The Heiwa Challenge

[dtugg]

You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities.

LOL!

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.

What position is that? The joke of JREF?


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 ?

1) Heiwa's challenge is stupid and doesn't match what happened on 9/11.

2) Most people have better things to do than spending their time and money meeting some Internet kook's challenge. Of course if your hero wasn't a flat out liar and was actually offering the million dollars like he originally said, it would have been done already.

[Myriad]

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?


Heiwa appears to have a very strange notion of what a model is for, if he thinks my failure to confidently state in advance exactly what the model will do indicates a difficulty with the models (one physical, one computer) I'm developing.

Guess what? If you can make and analytically justify what a model is going to do before the model is created, then you don't need the model. The idea of creating a model is to find out what it does.

Heiwa's funny m model is a good example. He created it but he could not correctly predict how it would behave. Because he could not correctly predict how it would behave, he published a false prediction that two floors would bounce if dropped on 20. By running that model (that is, doing the actual math), I showed his prediction was wrong and that the structure modeled actually would progressively collapse if you drop the top two floors. So, we've now learned something from Heiwa's model that Heiwa, at least, didn't know before.

So it doesn't work this way:

1. State what the model will do.
2. Create a model.

Or this way:

1. Create a model.
2. State what the model will do.

It works this way:

1. Create a model.
2. Run/execute/test/analyse the model to learn what the model does.
3. Now you've learned something without embarrassing yourself.

Heiwa's perception of my supposed difficulty appears to amount to, "Hey, you're not pulling predictions out of your ass the way I do. Ur doin it rong."

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.

I guess high-rise steel framed buildings have been with us for nearly a hundred years now and in their long lives many undergo fires. Would there have been a million such structures built worldwide by now ? Few if any have collapsed and certainly none have collapsed in the way that WTC1 did.

So Myriad is going to have his work cut out for him to replicate by modelling an event that is absolutely unique in the history of construction.

[Grizzly Bear]

Bill, you can thank dtugg for this response, since the ignore feature don't work for quotes :(

You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities.
I'll take the first part as a compliment and the second part as... *cough* laughably funny. Laughably funny in the context that Heiwa has made ridiculous claims that ships are the same as buildings. I have no doubt Heiwa may be an engineer, but at best his commentary suggests he's either incompetent in that profession or he intentionally makes assertions that destroy his credibility.

You don't get to be where Heiwa is if you are not highly qualified and you don't gain an international reputation [in horribly flawed premises] as he has without being [demonstrating] exceptional and outstanding [ignorance] in your field.
You're speaking to me as if I'd want to be in the same league as Heiwa. My standards aren't quite that low.

...your calling him stupid is clearly politically driven.
If you've read any of my posts addressing Heiwa you would of course understand I'm not calling him an idiot, I'm calling him incompetent in the field he claims to have expertise in. I personally don't care about his IQ, nor do I have evidence that his IQ level falls anywhere below the 72 threshold. I do however have ample reason to believe that he is dangerously incompetent in his field based on his understanding of simple engineering and design concepts.

As for your counter claim that my motivation is politically driven, I'll ask that you refrain from making baseless accusation against this 21 year old University graduate, unless you can supply ample evidence to back that up.


You would do better to ask yourself [I]why nobody can meet Heiwa's challenge. Could it be because he is right ? If not, give me another reason ?
Considering several people among one of whom you are familiar with have pointed out Heiwa's errors quite astutely. The only response Heiwa brought to the table was "LOL" might be one out of the many reasons why people have so much doubt in his premise. You'll have to forgive me if I scoff at his reputation when he doesn't seem to be taking his errors seriously.

[bill smith]

Bill, you can thank dtugg for this response, since the ignore feature don't work for quotes :(


I'll take the first part as a compliment and the second part as... *cough* laughably funny. Laughably funny in the context that Heiwa has made ridiculous claims that ships are the same as buildings. I have no doubt Heiwa may be an engineer, but at best his commentary suggests he's either incompetent in that profession or he intentionally makes assertions that destroy his credibility.


You're speaking to me as if I'd want to be in the same league as Heiwa. My standards aren't quite that low.


If you've read any of my posts addressing Heiwa you would of course understand I'm not calling him an idiot, I'm calling him incompetent in the field he claims to have expertise in. I personally don't care about his IQ, nor do I have evidence that his IQ level falls anywhere below the 72 threshold. I do however have ample reason to believe that he is dangerously incompetent in his field based on his understanding of simple engineering and design concepts.

As for your counter claim that my motivation is politically driven, I'll ask that you refrain from making baseless accusation against this 21 year old University graduate, unless you can supply ample evidence to back that up.



Considering several people among one of whom you are familiar with have pointed out Heiwa's errors quite astutely. The only response Heiwa brought to the table was "LOL" might be one out of the many reasons why people have so much doubt in his premise. You'll have to forgive me if I scoff at his reputation when he doesn't seem to be taking his errors seriously.

Well at least I know where you stand. I think you are wrong though. Time will tell. Soon I hope.

[dtugg]

bill, do you think dropping a sponge on another sponge proves that 9/11 was an inside job?

[A W Smith]

Well at least I know where you stand. I think you are wrong though. Time will tell. Soon I hope.


Time wont change physics.
http://videolectures.net/mit801f99_lewin_lec11/

http://videolectures.net/mit801f99_lewin_lec02/

[tsig]

Well at least I know where you stand. I think you are wrong though. Time will tell. Soon I hope.

You are beginning to sound like the posters at Rapture Ready.

[Minadin]

I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.



Buckling? You think that buckling hasn't ever occurred? Why would we even have a word for it, if that were the case?

Are you familiar with failure modes at all?

[Dave Rogers]

I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.

Nominated as one of the most elegant Stundies I've seen in a long while. I'm all agog to hear why the collapse of WTC2 was not even a comparable event to the collapse of WTC1.

Dave

[FineWine]

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 ?



You see, the question you ask is one an engineer could answer. Heiwa cannot. You are incapable of concluding anything from that observation, but the appropriate conclusion is clear enough.

I will guess that three floors falling would have been sufficient to trigger a global collapse, but a real engineer can calculate the energy released by any number of collapsing floors and compare it to the amount required to destroy the building.

[FineWine]

Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?


According to your hopeless guru, neither has any effect.

No glimmer of light yet? Nothing?

[FineWine]

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.



Actually your answer is absurdly wrong. Your lack of understanding is, to repeat, staggering. The supports above C1 were destroyed when the floors C1-13 collapsed, you ****.

[FineWine]

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 ?


The only thing undoubted about Heiwa is his incompetence. His bogus challenge does not relate to the collapse of the towers, as has been pointed out repeatedly. He keeps raving about the "indestructibility" of the collapsing mass of floors, but this concept exists only in his imagination.

Funny that a politically-motivated fraud like you would impute your own failing to others.

[Minadin]

Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?

Well, if a floor (concrete only) has a mass of 620,000 kg (63.4m x63.4m x 0.08m x 1925 kg / m3), and the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s2, can't you calculate the a) momentum and b) kinetic energy involved in each collision? Why are you asking us?

[A W Smith]

Well, if a floor (concrete only) has a mass of 620,000 kg (63.4m x63.4m x 0.08m x 1925 kg / m3), and the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s2, can't you calculate the a) momentum and b) kinetic energy involved in each collision? Why are you asking us?


You know I gave him the link to the MIT OpenCourseWare series lectured by Professor Walter Lewin. Who not only eloquently explains exactly that in his lecture series. But writes it all in chalk on the blackboards for all the world to see.

[Typicallucas]

Can you give the link again? I'm interested in viewing it and I can't seem to locate where you left the link :)

ETA: Nevermind! I thought you were talking about a course where Lewin discusses the WTC collapse. I saw the basic physics ones.

[Heiwa]

Actually your answer is absurdly wrong. Your lack of understanding is, to repeat, staggering. The supports above C1 were destroyed when the floors C1-13 collapsed, you ****.

This is exactly what I say. The weaker supports fail first, i.e. in the upper part C structure and the lower part structure remains intact. Then C1-C13 are resting on top of part A as before = part C cannot one-way crush down part A. The Heiwa Challenge is to produce a structure that does not behave like that.

[tfk]

Guys,

This will be my last response to Heiwa's nonsense. I've decided to make it simple, but comprehensive.

Please forgive the amount of "stating the obvious" at the beginning. The folks that have had trouble understanding Heiwa's nonsense are those who have difficulty with fundamental physics.

Heiwa's objections seem to be based on two assertions:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.

(I'll ignore the bit of inanity that "the upper block should have bounced" completely.)

Both of these assertions are completely wrong.

Here's why.

1. Fundamental Physics

The first assertion seems to have some justification in common sense. Most of us would prefer to have 5 pounds of loose bolts dropped 5' on top of our head than a 5 pound block of steel. Yet, aren't the bolts just a "broken up" 5 pound block of steel?

The answer to this is pretty easy. It lies in the fact that all damages that are caused by collisions are due to "inertial forces".

When we are hit with 5 lbs of loose bolts, the only masses that we have to accelerate (i.e., bring to a near stop from their velocity) are the individual bolts that are actually in contact with us. The fact that the bolts themselves are not connected to each other means that most of the bolts are not in contact with us at any given instant, and are not contributing to the forces applied to us. The collisions are, in essence, spread out in time.

In the case of a steel block, the internal atomic connections between all the parts of the block means that there is only one collision that happens all at once. And the entire mass of the rock needs to be accelerated. And the force that it applies to our head is much greater.

But let's look at an intermediate case. All the bolts are gathered in a steel mesh. If the mesh is very elastic, it approximates the separate bolts. If the mesh is stiff, then it approximate the solid block.

It is going to turn out that in the collapse of the towers, the mesh was made from the rebar in the concrete and the cross bracing. This mesh that is going to sweep up & trap the majority of the debris created by the crush and tie it all together at the bottom of the descending Part C of the towers.
__

2. The errors in Heiwa's model:

It is pointless to attempt to draw correct conclusions from incompetent models. Models must be tied to physical reality. Many folks have already pointed out several of his flaws in both his model & his analysis.

Heiwa's "Part A/Part C" model is incompetent. He has defined Part A & Part C as "the lower & upper portions (respectively) of the building that has stood for 30 years". In other words, the undamaged, as-built floors of the towers. I will accept, & hold him to, those definitions.

The specific model errors are:
1. The impact zone has suffered massive physical and thermal damage, and can NOT be included in either Part A or Part C, but needs its own descriptor (hereafter referred to as Part D).
2. Specifically, Heiwa incorrectly includes this damaged zone into his upper component, Part C.
3. When he cuts his model into a lower Part A and upper Part C, he incorrectly shows all columns stubs at the cut to be equal length and laterally braced. In reality, the column stubs are vertically staggered and have lost most of their lateral bracing.
4. He ignores the upper & lower 2-story transition zones between the crush zone and the undamaged areas. Understanding the events, and especially the asymmetries, in these two areas is crucial to understanding why the collapse progresses to the ground.
__

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

As will be shown below, the direct consequence of using a competent model and analysis is that Part C never gets closer than about 10 (collapsed) stories to Part A at any time during the collapse.
___

4. A Competent Model

Let's start with the basics.

Before the collapse began, there were eight floors (92 thru 99, inclusive, for 1WTC) that had suffered severe physical and thermal damage. [See NIST NCSTAR1-6, Chap 5. For physical damage, see Fig 5-1 & Table 5-1. For thermal damage, see Fig 5-13 & 5-14.]

Since this zone resembled neither of the other two parts, it requires its own description, Part D.

Therefore, before the collapse began:
Part A extends from the floors 1 thru 91.
Part D extends from the floors 92 thru 99.
Part C extends from floors 100 thru 110.

Figure 1: The Precollapse Model
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d6822afb.jpg

Notes on the drawings:
1. All components are drawn to scale.
2. NOTE WELL: the SHORT HEAVY LINES that indicate vertical & horizontal joints between column assemblies. These are the weak points where these assemblies will fracture.
3. The cross braces have not been included for clarity.
4. The cement floors are 5" thick (4" solid, with a 1.5" wedge at the bottom that fit into the floor deck). See NIST NCSTAR1-1A, Fig 5-8, and Fig 5-9. These are drawn to scale here & one can see that the cement floors were WAFERS...!! They were amazingly thin.
___

5. The collapse initiation

Figure 2: Collapse Initiation
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d683c8d3.jpg

I know that this is a hugely simplified version of the collapse and that the real event was far more chaotic than I'm presenting it. However, I believe that it illuminates the SPECIFIC phenomena that undermine Heiwa's nonsense. Most specifically, the question of "why Part C is not destroyed during the collapse".

The collapse began when the column-to-crosstruss connectors gave way on the 98th floor. The peripheral columns, that were bowed inward up to that moment, suddenly snapped. The inward bowed peripheral columns snapped thru center and outward, and the upper block immediately began to descend. [See NIST NCSTAR1-6, Sec 9-3-1 & Table 9-5.]

Figure 2 above shows the consequence of removing one row of peripheral columns. Note that the drawing shows the column assemblies removed as 3 story units, AS HAPPENED on 9/11. It is easy to see that the column damage extended above & below this floor due to the 3 story height of the column assemblies. The drawing shows Floor 98 turned into a crosshatched ellipse.

After the collapse began, there are two additional 2-story "transition zones" that appear above & below the actual crush floors. The upper transition zones are marked "Tu1" & "Tu2", for 1 story & 2 stories above the collapse zone, respectively. The lower transition zones are similarly marked "Td1" & "Td2".

Note that in zones Tu1 & Td1, 2/3rds of the columns and cross-trusses, plus all of the lateral bracing on the floor have been destroyed. Similarly, in Tu2 & Td2, 1/3rd of the columns and cross-trusses, plus 2/3rds of the lateral bracings have been destroyed.

This damage in the transition zones dramatically weakens the structural integrity of these zones that are above & below to the crush floor. We will see shortly that, while the upper transition zone fills with debris (and is thereby strengthened), the lower transition zone remains free of debris and massively weaker than either Part A, Part C or the Upper Transition Zone throughout the collapse.
__

6. The Collapse Progression.

In order to see why the collapse progression only in one direction, and why it continues to the ground, it is only necessary to follow a couple more steps. After Floor 98 blows out, turns to rubble and it and Part C begin to descend, the next (approximately) symmetric collapse occurs when the rubble of floor 98 hit floor 97. As shown by others, it is highly likely that Floor 97 will collapse immediately. But assume for a moment that it does not.

The next event occurs when Part C has descended sufficiently that its floor 99 stubs impact on floor 97 while the stubs from floor 97 impact on floor 99, with the rubble from floor 98 trapped in between. This is an approximately symmetric event, that turn floors 97 & 99 into rubble.

Fig 3. Collapse of Floors 97 & 99
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d6852506.jpg

UP TO this point, most events have been symmetric. The symmetry ends here.

Figure 3 shows the three floors turned to rubble. What it doesn't show is the velocity of various components. The upper Part C is now descending rapidly, and it gathers up all the debris of all three floors. This debris is caught by the mesh of rebar & cross-trusses, and embeds in the open spaces of the lower part of Part C.

The mesh is also interlaced with & tied to upper Part C's core & peripheral columns. This is crucial because, as explained before, while the concrete floors can only carry & resist loads up to their own strength & the strength of their connections, the columns can carry & resist loads equal to all the floors to which they are attached.

Notice that whenever the debris is created in the crush zone, it is created from parts that are, pre-collision, stationary. But, after just one story's collapse, the descending Part C is falling much faster than a piece of debris will begin to fall. This means that the piece of debris will get swept up in the mesh of the descending part ONLY. It will not accumulate interstitially in lower Part A.

This asymmetry then becomes the exact phenomenon that allows the smaller upper Part C to crush down the bigger lower Part A. The rubble is the key.

The fact that the rubble:
1. was created from stationary mass,
2. was swept up in the descending upper Part C,
3. was entrapped in a tough horizontal mesh of cross trusses & rebar,
4. became impacted as an almost solid mass of debris, which
5. was tied to Part C's core & peripheral columns, and
6. became an impenetrable barrier that prevented the stubs of the lower columns from destroying upper Part C
resulted in a descending upper Part C that was a rectangular tube within a tube with an essentially SOLID lower end cap.

The fact that the upper floor of the lower Part A was, at ever floor:
1. a massively weakened structure
2. that had lost 2/3rds of its vertical columns and all of its lateral supports, and
3. did NOT fill in with debris

All of these phenomena are shown in Fig 4 below.

Fig. 4. Collapse of Lower Floors
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a18f78e91884.jpg
__

Conclusion:

It is PRECISELY this asymmetry in collected debris that destroys Heiwa's argument that "Part C will be destroyed before Part A". This asymmetry results directly from the relative motion of the various parts due to gravity, as several people have stated for months. The asymmetry ultimately DOES result in the weight of 12 or more upper stories collapsing onto each single weakened lower story.

The total collapse was inevitable.

I hope this helps.

tom

[bill smith]

You should just give it up T.. You mention the bowing-in columns here. When the antenna started to collapse into the building the hat truss pulled in sections of the outside walls. This picture is just getting clearer and clearer.

[tuc0]

Guys,

This will be my last response to Heiwa's nonsense. I've decided to make it simple, but comprehensive.

*snip* the good stuff


That was a great, thorough and informative post. Thank you. It won't convince any of the residents of New Fraudsville in Magic Land, but it's still great. :)

[bill smith]

That was a great, thorough and informative post. Thank you. It won't convince any of the residents of New Fraudsville in Magic Land, but it's still great. :)

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.

[Grizzly Bear]

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.

If you have a reason to doubt the content then don't just stand there staring at your screen. Tell us what you do not understand or what you have issues with. I'm hoping to see the same from Heiwa, although his response with "LOL" the last time leaves me with little optimism in that.



The specific model errors are:
1. The impact zone has suffered massive physical and thermal damage, and can NOT be included in either Part A or Part C, but needs its own descriptor (hereafter referred to as Part D).
2. Specifically, Heiwa incorrectly includes this damaged zone into his upper component, Part C.
3. When he cuts his model into a lower Part A and upper Part C, he incorrectly shows all columns stubs at the cut to be equal length and laterally braced. In reality, the column stubs are vertically staggered and have lost most of their lateral bracing.
4. He ignores the upper & lower 2-story transition zones between the crush zone and the undamaged areas. Understanding the events, and especially the asymmetries, in these two areas is crucial to understanding why the collapse progresses to the ground.
__

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.


And thankyou for listing these in one place. Numerous people including myself have highlighted to so degree these errors that exist in his premise. THis provides a neat summary for those who are reviewing his premise.

[tsig]

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.

I suspect that if you understood it it would be more convincing.

All that time and effort and you just say "unconvincing" no reason, no facts just you. That's what this is all about isn't it?

[Heiwa]

Guys,

This will be my last response to Heiwa's nonsense. I've decided to make it simple, but comprehensive.

...


3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

...

The total collapse was inevitable.

I hope this helps.

tom


Thanks for post and interest in the Challenge. Topic is of course The Heiwa Challenge (see post #1) to produce a structure A+C where C (1/10 A) one-way crushes A when dropped on A, etc. A carries C before.

1. The structure A+C evidently consists of elements connected to one another. Each element has a mass and certain properties - length and cross area, material properties, etc. Each connection has certain properties and must be able to transmit force and moment, the latter can be zero, as required.
2. The static loads inside the structure are thus known and it is then easy to establish the associated static forces and moments applied to each element and transmitted by each connection.
3. We can also calculate the deformations and displacements of each element and connection due to the static loads.
4. The idea is that compressive stresses in primary supporting elements are same throughout, i.e. supporting elements at bottom of A must be heavier or stronger to withstand the static loads from above.
5. I suggest you use a simple beam element analysis software to get a feel for your structure before actually building it.
6. The structure must be able to withstand a lateral force applied at top, which is easy to check with the software (and in practice before test).
7. Now we disconnect part C from A and lift C distance h above A. Be careful not to damage C during this process.
8. Result is that part A is unloaded - it does not carry C any longer.
9. Now we drop C only using gravity! Before C contacts A, C is in free fall during drop and all internal forces and moments due to masses inside C are zero (as a falling mass in vacuum does not apply any load on anything - it just accelerates).
10. At contact (IMPACT) one element in C contacts one element in A and the two elements will be deformed and maybe one element will fail due to force and displacement. Thus the original structure is no longer the same and part of the energy applied (total is known) has been used to deform the structure and maybe break one element or connection. The force applied at contact will also decelerate C. If an element or connection is broken, the element may displace around other connections.
11. Upper part C may continue to displace downwards due gravity and other elements will contact one another, more deformations and failures may occur, etc, etc.
12. So the structural damage analysis is pretty complex! You have to keep track of all your elements all the time and verify, if they are intact or damaged and where they are located.
13. However, you can be certain that stronger elements contacting weaker elements have a tendency to break the weaker elements or their connections ... and the result will be that little part C structure is severly damaged; its weak elements will fail or be disconnected from stronger C elements by stronger elements in A. The stronger elements in C are then disconnected from other elements and ... become weak!
14. If you think that 'debris' is formed, you have to consider it. 'Debris' is apparently an element that is completely disconnected from the structure at all its connections - it is free! If you think that that 'debris' will protect C from being damaged, pls try to establish that idea in your test. Maybe the 'debris' will protect A instead?
15. If you think that said 'debris' will form a solid (?) mass of some sort (impacted, free elements) that crushes A, please, establish that idea too in your test. Maybe the solid mass will crush C instead? Consider friction forces!
16. If you think that part C, broken into damaged elements, can still damage part A, the challenge is a golden opportunity to test that idea.
17. Actually - you can break C into a couple of smaller subparts, C1, C2 and C3, etc, and drop those on A to see if a piece of C can break A. If intact C cannot break A, it is unlikely that a broken part of C, i.e. C1, C2, etc, can crush A ... but you can always try.
18. Re 'debris'! If it develops (the element must be completely free), it has a tendency to be pushed aside and out of the way and will do not harm intact structure. But if you think differently, show it will your challenge structure!


The result of The Heiwa Challenge is to establish that a structure cannot be one-way crushed down by a smaller part of itself being dropped on it by gravity only or ... that total collapse occurs. According the Björkman Axiom the latter is not possible.

Thanks again for your post. BTW - how about your religion?

[bill smith]

I suspect that if you understood it it would be more convincing.

All that time and effort and you just say "unconvincing" no reason, no facts just you. That's what this is all about isn't it?

Nah...Teddy started off with the strawman approach about 'Heiwa's two assertions', he tried to dress up assumptions as pronouncements and his drawings in no way resemble realistic representations. I suspect the purpose was to put up something that could be perceived as masterful which, believe it or not, many of your fellow members are happy to accept at face value. Remember what Mike Rivero famously said:

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

[tsig]

Nah...Teddy started off with the strawman approach about 'Heiwa's two assertions', he tried to dress up assumptions as pronouncements and his drawings in no way resemble realistic representations. I suspect the purpose was to put up something that could be perceived as masterful which, believe it or not, many of your fellow members are happy to accept at face value. Remember what Mike Rivero famously said:

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Why do you assume I'm taking anybody's word on this. The facts of physics speak for themselves.

[Heiwa]

Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Or even worse. Encourage the more talkative moral cowards/parrots to repeat the disinfo rubbish.

But ... topic is The Heiwa Challenge. A friendly and lively challenge. Any lively structure is permitted!

[Grizzly Bear]

Nah...Teddy started off with the strawman approach about 'Heiwa's two assertions'


1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.


Bill you seem to be confused about what a strawman argument is...

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.


he tried to dress up assumptions as pronouncements and his drawings in no way resemble realistic representations. I suspect the purpose was to put up something that could be percieved as masterful which, believe it or not, many of your fellow members are happy to accept at face value.


I know that this is a hugely simplified version of the collapse and that the real event was far more chaotic than I'm presenting it. However, I believe that it illuminates the SPECIFIC phenomena that undermine Heiwa's nonsense. Most specifically, the question of "why Part C is not destroyed during the collapse".

The collapse began when the column-to-crosstruss connectors gave way on the 98th floor. The peripheral columns, that were bowed inward up to that moment, suddenly snapped. The inward bowed peripheral columns snapped thru center and outward, and the upper block immediately began to descend. [See NIST NCSTAR1-6, Sec 9-3-1 & Table 9-5.]...

Bill, you don't understand what the purpose of a model is do you? Valid models are designed to highlight important aspects of a concept and simplify them so that you, the reader can better understand what the model conveys. Clearly you have extreme difficulty in this area, in which case you could have just asked about what things you don't understand clearly. That's obviously expecting too much from you though.


Remember what Mike Rivero famously said:

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."

Which you just used in an entirely wrong context... Of course you're first thought was to accuse me of having political motivations and now material you clearly didn't read or understand without so much as any substantiation rather than asking questions on anything you were not clear on. Not surprising.

[bill smith]

Why do you assume I'm taking anybody's word on this. The facts of physics speak for themselves.

Right...and then you must knw that a giant skyscraper is never crushed down to the ground by one tenth of itself whatever you are told. This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.

[PB2007]

This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.

Surely everything happens for the first time once?

Or are you saying that nothing can happen unless it's happened before?

[bill smith]

Surely everything happens for the first time once?

Or are you saying that nothing can happen unless it's happened before?

Would you believe that that is exactly what NIST said about WTC7. How far are you prepared to stretch coincidence ?

[FineWine]

This is exactly what I say. The weaker supports fail first, i.e. in the upper part C structure and the lower part structure remains intact. Then C1-C13 are resting on top of part A as before = part C cannot one-way crush down part A. The Heiwa Challenge is to produce a structure that does not behave like that.


Impenetrable stupidity, wrapped in smugness. Myriad and now tfk explained it well. You are hopeless.

[FineWine]

Guys,

This will be my last response to Heiwa's nonsense. I've decided to make it simple, but comprehensive.

Please forgive the amount of "stating the obvious" at the beginning. The folks that have had trouble understanding Heiwa's nonsense are those who have difficulty with fundamental physics.

Heiwa's objections seem to be based on two assertions:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.

(I'll ignore the bit of inanity that "the upper block should have bounced" completely.)

Both of these assertions are completely wrong.

Here's why.

1. Fundamental Physics

The first assertion seems to have some justification in common sense. Most of us would prefer to have 5 pounds of loose bolts dropped 5' on top of our head than a 5 pound block of steel. Yet, aren't the bolts just a "broken up" 5 pound block of steel?

The answer to this is pretty easy. It lies in the fact that all damages that are caused by collisions are due to "inertial forces".

When we are hit with 5 lbs of loose bolts, the only masses that we have to accelerate (i.e., bring to a near stop from their velocity) are the individual bolts that are actually in contact with us. The fact that the bolts themselves are not connected to each other means that most of the bolts are not in contact with us at any given instant, and are not contributing to the forces applied to us. The collisions are, in essence, spread out in time.

In the case of a steel block, the internal atomic connections between all the parts of the block means that there is only one collision that happens all at once. And the entire mass of the rock needs to be accelerated. And the force that it applies to our head is much greater.

But let's look at an intermediate case. All the bolts are gathered in a steel mesh. If the mesh is very elastic, it approximates the separate bolts. If the mesh is stiff, then it approximate the solid block.

It is going to turn out that in the collapse of the towers, the mesh was made from the rebar in the concrete and the cross bracing. This mesh that is going to sweep up & trap the majority of the debris created by the crush and tie it all together at the bottom of the descending Part C of the towers.
__

2. The errors in Heiwa's model:

It is pointless to attempt to draw correct conclusions from incompetent models. Models must be tied to physical reality. Many folks have already pointed out several of his flaws in both his model & his analysis.

Heiwa's "Part A/Part C" model is incompetent. He has defined Part A & Part C as "the lower & upper portions (respectively) of the building that has stood for 30 years". In other words, the undamaged, as-built floors of the towers. I will accept, & hold him to, those definitions.

The specific model errors are:
1. The impact zone has suffered massive physical and thermal damage, and can NOT be included in either Part A or Part C, but needs its own descriptor (hereafter referred to as Part D).
2. Specifically, Heiwa incorrectly includes this damaged zone into his upper component, Part C.
3. When he cuts his model into a lower Part A and upper Part C, he incorrectly shows all columns stubs at the cut to be equal length and laterally braced. In reality, the column stubs are vertically staggered and have lost most of their lateral bracing.
4. He ignores the upper & lower 2-story transition zones between the crush zone and the undamaged areas. Understanding the events, and especially the asymmetries, in these two areas is crucial to understanding why the collapse progresses to the ground.
__

3. The Errors in Heiwa's analysis:

These are too numerous to count. And have been detailed by numerous folks here already.

But the crucial one pertinent to this discussion include:

1. He ignores the difference between static & dynamic loads.
2. He ignores the asymmetric consequences of gravity and the vertical motion of the upper Part C.
3. He incorrectly claims that mass & energy of the upper block lose their ability to cause damage once they have broken into rubble.
4. Most important error: he ignores the fact that Part C is going to gather most of the debris created until its entire lower surface constitutes a near solid mass of impacted debris that easily crushes each Part A floor, one by one.
5. This lower solid mass of debris is also the material that protects the upper Part C from being eroded by the stub ends of Part A's columns.

As will be shown below, the direct consequence of using a competent model and analysis is that Part C never gets closer than about 10 (collapsed) stories to Part A at any time during the collapse.
___

4. A Competent Model

Let's start with the basics.

Before the collapse began, there were eight floors (92 thru 99, inclusive, for 1WTC) that had suffered severe physical and thermal damage. [See NIST NCSTAR1-6, Chap 5. For physical damage, see Fig 5-1 & Table 5-1. For thermal damage, see Fig 5-13 & 5-14.]

Since this zone resembled neither of the other two parts, it requires its own description, Part D.

Therefore, before the collapse began:
Part A extends from the floors 1 thru 91.
Part D extends from the floors 92 thru 99.
Part C extends from floors 100 thru 110.

Figure 1: The Precollapse Model
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d6822afb.jpg

Notes on the drawings:
1. All components are drawn to scale.
2. NOTE WELL: the SHORT HEAVY LINES that indicate vertical & horizontal joints between column assemblies. These are the weak points where these assemblies will fracture.
3. The cross braces have not been included for clarity.
4. The cement floors are 5" thick (4" solid, with a 1.5" wedge at the bottom that fit into the floor deck). See NIST NCSTAR1-1A, Fig 5-8, and Fig 5-9. These are drawn to scale here & one can see that the cement floors were WAFERS...!! They were amazingly thin.
___

5. The collapse initiation

Figure 2: Collapse Initiation
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d683c8d3.jpg

I know that this is a hugely simplified version of the collapse and that the real event was far more chaotic than I'm presenting it. However, I believe that it illuminates the SPECIFIC phenomena that undermine Heiwa's nonsense. Most specifically, the question of "why Part C is not destroyed during the collapse".

The collapse began when the column-to-crosstruss connectors gave way on the 98th floor. The peripheral columns, that were bowed inward up to that moment, suddenly snapped. The inward bowed peripheral columns snapped thru center and outward, and the upper block immediately began to descend. [See NIST NCSTAR1-6, Sec 9-3-1 & Table 9-5.]

Figure 2 above shows the consequence of removing one row of peripheral columns. Note that the drawing shows the column assemblies removed as 3 story units, AS HAPPENED on 9/11. It is easy to see that the column damage extended above & below this floor due to the 3 story height of the column assemblies. The drawing shows Floor 98 turned into a crosshatched ellipse.

After the collapse began, there are two additional 2-story "transition zones" that appear above & below the actual crush floors. The upper transition zones are marked "Tu1" & "Tu2", for 1 story & 2 stories above the collapse zone, respectively. The lower transition zones are similarly marked "Td1" & "Td2".

Note that in zones Tu1 & Td1, 2/3rds of the columns and cross-trusses, plus all of the lateral bracing on the floor have been destroyed. Similarly, in Tu2 & Td2, 1/3rd of the columns and cross-trusses, plus 2/3rds of the lateral bracings have been destroyed.

This damage in the transition zones dramatically weakens the structural integrity of these zones that are above & below to the crush floor. We will see shortly that, while the upper transition zone fills with debris (and is thereby strengthened), the lower transition zone remains free of debris and massively weaker than either Part A, Part C or the Upper Transition Zone throughout the collapse.
__

6. The Collapse Progression.

In order to see why the collapse progression only in one direction, and why it continues to the ground, it is only necessary to follow a couple more steps. After Floor 98 blows out, turns to rubble and it and Part C begin to descend, the next (approximately) symmetric collapse occurs when the rubble of floor 98 hit floor 97. As shown by others, it is highly likely that Floor 97 will collapse immediately. But assume for a moment that it does not.

The next event occurs when Part C has descended sufficiently that its floor 99 stubs impact on floor 97 while the stubs from floor 97 impact on floor 99, with the rubble from floor 98 trapped in between. This is an approximately symmetric event, that turn floors 97 & 99 into rubble.

Fig 3. Collapse of Floors 97 & 99
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a189d6852506.jpg

UP TO this point, most events have been symmetric. The symmetry ends here.

Figure 3 shows the three floors turned to rubble. What it doesn't show is the velocity of various components. The upper Part C is now descending rapidly, and it gathers up all the debris of all three floors. This debris is caught by the mesh of rebar & cross-trusses, and embeds in the open spaces of the lower part of Part C.

The mesh is also interlaced with & tied to upper Part C's core & peripheral columns. This is crucial because, as explained before, while the concrete floors can only carry & resist loads up to their own strength & the strength of their connections, the columns can carry & resist loads equal to all the floors to which they are attached.

Notice that whenever the debris is created in the crush zone, it is created from parts that are, pre-collision, stationary. But, after just one story's collapse, the descending Part C is falling much faster than a piece of debris will begin to fall. This means that the piece of debris will get swept up in the mesh of the descending part ONLY. It will not accumulate interstitially in lower Part A.

This asymmetry then becomes the exact phenomenon that allows the smaller upper Part C to crush down the bigger lower Part A. The rubble is the key.

The fact that the rubble:
1. was created from stationary mass,
2. was swept up in the descending upper Part C,
3. was entrapped in a tough horizontal mesh of cross trusses & rebar,
4. became impacted as an almost solid mass of debris, which
5. was tied to Part C's core & peripheral columns, and
6. became an impenetrable barrier that prevented the stubs of the lower columns from destroying upper Part C
resulted in a descending upper Part C that was a rectangular tube within a tube with an essentially SOLID lower end cap.

The fact that the upper floor of the lower Part A was, at ever floor:
1. a massively weakened structure
2. that had lost 2/3rds of its vertical columns and all of its lateral supports, and
3. did NOT fill in with debris

All of these phenomena are shown in Fig 4 below.

Fig. 4. Collapse of Lower Floors
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a18f78e91884.jpg
__

Conclusion:

It is PRECISELY this asymmetry in collected debris that destroys Heiwa's argument that "Part C will be destroyed before Part A". This asymmetry results directly from the relative motion of the various parts due to gravity, as several people have stated for months. The asymmetry ultimately DOES result in the weight of 12 or more upper stories collapsing onto each single weakened lower story.

The total collapse was inevitable.

I hope this helps.

tom


A superb job. Nothing can get through the rocks the "truthers" wear above their necks, but the rest of us appreciate a clear, yet not dumbed-down explanation.

[FineWine]

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.


Nothing that isn't nonsense could ever convince you of anything. You are an unthinking fraud.

[FineWine]

Or even worse. Encourage the more talkative moral cowards/parrots to repeat the disinfo rubbish.

But ... topic is The Heiwa Challenge. A friendly and lively challenge. Any lively structure is permitted!

You have been exposed as thoroughly as any politically-motivated fraud has ever been exposed.

[CORed]

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.

This coming from somebody who thinks a demonstration involving plastic in/out trays was convincing.

[Minadin]

Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?

Well, if a floor (concrete only) has a mass of 620,000 kg (63.4m x63.4m x 0.08m x 1925 kg / m3), and the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s2, can't you calculate the a) momentum and b) kinetic energy involved in each collision? Why are you asking us?

Come on Bill, you didn't even try.

[tfk]

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.
As unconvincing as this post?

Why don't you take a shot at identifying the statements in my post that you think are wrong, and then make a case as to why they are, in your opinion, wrong.

You know, like actual thinking people do...

[tfk]

Heiwa,

This was my attempt to accurately portray your stated opinions.


Heiwa's objections seem to be based on two assertions:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.


Was my phrasing accurate?

tom

[tsig]

Right...and then you must knw that a giant skyscraper is never crushed down to the ground by one tenth of itself whatever you are told. This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.

Once again, I am not going by what I was told. This is not history but physics.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

This was my attempt to accurately portray your stated opinions.



Was my phrasing accurate?

tom

You suggest:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.

1. Yes, something like that! Strong elements will damage weak elements; dislocated columns will punch through thin floors, damaged elements will hinge around intact connections, no element will really be totally wrenched from all connections, etc. Friction between partly damaged elements in contact with one another plays an important role.

2. Not really destroyed! Upper part C would be severely damaged in its lower section due to contacts with part A after a gravity displacement; thus part C, partly damaged, would remain up on top of part A. So no one-way crush down is possible; just local failures in the affected stories up top. This happens in any scale or size.

And that's why NIST cannot explain the global collapse that ensued.

If you study any video of the WTC destructions, you see big chuncks of steel perimeter assemblies of the upper part C being thrown/pushed out sideways followed by a plume of dust (from the floors?) before anything happens to lower part A. To me sophisticated CD is causing this. Gravity cannot do it.

[bill smith]

As unconvincing as this post?

Why don't you take a shot at identifying the statements in my post that you think are wrong, and then make a case as to why they are, in your opinion, wrong.

You know, like actual thinking people do...

Assertion 1:Heiwa never said that the rubble 'loses' it's ability to destroy components in the lower part A'. He said that the forces would be subdivided into lots of smaller forces seperated by time. Not the same thing at all and a pure strawman

Assertion 2: Dealt with by Heiwa above and also a strawman.

The next two pargrahs are perfect examples of assumptions masquerading as pronouncements :-

'' It is going to turn out that in the collapse of the towers, the mesh was made from the rebar in the concrete and the cross bracing. This mesh that is going to sweep up & trap the majority of the debris created by the crush and tie it all together at the bottom of the descending Part C of the towers.''


''The fact that the rubble:
1. was created from stationary mass,
2. was swept up in the descending upper Part C,
3. was entrapped in a tough horizontal mesh of cross trusses & rebar,
4. became impacted as an almost solid mass of debris, which
5. was tied to Part C's core & peripheral columns, and
6. became an impenetrable barrier that prevented the stubs of the lower columns from destroying upper Part C''

The less said about the last paragraph the better....

[Minadin]

Do you think that when the building parts are disconnected, they are 'simply destroyed'? That they no longer contribute their mass and velocity to collapse progression?

[tfk]

Heiwa,



Thanks for post and interest in the Challenge. Topic is of course The Heiwa Challenge ...


You are interested in your challenge. I'm interested in the events of 9/11. Two unrelated topics.


2. The static loads...
3. We can also calculate the deformations ...
4. The idea is that compressive stresses ...
5. I suggest you use a simple beam element analysis software ...
7. Now we disconnect part C from A ...
8. Result is that part A is unloaded ...
9. Now we drop C only using gravity...
10. At contact (IMPACT) one element in C ...
11. Upper part C may continue ...
12. So the structural damage analysis ...
13. However, you can be certain that stronger elements ...


Your usual techno-babble. ALL of which has been debunked.


14. If you think that 'debris' is formed, you have to consider it.


" ... If [i] THINK that debris is formed ..."??

Stundie!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp6.html


'Debris' is apparently an element that is completely disconnected from the structure at all its connections - it is free!


Please. Don't make up arbitrary (and erroneous) definitions.

Debris is any broken, fractured matter generated by the collisions. A TINY percent is disconnected at ALL points. The debris that matters to this discussion is that subset that does NOT get thrown clear of the towers, but rather gets trapped between the upper & lower parts.


If you think that that 'debris' will protect C from being damaged, pls try to establish that idea in your test.

Let's see... Do I think that a wall of several hundred tons of matter (the debris) will protect "what is behind it" (i.e., the upper Part C) from other matter (i.e., the unsupported column stubs of Part A) that are approaching at high speed...??

You are seriously proposing that, for a platoon of soldiers who walk into a machine gun ambush, the concept of "taking cover behind (trees, rocks, whatever)" needs to be "established".


Maybe the 'debris' will protect A instead?


Sure thing, Heiwa. You got me here. I should have thought about this one a little more carefully.

This explains why, when a bunch of firemen are trying to save a building, as soon as they hear the building start to collapse, they all run INTO the building!!! Because they all know that the thousands of tons of falling debris generated above them will PROTECT them...

How the hell is is possible that some foolish institution gave you an engineering degree ...??


15. If you think that said 'debris' will form a solid (?) mass of some sort (impacted, free elements) that crushes A, please, establish that idea too in your test.


Have you ever heard of a filter? A clogged filter? A sieve? A "debris dam"?
Here's one: http://www.stoeckerecological.com/img/Carp_Debris_Dam_SA.jpg
And another: http://www.trailhop.com/wp-content/gallery/angeles-national-forest-oakwilde-campground/DSC03522.jpg


Maybe the solid mass will crush C instead?


It's called an "INELASTIC collision". After the collision, the parts have zero relative velocity. Zero relative velocity means zero crushing.


Consider friction forces!


Good suggestion. Perhaps "frictional forces" explain your head irretrievably wedged up your keister.


BTW - how about your religion?


I've answered this question four separate time for you.

Has reading comprehension & retention always been problems for you?
__

I answered most of the questions that you raised in you reply. Then I deleted the answers. It's clear that you're not really interested in an honest discussion. But rather simply strutting around like a peacock.

The only reason I posted the analysis above is that it demonstrated fundamental errors that negate your "challenge's" relevance to the collapse of the towers. Perhaps it doesn't belong here. I'll move the parts that are not pertinent.

You have alleged that your model is an accurate model of the towers. I have posted several ways in which you model is fatally flawed. You can choose to reply to those comments.

Or, by your silence, accede that your challenge is irrelevant to the collapse of the towers.

Your choice. But I would make a prediction...

tom

[tfk]

You suggest:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

2. The upper portion of the tower (Part C) should have been destroyed during the crush down in approximately equal measure to the number of floors below that were destroyed. So that if the upper block consisted of approximately 12 stories (F99 - F110), then it should have been "eroded" by the time it crushed the lower block down about 12 - 15 stories. And the crush down should have therefore stopped around the 70th - 80th floor.

1. Yes, something like that! Strong elements will damage weak elements; dislocated columns will punch through thin floors, damaged elements will hinge around intact connections, no element will really be totally wrenched from all connections, etc. Friction between partly damaged elements in contact with one another plays an important role.

2. Not really destroyed! Upper part C would be severely damaged in its lower section due to contacts with part A after a gravity displacement; thus part C, partly damaged, would remain up on top of part A. So no one-way crush down is possible; just local failures in the affected stories up top. This happens in any scale or size.

And that's why NIST cannot explain the global collapse that ensued.

If you study any video of the WTC destructions, you see big chuncks of steel perimeter assemblies of the upper part C being thrown/pushed out sideways followed by a plume of dust (from the floors?) before anything happens to lower part A. To me sophisticated CD is causing this. Gravity cannot do it.
Sorry, my mistake.

I should have known better than to expect a straight answer out of you.

After all, I've asked you ten times for a simple, one word statement regarding whether or not you're really offering $1 million for someone who disproves your whacky axiom...

... and you STILL haven't managed to type "yes" or "no".

I'll not attempt to interpret your ever-changing story in the future. I'll just Cut&Paste your most recent nonsense.

tom

[tfk]

bill,


Assertion 1:Heiwa never said that the rubble 'loses' it's ability to destroy components in the lower part A'.


Oh, really? Let's let Heiwa speak for himself.


16. If you think that part C, broken into damaged elements, can still damage part A, the challenge is a golden opportunity to test that idea.
17. Actually - you can break C into a couple of smaller subparts, C1, C2 and C3, etc, and drop those on A to see if a piece of C can break A. If intact C cannot break A, it is unlikely that a broken part of C, i.e. C1, C2, etc, can crush A ... but you can always try.
18. Re 'debris'! If it develops (the element must be completely free), it has a tendency to be pushed aside and out of the way and will do not harm intact structure. But if you think differently, show it will your challenge structure!



There are NO words indicating "reduction of damage" in any of that. There is nothing but absolutes.

So, bill, you're typically wrong. Heiwa doesn't use (& apparently doesn't recognize) the concept of continuous gradients. He deals in binary states. He is wrong. In this, and so many other things.
You are wrong. In this, and so many other things.

What a pair...


He said that the forces would be subdivided into lots of smaller forces seperated by time. Not the same thing at all and a pure strawman



Gee, Heiwa just answered this same question in two separate posts. And not once did he use the term "sequentially", "separated in time" or any comparable phrase.



The next two pargrahs are perfect examples of assumptions masquerading as pronouncements :-


'' It is going to turn out that in the collapse of the towers, the mesh was made from the rebar in the concrete and the cross bracing. This mesh that is going to sweep up & trap the majority of the debris created by the crush and tie it all together at the bottom of the descending Part C of the towers.''

''The fact that the rubble:
1. was created from stationary mass,
2. was swept up in the descending upper Part C,
3. was entrapped in a tough horizontal mesh of cross trusses & rebar,
4. became impacted as an almost solid mass of debris, which
5. was tied to Part C's core & peripheral columns, and
6. became an impenetrable barrier that prevented the stubs of the lower columns from destroying upper Part C''


You apparently do not recognize the difference between "assumptions" and "conclusions".

The above are not assumptions. They are conclusions. They are based on considerations of simple mechanics, velocities & accelerations, geometries and momentum. And all the logic is laid out for you.

Now, IF you think that you have something the slightest bit consequential to offer, feel free to comment.


The less said about the last paragraph the better....


I understand completely.

LoL.

[bill smith]

bill,



Oh, really? Let's let Heiwa speak for himself.




There are NO words indicating "reduction of damage" in any of that. There is nothing but absolutes.

So, bill, you're typically wrong. Heiwa doesn't use (& apparently doesn't recognize) the concept of continuous gradients. He deals in binary states. He is wrong. In this, and so many other things.
You are wrong. In this, and so many other things.

What a pair...




Gee, Heiwa just answered this same question in two separate posts. And not once did he use the term "sequentially", "separated in time" or any comparable phrase.





You apparently do not recognize the difference between "assumptions" and "conclusions".

The above are not assumptions. They are conclusions. They are based on considerations of simple mechanics, velocities & accelerations, geometries and momentum. And all the logic is laid out for you.

Now, IF you think that you have something the slightest bit consequential to offer, feel free to comment.



I understand completely.

LoL.


Weak and unconvincing T.

I only have one further comment on this...

...8...9...10- OUT !

[bill smith]

T....can you help out on this point ?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4746832&posted=1#post4746832

[Justin39640]

i dont know if anyone brought this up
but
Richard Gage did the Heiwa Challenge
at about the 6 minute mark his "presentation" begins
RFtxm1i0jNg

looks like we lost :(
architect indeed lol

[bill smith]

i dont know if anyone brought this up
but
Richard Gage did the Heiwa Challenge
at about the 6 minute mark his "presentation" begins
RFtxm1i0jNg

looks like we lost :(
architect indeed lol

I saw both parts of that debate. Very enjoyable too. I did note that Mark Roberts seemed a little put out the next day in his blog here on the jref.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789539&postcount=128

[Grizzly Bear]

Sweet Jesus... not the card board boxes! NO!!!!

[bill smith]

Sweet Jesus... not the card board boxes! NO!!!!

Do you remember this one ? I was trying to get it through to Truth High Command that we should take over this technique and make our own clips in the same vein.Loads of raw material. But do they listen...? Sheesh...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw

[Architect]

i dont know if anyone brought this up
but
Richard Gage did the Heiwa Challenge
at about the 6 minute mark his "presentation" begins
RFtxm1i0jNg

looks like we lost :(
architect indeed lol

Please, please, we don't like laymen criticising our profession.

Leave it to me, I'm more than happy to get stuck into the incompetent buffoon.

[tfk]

T....can you help out on this point ?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4746832&posted=1#post4746832

Yes, I can. And yes I already have.

Remember I said that you simply take ignore answers that are given to you, and recycle old crap all over again?

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post37992

Ask him what would have happened if the plane was stationary and you could somehow fly the buiding at it at 500mph ? Wouldn't the plane still enter the building. Is there a difference in he Physics ?




When two things collide, which one is moving and which one is stationary does NOT change anything. This is a cornerstone of both traditional mechanics and relativity.

But you have to get the "constraints" to be the same for the two cases. That means "how rigid are the pieces held in place" has to be identical. And, in general, things that are moving tend to be light and softly constrained, while things that fixed into the ground tend to be heavy and firmly fixed.

The plane cannot be firmly fixed to the ground tho. It has to be able to "accelerate" backwards as a result of the collision just like the moving plane was able to "decelerate".

...

If you get the constraints set up right, you'll get exactly the same results if you throw the building into the plane at 500 mph as you did by throwing the plane into the building at that speed.


Nah, you would never, ever just recycle nonsense...

[Typicallucas]

Please, please, we don't like laymen criticising our profession.

Leave it to me, I'm more than happy to get stuck into the incompetent buffoon.

Mark Roberts does an excellent job of handling his side of the debate... I find the forum for their debate to be offensive: two people arguing on the side of AE911 and the moderator does not seem to be unbiased, the moderator also seems to think that regarding matters of the physical world we can "agree to disagree" or "both be right."

Holy hell. Richard Gage should have his license (C19220) revoked for being such a complete numbskull.

[Justin39640]

Holy hell. Richard Gage should have his license (C19220) revoked for being such a complete numbskull.

if i found out i was workin in a building by him id definitely relocate after that display
i wonder if he does earthquake modeling by taking the foam cut-out buildings and shake them for a few seconds lol (of course while making quake noises "rumbleeeeee")

[Typicallucas]

Luckily, any building he builds (besides single story residential and some other types of buildings) will have a licensed structural engineer who, even if he is a AE911 truther as well, will most likely make use of software that follows rigid rules based on reality.

Also, before any building he builds can get a building permit there will be a review of the structural calculations by a (hopefully) well qualified plan reviewer.

It looks like Richard Gage works on schools mainly, so all of his drawings and calculations probably get reviewed in Sacramento by state engineers...

Even still, I feel like repeating what I said 10 days ago

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.

[FineWine]

bill,



Oh, really? Let's let Heiwa speak for himself.




There are NO words indicating "reduction of damage" in any of that. There is nothing but absolutes.

So, bill, you're typically wrong. Heiwa doesn't use (& apparently doesn't recognize) the concept of continuous gradients. He deals in binary states. He is wrong. In this, and so many other things.
You are wrong. In this, and so many other things.

What a pair...




Gee, Heiwa just answered this same question in two separate posts. And not once did he use the term "sequentially", "separated in time" or any comparable phrase.





You apparently do not recognize the difference between "assumptions" and "conclusions".

The above are not assumptions. They are conclusions. They are based on considerations of simple mechanics, velocities & accelerations, geometries and momentum. And all the logic is laid out for you.

Now, IF you think that you have something the slightest bit consequential to offer, feel free to comment.



I understand completely.

LoL.


You've created some excellent posts in this thread. It must frustrate you to reflect on how small your audience is. The other engineers know the stuff you're explaining. Heiwa and his mindless echoes are incapable of learning anything. So, you're left with maybe a dozen of us who really appreciate your efforts. Speaking just for myself, thank you very much.

[Typicallucas]

You've created some excellent posts in this thread. It must frustrate you to reflect on how small your audience is. The other engineers know the stuff you're explaining. Heiwa and his mindless echoes are incapable of learning anything. So, you're left with maybe a dozen of us who really appreciate your efforts. Speaking just for myself, thank you very much.

Hear, hear.

[Typicallucas]

Sweet Jesus... not the card board boxes! NO!!!!

Haha, if someone ever does the cardboard box test in my presence I will drop kick the cardboard box say "Tell me what the box's reaction to my drop-kick tells us about skyscrapers." When they tell me "Nothing." I'll say "Right, now GTFO!!"

ETA: In the video did you notice that at 6:30 when he drops the "two 15-story sections" the one that hits the table sounds like it has a heavy weight in it???? AHAHAHAAA he must have thought it would fall faster with a weight in it!!!! :D :D :D :D

Here is a transcript: "Ready, one, two, three. THUD. Oh my god, the one that had no resistance under it falls at freefall speed.

[bill smith]

Haha, if someone ever does the cardboard box test in my presence I will drop kick the cardboard box say "Tell me what the box's reaction to my drop-kick tells us about skyscrapers." When they tell me "Nothing." I'll say "Right, now GTFO!!"

ETA: In the video did you notice that at 6:30 when he drops the "two 15-story sections" the one that hits the table sounds like it has a heavy weight in it???? AHAHAHAAA he must have thought it would fall faster with a weight in it!!!! :D :D :D :D

Here is a transcript: "Ready, one, two, three. THUD. Oh my god, the one that had no resistance under it falls at freefall speed.

It's a pity we don't still have the cardboard boxes that the Towers originally came in. Then we could REALLY have a go with Richrd Gage's demonstration in full scale.lol

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that when the building parts are disconnected, they are 'simply destroyed'? That they no longer contribute their mass and velocity to collapse progression?

And of course that's what's missing from Heiwa's argument that crush-up dominates over crush-down. He claims that the upper supports are stronger and will therefore fail first, but this ignores the fact that the falling debris has momentum that must be absorbed by the lower structure. Since the only way the lower structure can absorb this momentum is by deformation - it can't react by acceleration, as the upper block can, because it's fixed to the ground - then if there is enough momentum in the falling debris that it can't be absorbed by elastic deformation, the lower structure fails. That is the asymmetry between the upper and lower blocks, and that's why crush-down is expected to predominate over crush-up.

Dave

[Heiwa]

How lower part A remains intact while upper part C is destroyed can be seen here:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=118&MMN_position=251:251

[Grizzly Bear]

How lower part A remains intact while upper part C is destroyed can be seen here:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=118&MMN_position=251:251

It also appears that the author of the linked article hasn't any concept of what a connection failure is.

[MIKILLINI]

It's a pity we don't still have the cardboard boxes that the Towers originally came in. Then we could REALLY have a go with Richrd Gage's demonstration in full scale.lol

Um..yeah, Bill. Sure. :nope:

[NobbyNobbs]

Right...and then you must knw that a giant skyscraper is never crushed down to the ground by one tenth of itself whatever you are told. This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.

Actually, it happened twice. About 7 1/2 years ago.

Would you believe that that is exactly what NIST said about WTC7. How far are you prepared to stretch coincidence ?

Thomas Edison made a whole lot of things happen for the first time ever. Coincidence? Or conspiracy?

[Jackanory]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

It seems that in Heiwa's world all is constructed of cardboard and eggs. Perhaps if we build a skyscraper the size of WTC1/WTC2 out of cardboard and eggs and then smash a commercial aircraft into it, let it burn for a while then see what happens. Oh sorry, we already saw what happens with structures made of more substantial materials. Oh well, it happened twice infront of billions and Heiwa is trying to convince an audience of 60 ish. CTers sure know how to get their story to the masses;)

[tsig]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

It seems that in Heiwa's world all is constructed of cardboard and eggs. Perhaps if we build a skyscraper the size of WTC1/WTC2 out of cardboard and eggs and then smash a commercial aircraft into it, let it burn for a while then see what happens. Oh sorry, we already saw what happens with structures made of more substantial materials. Oh well, it happened twice infront of billions and Heiwa is trying to convince an audience of 60 ish. CTers sure know how to get their story to the masses;)

Apparently posting here is the best way to get a new investigation.

[Heiwa]

I cant believe this thread is still going.

It seems that in Heiwa's world all is constructed of cardboard and eggs. Perhaps if we build a skyscraper the size of WTC1/WTC2 out of cardboard and eggs and then smash a commercial aircraft into it, let it burn for a while then see what happens. Oh sorry, we already saw what happens with structures made of more substantial materials. Oh well, it happened twice infront of billions and Heiwa is trying to convince an audience of 60 ish. CTers sure know how to get their story to the masses;)

Actually this thread is a simple Challenge to design any structure A+C that will one-way crush down, when a part C is dropped on part A (=10C). Nobody seems to be able to conceive such a structure but let's face it; it is not possible according to the Björkman Axiom.

[Minadin]

And of course that's what's missing from Heiwa's argument that crush-up dominates over crush-down. He claims that the upper supports are stronger and will therefore fail first, but this ignores the fact that the falling debris has momentum that must be absorbed by the lower structure. Since the only way the lower structure can absorb this momentum is by deformation - it can't react by acceleration, as the upper block can, because it's fixed to the ground - then if there is enough momentum in the falling debris that it can't be absorbed by elastic deformation, the lower structure fails. That is the asymmetry between the upper and lower blocks, and that's why crush-down is expected to predominate over crush-up.

Dave


Indeed.

[Heiwa]

And of course that's what's missing from Heiwa's argument that crush-up dominates over crush-down. He claims that the upper supports are stronger and will therefore fail first, but this ignores the fact that the falling debris has momentum that must be absorbed by the lower structure. Since the only way the lower structure can absorb this momentum is by deformation - it can't react by acceleration, as the upper block can, because it's fixed to the ground - then if there is enough momentum in the falling debris that it can't be absorbed by elastic deformation, the lower structure fails. That is the asymmetry between the upper and lower blocks, and that's why crush-down is expected to predominate over crush-up.

Dave

Hm, the reason why upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A is that stronger elements in part A simply damages weaker elements in part C at contact that in turn gets disconnected from stronger elements in part C.

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart. Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

Your task, DR, is to produce a real structure that doesn't follow the above description as per The Heiwa Challenge rules (see post #1).

But I can assure you! You'll fail.

[Jackanory]

Actually this thread is a simple Challenge to design any structure A+C that will one-way crush down, when a part C is dropped on part A (=10C). Nobody seems to be able to conceive such a structure but let's face it; it is not possible according to the Björkman Axiom.

19 terrorists proved it to be possible Heiwa. Your just chasing your tail for kicks.

[Jackanory]

Hm, the reason why upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A is that stronger elements in part A simply damages weaker elements in part C at contact that in turn gets disconnected from stronger elements in part C.

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart. Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

Your task, DR, is to produce a real structure that doesn't follow the above description as per The Heiwa Challenge rules (see post #1).

But I can assure you! You'll fail.

Yet part 'C' didnt just crush down part 'A' did it Heiwa. Part 'C' actually gradually displaced part 'A' laterally floor by floor - pushing most of it outwards as it did so.

19 terroists proved it to billions - you fail chasing your tail.

[Dave Rogers]

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

And yet, when you tried to prove that mathematically, you found that you had to handwave away half of the potential energy in the system and miscalculate the elastic strain energy to avoid exceeding the elastic limit of the entire lower structure. Funny, that.

Dave

[Jackanory]

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart[/COLOR]. [/COLOR]Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.
.

Your not very good at this Heiwa. Did it do what you said (In red) or did it do what you said (in black).

What was displaced latterally Heiwa?

Did the WTC collapse but remain the same height in debris?

You even fail at chasing your own tail.

(damn thing wont go to red)

[Heiwa]

And yet, when you tried to prove that mathematically, you found that you had to handwave away half of the potential energy in the system and miscalculate the elastic strain energy to avoid exceeding the elastic limit of the entire lower structure. Funny, that.

Dave

Did I? You can chose any parameters to establish the elastic strain energy capability of the structure and the result will ... advance your knowledge.

In one case the structure is 'soft' and the result is 100% elastic; only a bounce of C on A. That's the easy case! I like that one. In another case the structure is a little 'stiffer' and C is severly damaged before A is affected. Part C cannot elastically apply the energy to A. C breaks up! Then you have to re-calculate what damaged C can do to A later. A little more complex. Actually C is completely destroyed by A.

In either case no one-way crush down by C of A is possible.

But if you can prove the opposite just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

[Jackanory]

Did I? You can chose any parameters to establish the elastic strain energy capability of the structure and the result will ... advance your knowledge.

In one case the structure is 'soft' and the result is 100% elastic; only a bounce of C on A. That's the easy case! I like that one. In another case the structure is a little 'stiffer' and C is severly damaged before A is affected. Part C cannot elastically apply the energy to A. C breaks up! Then you have to re-calculate what damaged C can do to A later. A little more complex. Actually C is completely destroyed by A.

In either case no one-way crush down by C of A is possible.

But if you can prove the opposite just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

Heiwa - Still awaiting you to clarify the questions to post 826.

[Dave Rogers]

Did I?

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

[Jackanory]

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

I can sense a hand wave coming on, followed by more tech jargon from the Heiwa cavern.

[Heiwa]

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

?? lol ??? But if you can prove your point just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge


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

Conditions:

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

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa I again present the WTC towers on 911. I win again.

Heiwa owes me 1 million dollars but he was telling a lie; he will not pay.

[Heiwa]

I again present the WTC towers on 911. I win again.

Heiwa owes me 1 million dollars but he was telling a lie; he will not pay.

Good! I like this. A full scale model. Now detach part C from part A and drop part C on A. Pls, advise full details, etc, etc.

Re winning, pls consult the conditions.

[beachnut]

Good! I like this. A full scale model. Now detach part C from part A and drop part C on A. Pls, advise full details, etc, etc.

Re winning, pls consult the conditions.
The towers prove you wrong and you can't figure it out. You don't have an engineering degree or a working knowledge of physics. Other than that you are completely capable of making up delusions about 911.

Please stop messing up science.

[Heiwa]

The towers prove you wrong and you can't figure it out. You don't have an engineering degree or a working knowledge of physics. Other than that you are completely capable of making up delusions about 911.

Please stop messing up science.

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

[bill smith]

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=bjorkmans+axiom&aq=f&oq=

[beachnut]

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!
You have to prove it did not happen. You have failed to do so. It happened and all your moronic delusions can't prove it did not. You have provided zero numerical analysis to prove the WTC can't collapse like it did from impact and fires on 911. You have completely failed to make your point and your delusional physics and total lack of engineering skills are evident in your work.

Your only cheerleader calls herself BillSmith, and she can't calculate the energy involved in the WTC gravity collapse to see you are make up lies.

[bill smith]

You have to prove it did not happen. You have failed to do so. It happened and all your moronic delusions can't prove it did not. You have provided zero numerical analysis to prove the WTC can't collapse like it did from impact and fires on 911. You have completely failed to make your point and your delusional physics and total lack of engineering skills are evident in your work.

Your only cheerleader calls herself BillSmith, and she can't calculate the energy involved in the WTC gravity collapse to see you are make up lies.

Beachnut do you think it is irresponsible of the mainstream media to show interviews like his or is it all fair and square in a democracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Typicallucas]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

[bill smith]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

It's just a NEWSFLASH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded

[Typicallucas]

"Newsflash" or not, this thread is the twisted "Heiwa Challenge" and it was just pointed out that you and your CT friends are delusional failures who have not been able to support an argument about anything.

Don't you have anything to say about that?

[beachnut]

It's just a NEWSFLASH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911blogger%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded
Gage is a liar. Are Gage's delusions your delusions too? It takes massive ignorance on a multitude of subject areas to believe what Gage has made up.

You have zero evidence to back up Gage. You like lies about 911.

Gage and Heiwa are a matched pair; both push delusional ideas on 911. What do the moronic rantings of Gage have to do with the moronic ideas of Heiwa?

[bill smith]

Gage is a liar. Are Gage's delusions your delusions too? It takes massive ignorance on a multitude of subject areas to believe what Gage has made up.

You have zero evidence to back up Gage. You like lies about 911.



Gage and Heiwa are a matched pair; both push delusional ideas on 911. What do the moronic rantings of Gage have to do with the moronic ideas of Heiwa?

Did you see this comment ?

''Why are the views frozen at 324 views for the last couple of hours, even though tons of comments have been made during this time? Strange.''

Why do you think Google has frozen the counter ? A technical error maybe ? lol

[Jackanory]

Did you see this comment ?

''Why are the views frozen at 324 views for the last couple of hours, even though tons of comments have been made during this time? Strange.''

Why do you think Google has frozen the counter ? A technical error maybe ? lol

Paranoia Bill. Your not alone.

[tfk]

You've created some excellent posts in this thread. It must frustrate you to reflect on how small your audience is. The other engineers know the stuff you're explaining. Heiwa and his mindless echoes are incapable of learning anything. So, you're left with maybe a dozen of us who really appreciate your efforts. Speaking just for myself, thank you very much.

Hear, hear.


Thanks, guys. I appreciate it.

It's interesting to watch first-hand the rationalization that the truthers use to dismiss what I post. I've never been personally demonized before. It's very interesting (& kinda fun, kinda spooky) to watch up close & personal.

The same thing has happened with virtually everyone who has stood up for sanity. Ryan Mackey, Bazant, Steve O'Brien (the pilot of the C130). Even the lady who took the picture of the Shanksville smoke plume of Flight 93. I suspect that Lyndie England has too. (Which, along with advancing years, I suspect led to some of his strange statements during the last cruel P4T video.)

But it's also led to some hilarious moments.

I've had one whack job try to chase me to my hometown & evoke a "there's a monster in your midst" bruhaha. The response: nothing.

And this one is PRICELESS.

This poster (seercirra) is a regular at Topix. He/she has pegged those of us who disagree with him as all shills, gov't disinfo agents.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=907423


In this post, I was responding to him (posting under the puppet of "Ribbon") that he shouldn't be declaring victory for the Twoof movement prematurely.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post30323
I said,


"Why don't you wait till the end of the ninth, instead of declaring victory after the first pitch...?"


This is PRICELESS: her interpretation of my comment:

She started a thread on David Icke's site entitled: "Beware the end of the month"!!
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post30323

Yesterday, a certain shill got caught out. While trying to disprove what another truther was saying, he inadvertently proved that the WTC's were demolished.

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstorie...9GGG7HFO/p1435
watch the postings of Tomk52. datamine his posts. go back 1000 pages, check every page in between. It soon becomes clear what his job is.

Anyway-

Seercirra wrote:
congratulations. more evidence that the twin towers were demolished.

Tomk52 wrote:
Why don't you wait till the end of the ninth, instead of declaring victory after the first pitch...?

Seercirra wrote:
Oh? so what happens at the end of this month?

Tom52k wrote:
You lose


I think i riled him up a little and he blurted it out.

Far from definitive evidence something will happen, i know.
but this guy IS a shill, he IS an insider.
he WOULD be aware if something were to go down.
He's also given me plenty of underhand death threats, and he advocates the use of torture for children. (although he tries to excuse himself by making the subject into a joke) but go - ask him if anyone should have the power to torture children. see how he CANNOT say "no".


just beware
we all know its about the right time for another terrorist attack, or the release of airborne bird flu.

thats all. take care


I don't THINK that I've ever been to origin of a tiny little mass hysteria before. It makes me feel, uh, powerful.
:eek:

So there are little compensations for the annoyances...

LOL.


tom

[BigAl]

Did you see this comment ?

''Why are the views frozen at 324 views for the last couple of hours, even though tons of comments have been made during this time? Strange.''

Why do you think Google has frozen the counter ? A technical error maybe ? lol

I seem to recall that the view counter changes only when someone watches a video to completion.

[bill smith]

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

Heiwa We have been arguing on another thread about how the antenna was attached to WTC1. Whether it was attached to the hat truss or directly to he core columns. If you have some time will you read through some of the posts and give an opinion ? Thanks bill.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4759335&posted=1#post4759335

[Slayhamlet]

Heiwa We have been arguing on another thread about how the antenna was attached to WTC1. Whether it was attached to the hat truss or directly to he core columns. If you have some time will you read through some of the posts and give an opinion ? Thanks bill.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4759335&posted=1#post4759335

There's no argument. The fact that it was attached to the hat truss is well known. Why you think your pathetic fraud guru would have anything interesting to add to an indisputable fact is beyond everyone possessed of a rational mind.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa We have been arguing on another thread about how the antenna was attached to WTC1. Whether it was attached to the hat truss or directly to he core columns. If you have some time will you read through some of the posts and give an opinion ? Thanks bill.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4759335&posted=1#post4759335

From one of my papers:

3.5 The Hat Truss

On top of the cage a 'hat truss' is fitted. It is 4 strong frames on each side extending over three floors connecting four core columns with four perimeter wall columns (not shown) as per below figure:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Hattruss.jpg

The main purpose of the hat truss is to provide support for a mast on top of the cage and distribute some loads to the wall perimeter columns.

Actually, the 4 + 4 hat truss frames are not really very strong. A hat truss was also fitted on WTC 2, where no mast was fitted.

I would suggest that the real purpose of the hat truss frames were simply to support the top edges of the outside walls and connect them to the core - a roof beam, so to say.

[Jackanory]

There's no argument. The fact that it was attached to the hat truss is well known. Why you think your pathetic fraud guru would have anything interesting to add to an indisputable fact is beyond everyone possessed of a rational mind.

Bill needs the help because he cant think for himself. Heiwa needs Bill to bolster his ego and the TM needs them both because Roundhead, Kreel, HI and Ultima1 cant put a decent sentence together to do the TM any favours.

[Jackanory]

From one of my papers:

3.5 The Hat Truss

On top of the cage a 'hat truss' is fitted. It is 4 strong frames on each side extending over three floors connecting four core columns with four perimeter wall columns (not shown) as per below figure:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Hattruss.jpg

The main purpose of the hat truss is to provide support for a mast on top of the cage and distribute some loads to the wall perimeter columns.

Actually, the 4 + 4 hat truss frames are not really very strong. A hat truss was also fitted on WTC 2, where no mast was fitted.

I would suggest that the real purpose of the hat truss frames were simply to support the top edges of the outside walls and connect them to the core - a roof beam, so to say.

Looks quite a structure to me. Much have weighed some too. Possibly even became top heavy once the aircraft took out its integrity of supports below.

[bill smith]

From one of my papers:

3.5 The Hat Truss

On top of the cage a 'hat truss' is fitted. It is 4 strong frames on each side extending over three floors connecting four core columns with four perimeter wall columns (not shown) as per below figure:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Hattruss.jpg

The main purpose of the hat truss is to provide support for a mast on top of the cage and distribute some loads to the wall perimeter columns.

Actually, the 4 + 4 hat truss frames are not really very strong. A hat truss was also fitted on WTC 2, where no mast was fitted.

I would suggest that the real purpose of the hat truss frames were simply to support the top edges of the outside walls and connect them to the core - a roof beam, so to say.

Very interesting.Did the core columns go through this hat truss up to the roof or did they stop at the 107th floor and have this hat truss built on top ? To me it looks like the sticking-out beams connected to the spandrel belts.

[Jackanory]

Very interesting.Did the core columns go through this hat truss up to the roof or did they stop at the 107th floor and have ths hat truss built on top ? To me it looks like the sticking-out beams connected to the spandrel belts.

Sock puppet much through PM Bill. All of a sudden youve gone all knowledgeable and educated on us. Not!

[Drs_Res]

From one of my papers:

3.5 The Hat Truss

On top of the cage a 'hat truss' is fitted. It is 4 strong frames on each side extending over three floors connecting four core columns with four perimeter wall columns (not shown) as per below figure:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Hattruss.jpg

The main purpose of the hat truss is to provide support for a mast on top of the cage and distribute some loads to the wall perimeter columns.

Actually, the 4 + 4 hat truss frames are not really very strong. A hat truss was also fitted on WTC 2, where no mast was fitted.

I would suggest that the real purpose of the hat truss frames were simply to support the top edges of the outside walls and connect them to the core - a roof beam, so to say.

Yes, but the original plan was to put an antenna on BOTH tower 1 & 2. And from ariel shots of the roofs of the towers, it looks to me like they put a helipad where the antenna was supposed to be on tower 2.

[bill smith]

From one of my papers:

3.5 The Hat Truss

On top of the cage a 'hat truss' is fitted. It is 4 strong frames on each side extending over three floors connecting four core columns with four perimeter wall columns (not shown) as per below figure:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Hattruss.jpg

The main purpose of the hat truss is to provide support for a mast on top of the cage and distribute some loads to the wall perimeter columns.

Actually, the 4 + 4 hat truss frames are not really very strong. A hat truss was also fitted on WTC 2, where no mast was fitted.

I would suggest that the real purpose of the hat truss frames were simply to support the top edges of the outside walls and connect them to the core - a roof beam, so to say.

Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res

[Jackanory]

Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res

Where you not shown the same photo with cables yesterday Bill?

[bill smith]

Where you not shown the same photo with cables yesterday Bill?
plese link it if you have it.

[Dave Rogers]

plese link it if you have it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4755482#post4755482

Shows the cables perfectly clearly.

Dave

[bill smith]

plese link it if you have it.

I'll have to wait for better light Dave.

[Dave Rogers]

I'll have to wait for better light Dave.

Somehow, I knew that you wouldn't see something you choose not to.

Dave

[dtugg]

I don't even understand why the hell you care so much about the antenna. It was was obviously supported well enough as it was standing there for decades. But do carry on chasing your tail around for our amusement.

[Dave Rogers]

plese link it if you have it.

You replied to it. That's a little tricky to do if you didn't even see it.

Dave

[bill smith]

Somehow, I knew that you wouldn't see something you choose not to.

Dave

Do you want to answer post 855 Dave ?

[Heiwa]

Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res

The mast is bolted to the blue platform and, as probably the core columns are pretty weak up top, they put in the four extra hat truss frames to support the platform and transmit loads to eight wall perimeter columns.

And for some reasons they put in four extra hat truss frames lined up with the edges of the core, e.g. to connect the core corner columns with the perimeter.

When in doubt, design/build strong!

[Dave Rogers]

Do you want to answer post 855 Dave ?

OK. Post 855 is mind-bendingly idiotic. It assumes that, because the support cables are not clearly visible on a specific photograph, despite the fact that they are clearly visible on other photographs, they do not therefore exist. This is a common pattern for you; it seems that, if you can find a single image that doesn't show a specific object, you therefore assert that the object doesn't exist, however many images of it you are shown. In the face of such denial, there's little to say.

In fact, as everyone but you - I mean, even Heiwa can figure this out - understands, the antenna was supported by the hat truss. The hat truss was in turn attached to the core columns and the perimeter columns, making the attachment of the antenna even stronger than if it had been directly attached to the core columns alone.

Dave

[bill smith]

The mast is bolted to the blue platform and, as probably the core columns are pretty weak up top, they put in the four extra hat truss frames to support the platform and transmit loads to eight wall perimeter columns.

And for some reasons they put in four extra hat truss frames lined up with the edges of the core, e.g. to connect the core corner columns with the perimeter.

When in doubt, design/build strong!

If it was only bolted to the top of the blue construction the forces at the point of contact must ave been enormoous when the wind blew what with a 30-story lever acting directly on the connection.The cabling was visibly not viable. Any force would hve been downwards at an angle. The blue thing ddidn't look like it was designed to deal with that direction of force and it wasn't that strong as you say yourself..

[dtugg]

bill, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about so why the hell do you pretend like you do?

[Newtons Bit]

If it was only bolted to the top of the blue construction the forces at the point of contact must ave been enormoous when the wind blew what with a 30-story lever acting directly on the connection.The cabling was visibly not viable. Any force would hve been downwards at an angle. The blue thing ddidn't look like it was designed to deal with that direction of force and it wasn't that strong as you say yourself..

Truthers really don't know when to shut up, do they?

[bill smith]

Truthers really don't know when to shut up, do they?

You can always say why it's not true ?

[Dave Rogers]

You can always say why it's not true ?

Can you calculate vector sums? If so, what is the resultant force from the vector sum of the following: lateral force due to wind, vertical compressive stress in the base connection of the antenna, and the tension in the diagonal bracing wire?

Dave

[bill smith]

Can you calculate vector sums? If so, what is the resultant force from the vector sum of the following: lateral force due to wind, vertical compressive stress in the base connection of the antenna, and the tension in the diagonal bracing wire?

Dave
You should really just go ahead and lay all your excellent pictures with the strong cabling on us. Even your best one would help.

[Newtons Bit]

Can you calculate vector sums? If so, what is the resultant force from the vector sum of the following: lateral force due to wind, vertical compressive stress in the base connection of the antenna, and the tension in the diagonal bracing wire?

Dave

He should also assume a 360ft tall antenna, 30ft effective width (for calculating wind forces), and a design wind pressure of 100psf. It will also be easiest to assume that the base of the tower is pinned rather fixed (which it wasn't).

I've already run the numbers. 2x3.5"Ø 100ksi cables on each face of the antenna are sufficient.

[Dave Rogers]

You should really just go ahead and lay all your excellent pictures with the strong cabling on us. Even your best one one would help.

It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave

[bill smith]

It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave

I am only askng for pictures of the cables Dave, We have mny pictures of the antenna but the cables are missing in most of them. The ones that do have a couple together on one side look very insufficient to restrain a 30-storey antenna.Not to say one-sided. There is no riducule involved.

[bill smith]

He should also assume a 360ft tall antenna, 30ft effective width (for calculating wind forces), and a design wind pressure of 100psf. It will also be easiest to assume that the base of the tower is pinned rather fixed (which it wasn't).

I've already run the numbers. 2x3.5"Ø 100ksi cables on each face of the antenna are sufficient.

Why not answer my question ?

[FineWine]

It's a fascinating debating technique, isn't it - pretend the evidence doesn't exist even though you've been shown it, then try to ridicule anyone who reminds you that you've already seen it.

Dave

It's a useful stonewalling tactic for tiny internet forums. The heavy reliance on this rather shabby ploy by "truthers" explains why their crazy movement went nowhere. Imagine them sitting before a congressional investigating committee. Heiwa is spouting absolute gibberish, while the rest of them are displaying shocking ignorance of basic science, pretending that they can't see objects in photos, and accusing everyone who refutes their nonsense of lying.

[Dave Rogers]

I am only askng for pictures of the cables Dave, We have mny pictures of the antenna but the cables are mising in most of them. The ones tht do have a couple together on one side look very insufficient to rstrain a 30-storey antenna.Not to say one-sided. There is no riducule involved.

In the post I linked, and you responded to, there is a photograph in which at least ten guy wires are clearly visible, running in at least four different directions. If you can't see them - and I really am not joking here, you may actually have visual difficulties - I think you may need to consider an eye test. I have mild long sight but I can still see six of them clearly even without my glasses.

It's a little hard to know how to respond to you. You keep asking for evidence you've already been shown, and that's clearly visible to everyone except you.

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

Why not answer my question ?

This question, "You can always say why it's not true ?"?

I just did.

[phunk]

Look at thiis photo and the lack of support cables and then look at the blue structure and imagine how the support for the giant 30-storey mast worked without being attached to the core columns.
http://www.city-data.com/cpic/ufiles516.jpg antenna hi-res

I see cables in that picture.

[bill smith]

In the post I linked, and you responded to, there is a photograph in which at least ten guy wires are clearly visible, running in at least four different directions. If you can't see them - and I really am not joking here, you may actually have visual difficulties - I think you may need to consider an eye test. I have mild long sight but I can still see six of them clearly even without my glasses.

It's a little hard to know how to respond to you. You keep asking for evidence you've already been shown, and that's clearly visible to everyone except you.

Dave

I see them now that I blew the picture up. There seem to be none on the side where the camera is. Can you explain that ?

[dtugg]

I see the cables too. But then again, I'm a disinfo agent sent here just to mess with bill.

[Heiwa]

If it was only bolted to the top of the blue construction the forces at the point of contact must ave been enormoous when the wind blew what with a 30-story lever acting directly on the connection.The cabling was visibly not viable. Any force would hve been downwards at an angle. The blue thing ddidn't look like it was designed to deal with that direction of force and it wasn't that strong as you say yourself..

Yes, the mast was like a flag pole. Not very heavy. The vertical load could easily be transmitted downwards by structure below. Transverse wind loads?
They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments.
But on 911 there was no wind load. But suddenly, the mast dropped ... before ... anything else happened to the tower! Very strange!

With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????

Answer, CD! To destroy WTC 1 you had to soften the structure everywhere before blowing it down from top to bottom and the criminals blow off the mast supports a little too early. Of course, they had planned the crime for years before and in every detail ... but they messed up. The mast went down too early! Another smoking gun ... among many others.

One problem! These criminals are armed to the teeth with guns not yet smoking. Beware.

[stateofgrace]

I see the cables too and cannot for the life of me figure out where Bill is going with this.

Bill, where are you going with this ?

[bill smith]

So then I suppose I have to accept that the antenna was bolted to the top of the Three-floor hat truss which was built around and welded to the core columns. The antenna had cables supporting it . Have I got that right now ?

[phunk]

The hat truss was also connected to the perimeter columns.

[bill smith]

The hat truss was also connected to the perimeter columns.

That too

[Slayhamlet]

Rule 12 violation removed.
Please refrain from posts that are nothing but personal attacks.

[bill smith]

Yes, the mast was like a flag pole. Not very heavy. The vertical load could easily be transmitted downwards by structure below. Transverse wind loads?
They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments.
But on 911 there was no wind load. But suddenly, the mast dropped ... before ... anything else happened to the tower! Very strange!

With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????

Answer, CD! To destroy WTC 1 you had to soften the structure everywhere before blowing it down from top to bottom and the criminals blow off the mast supports a little too early. Of course, they had planned the crime for years before and in every detail ... but they messed up. The mast went down too early! Another smoking gun ... among many others.

One problem! These criminals are armed to the teeth with guns not yet smoking. Beware.
It is very strange because for the antenna to move downwards the hat truss had to be gone, or at least the part of it that the antenna sat on. It can't have been the whole hat truss that moved down because then the roofline and walls would have gone out of shape.

[dtugg]

bill, if you had an sense of shame you would stop acting as if you know what you're talking about because it is glaringly obvious that you don't. But, by all means continue, I find it funny.

[bill smith]

bill, if you had an sense of shame you would stop acting as if you know what you're talking about because it is glaringly obvious that you don't. But, by all means continue, I find it funny.

Just put some money in the hat on your way out. lol

[Jackanory]

I see the cables too and cannot for the life of me figure out where Bill is going with this.

Bill, where are you going with this ?

Bill is predictable. It has been obvious where he has been going with this. He just cant spit it out just yet because he thinks he has us all on a hook and feeding hiw dillusion. He anticipates that he is soon to hit us with his 'smoking gun' or some other conclusion that shows an inside job.:rolleyes:

Bill is itching to point out to us all that because we have all agreed that the antena was securely fitted to the top then as it fell we should see the antena popping or pushing off - you know, pushed away by the core collums as it dropped.

I assume that is what you have been attempting to get at Bill. Predictable Bill the smiling assassin who misses his target.

[TheDaver]

With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????

Answer, CD! To destroy WTC 1 you had to soften the structure everywhere before blowing it down from top to bottom and the criminals blow off the mast supports a little too early. Of course, they had planned the crime for years before and in every detail ... but they messed up. The mast went down too early! Another smoking gun ... among many others.
Yeah, and you’re a NWO disinfo agent because you used five question marks instead of three.

[Jackanory]

Yeah, and you’re a now disinfo agent because you used five question marks instead of three.

Bill and Heiwa wear the same socks:rolleyes:

[Heiwa]

It is very strange because for the antenna to move downwards the hat truss had to be gone, or at least the part of it that the antenna sat on. It can't have been the whole hat truss that moved down because then the roofline and walls would have gone out of shape.

Something like that! But a moment later the whole upper part C is blown apart ... and still lower part A is intact. Gravity at work?

Sorry, this is Off Topic! The Heiwa Challenge is a friendly and lively way to discuss something else. See post #1.

[stateofgrace]

Something like that! But a moment later the whole upper part C is blown apart ... and still lower part A is intact. Gravity at work?

Sorry, this is Off Topic! The Heiwa Challenge is a friendly and lively way to discuss something else. See post #1.

*snort*

The whole section is blown apart in the centre of New York, on live TV and nobody notices, apart from you after watching a youtube video.

Yep I can see why everybody takes you seriously.:rolleyes:

[Jackanory]

With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????

.

BEFORE??????

So the mast began to drop BEFORE the aircraft hit. Before any damage???? Some engineer and engineers mate you are:rolleyes:

Just a theory Heiwa/Bill - Perhaps the integrity of the structure below was visibly destroyed by a commercial aircraft.

Perhaps the resulting fires weakened the structure further, including the majic hat that did/did not support the antenna.

Perhaps the weight of the now weakened majic hat aided in destroying/displacing the core colums as it dropped.

Perhaps the shape and weight of the upper structure wedged perfectly in the centre of the weakened core columns and fell that way all the way, displacing the columns outwards all the way down.

Perhaps the lateral movement shreaded the thin concrete floors one by one, resulting in the latteral displacement of all that cracked/mushed concrete and side walls.

Just a theory Heiwa/Bill:rolleyes:

[stateofgrace]

The Heiwa theory

1.Preplant explosives in landmark building without being noticed.
2.Fly planes into landmark building, ensuring they completely miss the explosives.
3.Let buildings burn for some time.
4.Start collapse by igniting preplanted explosives.
5.Blow up the entire upper section of building and hope nobody notices.
6.Blow up rest of building from the top down and hope nobody notices.
7.Make sure it is all broadcast live.

“Brilliant, approved, when does the next black op begin?”

[Jackanory]

The Heiwa theory

1.Preplant explosives in landmark building without being noticed.
2.Fly planes into landmark building, ensuring they completely miss the explosives.
3.Let buildings burn for some time.
4.Start collapse by igniting preplanted explosives.
5.Blow up the entire upper section of building and hope nobody notices.
6.Blow up rest of building from the top down and hope nobody notices.
7.Make sure it is all broadcast live.

]“Brilliant, approved, when does the next black op begin?”[/B]

Next door needs the same -get right to it

[Typicallucas]

IMPORTANT: Make sure some of the building falls on WTC 7 so we have plausible deniability when we demolish that building too. Lets not forget why we're here folks, this is all so we can make those pesky corporate lawsuits go away. WTC 7 is the real target.

[FineWine]

Yes, the mast was like a flag pole. Not very heavy. The vertical load could easily be transmitted downwards by structure below. Transverse wind loads?
They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments.
But on 911 there was no wind load. But suddenly, the mast dropped ... before ... anything else happened to the tower! Very strange!

With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????

Answer, CD! To destroy WTC 1 you had to soften the structure everywhere before blowing it down from top to bottom and the criminals blow off the mast supports a little too early. Of course, they had planned the crime for years before and in every detail ... but they messed up. The mast went down too early! Another smoking gun ... among many others.

One problem! These criminals are armed to the teeth with guns not yet smoking. Beware.


Yes, Heiwa, "they" planned for years the idiotic nonsense you babble mindlessly about, "they" being members of the Clinton administration. Maybe they were religious fundamentalists, or neocons? Few self-absorbed, wrong-headed fools have ever been as thoroughly discredited as you have been.

[FineWine]

I see the cables too and cannot for the life of me figure out where Bill is going with this.

Bill, where are you going with this ?


Nowhere, as usual.

[bill smith]

Just for clarity....somebody on another thred posted this picture of the top of the hat truss to which the antenna was attached.


I wonder was it such a good idea to pre-install the support cables though...?

[bill smith]

Ooops....it won't take the picture.... Hre's the link instead.

http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/channel/100/extra/new/pos/326/display/16135881

[Gaspode]

Some posts moved to AAH (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=58).

Keep it civil please. Attack the argument, not the arguer

[tfk]

The same pathology, bill.


In my experience of Teddy he is a great one for 'rubbing it in'.


Your "experiences" are internal, and uniquely self-serving, to yourself.


His arguments against heiwa's conclusions failed completely and transparently.


My arguments were made here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

And my arguments were countered ... where?

Heiwa NEVER addressed them. His ONE response is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743729#post4743729

He typically EVADED all the arguments that I made.
His points 1 -13 are a simply an ignorant restatement of his "challenge". They are completely irrelevant to my arguments.

His remaining 4 points (14 - 18) are ludicrous. And I addressed them, one by one, in my reply here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4746822#post4746822

And after my reply, Heiwa has simply run away & hid.

So, bill, Heiwa has NOT debunked my arguments. Heiwa has not even addressed my arguments. Heiwa has RUN AWAY from addressing my arguments.
___

Perhaps you are under the delusion that YOU have debunked my arguments, with your own "compelling arguments". Such as:

You should just give it up T..

I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.

Right...and then you must knw that a giant skyscraper is never crushed down to the ground by one tenth of itself whatever you are told. This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.

The less said about the last paragraph the better....

Sure thing, bill. There is a TON of hard hitting, irrefutable engineering in THOSE posts...

And, thus far, NO ONE else on the twoofer side has stepped up either.

So, the answer is, "You're wrong, bill. Totally and, for you, typically wrong. No one has debunked my arguments."


This is evidenced by the lack of Teddy's 'Victory dancing'.


There is precisely zero motivation for a math teacher to perform a "victory dance" after showing a bunch of children that 2+3 = 5.

Although I suspect that this analogy will be over your head as well...


tom

[bill smith]

The same pathology, bill.



Your "experiences" are internal, and uniquely self-serving, to yourself.



My arguments were made here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

And my arguments were countered ... where?

Heiwa NEVER addressed them. His ONE response is here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743729#post4743729

He typically EVADED all the arguments that I made.
His points 1 -13 are a simply an ignorant restatement of his "challenge". They are completely irrelevant to my arguments.

His remaining 4 points (14 - 18) are ludicrous. And I addressed them, one by one, in my reply here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4746822#post4746822

And after my reply, Heiwa has simply run away & hid.

So, bill, Heiwa has NOT debunked my arguments. Heiwa has not even addressed my arguments. Heiwa has RUN AWAY from addressing my arguments.
___

Perhaps you are under the delusion that YOU have debunked my arguments, with your own "compelling arguments". Such as:









Sure thing, bill. There is a TON of hard hitting, irrefutable engineering in THOSE posts...

And, thus far, NO ONE else on the twoofer side has stepped up either.

So, the answer is, "You're wrong, bill. Totally and, for you, typically wrong. No one has debunked my arguments."



There is precisely zero motivation for a math teacher to perform a "victory dance" after showing a bunch of children that 2+3 = 5.

Although I suspect that this analogy will be over your head as well...


tom

Well, I will leave it to Heiwa but whether he considers it worth responding again or not I can't say. For me there is nothing to answer other than a string of insults.Incidentaly you would do better to bring the insults to the general dscussion thread where it might not matter so much.

[tfk]

Heiwa,

You have challenged us to prove that, in a model of the collapse of the WTC towers, an upper Part C of a structure could crush down a lower Part A of the same structure.

The SPIRIT of this challenge is to show that the collapse of the towers is understandable in term of "physical damage, fire & gravity driven collapse". The spirit is NOT to meet a bunch of artificial, unrealistic criteria that you have impressed on the thought experiment in order to stack the deck in your favor.

I have produced compelling arguments that this will, in fact, happen. My arguments are shown here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

I've shown that you have several specific errors in your statements. I've outlined those errors in that same post.

In the spirit of that challenge, I am now calling on you to address my arguments. Sincerely, and with fully developed arguments. NOT with facile, one sentence "good luck proving this". I want to hear your argument as to why mine is wrong.

And I am also asking you to not ignore my arguments and return to your own, with "see my web site" or "see the OP" nonsense.

Please don't be rude.

Thank you.

tom

[tfk]

Bill,

Let me see if I've got this about right.

The topic is "have tk's arguments been debunked?"

You claimed here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4762312&postcount=4) that they were. And your "evidence" was the fact that I had not performed a "victory dance".

I showed that Heiwa has not even addressed, much less debunked, my arguments. And that he has simply run into hiding.
I then posted YOUR responses, which are a laughable cipher, devoid of content.
And I pointed out that no one else on the Twoofer side has stepped forward to offer their debunking either.
And arrived at the indisputable conclusion from this that nobody here has debunked my arguments in the slightest.

Finally, I explained why it is not necessary for people who know what they are talking about to perform "victory dances" in front of children. In an attempt to get you to understand exactly why your silly interpretation that the fact that I "did not perform a victory dance is evidence that my arguments had failed completely and transparently" is so childishly, amusingly wrong.

So, bill, my points were right on topic. They addressed:
1. the fact that no one, including you and Heiwa, has debunked my arguments. and
2. the fact that your view that "victory dances are an accurate metric for winning & losing arguments" is, uh "interesting", but flawed.

And your response is:

... For me there is nothing to answer other than a string of insults.Incidentaly you would do better to bring the insults to the general dscussion thread where it might not matter so much.

For you, "there is nothing but a string of insults..."??

Bill, please. I addressed nothing but the arguments.

And I HIGHLY encourage you, once again, to bring forth YOUR concise, compelling arguments that counter the ones that I've laid out.

If you dare, of course... :D

Meanwhile, I will happily direct you to my sincere reply to your previous post. Which have been moved here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=144183

tom

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

1. You have challenged us to prove that, in a model of the collapse of the WTC towers, an upper Part C of a structure could crush down a lower Part A of the same structure.

The SPIRIT of this challenge is to show that the collapse of the towers is understandable in term of "physical damage, fire & gravity driven collapse". The spirit is NOT to meet a bunch of artificial, unrealistic criteria that you have impressed on the thought experiment in order to stack the deck in your favor.

2. I have produced compelling arguments that this will, in fact, happen. My arguments are shown here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

I've shown that you have several specific errors in your statements. I've outlined those errors in that same post.

In the spirit of that challenge, I am now calling on you to address my arguments. Sincerely, and with fully developed arguments. NOT with facile, one sentence "good luck proving this". I want to hear your argument as to why mine is wrong.

And I am also asking you to not ignore my arguments and return to your own, with "see my web site" or "see the OP" nonsense.

Please don't be rude.

Thank you.

tom

Hello tom.

1. Yes, The Heiwa Challenge is as per post #1.

2. Your arguments that part C of a structure can one-way crush down part A of same structure only by gravity, where A>10C and C is dropped on A, are not valid.

Reasons are that in a composite structure stronger elements in the structure will damage weaker elements and that in an isotropic structure, where all elements are identical, elements in both C and A are damaged at contact in a gravity field.

After contact, the two structural parts have changed, they are damaged, and there are two modified parts that are in contact trying to destroy each other. There is no possibility that part C remains unchanged. And for the simple reason that A>10C, C will be destroyed before A, i.e. A is only partially damaged at first contact and a little later.

Now, the next question is, if destroyed C = rubble (C will be shredded by A) and the destroyed parts of A = more rubble can continue to destroy what remains of A, so that a one-way crush down of A takes place? The rubble becomes a new part B. The answer is NO as per the Björkman Axiom.

The reason seems to be that the rubble - part B according to the BLGB paper - is not very solid or strong and that what remains of A is stronger. A will push B aside or B will just remain on top of A. I can prove this theoretically for a number of structures of all kind in a gravity field or in outer space but not in general. Thus the Axiom.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to produce a structure that does not behave according the Björkman Axiom.

I am never rude. Why should I be? But I always smile when this or similar questions are discussed. And it seems to upset people!

"Wipe that smile off your face", I have been told many times. And then I laugh!

[Regnad Kcin]

The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.

[TheDaver]

Heiwa:

Kent Hovind called. He wants you to stop using his gimmick.

[FineWine]

Hello tom.

1. Yes, The Heiwa Challenge is as per post #1.

2. Your arguments that part C of a structure can one-way crush down part A of same structure only by gravity, where A>10C and C is dropped on A, are not valid.

Reasons are that in a composite structure stronger elements in the structure will damage weaker elements and that in an isotropic structure, where all elements are identical, elements in both C and A are damaged at contact in a gravity field.

After contact, the two structural parts have changed, they are damaged, and there are two modified parts that are in contact trying to destroy each other. There is no possibility that part C remains unchanged. And for the simple reason that A>10C, C will be destroyed before A, i.e. A is only partially damaged at first contact and a little later.

Now, the next question is, if destroyed C = rubble (C will be shredded by A) and the destroyed parts of A = more rubble can continue to destroy what remains of A, so that a one-way crush down of A takes place? The rubble becomes a new part B. The answer is NO as per the Björkman Axiom.

The reason seems to be that the rubble - part B according to the BLGB paper - is not very solid or strong and that what remains of A is stronger. A will push B aside or B will just remain on top of A. I can prove this theoretically for a number of structures of all kind in a gravity field or in outer space but not in general. Thus the Axiom.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to produce a structure that does not behave according the Björkman Axiom.

I am never rude. Why should I be? But I always smile when this or similar questions are discussed. And it seems to upset people!

"Wipe that smile off your face", I have been told many times. And then I laugh!



How's your paper coming along, sport? Did that serious journal get around to publishing it yet? Why not?

[Heiwa]

How's your paper coming along, sport? Did that serious journal get around to publishing it yet? Why not?

The one to ASCE Journ. Of Eng. Mechs. that was submitted 3 February 2009?

Haven't heard from them or R. Corotis, editor, lately. Maybe they still peer review? Ask them!

[Heiwa]

The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.

You're sure?

What about the collective amount of the lower part A? Need assistance to enter The Heiwa Challenge? See post #1 for details.

[FineWine]

The one to ASCE Journ. Of Eng. Mechs. that was submitted 3 February 2009?

Haven't heard from them or R. Corotis, editor, lately. Maybe they still peer review? Ask them!

Maybe I will. You should ask them yourself, but then you know perfectly well why they won't be publishing your rubbish. I guess they're NWO religious fundamentalists.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa:

Kent Hovind called. He wants you to stop using his gimmick.

??? But if you can find a structure in any scripture(s) that fulfill The Heiwa Challenge commandments (post #1) just copy/paste here. I like Ramses a lot! The good ole times at the Nile!

[Heiwa]

Maybe I will. You should ask them yourself, but then you know perfectly well why they won't be publishing your rubbish. I guess they're NWO religious fundamentalists.

Pls, do and report. I call them every two, three months anyway. What rubbish are you refering to?

[bill smith]

??? But if you can find a structure in any scripture(s) that fulfill The Heiwa Challenge commandments (post #1) just copy/paste here. I like Ramses a lot! The good ole times at the Nile!

I think most around here are fans of Anubis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis#Portrayal

[Minadin]

Heiwa, Part 'B' in your scenario is:

A) Gaining both mass and velocity
B) Traveling in the same direction as Part 'C'
C) Not only capable of destroying 'A', it actually accomplishes this.
D) All of the above.

[Heiwa]

I think most around here are fans of Anubis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anubis#Portrayal

My favourite is Horus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, Part 'B' in your scenario is:

A) Gaining both mass and velocity
B) Traveling in the same direction as Part 'C'
C) Not only capable of destroying 'A', it actually accomplishes this.
D) All of the above.

According BLGB part B is rubble. In my opinion rubble (part B) can not one-way crush down anything but Bazant, Greening and Benson (and various other clowns) think so. The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to design a structure that, when being one-way crushed down produces rubble that assist in the feat!

I have never heard of rubble gaining mass, velocity, travelling in a certain direction, destroying non-rubble, etc. Any idea to the contrary?

[bill smith]

My favourite is Horus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus
From this viewpoint ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Conqueror_of_Set

[tfk]

Heiwa,


Hello tom.

1. Yes, The Heiwa Challenge is as per post #1.

[... all the usual nonsense we've heard 100x before ...]

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to produce a structure that does not behave according the Björkman Axiom.

I am never rude.

.
But you ARE being rude. Extremely rude.

A person in a debate who insists that everyone else talk ONLY about HIS chosen subject, and refuses to address other people's points is being as rude as any arrogant, conceited buffoon dominating the conversation at any cocktail party.

So, please stop playing the buffoon.

I have addressed YOUR points at length. Now please address MY points.

You can find MY points here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

Please skip over the first section. We've addressed it already.

Please start with the "Fundamental Physics" section. Please let me know any sentence with which you disagree. Feel free to assess this ONE section only.

Then we can move on to the next.

Thank you.

tom

[stateofgrace]

Tom, you are a nice guy who really does post things that are relevant to the conversation, but can I give you a tip. Stop saying please to loonies, it a sign of weakness in their eyes and allows them some form of false credibility.

BTW, well done for your clear, concise posts.

[tfk]

Heiwa,


Yes, the mast was like a flag pole. Not very heavy. The vertical load could easily be transmitted downwards by structure below. Transverse wind loads?
They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments.


A "bending moment in the blue platform ... is transmitted to the core & perimeter columns as SHEAR forces"???

Are you REALLY sure you want to stick with that statement??

Did you say that you are allegedly a mechanical engineer...??


But on 911 there was no wind load. But suddenly, the mast dropped ... before ... anything else happened to the tower! Very strange!


"Before anything else happened to the tower..."??

Apparently, you consider "a plane crashing into the towers, massive damage, fires, failures, creep, progressive lean, etc" to be equivalent to "nothing", eh?

Did you say that you are allegedly a Mechanical Engineer?



With all these supports below and around - why would the mast drop BEFORE the roof line started to drop and BEFORE any visible structure below was destroyed? ????


Perhaps because you cannot see THRU solid walls & billowing smoke?
Perhaps because you are asserting, with precisely zero basis, that "nothing has happened" to the core that you CANNOT SEE.


Answer, CD!


Better answer: Heiwa's baseless assumption about the condition of the core that he cannot see.

Better answer yet: there has been a failure in the core columns that happens a fraction of a second before the failure of the peripheral columns.


To destroy WTC 1 you had to soften the structure everywhere ...


Did you say that you are allegedly a Mechanical Engineer?

The building softened, yielded and failed at the 98th floor. The core failed a fraction of a second before the peripheral columns. What, exactly, do your alleged mechanical engineering experience tell you should happen when a couple tens of thousands of tons of the core column assembly with the antenna on top fails. Should that whole assembly simply sit there in space? Levitating, while waiting for the rest of the building to also decide to fail??

Is this what passes for Mechanical Engineering in Europe?

I am prepared to be VERY surprised, because I was under the firm impression that Europe produced some competent engineers.


... before blowing it down from top to bottom and the criminals blow off the mast supports a little too early.


Of course they did. With what, Mr. Mechanical Engineer?? Silent explosives? Mini-nukes?? Thermate?? Thermite?? Perhaps termites??

What percent of columns per floor did they have to "remove" in order for the upper part to descend as fast as it did, Heiwa?
100%?
75%?
50%?
25%?

Please, your best estimate.


Of course, they had planned the crime for years before and in every detail ... but they messed up. The mast went down too early! Another smoking gun ... among many others.


Exactly how much sooner than the roofline did the antenna begin to fall?


One problem! These criminals are armed to the teeth with guns not yet smoking. Beware.


And yet, somehow, you sit over there, in France, fat, dumb & happy (a description properly "center weighted") & not "disappeared".

Do you think that the US's deep, dark spook network, out assassination squads, find the fine country of France to be "impenetrable"?? And you sit there, exposing the biggest, darkest secret out country has, with calm "sange froid".

How mysterious...

If you'd like, I could bring your postings to the attention of the NSA over here. Then perhaps we could have a real, objective experiment as to whether or not you are REALLY threatening the reputation of the US for history. I am quite certain that Misters Jones, Jones, Fetzer, Griffin, Barret, Ryan, Harrit, et al, will provide you with quite functional "coal mine canaries".

tom

[tfk]

Tom, you are a nice guy who really does post things that are relevant to the conversation, but can I give you a tip. Stop saying please to loonies, it a sign of weakness in their eyes and allows them some form of false credibility.

BTW, well done for your clear, concise posts.
SoG,

You guys have had your fun with him. Why shouldn't I have a turn?? :D

I was actually able to get him to answer a couple of direct questions a bit back. That made it trivial to pick his nonsense apart.

Paying attention to the maturity level, I'm going for the "CHICKEN, BWAAAACK BWAAAACK BWAAAAACK!" approach.

Ya never know...

But I suspect that you're right. We are clearly close to the end.

Can I torment him JUST A LITTLE MORE?? Please, Please, PLEEEEEAAAASSSEE??

tk

[stateofgrace]

Well, OK since you said please, but if I catch you saying please again, you are for it, OK ? ;)

[tfk]

Bill Smith,

I attempted to honestly interpret Heiwa's moving goal posts as:

Heiwa's objections seem to be based on two assertions:

1. That, once components of the upper Part C have been wrenched from their connections and turned into rubble, they lose their ability to destroy components in the lower Part A.

.
.
You accused me of constructing a strawman argument in order to deceitfully misrepresent Heiwa's opinion:

Assertion 1:Heiwa never said that the rubble 'loses' it's ability to destroy components in the lower part A'. He said that the forces would be subdivided into lots of smaller forces seperated by time. Not the same thing at all and a pure strawman

.
.
Heiwa just posted:

According BLGB part B is rubble. In my opinion rubble (part B) can not one-way crush down anything but Bazant, Greening and Benson (and various other clowns) think so.



Care to withdraw your accusation?

Tom

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,



A "bending moment in the blue platform ... is transmitted to the core & perimeter columns as SHEAR forces"???

Are you REALLY sure you want to stick with that statement??



tom

Yes, of course. Simple beam theory! A BM applied to the platform produces SF in attached beams, etc. But it is off topic, I am rude to say. Be polite and start a new thread about it.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,




The building softened, yielded and failed at the 98th floor. The core failed a fraction of a second before the peripheral columns. What, exactly, do your alleged mechanical engineering experience tell you should happen when a couple tens of thousands of tons of the core column assembly with the antenna on top fails. Should that whole assembly simply sit there in space? Levitating, while waiting for the rest of the building to also decide to fail??

Is this what passes for Mechanical Engineering in Europe?

I am prepared to be VERY surprised, because I was under the firm impression that Europe produced some competent engineers.


tom

Well, that's your opinion about initiation. Plenty of simultaneous, structural failures. So what happens then? Part C drops and impacts part A and global collapse ensued according NIST, right? Try to design a structure as per The Heiwa Challenge rules (see post #1) that behaves like that and we can discuss further.

[tfk]

Yes, of course. Simple beam theory! A BM applied to the platform produces SF in attached beams, etc. But it is off topic, I am rude to say. Be polite and start a new thread about it.
.
Heiwa,

No need for a new thread. There really is no discussion required. This really IS simple beam theory.

If you have a pure moment at the base of the antenna, then the Hat Truss will impart purely compressive & tensile loads to the top of the building. As shown below.

(I've shown 7 attachment points between the hat truss & the roof of the tower. This is illustrative of how these loads would be generated to resist a moment.)

There would be zero shear load resulting from a bending moment.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225c0ee2a4e.jpg


Now, if you had a side load on the Hat Truss, then you would get shear loads on the attachments between the truss & the roof of the tower. As shown below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225d973d5e0.jpg

I gotta tell you, Heiwa, when you say stuff like this, I start wondering about your credentials. Where did you say you got your degree?

tom

[bill smith]

Bill Smith,

I attempted to honestly interpret Heiwa's moving goal posts as:

.
.
You accused me of constructing a strawman argument in order to deceitfully misrepresent Heiwa's opinion:

.
.
Heiwa just posted:



Care to withdraw your accusation?

Tom

No retraction for at least two reasons.

1. This is a later statement from heiwa and thus does not apply to any statement I made preceding it. So my assertion of your strawman at the time you constructed it stands.

2. Heiwa may have only said 'rubble' but he obviouly meant 'rubble layer' as is made clear by the fact hat he says 'rubble (part B)'. 'Part B' is of course Bazant's famous rubble layer.
You had better go do a refresher at strawman school T.

[bill smith]

.
Heiwa,

No need for a new thread. There really is no discussion required. This really IS simple beam theory.

If you have a pure moment at the base of the antenna, then the Hat Truss will impart purely compressive & tensile loads to the top of the building. As shown below.

(I've shown 7 attachment points between the hat truss & the roof of the tower. This is illustrative of how these loads would be generated to resist a moment.)

There would be zero shear load resulting from a bending moment.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225c0ee2a4e.jpg


Now, if you had a side load on the Hat Truss, then you would get shear loads on the attachments between the truss & the roof of the tower. As shown below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225d973d5e0.jpg

I gotta tell you, Heiwa, when you say stuff like this, I start wondering about your credentials. Where did you say you got your degree?

tom

Good drawings T. Can you make another one giving an idea how the pure compresive force of the 30-storey antenna broke through the hat truss when it started on it's downwards journey before any other signs of collapse began including a stationary roofline ?

[Heiwa]

.
Heiwa,

No need for a new thread. There really is no discussion required. This really IS simple beam theory.

If you have a pure moment at the base of the antenna, then the Hat Truss will impart purely compressive & tensile loads to the top of the building. As shown below.

(I've shown 7 attachment points between the hat truss & the roof of the tower. This is illustrative of how these loads would be generated to resist a moment.)

There would be zero shear load resulting from a bending moment.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225c0ee2a4e.jpg


Now, if you had a side load on the Hat Truss, then you would get shear loads on the attachments between the truss & the roof of the tower. As shown below.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/125524a225d973d5e0.jpg

I gotta tell you, Heiwa, when you say stuff like this, I start wondering about your credentials. Where did you say you got your degree?

tom

Funny pictures. But they do not make any sense.

Let's start with the mast! A lateral wind load is applied on it. Result is of course a shear force in the mast - 0 at top, max at bottom. This shear force/lateral load produces a bending moment at the bottom of the mast, that is rotating the hat truss. The shear force also produces an axial force in the hat truss.

The bending moment applied to the centre of the hat truss is transmitted to the supports at the perimeter walls. In order to transmit the bending moment in the hat truss, a shear force is required.

The mast has also a mass and applies a vertical force on the hat truss. This vertical force is transmitted to the perimeter wall supports also as a shear force in the hat truss. The vertical force also produces a bending moment in the hat truss. Etc, etc. Simple beam analysis.

[bill smith]

Funny pictures. But they do not make any sense.

Let's start with the mast! A lateral wind load is applied on it. Result is of course a shear force in the mast - 0 at top, max at bottom. This shear force/lateral load produces a bending moment at the bottom of the mast, that is rotating the hat truss. The shear force also produces an axial force in the hat truss.

The bending moment applied to the centre of the hat truss is transmitted to the supports at the perimeter walls. In order to transmit the bending moment in the hat truss, a shear force is required.

The mast has also a mass and applies a vertical force on the hat truss. This vertical force is transmitted to the perimeter wall supports also as a shear force in the hat truss. The vertical force also produces a bending moment in the hat truss. Etc, etc. Simple beam analysis.

The shear forces are transmitted to the perimeter columns as they are to the outriggers on a mobile crane ?

[Heiwa]

The shear forces are transmitted to the perimeter columns as they are to the outriggers on a mobile crane ?

With the difference that the outriggers on a mobile crane are just resting on ground and cannot transmit a bending moment. The hat truss beams can transmit a bending moment to the perimeter column. The difference affect the shear force in the outrigger/beam.

[Heiwa]

*snort*

The whole section is blown apart in the centre of New York, on live TV and nobody notices, apart from you after watching a youtube video.

Yep I can see why everybody takes you seriously.:rolleyes:

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.

[stateofgrace]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.


Yep sure it was pal, completely destroyed in the centre of New York while being broadcast live.

Sure it was.:rolleyes:

Of course since you've now made this claim, I guess it is beyond my wildest imagination that you will back it up and explain just how much explosives were needed to destroy the entire uppers section, roof and hat truss. And why this "blowing Up" wasn't heard across New York.

That's what ? some 15 stoires, the top hat and the roof, right? Just blown up. Tell us oh great guru how nobody noticed other than you ?

[phunk]

Funny pictures. But they do not make any sense.

Let's start with the mast! A lateral wind load is applied on it. Result is of course a shear force in the mast - 0 at top, max at bottom. This shear force/lateral load produces a bending moment at the bottom of the mast, that is rotating the hat truss. The shear force also produces an axial force in the hat truss.


Are you taking the guy wires into account? They take the majority of the wind load.

[Heiwa]

Are you taking the guy wires into account? They take the majority of the wind load.

The purpose of guy wires, if fitted, is to transmit wind loads on the mast from their connections to their supports ... on the roof. Wires can only transmit tensile forces and can thus be included in a beam analysis with that restriction. Problem is that the wire must be in tension. If it is slack it doesn't do anything. A wire cannot transmit any bending moment for obvious reasons. Guy wires, as elements, are permitted in any The Heiwa Challenge design. Pls submit your design!

[bill smith]

The purpose of guy wires, if fitted, is to transmit wind loads on the mast from their connections to their supports ... on the roof. Wires can only transmit tensile forces and can thus be included in a beam analysis with that restriction. Problem is that the wire must be in tension. If it is slack it doesn't do anything. A wire cannot transmit any bending moment for obvious reasons. Guy wires, as elements, are permitted in any The Heiwa Challenge design. Pls submit your design!

Is a skyhook allowed ? lol

[bill smith]

If part C had a huge rocket motor on the roof that accelerated it into the lower 90% it seems plain that part C would be destoyed by the upight columns of A fixed in the ground.

[tfk]

Heiwa,


Funny pictures. But they do not make any sense.


Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.


Let's start with the mast! A lateral wind load is applied on it. Result is of course a shear force in the mast - 0 at top, max at bottom. This shear force/lateral load produces a bending moment at the bottom of the mast, that is rotating the hat truss.
The shear force also produces an axial force in the hat truss.
The bending moment applied to the centre of the hat truss is transmitted to the supports at the perimeter walls. In order to transmit the bending moment in the hat truss, a shear force is required.

The mast has also a mass and applies a vertical force on the hat truss. This vertical force is transmitted to the perimeter wall supports also as a shear force in the hat truss. The vertical force also produces a bending moment in the hat truss. Etc, etc. Simple beam analysis.


You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

[Minadin]

According BLGB part B is rubble. In my opinion rubble (part B) can not one-way crush down anything but Bazant, Greening and Benson (and various other clowns) think so. The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to design a structure that, when being one-way crushed down produces rubble that assist in the feat!

I have never heard of rubble gaining mass, velocity, travelling in a certain direction, destroying non-rubble, etc. Any idea to the contrary?

Yes, my ideas are certainly contrary to yours.

You have been saying that Part C will be 'as crushed' as part A. That's the entire basis for your rejection of the 'one way crush', right? Well, that means that Part B is growing in mass, as parts of A and C become disassociated from each other. Part B is falling. That means, by definition, that it's accelerating downward. Therefore, its relative velocity is becoming increasingly distant from 0.

When Parts B and C both fall, they're both accelerating downward, and Part A is not (except that upper part of A that is becoming part of B as it is dislodged) and therefore, you must admit that the parts C and B are moving in the same direction. So, the velocity difference between C and B is significantly less than the difference between A and B. Because of this, B does more damage to A than it does to C.

I cannot actually fathom the sort of thinking that would cause someone to believe that 'rubble' can't do any damage to 'non-rubble'. Under that premise, shotguns and grenades should both be relatively inert weapons, shouldn't they? Billions of snowflakes placed gently should never collapse a roof. Rock slides would just flow around the non-rubble houses in their paths.

Are you serious? Think about this critically, for a change.

[tsig]

Heiwa,



Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.



You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

It's funny how he handwaves your diagrams as "funny pictures"
when I studied engineering the first thing you did when faced with a new problem was to start making diagrams in order to organize the facts and figures. One of our instructors was famous for always saying "think with your hands".

It is hard to understand how anyone with engineering pretensions could just ignore such basics of the trade.

BTW thanks for your informative posts. Shame they don't have a better reward but maybe posting has to be it's own reward and not the response.;)

[phunk]

The purpose of guy wires, if fitted, is to transmit wind loads on the mast from their connections to their supports ... on the roof. Wires can only transmit tensile forces and can thus be included in a beam analysis with that restriction. Problem is that the wire must be in tension. If it is slack it doesn't do anything. A wire cannot transmit any bending moment for obvious reasons. Guy wires, as elements, are permitted in any The Heiwa Challenge design. Pls submit your design!

Indeed, they would transfer the wind load mostly to the upwind side of the building, not to the base of the mast where you said it was maximum.

[GlennB]

It is hard to understand how anyone with engineering pretensions could just ignore such basics of the trade.



Well, I have a degree in biology but could never call myself a biologist. My actual work over the years has mostly been teaching English, programming and databases. If I were to spout about biology today I'd certainly expect to be making basic errors.

Take a look at Heiwa's CV. He apparently has a degree in marine engineering, but his actual work has been loss-adjusting in the marine insurance trade. He's as much an experienced engineer as I am an experienced biologist. i.e. not.

He's just a CTist with a (very) distant engineering background.

[tfk]

Good drawings T. Can you make another one giving an idea how the pure compresive force of the 30-storey antenna broke through the hat truss when it started on it's downwards journey before any other signs of collapse began including a stationary roofline ?


I already answered that question above.


The building [i.e, all structural members, including core & peripheral columns -tk] softened, yielded and failed at the 98th floor. The core failed a fraction of a second before the peripheral columns.


Why would you need a diagram?

There are certain effects that would predict the core fail before the peripheral columns (e.g., higher temperatures).
While other effects would predict the peripheral columns fail first (e.g., higher bending stresses).

Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.

What is so hard to understand?

[bill smith]

Heiwa,



Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.



You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol

[bill smith]

I already answered that question above.



Why would you need a diagram?

There are certain effects that would predict the core fail before the peripheral columns (e.g., higher temperatures).
While other effects would predict the peripheral columns fail first (e.g., higher bending stresses).

Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.

What is so hard to understand?

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.

[tfk]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.
.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

[beachnut]

But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol
Heiwa is not an engineer for structures like the WTC. Heiwa is a graduate of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. He does not build buildings he inspects shipwrecks and hates the United States and apologizes for terrorists with his failed work.

Heiwa challenge was beat twice on 911 by the towers gravity collapse. You are following an person who makes up moronic ideas about structures he never understood.

The fall of the towers on 911 prove Heiwa's ideas to be delusions. You support delusions with talk, no engineering, no math, no physics.

Heiwa has no more than 0.00087 percent of all the engineers in the world supporting his failed conclusions, plus you the cheerleader for 911 fraud.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/ Did you read all the reports from NIST on the WTC? How long did it take you?

[tfk]

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.


But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol


Are you literate, Bill Smith?

I will happily concede that Heiwa was absolutely, 100% correct for everyone who believes that:

"The bending moment at the bottom of the blue platform is transmitted thru the hat truss to the peripheral and core columns as shear loads"

is contextually equivalent to:

"The bending moment at the bottom of the blue platform is NOT transmitted thru the hat truss to the peripheral and core columns as shear loads"

I strongly suspect that both you & Heiwa are in this curious subset of the population.

"lol" away, now.

tk

PS. For the rest of us, he was completely, 100% wrong in that statement. Which is why I brought it up & gave him a chance to clarify it.

He clarified his ignorance, and then began his customary tap-dance.

[BigAl]

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell
THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.

I can't make out a word of that and to the degree it reflects reality, it's a big "so what?"

Can I point out that the sway of the tower at the instant of the plane impact (several ft) combined with the inertia of the mast put a tremendous strain on the antenna-truss connection. Who knows what kind of damage it caused.

We know the towers "survived" the impacts more or less as expected by what we know the designers planed for. Has anyone asked the designers of the mast what they anticipated?

[tfk]

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.
.
Read it again. Pay attention.


Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.


Don't bother me with anymore of this nonsense. This level of willful ignorance is annoying.

"lol"

tk

[Quad4_72]

Anyone responding to Heiwa in this thread should probably take a look at my sig and question what good will really come out of it...

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

Hm, let's get our coordinates right; x-axis is in the E-W hat truss beam, z -axis upwards (or downwards!), y-axis in the N-S hat truss beam. Say wind load is applied in x-z-plane in x-axis direction.

The shear force at the bottom of the vertical mast due wind loads then applies an axial force to the horizontal E-W hat truss beams. It also produces bending around the y-axis. The N-S hat truss beams are subject to torsion, etc.

The vertical force applied on the hat truss due to the mass of the mast (in the z-axis) is transmitted as a shear forces in the NS/EW hat truss beams to the perimeter columns. It also produces downward bending of the hat truss beams. Etc, etc. Start another thread about it. Fascinating stuff.

[bill smith]

.
Read it again. Pay attention.



Don't bother me with anymore of this nonsense. This level of willful ignorance is annoying.

"lol"

tk

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

[Heiwa]

.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

Not really - in both sets of pictures the upper part C is destroyed prior to any serious damages to the lower part A. Last (right) picture in section 1.6 is the start of the destruction of the upper stories of lower part A when part C is almost completely destroyed.
According NIST part A is supposed to be destroyed by energy applied by part C and due to lack of strain energy absorption capability of A, etc. According Bazant & Co part C + hat truss are supposed to be intact and to produce a rubble layer - part B - that is not seen anywhere and then one-way crush down part A while, repeat, part C remains intact. Part C is supposed to be crushed-up 15 seconds later by part B!!
Thanks for linking to my paper!

[beachnut]

If the ht truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would avepulled tose walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.
Heiwa was proved wrong on 911; where is your support applicable to a conspiracy theory on 911? You have no clue on engineering proved by your blind support of Heiwa and his pizza box physics delusions that spawned the delusional OP.

"If you scale up the Pizza Tower 100 times and adjust the material you will get WTC1." - Heiwa
"No. My experiment is full scale. It is a 3.5 m tower (95 boxes) with an 0.5 m pizza impactor." - Heiwa

Where and what is the CT and can you produce the work to support Heiwa's work which is wrong in the first place?

How can you be skeptical of Heiwa's work when you have zero skills at engineering?

[tfk]

I reiterate.

I understand. You understand.
I stated the situation clearly. You are handwaving & dancing.

You said (exactly) "Transverse wind loads? They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4760121#post4760121

You can take your pick of errors, Heiwa.

1. You said that "transverse wind loads produce a bending moment" at the base of the antenna. This is wrong, as you are NOW correcting. Transverse wind loads produce a bending moment AND a shear load.

2. You said that "the bending moment is transmitted to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces". This is wrong. Bending moments do NOT turn into shear forces in the midst of cantilever beams.

The second one caught my eye, because I've taught this theory to many young engineers (undergrad & degreed).


Hm, let's get our coordinates right; x-axis is in the E-W hat truss beam, z -axis upwards (or downwards!), y-axis in the N-S hat truss beam. Say wind load is applied in x-z-plane in x-axis direction.


Sure. Whatever.


The shear force at the bottom of the vertical mast due wind loads ...


Irrelevant. In your OP, you were talking about the MOMENT at the base of the mast, not the shear.


The vertical force applied on the hat truss due to the mass of the mast (in the z-axis) ...


Irrelevant. In your OP, you were talking about the MOMENT at the base of the mast, not the vertical load.


Start another thread about it.


Ahhh, I see.

You, offering deceptive technobabble to the non-Mech Engr's here, is NOT off topic.
But my comments, correcting your nonsense, is.

Got it.


Fascinating stuff.


It is. It's even MORE fascinating when it's correct.

tom

[GlennB]

.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

How strange! He's posted mutually-contradictory photo evidence. I'm shocked, frankly.

[tfk]

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) ...


Asserts the high school drop-out, having no idea how to perform a competent failure analysis.


... the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement.


Asserts the high school drop-out, having no idea about the hat truss's failure modes, failure locations, failure effects, or even whether the external walls did or did not "pull in".

[pssst, a quick look makes me think that they did. But I know better than to jump to that conclusion based on just a couple of low-res frame grabs.]


You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.


Yeah sure, bill smith. I really do need to pass my ideas thru you, one "special" font of ignorance, before speaking so hastily on engineering issues ...

You know, bill smith, there are a whole bunch of really, really sharp people in the world who, for one reason or another, did not have the opportunity to finish high school or college. You meet these folks every day.

And there are also a bunch of people, who don't have the common sense that god gave a fence post, who have gotten college degrees. As our friend, Mr. Bjorkman, proves.

So, your failure to finish high-school did not inevitably result in your very "special" level of uninformed ignorance. But it sure helped.

"lol".

tk

[tfk]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.


.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.



Not really


Yes.
Really.

Your usual sloppy, careless writing, and subsequent hand-waving, notwithstanding ...


... in both sets of pictures the upper part C is destroyed prior to any serious damages to the lower part A.


In YOUR analysis ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ), there are three side-by-side images at the beginning of Section 1.6. These conveniently scale on my screen to 100' : 1".

The middle image shows the Upper Part C AFTER it has descended approximately 25' (2 stories), taking more than 1.25 seconds.
Through the smoke, the upper 100' of Part C is visible on the left side of the near face. The upper 60 - 80 feet is visible on the right side of the near face. Approximately 110' of the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

In the right picture, the Upper Part C has fallen approximately 60' (~5 stories), taking more than 1.9 seconds.
Through the smoke, between 40' & 70' of the face is visible on the left near face, about 50' in the middle and near the right edge are visible, and about 60' on the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

Your statement above, "It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below! One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed" is proven to be totally false.

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".

Your claim that you have any idea when the Upper Part C is "totally destroyed" is laughable on its face.

The truth of the matter is that you have ZERO idea how long the upper block stays intact, nor when it is ultimately destroyed, precisely because the whole assembly disappears behind a completely opaque curtain of smoke & debris. And on all visible surfaces, the outer walls are intact when last seen.

The truth is that you are intentionally mistaking the smoke, dust & particle laden air that is expelled from the crushing floors for "the explosion and destruction of Upper Part C".

The truth is that you are intentionally lying.

Ain't no big thing, Heiwa.

Ain't nothing new,either.

Ain't very admirable, tho.

[Regnad Kcin]

The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.You're sure?For the sake of argument, yes.

What about the collective amount of the lower part A?I don't follow. Please elaborate.

And I'll thank you to not respond with another plea for your "challenge."

[Quad4_72]

Where and what is the CT and can you produce the work to support Heiwa's work which is wrong in the first place?

How can you be skeptical of Heiwa's work when you have zero skills at engineering?

Are you referring to me with this comment or Bill? I assume Bill...

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Heiwa http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4765677#post4765677)
It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg (http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg)
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.



So here is your claim.............................

Originally Posted by Heiwa http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4765677#post4765677)
It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!





The stateofgrace Challenge

I challenge Heiwa to offer maths, logic, facts and evidence to support the above claim.
I challenge Heiwa to support fully his claim that some fifteens floors, the core, the top hat and the roof was blown up in the centre of New York.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully what happened to the mass of the upper section once it had been blown up.I challenge him to explain fully where this mass went once it was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, using his engineering expertise, to describe in detail the exact amount of explosives that would be needed to ensure the entire upper section was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully the amount of explosives it was required to blow up the upper section and why such an amount once denonated was not noticed or recorded by anybody.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully why the upper section was blown up and how the explosives survived the plane impact.
I challenge Heiwa to offer a full explanation as to the precise sequence of events regarding the lower section once the upper section had been blown up

And finally I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, once the upper section had been blown up, why nobody heard the upper or lower sections being blown up.

I challenge you Heiwa to not hand wave this post away, I challenge you to offer up your maths, your logic, your expertise and back up your claim.

( to all sane and normal people, I know my challenge is pointless and bordering on self importance, please forgive me but this fraud does my head in )

[Heiwa]

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".



LOL! In The Heiwa Challenge, however, (see post #1), topic, you are supposed to design a structure where the upper part is simply supposed to one-way crush down the lower part.

[FineWine]

Yes.
Really.

Your usual sloppy, careless writing, and subsequent hand-waving, notwithstanding ...



In YOUR analysis ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ), there are three side-by-side images at the beginning of Section 1.6. These conveniently scale on my screen to 100' : 1".

The middle image shows the Upper Part C AFTER it has descended approximately 25' (2 stories), taking more than 1.25 seconds.
Through the smoke, the upper 100' of Part C is visible on the left side of the near face. The upper 60 - 80 feet is visible on the right side of the near face. Approximately 110' of the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

In the right picture, the Upper Part C has fallen approximately 60' (~5 stories), taking more than 1.9 seconds.
Through the smoke, between 40' & 70' of the face is visible on the left near face, about 50' in the middle and near the right edge are visible, and about 60' on the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

Your statement above, "It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below! One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed" is proven to be totally false.

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".

Your claim that you have any idea when the Upper Part C is "totally destroyed" is laughable on its face.

The truth of the matter is that you have ZERO idea how long the upper block stays intact, nor when it is ultimately destroyed, precisely because the whole assembly disappears behind a completely opaque curtain of smoke & debris. And on all visible surfaces, the outer walls are intact when last seen.

The truth is that you are intentionally mistaking the smoke, dust & particle laden air that is expelled from the crushing floors for "the explosion and destruction of Upper Part C".

The truth is that you are intentionally lying.

Ain't no big thing, Heiwa.

Ain't nothing new,either.

Ain't very admirable, tho.



I have alluded a couple of times to the National Geographic documentary on the 9/11 attacks that I watched last week. It featured videos of the collapses of the towers that show clearly, more clearly than other videos I've seen, that the upper part was indeed intact.

Yes, Heiwa is intentionally lying, and the myth about the upper part "exploding" really needs to be tossed into the dumpster.

[FineWine]

LOL! In The Heiwa Challenge, however, (see post #1), topic, you are supposed to design a structure where the upper part is simply supposed to one-way crush down the lower part.

It's funny that when the bottom-of-the-barrel "truthers" (KreeL, bill smith, roundhead, Homeland Insurgency, etc.) get totally demolished, they always seem to end up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, giggling hysterically.

Your buffoonery has taken up a lot of space on this forum. Your bogus "challenge" has nothing to do with the collapses of the towers. You can't produce the simplest calculations to support your garble of basic physics.

Once more I will remind you that the upper part DOES NOT stay the same size relative to the bottom part. As it adds floors, it gets bigger. A child could grasp this concept. You can't.

[FineWine]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.


Lies. All lies. You are lying, Heiwa. The upper part was not "blown apart." It is clearly visible on the videos shown in the National Geographic documentary.

Let me guess: National Geographic is part of the NWO. That was easy!

[MIKILLINI]

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

Sure Bill, you talk a load of nothing all the time. All you've managed to show for knowledge is parroting heiwa, while failing to show you know anything.

[Heiwa]

Once more I will remind you that the upper part DOES NOT stay the same size relative to the bottom part. As it adds floors, it gets bigger. A child could grasp this concept. You can't.

The upper part C gets bigger! LOL! OK, topic is The Heiwa Challenge - very popular - and you suggest that there is a structure, where, dropping little part C on big part A, part C gets bigger ... while one-way crushing down part A. All due to gravity alone?
Anyway, just prove it!

[Heiwa]

Lies. All lies. You are lying, Heiwa. The upper part was not "blown apart." It is clearly visible on the videos shown in the National Geographic documentary.



You say National Geographic has found and showed videos showing upper part C being intact, while one-way crushing down lower part A?

Link, please.

[Heiwa]

The stateofgrace Challenge

...

( to all sane and normal people, I know my challenge is pointless and bordering on self importance, please forgive me but this fraud does my head in )

You are right!

[GlennB]

You've been caught in a blatant lie, Heiwa. Again.

[Heiwa]

You've been caught in a blatant lie, Heiwa. Again.

??? There is no lying involved with The Heiwa Challenge! Just produce a structure where part C one-way crushes part A, etc. Don't say you can do it or that it is possible. Just do it!

[KreeL]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why....actually I don't wonder.

[dtugg]

Kreel, I put you in for that pay raise. I don't know if your handler told you yet, but you should start getting it next paycheck.

[MIKILLINI]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why actually I don't wonder.

Fixed that for ya.

[stateofgrace]

You are right!

I knew I am pal, like every fraud before you, you hand wave anything that gets in the way of your delusions.

[Heiwa]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why....actually I don't wonder.

Yes, it is quite easy to show the true character of the OCTists. Just challenge them, e.g. The Heiwa Challenge! Result? Obnoxious personal attacks in lieu of factual arguments on topic. Happens everytime.

[stateofgrace]

Yes, it is quite easy to show the true character of the OCTists. Just challenge them, e.g. The Heiwa Challenge! Result? Obnoxious personal attacks in lieu of factual arguments on topic. Happens everytime.

Sorry did I not challenge you to back up your claim that the upper section was blown up over New York (quickly looks up the page, yep I did)?

And your insightful, highly qualified, superbly thought out response was what?

THREE WORDS.This is your factual argument on a topic you raised, right?And then you have the nerve to call anybody who asks you anything OCTists and accuse them of obnoxiuos personal attacks, are you for real pal ?

Brilliant Heiwa and there was me thinking you had nothing. For some reason you expect people to be courteous to you, you expect what you will not give. The reason for the attacks is because you will not engage, you will not back up your claims and you will not show the slightest level of common decency and manners to anybody other than to somebody who freely admits the only reason he is here is to troll.

You seriously expect your challenge to taken seriously, when every challenge put to about claims you make are simply dismissed out of hand, hand waved away or met with the most condescending posts I have ever seen on any forum. You are rightly ignored by the larger community here and at this point I choose to no longer waste my time on you.

[bill smith]

??? There is no lying involved with The Heiwa Challenge! Just produce a structure where part C one-way crushes part A, etc. Don't say you can do it or that it is possible. Just do it!

I wonder if a website could be developed with various challenges for ordinary people ? There must be quite a few interesting possibilities, yours included. People DO love a puzzle ? 'Spot the plane' 'All-Fall-Down' 'Aluminium-Rock Scissors' '9/11 Jenga' ...the options are endless. It could be advertised as ''learning games for all the family''. Food for thought.

[Heiwa]

Sorry did I not challenge you to back up your claim that the upper section was blown up over New York (quickly looks up the page, yep I did)?

And your insightful, highly qualified, superbly thought out response was what?

THREE WORDS.This is your factual argument on a topic you raised, right?And then you have the nerve to call anybody who asks you anything OCTists and accuse them of obnoxiuos personal attacks, are you for real pal ?

Brilliant Heiwa and there was me thinking you had nothing. For some reason you expect people to be courteous to you, you expect what you will not give. The reason for the attacks is because you will not engage, you will not back up your claims and you will not show the slightest level of common decency and manners to anybody other than to somebody who freely admits the only reason he is here is to troll.

You seriously expect your challenge to taken seriously, when every challenge put to about claims you make are simply dismissed out of hand, hand waved away or met with the most condescending posts I have ever seen on any forum. You are rightly ignored by the larger community here and at this point I choose to no longer waste my time on you.

A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear. Just design a structure that can self-destruct, when a part C of it one-way crushes part A down assisted only by gravity, etc. I know, of course, that it is impossible! That's why upper part of WTC 1 could not one-way crush down WTC 1 on 911. But it is not the topic of this thread. There are multiple threads about the WTC 1 destruction. This thread is much simpler and more challenging. Prove the phenomenon! With any structure!

It seems we are approaching 1000 posts in this thread and none has been close to defeat the challenge. So it seems I am the winner, after all.

[funk de fino]

I wonder if a website could be developed with various challenges for ordinary people ? There must be quite a few interesting possibilities, yours included. People DO love a puzzle ? 'Spot the plane' 'All-Fall-Down' 'Aluminium-Rock Scissors' '9/11 Jenga' ...the options are endless. It could be advertised as ''learning games for all the family''. Food for thought.

People do not like scumbags making fun of thousands of people dying. Stop acting like a jerk.

[stateofgrace]

A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear. Just design a structure that can self-destruct, when a part C of it one-way crushes part A down assisted only by gravity, etc. I know, of course, that it is impossible! That's why upper part of WTC 1 could not one-way crush down WTC 1 on 911. But it is not the topic of this thread. There are multiple threads about the WTC 1 destruction. This thread is much simpler and more challenging. Prove the phenomenon! With any structure!

It seems we are approaching 1000 posts in this thread and none has been close to defeat the challenge. So it seems I am the winner, after all.

Well, DUH, yep pal you are the winner. The winner of thinking up the dumbest challenge ever and wondering why nobody bothers with it.

Answer my challenge winner, come on champ, show us how a “winner “ can spit out more than three words and formulate some form of reasonable post.

COME ON CHAMP , back up your claim.YOU made the claim that the upper section of WTC 1 was blown up in THIS THREAD. This is on topic, it is the topic you brought up, in your own thread.



when the whole upper part C is blown apart
I challenge Heiwa to offer maths, logic, facts and evidence to support the above claim.
I challenge Heiwa to support fully his claim that some fifteens floors, the core, the top hat and the roof was blown up in the centre of New York.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully what happened to the mass of the upper section once it had been blown up.I challenge him to explain fully where this mass went once it was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, using his engineering expertise, to describe in detail the exact amount of explosives that would be needed to ensure the entire upper section was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully the amount of explosives it was required to blow up the upper section and why such an amount once denonated was not noticed or recorded by anybody.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully why the upper section was blown up and how the explosives survived the plane impact.
I challenge Heiwa to offer a full explanation as to the precise sequence of events regarding the lower section once the upper section had been blown up

And finally I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, once the upper section had been blown up, why nobody heard the upper or lower sections being blown up.

I challenge you Heiwa to not hand wave this post away, I challenge you to offer up your maths, your logic, your expertise and back up your claim.

There is nothing more obnoxious than a self declared winner who cannot back up what he claims. It goes beyond obnoxious, but after twenty five pages of this dross, you seem well practiced at it.Come on give us a winning post and show me why you are not a waste of time.

[dafydd]

I think that the Heiwa Challenge should be to sneak into two large buildings in New York,plant a large amount of explosives in places where nobody can see them,wire them up and make a clandestine exit.Call the A Team.

[dafydd]

A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear. Just design a structure that can self-destruct, when a part C of it one-way crushes part A down assisted only by gravity, etc. I know, of course, that it is impossible! That's why upper part of WTC 1 could not one-way crush down WTC 1 on 911. But it is not the topic of this thread. There are multiple threads about the WTC 1 destruction. This thread is much simpler and more challenging. Prove the phenomenon! With any structure!

It seems we are approaching 1000 posts in this thread and none has been close to defeat the challenge. So it seems I am the winner, after all.

In your fantasy world you are always the winner.It's called self-delusion.

[tsig]

A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear. Just design a structure that can self-destruct, when a part C of it one-way crushes part A down assisted only by gravity, etc. I know, of course, that it is impossible! That's why upper part of WTC 1 could not one-way crush down WTC 1 on 911. But it is not the topic of this thread. There are multiple threads about the WTC 1 destruction. This thread is much simpler and more challenging. Prove the phenomenon! With any structure!

It seems we are approaching 1000 posts in this thread and none has been close to defeat the challenge. So it seems I am the winner, after all.

So now you proclaim victory? Your challenge was proved a lie.

[stateofgrace]

In your fantasy world you are always the winner.It's called self-delusion.

But he really is a winner.


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

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


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

:rolleyes:

[tuc0]

But he really is a winner.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

:rolleyes:


And now consider he has some kind of almost relevant degree and is about as good as the "Truth" movement gets...

[Heiwa]

But he really is a winner.



Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.

[stateofgrace]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.

Really? So why did you derail it by claiming the upper section of WTC 1 was blown up? Why did you further derail it by calling anybody who asked you to prove this statement an obnoxious OCTist?

Come on champ where is your winning post?

[Heiwa]

Really? So why did you derail it by claiming the upper section of WTC 1 was blown up? Why did you further derail it by calling anybody who asked you to prove this statement an obnoxious OCTist?

Come on champ where is your winning post?

Here! Post #1.

[tfk]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.
And perhaps you could find somebody - OTHER THAN a complete buffoon - who cares if you declare yourself the winner.

And monkeys might fly out of my butt...

:rolleyes:

tk

PS. The cornerstone of your strategy for "victory" is simply ignoring the numerous people who have torn your silliness to shreds. Fingers in your ears, dancing around the room, shouting "I win, I win".

Deaf, blind and dumb. Emphasis on DUMB.

[stateofgrace]

Here! Post #1.

Did you answer the questions in post 1 ?


Really? So why did you derail it by claiming the upper section of WTC 1 was blown up? Why did you further derail it by calling anybody who asked you to prove this statement an obnoxious OCTist?




Where are your answers, champ ?

[bill smith]

So is it the landmark post 1,000 yet ?

[FineWine]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why....actually I don't wonder.



Of course you don't wonder. To be able to wonder, it is necessary to be able to think.

The Heiwa challenge has nothing to do with the collapses of the twin towers on 9/11/01.

[FineWine]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.


Congratulations! As your prize, you DON'T get your worthless papers published in any respectable journal.

Regarding the National Geographic documentary, I believe a DVD is available. However, there is little point in your watching. You have demonstrated a total inability to learn anything.