A and as part A previously carried part C, the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A. That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.


And, in a similar fashion, your definition of "crush down" is yours & yours alone. And makes ZERO sense to any REAL mechanical engineer.

But thank you for FINALLY printing it out. It makes it much easier to pick it apart. (Of course, we all know that this is precisely why you so diligently avoid answering questions.

So let's start picking...


Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), ...


"... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??


... drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A).


"... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."


The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C.


Very sloppy phraseology.

"The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."


The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A.


Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."


If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A


And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.


and as part A previously carried part C,


No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.


the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A.


Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.


That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.


This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

[GlennB]

Actually, a connection in a structure is another element!

Have you only just realised this? Oh dear.

[bill smith]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

[tfk]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.
If you were capable of understanding, you'd recognize that no "part 2" is necessary.

Since he - FINALLY - defined his terms, the demolition of his "theory" and his "world famous axiom" is trivial.

[bill smith]

If you were capable of understanding, you'd recognize that no "part 2" is necessary.

Since he - FINALLY - defined his terms, the demolition of his "theory" and his "world famous axiom" is trivial.

It woulldn't matter if it was neccessary or not with you T. You like the sound of your own voice and can regurgitate like this indefinately. I have seen posts like this from you having three parts. As you know I generally emasculate them in a couple of lines. Brief and concise is best.

[Heiwa]

.


You did nothing of the sort.

When I am asked "what is the difference between A & B", my answer will have in it phrases such as:

"A is ___ ." And "B is ___ ." The main differences between A and B are ___ ."

In your post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4710195#post4710195 , there is nothing that even remotely resembles these phrases.

BTW, it is a secret to nobody that evasion is simply a game you play. I've asked you at least 5 times for a simple "yes" or "no" answer as to whether or not you were paying $1M for your challenge. You gave at least 4 separate replies - NONE of which said simply "yes" or "no".

Your evasion is not endearing. It's not clever. It doesn't win you points. And it has apparently become such a habit with you that you don't even recognize it any more.



Perhaps my monitor is broken. But there are no words that come close to resembling these in any previous post to me.

Second, your "apparent" definition above is wrong.

Or, I should say, "OK, I accept this as YOUR personal definition." It's as silly as all get-out. No two objects are ever "identical". Short of the center of suns and nuclear weapons, few things truly "fuse". I've seen lots of structures that have collapsed, even several that have been described as "having pancaked". Not one of them has ever had "the rest of the structural elements unaffected by the pancaking".

The reality is that "pancaking" is a poorly defined, non-specific term. And none of your silly qualifiers are part of any "accepted definition" of the term.

Here, for example, is a structural engineer who (in Figure 6, pg 5) describes a "pancake collapse" of a concrete structure that possesses none of the qualifiers that you attempt to apply "pancake". And it precisely meets your definition of "crush down".
http://www.iasmirt.org/SMiRT16/B1263.PDF

Here's an architect who uses a generic definition of pancake that most architects & engineers would accept. Notice that this definition also possesses NONE of your qualifiers.
"Once the steel structure “softened” and deflected under the weight from the floors above, a pancake collapse occurred as one floor fell on to the next floor, each lower floor’s structural system unable to bear the sudden weight of the upper floors dropping on it."
http://www.freestone-inc.com/pubs/Skyscraper_Collapse.pdf



And, in a similar fashion, your definition of "crush down" is yours & yours alone. And makes ZERO sense to any REAL mechanical engineer.

But thank you for FINALLY printing it out. It makes it much easier to pick it apart. (Of course, we all know that this is precisely why you so diligently avoid answering questions.

So let's start picking...



"... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??



"... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."



Very sloppy phraseology.

"The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."



Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."



And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.



No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.



Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.



This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: tk , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Then I will clarify.

[Typicallucas]

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!

Here is my entry to the challenge:

WrUiPGwOReM

Video description:
The collapse starts at 0:40!

Using the game Armadillo Run I created a simplified simulation of the WTC 1/2 collapse scenario.

The structure is built to support itself and withstand a reasonable amount of live load applied laterally or vertically. The building will just sway nicely and will even take several rocket strikes without failing. Since the members are all slightly elastic the thing bounces a little... that is why the top section is delayed 12 seconds or so to let the bottom section settle.

As you can see the kinetic energy that the top section gains due to gravity is enough to overwhelm the entire structure beneath it resulting in complete and total collapse.

The structure is 39 stories tall, the top 3 stories are dropped from just over a height of 1 story (due to settling.) If the top section is dropped from a higher point the destruction is even more dramatic.

Similar to the WTC this simulation is more heavily reinforced at the bottom of the structure, getting lighter and less reinforced the higher up you go. This reduces the dead load and the reinforcement is not necessary at the top of the building to maintain integrity.

You can compare from the falling ball, the top of the structure falls very close to freefall. (both falling with the in-game gravity acceleration)

Note that this simulation is very limited.

I believe this meets the challenge criteria and passed. How do you respond?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUiPGwOReM

[Typicallucas]

FIXED: A demonstration of the strength of the structure.
ue5DBHRMbqM
Video Description:
Demonstration of the strength of the structure in the collapse video. It withstands 15 rocket strikes, debris falling from above, and an armadillo strike. All before collapsing on the 18th rocket.

Notice that the foundation gets blown out on both sides, too.

[tfk]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: tk , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Then I will clarify.
.

Are you proud of your ability to ask dumb, irrelevant questions, in multiple languages?

Every single one of my arguments has been based upon solid, transparent engineering.

And, unlike you, I've responded to every issue. Simply & directly.

BTW, are you offering $1 million for a successful defeat of the "Heiwa Challenge"?

tk

PS. I'm an engineer. And an atheist. "Religion" has no bearing on anything.

[FineWine]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.


Some of us noticed that your crackpot hero just got pulverized, smashed, blown out of the water, annihilated, etc.

[FineWine]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: tk , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Then I will clarify.



Great. A real engineer exposes you as an uncomprehending fraud and you babble incoherently. Your mindless worshippers must be quaking.

[MIKILLINI]

Watch out Heiwa- I wouldn''t be a bit surprised if part two is on the way.

Bill, you consider damping as a light rain, so don't worry about it.

[Heiwa]

.


So let's start picking...



1. "... gets loose ..."

Do you mean, as in "... is ripped apart by the destruction of thousands of buckled & ruptured components. A destruction that completely eliminates the structural integrity of several of the top floors of the bottom part & several of the bottom floors of the top part". ??

That sort of "gets loose"??



2. "... drops & contacts ..."

Do you mean "... contacts ..." as in "50,000 tons falls 12 feet and the shredded wreckage of the upper part violently & chaotically slams into the shredded wreckage of the lower part ..."?

That sort of "... drops & contacts ..."



Very sloppy phraseology.

3. "The collision of parts C & A results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C."



Wrong.

You've said nothing about elastic or plastic deformation, or of the coefficient of restitution, which determines whether the part "bounces".

Correct: "... if no element breaks, the collapse will arrest."



4. And this is unmitigated horse-pucky.

There is absolutely NO engineering theory that requires that the parts that break will be the weakest element in either part. The chance of "the weakest element in parts C & A" actually colliding are slim and none.

The CORRECT engineering theories are those of impact and fracture mechanics as applied to THOSE COMPONENTS IN THE TWO PARTS THAT ACTUALLY COLLIDE. The theories are based on the works of AA Griffith, Irwin, Cauchy, James Rice & others.

These are precisely the concepts that were embodied in Ryan Mackey's explanation of two parameter (stress & strain energy) failure analysis (which he applied to the wing of the plane fracturing the peripheral columns of the towers.

FRACTURE MECHANICS is verified engineering practice. Your nonsense is unmitigated tripe.



5. No sir. Part A did NOT previously carry part C.

Because Part A IS NO LONGER "Part A". Prior to the initiation of global collapse, Part A WAS a symmetrical, well built, firmly cross-braced structure. After the initiation of global collapse, Part A is a shredded mess, with it's several top floors' structural components asymmetric, weak & unbraced.

And these several upper floors' structural members are capable of supporting 1/100th to 1/1,000th the load that they were able to support PRIOR to the initiation of collapse, when they were properly aligned & cross braced.

THIS IS EXACTLY where your nonsense axiom collapses.



Unmitigated crap.

Which components fail is, again, determined by REAL engineering fracture theory. Which components fail is completely dependent upon which specific components happen to collide.

6. There is absolutely no theory that says Part C will fail because it was held up by Part A.



This is your delusion resulting from your abject failure to understand or apply real engineering to this problem.

tk

1. Part C is assumed to displace downwards = gets loose.
2. Part C therefore drops and contacts part A.
3. Evidently forces develop between parts C and A at contact!
4. When two elements come in contact and the forces developing exceed what the weakest element can transmit, the weakest element fails.
5. Oh yes, part A previously carried part C. And part A will destroy part C prior part C destroys part A. Easy to show with proper structural damage analysis, incl. fracture analysis. Plenty of energy required to fracture an element in overload. And to fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred.
6. This is the result if you apply proper structural damage analysis.

[KreeL]

Well, it appears part 2 is not forthcoming since part one got neutered.:o

[bill smith]

Let me ask YOU a simple question!

Now tell, how do you do it with the religion? Or in original: tk , nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Religion?

Then I will clarify.

This is an interesting correspondence between Frank Greening and Steven Jones (and others). Maybe Bazant will join in ?

http://truhst.com/blog-news/steven-jones-and-frank-greening-and-others-correspond-april-may-2009

[tfk]

It woulldn't matter if it was neccessary or not with you T. You like the sound of your own voice and can regurgitate like this indefinately. I have seen posts like this from you having three parts. As you know I generally emasculate them in a couple of lines. Brief and concise is best.
.
Sure, bill. Whatever you say.

BTW, one of the last times you pranced around like this, I then asked you to calculate the volume of a thin walled cylinder. You were not able to do so. Have you learned how yet?

Then I asked you to calculate the weight of a certain volume of aluminum. I gave you the volume & the density of aluminum, but you were unable to calculate the weight. Have you figured out how to do that yet?

Here's a hint for ya, bill: "Hell, I don't know nuthin' bout no 'rithmaticin'!" does NOT constitute an "emasculating argument" amongst techies.

You keep prancin' there, bill. It's fun to watch.

[tfk]

Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom

[tfk]

Well, it appears part 2 is not forthcoming since part one got neutered.:o
.
Patience, child.

:rolleyes:

tom

[ElMondoHummus]

Jesus... Heiwa hasn't been slapped around like this since Architect and a few others handled him last year. I'm impressed with Tom's posts.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom

I thought you didn't know German and I am right*. I look forward to your structure! You'll be challenger #3. The two firsts failed. Glück auf!

*Heiwa is not feminim.

[bill smith]

Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom

You should have paid more attention to your German classics when you were at school T. Then you might understand the meaning of the expression.

Are you going to hang your reputation as an engineer on that post ?....and I would like an answer to that question please

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom

I thought you didn't know German and I am right*.

*Heiwa is not feminim.

1. I don't speak German.

2. I don't speak Japanese either, which, you've informed us, is the origin of the word "Heiwa".

3. But, when I wrote "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?" & its English translation, you thought that my emphasis was on the GERMAN words...?

Well, that may explain a lot. After all, engineering is not likely to be a successful career path for an unobservant person...

tom

[Heiwa]

1. I don't speak German.

2. I don't speak Japanese either, which, you've informed us, is the origin of the word "Heiwa".

3. But, when I wrote "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?" & its English translation, you thought that my emphasis was on the GERMAN words...?

Well, that may explain a lot. After all, engineering is not likely to be a successful career path for an unobservant person...

tom

1. Ok, nobody is perfect.
2. Ditto.
3. Grammer counts.
So what? Is your career unobservant? Pls, just produce a structure that one-way crushes down and you are a winner. So far you are not.

[HeyLeroy]

3. Grammer counts.


What about spelling? :D

[Typicallucas]

Here is my entry to the challenge:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrUiPGwOReM

I believe this meets the challenge criteria and passed. Heiwa, how do you respond?

[GlennB]

I thought you didn't know German and I am right*.

*Heiwa is not feminim.

I could have sworn he said der Heiwa. Isn't der a masculine article? Der, die, das..... und so weiter.

[Typicallucas]

I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys

Can you imagine if structural engineers designed high rise buildings by stacking office supplies and saying to each other "Gentlemen, in-boxes stacked on top of each other can withstand the impact of in-boxes dropped on it. This design looks good."

Absolutely moronic.

[tfk]

Are you going to hang your reputation as an engineer on that post ?....and I would like an answer to that question please

.
Bill,

You really don't understand very much about people. It makes me think that you are more like 15 years old than in your 20s.

You live a flippant, insincere existence, bill. You lie casually and effortlessly. You accuse & insult without concern. And your reputation as a buffoon matters not one whit to you.

As difficult as it may be to imagine, there are people in the world who take things seriously. Most professionals are like that, and get in the habit of speaking carefully, accurately, and seriously when they speak of matters within their field.

And, for serious people, that habit carries over even to anonymous opinion sites like this one.

So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering.

You should try posting sometime as though something mattered. It'll be a brand new experience for you.

But, the probability is extreme that you'll simply keep "LoLing" your way thru life.

[bill smith]

.
Bill,

You really don't understand very much about people. It makes me think that you are more like 15 years old than in your 20s.

You live a flippant, insincere existence, bill. You lie casually and effortlessly. You accuse & insult without concern. And your reputation as a buffoon matters not one whit to you.

As difficult as it may be to imagine, there are people in the world who take things seriously. Most professionals are like that, and get in the habit of speaking carefully, accurately, and seriously when they speak of matters within their field.

And, for serious people, that habit carries over even to anonymous opinion sites like this one.

So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering.

You should try posting sometime as though something mattered. It'll be a brand new experience for you.

But, the probability is extreme that you'll simply keep "LoLing" your way thru life.

Okay...that's fair enough. Noted.

''So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering ''

But for now I would just like to observe the rest of your conversation with Heiwa on why a one-way crush down is impossible.

[FineWine]

1. Part C is assumed to displace downwards = gets loose.
2. Part C therefore drops and contacts part A.
3. Evidently forces develop between parts C and A at contact!
4. When two elements come in contact and the forces developing exceed what the weakest element can transmit, the weakest element fails.
5. Oh yes, part A previously carried part C. And part A will destroy part C prior part C destroys part A. Easy to show with proper structural damage analysis, incl. fracture analysis. Plenty of energy required to fracture an element in overload. And to fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred.
6. This is the result if you apply proper structural damage analysis.



The twenty or so collapsing floors hit the floor below. Do they crush it and add it to the collapsing mass, or do they bounce off?

You see, your scam that 1/10 of the building hits the other 9/10 is ridiculous. It would be far more accurate to say that 1/5 of the building hits 1/110.

Right?

[bill smith]

The twenty or so collapsing floors hit the floor below. Do they crush it and add it to the collapsing mass, or do they bounce off?

You see, your scam that 1/10 of the building hits the other 9/10 is ridiculous. It would be far more accurate to say that 1/5 of the building hits 1/110.

Right?

In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.

[Typicallucas]

...fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred...

This is not true when you are dealing with inelastic materials with multiple rigid connection points.

Your understanding of physics and buildings is beyond childish.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_278094a0de0a5db450.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16330)

[Typicallucas]

In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. hat's a rough outline.

Did you guys (bill smith, Heiwa, and KreeL) all take the same class in "avoiding direct questions using nonsense and non-sequiturs"?

[FineWine]

In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.


Sorry, wrong answer. This is the one your guru keeps missing, so you can be excused for demonstrating repeatedly that it is actually possible to know less than he does. We'll start over.

Thirteen floors fall on top of ONE floor, not ninety-seven.


The thirteen original collapsing floors crushed ONE floor and either did or did not ADD ITS MASS TO THE TOTAL COLLAPSING MASS.

Do your best to concentrate and try again.

[FineWine]

In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.


The correct proportion should then be, 1/8 of the building crushes 1/110, right?

[Typicallucas]

http://kellnerpm.com/typicallucas/the-real-heroes-of-nine-eleven.png

[Heiwa]

The correct proportion should then be, 1/8 of the building crushes 1/110, right?

Actually it is only the lowest elements of part C that contacts the top elements of part A. Stronger elements will then crush weaker elements and as part C is smaller (and weaker) than part A, part A crushes part C.

Quite basic actually. Happens at every collision - vertical or horizontal. And that's the reason why you cannot one-way crush down a structure from top to bottom by a little part of itself.

The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite with any real structure.

[bill smith]

Sorry, wrong answer. This is the one your guru keeps missing, so you can be excused for demonstrating repeatedly that it is actually possible to know less than he does. We'll start over.

Thirteen floors fall on top of ONE floor, not ninety-seven.


The thirteen original collapsing floors crushed ONE floor and either did or did not ADD ITS MASS TO THE TOTAL COLLAPSING MASS.

Do your best to concentrate and try again.

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while the lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are either both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.

If they are both blocks then the most likely scenarios are that the upper block either will bounce or it will crunch into the lower block with the energy being taken away by the local damages both blocks will equally receive. Again there will be collapse arrest.

Nowhere here is there a mechanism for removing or significantly weakening the massive support structure of the lower part. In addition Bazant only put the distance of fall at something like 20 inches.

[GlennB]

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while he lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are aither both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.



That was very reasonable, up to the bolded part.

However, there comes a point where the mass of accumulating and accelerating debris alone (not the theoretically intact floors above) is sufficient to destroy the next lower floor being impacted. I would agree that in reality the upper 'collection of floors' would be subjected to massive stresses and collisions that would gradually cause its destruction as it fell. Not least because it was sliding downwards (skewed, chaotically) around still-standing parts of the core.

Bear in mind that Bazant and others were analysing a limiting case - that most favourable to collapse arrest - not proposing an exact collapse mechanism. Yet, in their analysis, the structure still fell. These is no need to fixate on Heiwa's 'falling blocks/pizza boxes/lemons' analogy. It's an essentially useless distraction.

[bill smith]

That was very reasonable, up to the bolded part.

However, there comes a point where the mass of accumulating and accelerating debris alone (not the theoretically intact floors above) is sufficient to destroy the next lower floor being impacted. I would agree that in reality the upper 'collection of floors' would be subjected to massive stresses and collisions that would gradually cause its destruction as it fell. Not least because it was sliding downwards (skewed, chaotically) around still-standing parts of the core.

Bear in mind that Bazant and others were analysing a limiting case - that most favourable to collapse arrest - not proposing an exact collapse mechanism. Yet, in their analysis, the structure still fell. These is no need to fixate on Heiwa's 'falling blocks/pizza boxes/lemons' analogy. It's an essentially useless distraction.

As I see it this is the important thing to bear in mind:-

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while he lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are aither both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

It is self evident that we are talking about two collections of floors. The top 10% is far more vulnerable because it is completely disconnected top and bottom while the lower 90% is firmly planted in the ground . One strike of column butt on column butt on one side will put the whole top assembly out of shape and cause it to start disintegrating. A disintegrated 10% will not bring enough coherent forces to bear on the structure below to cause a global collapse of 80-90 thousand tons of structural steel.....and definately not at anything like the speed that it fell at.

[GlennB]

The top 10% is far more vulnerable because it is completely disconnected top and bottom while the lower 90% is firmly planted in the ground . One strike of column butt on column butt on one side will put the whole top assembly out of shape and cause it to start disintegrating.

No. That's a daft way to view it.

No matter how sturdy and well planted the lowest columns were, they would not prevent the breakage of their much thinner continuation higher up the building. The bolts and welds up there are not supported by the massive continuation buried in vast foundations 300m away. Each floor simply supports what's above it. The bolts and welds are the weakest link.

And - p.s. - the upper section was not 'disconnected' at the very top at all. The hat truss was a very substantial structure.

[CORed]

Maybe in some technical sense, but enforceability matters. Saying you have a contract but it's just not enforceable is like saying you have ice cubes but they're just not frozen.

Among the likely problems with enforceability in this case are: numerous unclear and contradictory terms, jurisdictional issues (Heiwa and I are citizens of different nations), my anonymity on the forum, and the supposed offer passing the "no reasonable person" test (as in, no reasonable person would believe Heiwa was truly offering a million dollars for demonstrating something that every structural engineer in the world already knows).

Respectfully,
Myriad

There is also the "blood out of a turnip" problem. Even if a contract exists, and you manage to get a judgment for a million dollars, it is quite likely that Heiwa does not have a million dollars, or a million dollars in assets, or even potential future earnings of a million dollars.

[Heiwa]

Each floor simply supports what's above it. The bolts and welds are the weakest link.



Yes, each floor just supports the furniture, people, &c, what's above it. Just above it.
And there is just ONE weakest link. But a broken bolt or weld will not produce, e.g. global collapse or one-way crush down as required by The Heiwa Challenge.
To assist prospective Challengers; calculate the energy/force to break the weakest link at each stage of destruction and ensure that there is enough energy and, very important, a force to apply on the link.

[bill smith]

Yes, each floor just supports the furniture, people, &c, what's above it. Just above it.
And there is just ONE weakest link. But a broken bolt or weld will not produce, e.g. global collapse or one-way crush down as required by The Heiwa Challenge.
To assist prospective Challengers; calculate the energy/force to break the weakest link at each stage of destruction and ensure that there is enough energy and, very important, a force to apply on the link.

Do you mean ONE weakest link in the sense that most likely the connections on only ONE side of each floor will give way leaving the rest of the floor hanging off the other columns ?

PS.Sorry about the corrections

[Heiwa]

Do you mean ONE weakest link in the sense that most likely the connections on only ONE side of each floor will give way leaving the rest of the floor hanging off the other columns ?



It all depends on the structure and its elements and how part C contacts part A. If the lowest floor of part C contacts a column of part A, the weakest link is the part C floor element! The part A column, very strong element that carries all structure above, punches a hole in it.
But the part C lowest floor is enormous - 4000 m² - and consists of many sub-elements - trusses, floor pans, &c. The only common property is that they are all very weak; they can just carry what is put on them, e.g. furniture and people.
So how to break the strong elements? The columns! That's the Gretchen question!

[Grizzly Bear]

Yes, each floor just supports the furniture, people, &c, what's above it. Just above it.
Horribly worded but about the only thing that is even remotely correct in this entire post. The floors were not structural in the sense that they were not responsible for holding the building up, rather they served as a transfer element to provide the rigidity the structures needed for wind loads and lateral stability. They also carried the live loads inside the buildings.

And there is just ONE weakest link. But a broken bolt or weld will not produce, e.g. global collapse or one-way crush down as required by The Heiwa Challenge.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but buildings tend to be built with quite afew nuts, bolts, and welds. And all of these work in unison to support whatever loads are applied to them. What do you think happens when the loading capacity for all of them is overwhelmed Heiwa?


To assist prospective Challengers; calculate the energy/force to break the weakest link at each stage of destruction and ensure that there is enough energy and, very important, a force to apply on the link.
Also add the amount of mass falling onto those elements as each successive floor fails. Also take into account how the loads are applied. One of the first things you learn when studying structures in a college level course is that the load capacities change when the application of the load changes or the angle by which the load is applied changes, or the length of unsupported column length. I'm surprised (not rly) you aren't aware of this.

[bill smith]

It all depends on the structure and its elements and how part C contacts part A. If the lowest floor of part C contacts a column of part A, the weakest link is the part C floor element! The part A column, very strong element that carries all structure above, punches a hole in it.
But the part C lowest floor is enormous - 4000 m² - and consists of many sub-elements - trusses, floor pans, &c. The only common property is that they are all very weak; they can just carry what is put on them, e.g. furniture and people.
So how to break the strong elements? The columns! That's the Gretchen question!
Thanks. It looks to me as if the contact between he first colliding floors of parts A and C is quite different from subsequent contacts between floors.
The first contact, assuming that the base of C and the top of A were more or less completely flat would mean that the concrete floors would meet at the same time as the core columns in both parts began their work of punching through floors. When those first floors were pulverised and gone the still present core columns would have protruded 12 feet put of the next available floors in both parts. That would mean that the next floors of the top and botttom parts would have each been transfixed. by 47 12-foot long core columns before any concrete-on-concrete contact occurred. In turn that should mean that those concrete floors were pretty well broken up prior to concrete-on-concrete contact . Concrete-on-concrete contact is all that can explain the pulverisation we saw. I can't think of any other way it can possibly be explained in the conventional way.

[GlennB]

Yes, each floor just supports the furniture, people, &c, what's above it. Just above it.

If you'll look at the context, I clearly wasn't talking about 'floor' in the sense of an area where one walks around, but floor in the sense of 'storey'. We were discussing the support of the rest of the building above each 'floor' (storey)

[FineWine]

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while the lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are either both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.

If they are both blocks then the most likely scenarios are that the upper block either will bounce or it will crunch into the lower block with the energy being taken away by the local damages both blocks will equally receive. Again there will be collapse arrest.

Nowhere here is there a mechanism for removing or significantly weakening the massive support structure of the lower part. In addition Bazant only put the distance of fall at something like 20 inches.

You are as clueless as your guru. What sort of madness is this? Twenty or so floor collapse. Of course they suffer extensive damage as they collapse, but their mass doesn't magically disappear. GRAVITY drives them downward. When they hit the next floor in line, their mass is approximately the mass of twenty floors (a bit less as debris has fallen over the side). They do not hit a "block"; they hit the next floor. It is crushed and collapses with the original collapsing mass. Your guru spouts nonsense. You know nothing and you choose to swallow lunatic ravings instead of trying to learn from real engineers.

This is why your crazy movement died. This is why you run from the question about what predictions you people have gotten right.

[bill smith]

You are as clueless as your guru. What sort of madness is this? Twenty or so floor collapse. Of course they suffer extensive damage as they collapse, but their mass doesn't magically disappear. GRAVITY drives them downward. When they hit the next floor in line, their mass is approximately the mass of twenty floors (a bit less as debris has fallen over the side). They do not hit a "block"; they hit the next floor. It is crushed and collapses with the original collapsing mass. Your guru spouts nonsense. You know nothing and you choose to swallow lunatic ravings instead of trying to learn from real engineers.

This is why your crazy movement died. This is why you run from the question about what predictions you people have gotten right.

Where do you kep getting 20 floors from ? It was about 13. Not that the difference matters all that much. The initial contact was one floor on one floor- what else ?

Loose gravel and chunks of material (the broken up floors) do not povide the same coherent force that a solid object might. It apples lots and lots of much smaller forces that the upstanding structure can more easily deal with. In fact the gravel would behave more like a liquid, running over and around impediments.

[FineWine]

Actually it is only the lowest elements of part C that contacts the top elements of part A. Stronger elements will then crush weaker elements and as part C is smaller (and weaker) than part A, part A crushes part C.

Quite basic actually. Happens at every collision - vertical or horizontal. And that's the reason why you cannot one-way crush down a structure from top to bottom by a little part of itself.

The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite with any real structure.

Stop the madness. The entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor in line.

[FineWine]

Where do you kep getting 20 floors from ? It was about 13. Not that the difference matters all that much. The initial contact was one floor on one floor- what else ?

Loose gravel and chunks of material (the broken up floors) do not povide the same coherent force that a solid object might. It apples lots and lots of much smaller forces that the upstanding structure can more easily deal with. In fact the gravel would behave more like a liquid, running over and around impediments.


No, your clueless guru is hopelessly wrong. As I say repeatedly, the entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor. Which weighs more, a ton of solid ice or a ton of ball bearings?

[BigAl]

Where do you kep getting 20 floors from ? It was about 13. Not that the difference matters all that much. The initial contact was one floor on one floor- what else ?

Loose gravel and chunks of material (the broken up floors) do not povide the same coherent force that a solid object might. It apples lots and lots of much smaller forces that the upstanding structure can more easily deal with. In fact the gravel would behave more like a liquid, running over and around impediments.

Wrong again. With each floor, the mass increases, the velocity accelerates and the force is the sum of all the material falling down on the next floor.

[CORed]

Where do you kep getting 20 floors from ? It was about 13. Not that the difference matters all that much. The initial contact was one floor on one floor- what else ?

Loose gravel and chunks of material (the broken up floors) do not povide the same coherent force that a solid object might. It apples lots and lots of much smaller forces that the upstanding structure can more easily deal with. In fact the gravel would behave more like a liquid, running over and around impediments.

Obviously you've never seen a rockslide (or its afternath). Otherwise, you would never post something this ignorant.

[Typicallucas]

Obviously you've never seen a rockslide (or its afternath). Otherwise, you would never post something this ignorant.

Good point.

[GeeMack]

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while the lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are either both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.

If they are both blocks then the most likely scenarios are that the upper block either will bounce or it will crunch into the lower block with the energy being taken away by the local damages both blocks will equally receive. Again there will be collapse arrest.

Nowhere here is there a mechanism for removing or significantly weakening the massive support structure of the lower part. In addition Bazant only put the distance of fall at something like 20 inches.


Go ask the physics teacher at your high school about this. Come back and let us know what you learn.

[Heiwa]

If you'll look at the context, I clearly wasn't talking about 'floor' in the sense of an area where one walks around, but floor in the sense of 'storey'. We were discussing the support of the rest of the building above each 'floor' (storey)

OK, a storey consist of 95% air, a thin concrete floor with a false ceiling below, 280+ columns as vertical supports to which a floor is bolted and various objects (windows, partitions, furniture, etc). So what objects/elements are supposed to one-way crush down other elements? The air?

[MIKILLINI]

OK, a storey consist of 95% air, a thin concrete floor with a false ceiling below, 280+ columns as vertical supports to which a floor is bolted and various objects (windows, partitions, furniture, etc). So what objects/elements are supposed to one-way crush down other elements? The air?

Considering the air: Can't see it, but you know it's there. There's something else mixed within the air one can't see except the effect it has on anything of weight: Gravity.

[bill smith]

The 13 acres of concrete floors in the top collection of floors in WTC1 contained most of the weight of that section. Let's look at the video evidence for a minute.

In the following video you see a massive amount of gravel and dust being ejected along with steel girders and so forth. Look at the right side of the building and then see in your mind's eye that the same volumes are falling on all four sides. It seems to be all coming more or less from the top 13 or so floors. How much material would there be left to crush 97 intact floors down level with the ground ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

[bill smith]

The 13 acres of concrete floors in the top collection of floors in WTC1 contained most of the weight of that section. Let's look at the video evidence for a minute.

In the following video you see a massive amount of gravel and dust being ejected along with steel girders and so forth. Look at the right side of the building and then see in your mind's eye that the same volumes are falling on all four sides. It seems to be all coming more or less from the top 13 or so floors. How much material would there be left to crush 97 intact floors down level with the ground ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c&feature=channel_page

PS.Watch this fullscreen for best effect then press F11 to toggle complete fullscreen on/off. Sometimes it's best to let the whole video fully load before doing this. Otherwise you can get a jerky playback because of constant buffering.

[KreeL]

Stop the madness. The entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor in line.

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations. :eye-poppi

[bill smith]

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations. :eye-poppi

This is a bit off topic Kreel but did you see this yet ?
http://truthactionottawa.com/main/?page_id=492

[FineWine]

Not really. You even realized it when you contradicted yourself in an earlier instance:

"(a bit less as debris has fallen over the side)."

Now to examine 'how much less', one needs only look at the videos of the collapses. The north tower expands to nearly 4 times it's circumference from the very top. Freeze frames show hundreds of steel beams leaving the scene of the accident. They appear to be blown out, yet you say they simply fall over the side. Either way, there goes your mass. Hundreds of steel beams weigh quite a bit. This would require a huge minus sign in your calculations. :eye-poppi


Why don't you stop babbling about nonexistent calculations I've made and focus on real calculations made by real engineers? Your gaga guru can't do ANY calculations and you can't understand a word the real engineers write. Qualified people have wrestled with this problem and they determined that the kinetic energy generated by the collapse greatly exceeded the energy required to continue, indeed accelerate, the process.

[CORed]

One of the problems with your view is that the upper block is always seen as a 'block' while the lower 90% of the building is seen as a collection of individual stacked floors.

Of course the truth is that they are either both blocks (the lower one being 9 times larger than the upper) or they are both collections of floors ( the upper collection being about 10% the size of the lower)

If they are both collections of floors then for each destroyed lower floor there will be one destroyed upper floor (equal and opposite reaction). Obviously as the upper collection diminishes collapse arrest wil soon ensue.

If they are both blocks then the most likely scenarios are that the upper block either will bounce or it will crunch into the lower block with the energy being taken away by the local damages both blocks will equally receive. Again there will be collapse arrest.

Nowhere here is there a mechanism for removing or significantly weakening the massive support structure of the lower part. In addition Bazant only put the distance of fall at something like 20 inches.

Bill Smith demonstrates for the 597th time that he doesn't understand gravity.

[Heiwa]

Bill Smith demonstrates for the 597th time that he doesn't understand gravity.

Gravity is very simple! Two masses are always attracted by one another. If one is left and the other right - horizontally - they impose a horisontal pulling force on each other. They want to get together. Same vertically - up/down. Same in 3-D universe. Bill Smith understands this very well. Only fundamentalist religious sectarians believe otherwise. The latter believe that only one mass is attracted and destroys anything it is attracted by.

What sect do you belong to? Libertarians?

[FineWine]

Gravity is very simple! Two masses are always attracted by one another. If one is left and the other right - horizontally - they impose a horisontal pulling force on each other. They want to get together. Same vertically - up/down. Same in 3-D universe. Bill Smith understands this very well. Only fundamentalist religious sectarians believe otherwise. The latter believe that only one mass is attracted and destroys anything it is attracted by.

What sect do you belong to? Libertarians?


You can't be real. Tell us about gravity's horizontal "pulling" force.

[bill smith]

No, your clueless guru is hopelessly wrong. As I say repeatedly, the entire collapsing mass falls on the next floor. Which weighs more, a ton of solid ice or a ton of ball bearings?

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol

[FineWine]

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol


Yes, a ton of feathers would weigh exactly as much as each. Now, to return to the question you keep running from, if you're on A97, are you lucky if C1 contains lightwieght lawn furniture and unlucky if it contains printers' plates? Is your cuckoo guru right in claiming that you have nothing to worry about in any case? Or is the world engineering community right in insisting that your luck has run out--period.

[FineWine]

I think a ton of feathers would give either of them a good run for their money. lol


Now that your error about "coherent mass" has been cleared up, perhaps you'd care to flesh-out your guru's epochal discovery of a horizontal pulling force of gravity. Benighted fools have thought for centuries that gravity accounts for the acceleration of falling objects. Tell us how a single incompetent, laughed at by all real engineers, has managed to produce a scientific revolution of the first magnitude.

[bill smith]

Yes, a ton of feathers would weigh exactly as much as each. Now, to return to the question you keep running from, if you're on A97, are you lucky if C1 contains lightwieght lawn furniture and unlucky if it contains printers' plates? Is your cuckoo guru right in claiming that you have nothing to worry about in any case? Or is the world engineering community right in insisting that your luck has run out--period.

You'd have to ask Heiwa or Myriad to explain that one I'm afraid. On the gravity thing though- as Heiwa says, all masses attract each other. So just as Newton's apple was attracted by the Earth's gravity so too was the Earth attracted in a miniscule way by the apple's gravity.

[FineWine]

You'd have to ask Heiwa or Myriad to explain that one I'm afraid. On the gravity thing though- as Heiwa says, all masses attract each other. So just as Newton's apple was attractd by the Earth's gravity so too was the Earth attracted in a miniscule way by he apple's gravity.


Heiwa appears to be a complete fool and Myriad would regard the question as beneath the interest of an adolescent taking his or her first physics course. The attractions you refer to are, of course, vertical forces.

Tell if it matters to you, sitting on A97, if the first floor about to fall on you contains light objects or heavy ones. You seem to find this obvious question as inconvenient as the one about your mad movement's failed predictions.

[GlennB]

Now that your error about "coherent mass" has been cleared up, perhaps you'd care to flesh-out your guru's epochal discovery of a horizontal pulling force of gravity.

In your understandable frustration at these guys' stupidity, I believe they've managed to put one past you. The dolt Heiwa mentioned that ships or something attract each other - horizontally - through gravity. This is, of course, technically true. Though I haven't looked up gravimeters or similar for a while, I believe that the mass of large mountains can be measured through horizontal deflection of very fine measuring devices. Ships, nah, of course. Much too light. But be prepared to be pounded by idiots who think they have scored a (useless) point.

[FineWine]

In your understandable frustration at these guys' stupidity, I believe they've managed to put one past you. The dolt Heiwa mentioned that ships or something attract each other - horizontally - through gravity. This is, of course, technically true. Though I haven't looked up gravimeters or similar for a while, I believe that the mass of large mountains can be measured through horizontal deflection of very fine measuring devices. Ships, nah, of course. Much too light. But be prepared to be pounded by idiots who think they have scored a (useless) point.


Very astute, sir! I figured that there must be some pointless trick involved, so I Googled "horizontal pulling effect of gravity." I didn't get enlightened. After Heiwa babbles for a few more pages, we'll all realize that nothing he's saying has any relevance to the collapse of the towers, but then nothing he ever says has any relevance to THAT!

It's funny that I can ask a simple question that follows directly from the nonsense they spout, and they are conspicuous in their refusal to address it. Does it matter if the heavy stuff is on the first floor that contacts A97? Why does this leave the frauds tongue-tied?

[Heiwa]

You can't be real. Tell us about gravity's horizontal "pulling" force.

Simple - what balances the centrifugal force acting on the Moon!

[GlennB]

Simple - what balances the centrifugal force acting on the Moon!

In which Heiwa demonstrates that he visualises the moon orbiting the Earth in the "horizontal" plane. :)

[bill smith]

In which Heiwa demonstrates that he visualises the moon orbiting the Earth in the "horizontal" plane. :)

Have they worked out which way is 'up' in space ?

[TSR]

Have they worked out which way is 'up' in space ?

.
That's kind of the point, Bill: Heiwa apparently believes zie has.

Oh, and it is the "centripetal force" effect of gravity which acts to keep the moon from flying away, not centrifugal.

are you *sure* you want to keep your cart hitched to that horse?
.

[bill smith]

.
That's kind of the point, Bill: Heiwa apparently believes zie has.

Oh, and it is the "centripetal force" effect of gravity which acts to keep the moon from flying away, not centrifugal.

are you *sure* you want to keep your cart hitched to that horse?
.

Why don't the Earth and the Moon come together considering the massive attractive forces between them ?

[bill smith]

.
That's kind of the point, Bill: Heiwa apparently believes zie has.

Oh, and it is the "centripetal force" effect of gravity which acts to keep the moon from flying away, not centrifugal.

are you *sure* you want to keep your cart hitched to that horse?
.

iAs I understand it- in the same way that it's always five o'clock somewhere on Earth the Moon can be seen always to be somewhere in a horizontal orbit relative to the Earth. So it's just as easy for working purposes to consider that it's in a horizontal orbit wherever you are. It would be a different matter for Astronomers I suppose though.

[TSR]

Why don't the Earth and the Moon come together considering the massive attractive forces between them ?

.
A little something we big kids call "tangential velocity." Were that velocity great enough to break the Moon free of orbit, we would call it "escape velocity." And were it not enough to compensate for the centripetal force of gravity, we would call it "fall down, go boom."

Any other basic concepts related to orbital mechanics you want me to name?
.

[TSR]

iAs I understand it- in the same way that it's always five o'clock somewhere on Earth

.
Incorrect. It is 4:54 CDT as I write this -- care to tell me where it the world it is current 5:00 -- am or pm, doesn't matter which....
.

the Moon can be seen always to be somewhere in a horizontal orbit relative to the Earth.

.
Depending on how one orients the orbital plane, correct.

Which means that it can *also* been seen as being in a non-horizontal orbit.

Which then make Hiewa's blather about the "horizontal pulling force" of gravity more wrong than it is right, given that there is only *one* plane for which it is accurate, and an infinate number of planes for which it is not.

Which is why you asked which way is "up" in space, apparently not realizing the mess that makes of Heiwa's blather (and why that concept is so laughable.)
.

So it's just as easy for working purposes to consider that it's in a horizontal orbit whereever you are.

.
Easy, perhaps.

But demonstrably wrong as an objective matter.
.

It would be a different mstter for Astronomers I suppose though.

.
Or for anyone else who isn't operating from incorrect ideas regarding the moon's orbit.
.

[bill smith]

.
A little something we big kids call "tangential velocity." Were that velocity great enough to break the Moon free of orbit, we would call it "escape velocity." And were it not enough to compensate for the centripetal force of gravity, we would call it "fall down, go boom."

Any other basic concepts related to orbital mechanics you want me to name?
.

Thanks. We always say 'go Boom,fall down' but that's what makes us Truthers nad Debunkers I suppose.lol

[bill smith]

.
Incorrect. It is 4:54 CDT as I write this -- care to tell me where it the world it is current 5:00 -- am or pm, doesn't matter which....
.

.
Depending on how one orients the orbital plane, correct.

Which means that it can *also* been seen as being in a non-horizontal orbit.

Which then make Hiewa's blather about the "horizontal pulling force" of gravity more wrong than it is right, given that there is only *one* plane for which it is accurate, and an infinate number of planes for which it is not.

Which is why you asked which way is "up" in space, apparently not realizing the mess that makes of Heiwa's blather (and why that concept is so laughable.)
.

.
Easy, perhaps.

But demonstrably wrong as an objective matter.
.

.
Or for anyone else who isn't operating from incorrect ideas regarding the moon's orbit.
.
I always say 'Well...it's five o'clock somewhere on Earth' when I want to have an early drink. Just my little joke really.

[FineWine]

I always say 'Well...it's five o'clock somewhere on Earth' when I want to have an early drink. Just my little joke really.



Speaking of jokes, your guru thinks you are perfectly safe if you are on A97 when floors C1-13 crash down on you. He is, of course, absurdly wrong. Tell us if it makes any difference whether the light stuff is on C1 and the heavy stuff is on C2 or vice versa.

[TSR]

I always say 'Well...it's five o'clock somewhere on Earth' when I want to have an early drink. Just my little joke really.
.
A little joke which allows you to avoid admitting how wrong both you and Heiwa are about "horizontal pulling."

How ... funny.
.

[GlennB]

Why don't the Earth and the Moon come together considering the massive attractive forces between them ?

The moon is constantly accelerating towards the Earth. If it weren't it would be getting further away.

[Heiwa]

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

So two objects A and C with mass that happen to be in, say, a horizontal plane, attract one another. Quite basic actually.

Of course, there are many other objects, C, D ... etc, around so they also attract A and C. Plenty of attractive gravity forces around!

Back to Topic - The Heiwa Challenge.

Upper structural part C consists of many elements with masses and they are dropped ... in the vertical plane in this case.

There is a big mass below, the Earth, and it attracts the part C masses. Evidently the part C masses also attracts the Earth but, let's ignore that effect in the Challenge.

So forces act on the part C masses, that accelerate the C masses.

However, there is this part A in the way of part C on its way to Earth. A has 10 times the total masses of C and is in fact resting on Earth. A also consists of many masses in the form of structural elements of similar type to C.

So C collides with A. What happens? To keep it simple, it is only one little element (mass) of C, lets call it C1, that contacts another little element (mass) of A, let's call it A1 at beginning of collision. The other masses of C and A do not collide with anything, but as all C masses are one way or another connected to C1, they will be affected. Same in A.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to find out what happens to C1 and the other C masses and to A1 and the other A masses.

Some people believe (there is no evidence) that little C1 and the other C masses some way or another can one-way crush down A1 and all the other A masses. They believe this as somebody has (dis)informed them so. They have not checked the info provided to them! This happens often - you can say there is an info war.

Little C1 and the other C masses are, on the other hand, held together - connected - in various ways and these connections may break when forces/energy are acting upon them in, e.g. a collision. When the C connections are broken, part C is in principle destroyed. Its many masses are disconnected from one another and cannot do much harm when attracted by Earth.

Same for A.

One reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A is that the connections in part C fail before the connections in part A and/or part C runs out of energy before breaking all its connections. Many people do not believe that basic fact. They are the losers in the info war.

So that's the reason for The Heiwa Challenge. Build any structure where structural part C one-way crushes a similar structural part A (mass A > mass 10C and much more connections in A than C, of course).

You will learn a lot, e.g. that part C cannot one-way crush down part A assisted by gravity only.

[GlennB]

When the C connections are broken, part C is in principle destroyed. Its many masses are disconnected from one another and cannot do much harm when attracted by Earth.

Same for A.



Shall we all just laugh in unison at the bolded part? Or shall we all say that the disconnected parts will do as much damage as the laws of physics dictate? As opposed to waving it away with "cannot do much harm" ?
Life is full of tough decisions :)

[Heiwa]

Shall we all just laugh in unison at the bolded part? Or shall we all say that the disconnected parts will do as much damage as the laws of physics dictate? As opposed to waving it away with "cannot do much harm" ?
Life is full of tough decisions :)

Well, stop laughing and start to build a structure where part C destroys part A according to The Heiwa Challenge rules ... and prove me wrong.

It seems you agree that part C consists of many masses, i.e. is not one solid, rigid chunk of whatever. Actually part C is most air but you can remove the air and fill it with other stuff! But don't forget! You have to do the same with part A.

[GlennB]

Well, stop laughing and start to build a structure where part C destroys part A according to The Heiwa Challenge rules ... and prove me wrong.


No. The structure would have to be very large, and would cost a lot of money to build. Scale, Heiwa, scale.

So - here's a challenge for you. Build that water tank on legs, with the fire underneath, that you were encouraging children to make about a year ago. Remember? The welded steel plates to make a large tank full of water, and the fire below with old cloth and wood and diesel? The one you were challenged to reproduce yourself, but FAILED to do ? You ran from that challenge, because you had never yourself made the structure and tested it, despite claiming that it would survive the fire.

So ... prove yourself first, before asking others to invest '000s of Euros.

Go ahead. Build your water tank and provide photographic evidence of its surviving your fire conditions. You have the welding experience.

[roundhead]

Heiwa.. you are never going to get an educated response from the amoeba's that infest this place.

They get it perfectly, and are well aware you are perfectly correct.

But you are truly the coyote in a prairie dog village, and they keep their heads down:D

[tsig]

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

So two objects A and C with mass that happen to be in, say, a horizontal plane, attract one another. Quite basic actually.

Of course, there are many other objects, C, D ... etc, around so they also attract A and C. Plenty of attractive gravity forces around!

Back to Topic - The Heiwa Challenge.

Upper structural part C consists of many elements with masses and they are dropped ... in the vertical plane in this case.

There is a big mass below, the Earth, and it attracts the part C masses. Evidently the part C masses also attracts the Earth but, let's ignore that effect in the Challenge.

So forces act on the part C masses, that accelerate the C masses.

However, there is this part A in the way of part C on its way to Earth. A has 10 times the total masses of C and is in fact resting on Earth. A also consists of many masses in the form of structural elements of similar type to C.

So C collides with A. What happens? To keep it simple, it is only one little element (mass) of C, lets call it C1, that contacts another little element (mass) of A, let's call it A1 at beginning of collision. The other masses of C and A do not collide with anything, but as all C masses are one way or another connected to C1, they will be affected. Same in A.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to find out what happens to C1 and the other C masses and to A1 and the other A masses.

Some people believe (there is no evidence) that little C1 and the other C masses some way or another can one-way crush down A1 and all the other A masses. They believe this as somebody has (dis)informed them so. They have not checked the info provided to them! This happens often - you can say there is an info war.

Little C1 and the other C masses are, on the other hand, held together - connected - in various ways and these connections may break when forces/energy are acting upon them in, e.g. a collision. When the C connections are broken, part C is in principle destroyed. Its many masses are disconnected from one another and cannot do much harm when attracted by Earth.

Same for A.

One reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A is that the connections in part C fail before the connections in part A and/or part C runs out of energy before breaking all its connections. Many people do not believe that basic fact. They are the losers in the info war.

So that's the reason for The Heiwa Challenge. Build any structure where structural part C one-way crushes a similar structural part A (mass A > mass 10C and much more connections in A than C, of course).

You will learn a lot, e.g. that part C cannot one-way crush down part A assisted by gravity only.

So when the big C force is attracted to the big A force they get together and produce a bunch of little ac forces?

[FineWine]

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which objects with mass attract one another.

So two objects A and C with mass that happen to be in, say, a horizontal plane, attract one another. Quite basic actually.

Of course, there are many other objects, C, D ... etc, around so they also attract A and C. Plenty of attractive gravity forces around!

Back to Topic - The Heiwa Challenge.

Upper structural part C consists of many elements with masses and they are dropped ... in the vertical plane in this case.

There is a big mass below, the Earth, and it attracts the part C masses. Evidently the part C masses also attracts the Earth but, let's ignore that effect in the Challenge.

So forces act on the part C masses, that accelerate the C masses.

However, there is this part A in the way of part C on its way to Earth. A has 10 times the total masses of C and is in fact resting on Earth. A also consists of many masses in the form of structural elements of similar type to C.

So C collides with A. What happens? To keep it simple, it is only one little element (mass) of C, lets call it C1, that contacts another little element (mass) of A, let's call it A1 at beginning of collision. The other masses of C and A do not collide with anything, but as all C masses are one way or another connected to C1, they will be affected. Same in A.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to find out what happens to C1 and the other C masses and to A1 and the other A masses.

Some people believe (there is no evidence) that little C1 and the other C masses some way or another can one-way crush down A1 and all the other A masses. They believe this as somebody has (dis)informed them so. They have not checked the info provided to them! This happens often - you can say there is an info war.

Little C1 and the other C masses are, on the other hand, held together - connected - in various ways and these connections may break when forces/energy are acting upon them in, e.g. a collision. When the C connections are broken, part C is in principle destroyed. Its many masses are disconnected from one another and cannot do much harm when attracted by Earth.

Same for A.

One reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A is that the connections in part C fail before the connections in part A and/or part C runs out of energy before breaking all its connections. Many people do not believe that basic fact. They are the losers in the info war.

So that's the reason for The Heiwa Challenge. Build any structure where structural part C one-way crushes a similar structural part A (mass A > mass 10C and much more connections in A than C, of course).

You will learn a lot, e.g. that part C cannot one-way crush down part A assisted by gravity only.


Myriad explained the collapse so clearly that an intelligent child could understand it. Perhaps that child could explain it to you, as no adult can. The engineering community does not believe that the collapsing mass ran out of energy. Real engineers have, in fact, USED CALCULATIONS to demonstrate that the energy powering the collapse does not "run out."

Your echo Bill Smith has run away from a very simple question. I repeatedly ask him if it matters if the contents of C1, the first floor to hit A97, are light or heavy. He is terribly confused about this matter, among many others. You, on the other hand, are in partial agreement with real engineers. They say it doesn't make any difference, and you agree. There is still that small disagreement between you and people who can think. The real engineers point out that A97 will be crushed by floors C1-13, while you believe that twenty or so floors could fall without doing significant damage on supports designed to bear the load of one floor.

[FineWine]

Heiwa.. you are never going to get an educated response from the amoeba's that infest this place.

They get it perfectly, and are well aware you are perfectly correct.

But you are truly the coyote in a prairie dog village, and they keep their heads down:D


Well said! I have noticed that no one here ever points out what Heiwa gets wrong.

Your contest entry is excellent. Ultima1 retains a slight lead, but you have shown that you are his peer.

Yes, real engineers understand that Heiwa is "perfectly correct." They are just frustrated that their silly calculations prove him to be absurdly wrong ALL THE TIME. Your inability to comprehend anything provides wonderful insulation from reality.

[Minadin]

Well, stop laughing and start to build a structure where part C destroys part A according to The Heiwa Challenge rules ... and prove me wrong.

It seems you agree that part C consists of many masses, i.e. is not one solid, rigid chunk of whatever. Actually part C is most air but you can remove the air and fill it with other stuff! But don't forget! You have to do the same with part A.

There have already been models proposed.

What weighs more, a ton of rubble or a ton of intact building?

[Heiwa]

Myriad explained the collapse so clearly that an intelligent child could understand it. Perhaps that child could explain it to you, as no adult can. The engineering community does not believe that the collapsing mass ran out of energy. Real engineers have, in fact, USED CALCULATIONS to demonstrate that the energy powering the collapse does not "run out."

Your echo Bill Smith has run away from a very simple question. I repeatedly ask him if it matters if the contents of C1, the first floor to hit A97, are light or heavy. He is terribly confused about this matter, among many others. You, on the other hand, are in partial agreement with real engineers. They say it doesn't make any difference, and you agree. There is still that small disagreement between you and people who can think. The real engineers point out that A97 will be crushed by floors C1-13, while you believe that twenty or so floors could fall without doing significant damage on supports designed to bear the load of one floor.

Myriad has great difficulties with his structure entered in The Heiwa Challenge - see other thread. He has not yet identified what element fails first at initial contact and what the first contact really is! Is it an element in upper part C or in lower part A? And how much energy is required to do it? Or is it just a connection (another element) between elements?
Therefore Myriad cannot predict what happens next! What element is then failing?

Myriad is treating a complete floor as one element and allows it, C1, to contact the top floor, A97, of the lower part A. Neither C1 nor A97 is damaged! So what element is damaged first?

Vertical support columns? Where? Or connections? Where? Answer that to start with!

It would appear that it is a support element between C1 and C2 that fails first, while part A - the lower structure remains - unaffected. That's a good start. And then all other support elements between C1 and C2 fail and C2 may drop and contact C1. What happens then?

[FineWine]

Myriad has great difficulties with his structure entered in The Heiwa Challenge - see other thread. He has not yet identified what element fails first at initial contact and what the first contact really is! Is it an element in upper part C or in lower part A? And how much energy is required to do it? Or is it just a connection (another element) between elements?
Therefore Myriad cannot predict what happens next! What element is then failing?

Myriad is treating a complete floor as one element and allows it, C1, to contact the top floor, A97, of the lower part A. Neither C1 nor A97 is damaged! So what element is damaged first?

Vertical support columns? Where? Or connections? Where? Answer that to start with!

It would appear that it is a support element between C1 and C2 that fails first, while part A - the lower structure remains - unaffected. That's a good start. And then all other support elements between C1 and C2 fail and C2 may drop and contact C1. What happens then?


When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.

[bill smith]

When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.

Suppose the top portion 'C' had been only three floors ? Would that have crushed the other 107 floors of the lower 'A' portion onto the ground ?

If not, at what point (how many floors) would there have been just enough to do the job ? Six floors ?....eight ?

[bill smith]

Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?

[BigAl]

Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?
Figure it out for yourself. Most of us can.

Got Physics?

[Heiwa]

When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.

Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!

Pls note that floors C3-C13 do not collide with anything. They just displaced downwards two stories. Didn't have the chance to contact anything.

This is what normally happens to structures of The Heiwa Challenge.

Your task is to develop an improved structure where part C destroys part A! Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.

Mackey has proposed another structure. Upper part C is only one big mass M that is also indestructible, so it is supposed to crush supports below while fusing with small masses in between. What happens to M and its fused ms when contacting Earth is not clear.

I don't know which of those structures is the most ridiculous. Neither fulfills the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. both parts A and C have identical structures + that A can carry C before.

[bill smith]

Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!

Pls note that floors C3-C13 do not collide with anything. They just displaced downwards two stories. Didn't have the chance to contact anything.

This is what normally happens to structures of The Heiwa Challenge.

Your task is to develop an improved structure where part C destroys part A! Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.

Mackey has proposed another structure. Upper part C is only one big mass M that is also indestructible, so it is supposed to crush supports below while fusing with small masses in between. What happens to M and its fused ms when contacting Earth is not clear.

I don't know which of those structures is the most ridiculous. Neither fulfills the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. both parts A and C have identical structures + that A can carry C before.

You have been validated completely since setting up this thread Heiwa. Nobody has come close to making a model that replicates the collapse of WTC1 and nobody has come up with any example in the history of this planet of a comparable collapse.

NIST said that the collapse of WTC7 was a unique event. Now it looks like the collapse of WTC1 and by implication the collapse of WTC2 were also both unique events.

This is mathmatically virtually impossible.

All that has happened is that a couple of credible people have tried halfheartedly and unsuccessfully to disprove your axiom and that you have had a posse of jackals snapping continually and uselessly at your heels.


Your case is proven. Now let's see the response.

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!
Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.


Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.
Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.

[Heiwa]

1. Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.



2. Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.

1. ?? I have always treated the structure as an assembly of strong and weak elements joined by connections. That's why a little part C cannot one-way crush down the bigger part A below.

2. ?? Bazant & Co, Seffen and Mackey, all, treat the upper part C as 'indestructible' and/or rigid, i.e. lower part A cannot damage it. Read their papers before using them in the toilet. NIST, lamely, just suggests that energy applied by the structure exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. Sorry, that's ultimate nonsense! Kayser, Sunder, Gross & the NIST Co know it ... but are paid to produce it. So that media can report it as some sort of news! The info war, you know! FOX, CNN, BBC, you know. And you, Grizzly Bear.

As I always say; just produce a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that proves me wrong and you are a winner. Please, do not whine!

[bill smith]

Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.



Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.

You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities. You don't get to be where Heiwa is if you are not highly qualified and you don't gain an international reputation as he has without being exceptional and outstanding in your field.

Given that you cannot stand up to heiwa's challenge as apparently nobody else can either your calling him stupid is clearly politically driven. You would do better to ask yourself why nobody can meet Heiwa's challenge. Could it be because he is right ? If not, give me another reason ?

[Justin39640]

1. ?? I have always treated the structure as an assembly of strong and weak elements joined by connections. That's why a little part C cannot one-way crush down the bigger part A below.

2. ?? Bazant & Co, Seffen and Mackey, all, treat the upper part C as 'indestructible' and/or rigid, i.e. lower part A cannot damage it. Read their papers before using them in the toilet. NIST, lamely, just suggests that energy applied by the structure exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. Sorry, that's ultimate nonsense! Kayser, Sunder, Gross & the NIST Co know it ... but are paid to produce it. So that media can report it as some sort of news! The info war, you know! FOX, CNN, BBC, you know. And you, Grizzly Bear.

As I always say; just produce a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that proves me wrong and you are a winner. Please, do not whine!


You know those studies are just up until the moment right BEFORE collapse.
NIST studied why the collapse happened not the mechanics of the collapse itself (same with 7)
I've already beat this challenge.
So has anyone else who has ever played "Jenga" lol.