The Heiwa Challenge

[FineWine]

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.



The real engineers here have totally destroyed your mad garble of basic physics. You are incapable of comprehending what they write.

[FineWine]

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.


For the record, I did not say that National Geographic "found" anything. I stated that the upper part of the collapsing structure was plainly visible on the video presented in the documentary. It becomes obscured by the smoke and dust, but it can briefly be seen.

[BasqueArch]

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, you are completely wrong. You assume one solid mass from above hits one solid mass below, like
Gage's demonstration of one cardboard box bouncing off a larger cardboard box below, or your ship bouncing off another ship.
At this point I ignore the rest of your explication since your math describes the wrong model.

To understand the basic concepts and do the complex math one needs to analyze building chaotic failure ,
an education in civil/structural engineering is mandatory. You can't pick it up from the web or be a
naval engineer.

Bazant is convincing, not only because he is one of the top civil/structural engineers in the world, but
also because his analysis has stood the test of time from his peers. For a naval engineer I'm surprised at how enormously wrong you are. Run your ideas through a civil/structural
engineer to see what he says before you post, really. It would improve your arguments.

WTC Collapse Sequence

1. The initial failure was the columns collapse as evidenced by video (not exploded).
http://tinyurl.com/oqzfjz

2. The columns below were not crushed. The floors collapsed inside the columns when the floor above it
crushed the floor below it. Evidence of video and photographs show uncrushed column assemblies upright
at the base, and the "spire" center core columns that remained upright for 20 seconds after the floors
assemblies swept past them, proving the columns were not crushed from the weight or impact from the
columns above and the cores were not CD'ed.
http://tinyurl.com/op5a9f

3. After the floors pancaked at the rate of 9-10 floors per second, the exterior columns (36 foot long
,three column, three story bolted at base plates ) became excessively laterally unbraced,too slender and
the columns buckled at the bolted connections and toppled. Try balancing one stick at the end of another
stick. At 80 floors the columns were 960 feet high, WTC7 was 300 feet away.
The columns were not horizontally ejected by any force, they toppled. Bracing is a
well understood condition in structural engineering.

4. Whereas each floor only supported its own weight, (100# / SF, DL+LL) each column supported the
weight of ALL the floors above it in addition to the roof loads and lateral tension, compression, shear
wind loads.The floor assemblies were DL light, meant to carry only a live load of 50#/sf, the floor above
it weighing 100#/sf fell 12 feet atop it. This caused the secondary, global failure.

5. The WTCs were built with lightweight, fire vulnerable (high surface area to steel weight ratio)
truss joists instead of solid beams, light weight concrete floors (110 #/ sf vs 150 # / sf regular
weight), sprayed steel fire resistant insulation instead of plaster, tile ,concrete, and all gyp board
core walls (Shaftwall was invented for this job) instead of concrete fire rated walls. The Empire State
Building weighs 38 #/ Cu Ft, The WTC weighed 8 - 9# /Cu Ft. Cork weighs 10 #/ cu Ft. The WTCs were
light, fire vulnerable long span web joist floor system buildings.
http://tinyurl.com/ojzuwt

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, you are completely wrong. You assume one solid mass from above hits one solid mass below, ...

No! I assume a composite assembly of elements, weak/thin floors and strong/support columns in upper/lower parts of different, separate masses contacting each other, all connected to one another in respective parts. Only loose elements are furniture, etc, that do not contribute to anything. At first contact only one element of the upper part contacts another element in the lower part, etc.

It is NIST and Bazant that assume that upper part is one mass, rigid according to Bazant, that contacts the lower part that is not solid at all.

Read my papers!

But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

[Heiwa]

For the record, I did not say that National Geographic "found" anything. I stated that the upper part of the collapsing structure was plainly visible on the video presented in the documentary. It becomes obscured by the smoke and dust, but it can briefly be seen.

Pls, provide link.

[GlennB]

Heiwa, you are completely wrong. You assume one solid mass from above hits one solid mass below, like
Gage's demonstration of one cardboard box bouncing off a larger cardboard box below, or your ship bouncing off another ship.
At this point I ignore the rest of your explication since your math describes the wrong model.

To understand the basic concepts and do the complex math one needs to analyze building chaotic failure ... <snip for brevity>

Elegantly put (your whole post, I mean).

Regrettably though, Heiwa will respond with "But no smaller part C can one-way crush-down a larger part A. I know this because it's true. It's true because I believe it".

I have $1,000,000 riding on this prediction :)

[Heiwa]

1. The initial failure was the columns collapse as evidenced by video (not exploded).
http://tinyurl.com/oqzfjz



Video is WTC 2 and does not show any columns collapsing, rather a big internal explosion. Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1. Drop part C on part A and destroy A! If you can, report here!

[dafydd]

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.

The first prize was a night out on the town with Heiwa.The second prize was two nights out on the town with Heiwa.

[BigAl]

Video is WTC 2 and does not show any columns collapsing, rather a big internal explosion.

There was no "internal explosion" consistent with man-made demolition.

[Heiwa]

There was no "internal explosion" consistent with man-made demolition.

Who has suggested that? Anyway, topic is The Heiwa Challenge where upper part C shall one-way crush down part A of a structure as per post #1 just assisted by gravity. Have a try.

Internal explosions and similar producing local failures are not permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Just a drop + gravity.

Actually, it is quite difficult. But, have a try. And report. No off topic comments, please.

[tfk]

Folks,

I made an egregious error in an earlier post. I believed something that Heiwa & Bill Smith told me without checking it. Yeah, yeah. Let the ridicule commence. I deserve it. I know better.

Specifically, I believed their statements that the antenna started to collapse before the peripheral walls of the building. It never occurred to me that someone could get something that obvious completely wrong. (OK, 2nd course of guffaws...)

As a consequence, I wrote:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4766255#post4766255


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.


All of the above is clearly wrong.

Thank you, Ryan Mackey for your (smugly understated) comment above: "I thought we answered this question a year ago."

[BTW, "smug" is a compliment in this context. When you've fought the wars, and know you're stuff, you've earned the right to "smug". And that style is distinctive - and sets off alarms - to all of us who've dealt with folks who do know their business. Lest smug get out of hand, Ryan, there is a particular episode of South Park that is now readily available.]

Based on a quick scan of the info that Ryan pointed to:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3469739&postcount=355
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3484088#post3484088
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3485838#post3485838

it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax.

Thanks to Mangoose, rwguinn and others for that fine work.

"Thank you. Now back you your regularly scheduled broadcast..."

tom

[bill smith]

Folks,

I made an egregious error in an earlier post. I believed something that Heiwa & Bill Smith told me without checking it. Yeah, yeah. Let the ridicule commence. I deserve it. I know better.

Specifically, I believed their statements that the antenna started to collapse before the peripheral walls of the building. It never occurred to me that someone could get something that obvious completely wrong. (OK, 2nd course of guffaws...)

As a consequence, I wrote:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4766255#post4766255



All of the above is clearly wrong.

Thank you, Ryan Mackey for your (smugly understated) comment above: "I thought we answered this question a year ago."

[BTW, "smug" is a compliment in this context. When you've fought the wars, and know you're stuff, you've earned the right to "smug". And that style is distinctive - and sets off alarms - to all of us who've dealt with folks who do know their business. Lest smug get out of hand, Ryan, there is a particular episode of South Park that is now readily available.]

Based on a quick scan of the info that Ryan pointed to:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3469739&postcount=355
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3484088#post3484088
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3485838#post3485838

it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax.

Thanks to Mangoose, rwguinn and others for that fine work.

"Thank you. Now back you your regularly scheduled broadcast..."

tom
You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?

[phunk]

Bill, you didn't read the 3 posts he linked, did you.

[bill smith]

Bill, you didn't read the 3 posts he linked, did you.

I had already a look at that thread a few days ago.

[phunk]

And apparently you didn't understand it.

[stateofgrace]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?

Why are you posting off topic, the topic is the Heiwa challenge, right Heiwa?

Isn't it time you called Bill obnoxious also?

Lets keep the standards up, right?


Originally Posted by Heiwa http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4769280#post4769280)
Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple!

Originally Posted by Heiwa http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4768692#post4768692)
A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear


So are you going to enforce your standards with Bill, Heiwa?

[bill smith]

Why are you posting off topic, the topic is the Heiwa challenge, right Heiwa?

Isn't it time you called Bill obnoxious also?

Lets keep the standards up, right?


So are you going to enforce your standards with Bill, Heiwa?

Of course he will. I will try to stay on topic from now on.

[stateofgrace]

Of course he will. I will try to stay on topic fom now on.

And make sure you ask no questions regarding anything he claims as this is also classed as off topic. Make you don't ask him to back up anything he claims, make sure you accept everything he says, without question as that is all obnoxiously off topic. Make sure you keep him happy now Bill, don't want to upset your leader do you?

Even just pointing out what is off topic is actually off topic, so I better mention the Heiwa challenge just to be on topic.

PS, Bill I am messing with you, post what you like when you like, it's a free world.

[tfk]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '


My typo.

For the interpretively challenged, it should read "the early descent of the antenna [compared to the external wall of the towers] is simply an illusion of rotation [of the upper block] & parallax [from certain filming locations]."


Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?


I am totally at a loss...

Yep, bill. The WHOLE collapse is just an illusion.

The Illuminati decided they wanted some new plush digs in downtown Manhattan, and being cheap (a euphamism for you-know-what), they didn't want to pay. So they arranged this whole thing to get free rent.

The towers are still there. They are behind a Klingon Cloak of Invisibility.


What about the antenna ?


[facepalm]

[FineWine]

No! I assume a composite assembly of elements, weak/thin floors and strong/support columns in upper/lower parts of different, separate masses contacting each other, all connected to one another in respective parts. Only loose elements are furniture, etc, that do not contribute to anything. At first contact only one element of the upper part contacts another element in the lower part, etc.

It is NIST and Bazant that assume that upper part is one mass, rigid according to Bazant, that contacts the lower part that is not solid at all.

Read my papers!

But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.


Obviously, it is pointless to expect a dialogue with you to make any sort of progress, but here we go again. You acomplish nothing by repeating your mindless mantra "read my papers." Your papers are garbage--worthless junk--incompetent nonsense that no serious journal would dream of publishing. Your papers are riddled with the same absurd errors that the real engineers have demonstrated to you countless times. You can't get your mind, crippled by your mad political agenda, around the fact that the upper part keeps getting bigger as it adds floors to its mass, while the lower part gets smaller. Eventually, the top 109 floors crush the last floor remaining. You are incapable of learning.

[beachnut]

... 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.
You are the winner of moronic delusions; you get to keep them.

The WTC tower fell on 911 due to gravity after murderers took two planes and impacted at high speed. You lost.

[FineWine]

Pls, provide link.

Find it yourself.

[FineWine]

Video is WTC 2 and does not show any columns collapsing, rather a big internal explosion. Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1. Drop part C on part A and destroy A! If you can, report here!


Stop these ridiculous lies. There was no internal explosion.

[FineWine]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?


Boy, you really know your stuff. Yeah, maybe he means that the collapse of the tower was an illusion. :boggled:

I can see why you're willing to debate engineers even though your own lack of education is painfully obvious.

[MIKILLINI]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?

No Bill. It's you and Heiwa who are having the illusion since you two are convinced it was explosives that brought the towers down.

Can you provide an example of a top down demolition performed before 9/11? Wouldn't this be an example as well for your challenge?

[Regnad Kcin]

But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

[tsig]

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.

All structures will eventually succumb to gravity.

But what have you won? You consider us all stupid so I guess you have out argued the stupid. Are you proud of that?

[Jackanory]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

.

No no no no no. This thread is about The Heiwa Ego and post counts. Nothing more.

Two buidings where already designed, built, hit by terrorists and collapsed. Challenge completed.

The terrorists challenge was completed on 911. They beat you Heiwa. You owe those terrorist your $1m. You make excuses for them now go lay with them. Fraud.

[BasqueArch]

Thanks GlennB.
Krazy Kat avatar, Herriman. I best like him for Don Marquis' "Archie and Mehitabel". "...There's a dance in the old dame yet ... toujours gai ..."

http://tinyurl.com/lnec33

[Tricky]

Folks,

I made an egregious error in an earlier post. I believed something that Heiwa & Bill Smith told me without checking it. Yeah, yeah. Let the ridicule commence. I deserve it. I know better.

Specifically, I believed their statements that the antenna started to collapse before the peripheral walls of the building. It never occurred to me that someone could get something that obvious completely wrong. (OK, 2nd course of guffaws...)

As a consequence, I wrote:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4766255#post4766255



All of the above is clearly wrong.

Thank you, Ryan Mackey for your (smugly understated) comment above: "I thought we answered this question a year ago."

[BTW, "smug" is a compliment in this context. When you've fought the wars, and know you're stuff, you've earned the right to "smug". And that style is distinctive - and sets off alarms - to all of us who've dealt with folks who do know their business. Lest smug get out of hand, Ryan, there is a particular episode of South Park that is now readily available.]

Based on a quick scan of the info that Ryan pointed to:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3469739&postcount=355
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3484088#post3484088
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3485838#post3485838

it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax.

Thanks to Mangoose, rwguinn and others for that fine work.

"Thank you. Now back you your regularly scheduled broadcast..."

tom
I don't think this should pass unremarked. It is rare to find people admitting error these days, especially in this subforum. Whatever you think about tfk's position, I must commend him on his willingness to apologize in such an unforgiving place.
:clap:

[dafydd]

Elegantly put (your whole post, I mean).

Regrettably though, Heiwa will respond with "But no smaller part C can one-way crush-down a larger part A. I know this because it's true. It's true because I believe it".

I have $1,000,000 riding on this prediction :)

Yes,he does seem to model himself on The Bellman in The Hunting Of The Snark.
'
What I tell you three times is true'.

[dafydd]

And make sure you ask no questions regarding anything he claims as this is also classed as off topic. Make you don't ask him to back up anything he claims, make sure you accept everything he says, without question as that is all obnoxiously off topic. Make sure you keep him happy now Bill, don't want to upset your leader do you?

Even just pointing out what is off topic is actually off topic, so I better mention the Heiwa challenge just to be on topic.

PS, Bill I am messing with you, post what you like when you like, it's a free world.

Every time that qualified people point out Heiwa's mistakes to him he cries ''Off topic!''

[George152]

Video is WTC 2 and does not show any columns collapsing, rather a big internal explosion. Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1. Drop part C on part A and destroy A! If you can, report here!

What 'big internal explosion' ?
And why didn't it register on the videos or in the testimonies of the witnesses?
And why are you still flogging this dead horse ?

[BasqueArch]

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! ......

There are two Heiwa Challenges:
1. It's been proven that the collapse of the WTC structure above,
demolished the entire structure below and therefore these posts are OT and decisive.

25 pages pass by of typically obtuse Heiwa, on the 26th page after some
telling posts ...:

=Heiwa But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! .

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1.



No off topic comments, please.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

I think he protests too much, don't you.

The second Heiwa Challenge

Heiwa = It seems Bazant uses 1960's assumptions, as when he was
designing bridges in CSSR, the latter collapsing around 1989/90 (and never
very stable).
Bazant is now retired. Cannot the NWO clowns get some better brain to
explain this one-way crush down of little C of big A?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=143307 post #21,23

I replied "Are you saying that Bazant designed bridges that collapsed?
Provide references.

Heiwa is out of his element to besmirch Bazant.

He ran away without answer.

2. The other Heiwa challenge is to endure Heiwa - an indefatigably irrational insolent pipsqueak.

--------------------------------------------------------
Why there are many CT hypotheses, but only one theory - "Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. " - Aristotle

[Tony Szamboti]

No Bill. It's you and Heiwa who are having the illusion since you two are convinced it was explosives that brought the towers down.

Can you provide an example of a top down demolition performed before 9/11? Wouldn't this be an example as well for your challenge?

There are examples of top down demolition done since 911. Why does it make a difference when it was done?

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

[BasqueArch]

I don't think this should pass unremarked. It is rare to find people admitting error these days, especially in this subforum. Whatever you think about tfk's position, I must commend him on his willingness to apologize in such an unforgiving place.
:clap:

Re TFK ... Hear, Hear ! ....

[MIKILLINI]

There are examples of top down demolition done since 911. Why does it make a difference when it was done?

I said prior to 9/11, not since 9/11. It makes a difference when there is alleged top down demolition of the trade towers. Especially when bottom up demolition is the basic foundation (No pun intended) of taking down tall structures.

[Tony Szamboti]

I said prior to 9/11, not since 9/11. It makes a difference when there is alleged top down demolition of the trade towers. Especially when bottom up demolition is the basic foundation (No pun intended) of taking down tall structures.

Are you saying it was never envisioned prior to 911?

If so, why would it have been done after 911?

[Grizzly Bear]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.
You realize however that the impact of the upper section whether intact or not is not accurately represented in your assumption. Much of this mass was falling in unison and applying these loads as essentially a single or relatively few large scale impacts.

The strength of the lower section as a whole is somewhat of a moot point in this context, since the dynamic loads associated with such a large section coming down far exceeded any safety factors that the individual structural elements had the capacity for. We aren't treating it as a single unit of structure by pretending that the towers consisted of a uniform solid mesh.

[Heiwa]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

Thanks TS. Evidently lower part A of the structure can statically carry upper part C as per post #1. Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.

Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?

Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.

It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!

[stateofgrace]

Every time that qualified people point out Heiwa's mistakes to him he cries ''Off topic!''

It is pathetic and amusing to watch. Catering to the forum trolls, ignoring anything that makes him question his own beliefs, insulting anybody who simply asks him a civil question, running and hiding beside the well used "off topic" excuse and all the while declaring himself victorious.And he wonders why no one and I mean no one takes him seriously.

Yep this guy is a true professional.:rolleyes:

( I will post the reply Heiwa, don't bother --- "off topic, topic is Heiwa challenge, post on topic, blah, blah, blah".)

[oldhat]

I demand more office filing trays and/or Erector sets in this thread.

[GlennB]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.


Whereas falling columns, beams and concrete-lined floors don't have great momentum by virtue of their very high mass ?

[Minadin]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

Heiwa says that 'rubble' can never destroy something that is 'intact'. He even says that it doesn't matter if the rubble is falling from 2 miles up.

What do you think of a snowfall being able to collapse the roof of an arena? You think that's a static load? OK. Doesn't that make it EASIER to resist than a dynamic load? The bridge ahead says the weight limit is 40 tons for a truck. You could probably still drive a 45 ton truck over it without it collapsing. Could you drop a 45 ton truck onto it from 30 ft without any damage?

Why do you attempt to rationalize this crap?

[GlennB]

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy


This is nonsense that is truly cosmic in scale.

Damaged bolts/welds may - with no further impact - be too weak to hold the sheer weight of the broken member. If not, subsequent impacts may finish the job.

What's truly funny, of course, is that in conventional CD each column is cut and gravity then cheerfully completes the task of dismantling the members, something Heiwa describes above as "impossible". He somehow manages to totally misunderstand the CD process he claims took place. Jesu H Xristo, what a dolt. :rolleyes:

[Heiwa]

Heiwa says that 'rubble' can never destroy something that is 'intact'. He even says that it doesn't matter if the rubble is falling from 2 miles up.

Why do you attempt to rationalize this crap?

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

[Minadin]

But he really is a winner.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

:rolleyes:

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.

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!


Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.

[dafydd]

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

That's because nobody can be bothered to waste their time on childish experiments.At the risk of going off topic,how did they smuggle the explosives in and rig them undetected?

[dafydd]

Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.


It is our duty to help the afflicted.

[Heiwa]

Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.

The Heiwa Challenge met several times???? When, where, how? Not possible ... for reasons I have given in order to terminate this thread.

No rubble was formed by Richard Gage's boxes! An excellent example why a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances.

Real reason for the box demonstration was to show that, if you put something (e.g. boxes A) between a box C to be dropped and ground, boxes A is an obstruction to free fall of box C, etc.

It is this obstruction that makes The Heiwa Challenge very difficult ... actually impossible ... to accomplish.

It seems only religious integrists of various types believe in one-way crush downs! What about you?

[Heiwa]

That's because nobody can be bothered to waste their time on childish experiments.At the risk of going off topic,how did they smuggle the explosives in and rig them undetected?

No explosives are permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Only gravity.

[sylvan8798]

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

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

Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

What is the science and mathematics behind the 1/10 vs 9/10th? Did I miss your explanation for that? Is this relationship a necessary condition for your theory to be true? If so, why?

[tsig]

No explosives are permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Only gravity.

You are aware that this is a public forum and that your posts here could be used to destroy any credibility you might have in other venues?

[Regnad Kcin]

Once again:But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

[Justin39640]

Once again:

to attempt to confuse everyone into believing the "evidence" really fits into his preconceived notions

[Heiwa]

What is the science and mathematics behind the 1/10 vs 9/10th? Did I miss your explanation for that? Is this relationship a necessary condition for your theory to be true? If so, why?

Part C being 1/10 of part A is a condition of The Heiwa Challenge. It can also be 1/8 as discussed, if your structure so requires. The Heiwa Challenge is not a theory, it is a challenge.

The theory or axiom states that a part C of a structure A cannot one-way crush down A when dropped on A under certain conditions, e.g. C = 1/10A (as in Challenge), i.e. C is smaller than A; a small part cannot one-way crush down a bigger part of same structure.

If C is greater than A other things happens, e.g. C is damaged by what supports A, etc. but that's another story.

Thanks for asking.

[Heiwa]

Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

Read post #1.

A professor Bazant & Co suggested on 9/13/01 that a small piece of a structure can one-way crush down the remaining structure by gravity alone and this has been adopted as the explanation of the WTC 1 collapse on 9/11/01. The Challenge is to produce any structure that behaves like that.

[funk de fino]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

How much were the floor connections designed to hold Tony?

[FineWine]

Read post #1.

A professor Bazant & Co suggested on 9/13/01 that a small piece of a structure can one-way crush down the remaining structure by gravity alone and this has been adopted as the explanation of the WTC 1 collapse on 9/11/01. The Challenge is to produce any structure that behaves like that.


Do you ever stop telling your nonsensical lies? Bazant's stature in the engineering community is huge. You are an unknown incompetent.

NOBODY suggested that "a small piece of a structure" crushed the rest of the structure. The top parts of two buildings, consisting of 15-20 floors, collapsed. When they did so, they crushed in succession each floor they contacted, gaining mass and momentum . You are incapable of understanding why the towers fell. You are a disgrace to your profession.

[tfk]

Heiwa,


Evidently lower part A of the structure can statically carry upper part C as per post #1.


Your becoming transparent, Heiwa. To me. That's just because you're new to me. Others were already familiar with your style before I got here, and warned me.

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.

.

Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.


Continuing vagueness. Continuing sloppiness.

Just as soon as upper Part C comes OFF OF the support beams of lower Part A, then Lower Part A is doomed. The FLOORS were never able to carry the weight. The floors of Part A collapsed, and without the FLOORS, the whole structure was unstable.
.

Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?


Sloppiness continues. Combined with out and out error.

This is 100% opposed to your PREVIOUS nonsense, when you claimed that detached rubble could not cause damage. And that was just as incompetently wrong as this loony suggestion.

Anything that has mass & momentum, REGARDLESS of whether they are attached or detached, will cause damage in a collision.

.

Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.


Pssst, Heiwa. It was an antenna. A MAST is something on a boat. As all this farce has shown, buildings are NOT boats.

Now you're getting coy, Heiwa. YOU said "the antenna dropped first". And Bill Smith said "the antenna dropped first".

Please do not confuse those two events with someone knowledgeable and honest saying "the antenna dropped first".

The antenna dropped when everything below it dropped. Ain't no mystery there.
.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.


What sort of a complete nonsense is this??

Drop your TV set out of your third story window. (This will be roughly comparable to dropping a building's steel latticework 1300 feet.) It hits the ground & breaks up into 100 pieces. Under the effect of gravity alone.

According to your idiocy, it'll have to be in ONE SINGLE (destroyed) piece. Each piece attached at one end to every other piece.

Or were there explosive charges buried by dark forces in your TV.

And a TV set is, for its size, STRONGER than the WTC. You could plausibly stack 2 to 4 additional TV sets on top of your own. One could not stack even ONE additional WTC tower on top of the one that was there.

Heiwa, you should be humiliated to be making statements this nonsensical.
.

Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.


A chain of illogic. Not one single link in the chain stands 10 seconds of scrutiny. And a laughable conclusion at the end.

Sorry, Heiwa. You are not competent at your engineering.
.

It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!


I really, really understand that you'd like that to be the case. To end on a sloppy, thoughtless piece.

I doubt that you'll get that wish.


tk

[Heiwa]

Do you ever stop telling your nonsensical lies? Bazant's stature in the engineering community is huge. You are an unknown incompetent.

NOBODY suggested that "a small piece of a structure" crushed the rest of the structure. The top parts of two buildings, consisting of 15-20 floors, collapsed. When they did so, they crushed in succession each floor they contacted, gaining mass and momentum . You are incapable of understanding why the towers fell. You are a disgrace to your profession.

No, Bazant suggests that the top part does not collapse - it remains intact - and that it, called part C in later papers, one-way crushes down the structure below, part A, that is 8 times bigger ... and much stronger.

Bazant is a retired professor with experience of material properties of isotropic structures, etc. He knows little about construction, steel element structural analysis and even less of such structural damage analysis, i.e. the analysis of steel or composite structures where elements and connections fail one after the other. Just check the 400+ papers he has produced. Nothing about structural damage analysis.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Your becoming transparent, Heiwa. To me. That's just because you're new to me. Others were already familiar with your style before I got here, and warned me.

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.

.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.


Continuing vagueness. Continuing sloppiness.

Just as soon as upper Part C comes OFF OF the support beams of lower Part A, then Lower Part A is doomed. The FLOORS were never able to carry the weight. The floors of Part A collapsed, and without the FLOORS, the whole structure was unstable.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?
Sloppiness continues. Combined with out and out error.

This is 100% opposed to your PREVIOUS nonsense, when you claimed that detached rubble could not cause damage. And that was just as incompetently wrong as this loony suggestion.

Anything that has mass & momentum, REGARDLESS of whether they are attached or detached, will cause damage in a collision.

.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.
Pssst, Heiwa. It was an antenna. A MAST is something on a boat. As all this farce has shown, buildings are NOT boats.

Now you're getting coy, Heiwa. YOU said "the antenna dropped first". And Bill Smith said "the antenna dropped first".

Please do not confuse those two events with someone knowledgeable and honest saying "the antenna dropped first".

The antenna dropped when everything below it dropped. Ain't no mystery there.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

What sort of a complete nonsense is this??

Drop your TV set out of your third story window. (This will be roughly comparable to dropping a building's steel latticework 1300 feet.) It hits the ground & breaks up into 100 pieces. Under the effect of gravity alone.

According to your idiocy, it'll have to be in ONE SINGLE (destroyed) piece. Each piece attached at one end to every other piece.

Or were there explosive charges buried by dark forces in your TV.

And a TV set is, for its size, STRONGER than the WTC. You could plausibly stack 2 to 4 additional TV sets on top of your own. One could not stack even ONE additional WTC tower on top of the one that was there.

Heiwa, you should be humiliated to be making statements this nonsensical.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.

A chain of illogic. Not one single link in the chain stands 10 seconds of scrutiny. And a laughable conclusion at the end.

Sorry, Heiwa. You are not competent at your engineering.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!

I really, really understand that you'd like that to be the case. To end on a sloppy, thoughtless piece.

I doubt that you'll get that wish.




LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! Throwing TV sets out of windows.

Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.

Pls, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Where an upper part C of a structure is carried by a lower part A. Both parts are assemblies of elements.

You are supposed to disconnect C from A, drop it on A and to show that C one-way crushes A.

[dafydd]

You are aware that this is a public forum and that your posts here could be used to destroy any credibility you might have in other venues?

That will have no effect on him.He is convinced that his harebrained theory is true and that far more qualified people than he do not know what they are talking about.He would be pleased if you posted his drivellings on other forums.

[tfk]

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

Sorry Anders,

The "Heiwa Challenge" collapses (appropriately) under its own weight of nonsense the INSTANT that anyone starts talking with accuracy, with precision.

This is precisely why you adamantly refuse to talk with precision. And instead offer your "Part A", "Part C", and "do it with religion" nonsense.

You should note, tho, that the mere fact that YOU won't talk in specifics, with accuracy, with attention to detail, does NOT stop the rest of us from talking in specifics.

With accuracy.

With attention to detail.

And you are just the class clown sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears. Rocking back & forth & saying "I'm not going to talk about THAT!"

Or, perhaps a better metaphor would be the Black Knight out of The Holy Grail. Sitting there armless, legless, crying that "it's only a flesh wound", while everyone else just moves on.

C'ya...

tk

[GlennB]

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.


You seem to have ignored my previous post on this subject, so let's try a different tack..

According to you (see above), gravity cannot have caused the disconnections in the steel members in the following GZ photo? It had to be CD?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail-1.jpg

[Heiwa]

You seem to have ignored my previous post on this subject, so let's try a different tack..

According to you (see above), gravity cannot have caused the disconnections in the steel members in the following GZ photo? It had to be CD?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail-1.jpg

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

[tfk]

LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! Throwing TV sets out of windows.

Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.

Pls, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Where an upper part C of a structure is carried by a lower part A. Both parts are assemblies of elements.

You are supposed to disconnect C from A, drop it on A and to show that C one-way crushes A.


As I said, the ONLY way that you perpetuate your nonsense is by being sloppy.
And short. The less MEANINGFUL things you say, the less nonsense there is with which others can beat you about the head & shoulders.

So you are reduced to this...

"You don't know much about structural analysis..."

I know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams, Heiwa. Something that, yesterday, you proved that you do not.

I know that a TV set is a structure. I know that it has elements in it. I know that those elements are connected to each other. I know that, if I throw it out of a window, it will fall to the ground ONLY under the influence of gravity. And I know that, when it hits the ground, it will break into a bunch of separate DETACHED pieces.

But let's hear what some other fool says about my TV set:

.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.


Gee, Heiwa. Who was the fool that said that??

How does he explain my "TV in 100 pieces"?

Explosives, no doubt.

No, Heiwa. You don't say "explosives". In fact, you won't say ANYTHING.

You will - ONCE AGAIN - retreat behind sloppy language.

You will run away from the discussion. Cowardly. Exactly like you refused to answer my direct, ON TOPIC, points.

You will attempt to bluff & bluster.

All of it, unsuccessfully.

Keep trying, tho. Maybe Bill Smith & Kreel still think you're a genius....

Maybe...

tom

[GlennB]

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

You are saying , then, that in a CD every steel member is cut? On every floor?

If not, then how does the CD'd building collapse into a totally broken heap when only the cut steel columns - according to you - can fully disconnect?

In the photo above - according to you - every single piece of steel should bear the traces of CD. That is, a blackened and diagonally cut end.

I suspect you know your position on this subject is ridiculous, as tfk has indicated above.

[tfk]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.


Mr. Szamboti,

Why are you writing like this? I was under the impression that you are an engineer. Is that not true?

bb pellets and grenade fragments follow PRECISELY the same rules as snow flakes, gas molecules, rocks avalanches, steel beams and planets and galaxies.

Each has kinetic energy & momentum, and exists on the VERY SAME CONTINUUM, according to mass and velocity.

Why are you suggesting they are "not analogous"? They are precisely analogous, as long as the WHOLE MODEL is set up according to well known rules of dimensional analysis & scaling.

But it is the whole model that is consistent or not. Not components of the model.

Your freshman dynamics professor (to say nothing of Isaac Newton) would be disappointed with you.

tk

[bill smith]

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/

[Grizzly Bear]

You are saying , then, that in a CD every steel member is cut? On every floor?

If not, then how does the CD'd building collapse into a totally broken heap when only the cut steel columns - according to you - can fully disconnect?

In the photo above - according to you - every single piece of steel should bear the traces of CD. That is, a blackened and diagonally cut end.

I suspect you know your position on this subject is ridiculous, as tfk has indicated above.
Heiwa, very clearly -- whether intentionally or out of incompetence -- doesn't regard connection failures as a collapse mechanism as you've begun to imply. And I suspect not one person contending the demolition theory both self proclaimed professionals or laymen cares for taking that into account. Those failure points are absolutely expected in a structure like the towers, without any need for controlled demolition to induce it.

[FineWine]

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/


It is certainly all over as regards the insane inside job nonsense. You usually spout nothing but falsehoods, but when you state that listening to one wrong-headed fraud is pretty much the same as listening to another, you have inadvertantly managed to tell the truth.

Two months ago, we were discussing how Jones could settle the issue of his red chips by submitting them for independent analysis. I pointed out that his mindless followers will still be making excuses for him six months, a year, two years from now. Heiwa will never succeed in persuading a serious journal to publish his rubbish. I'm sure we will hear how they are all staffed by religious fundamentalists taking orders from the NWO.

You people are beyond pathetic.

[Heiwa]

As I said, the ONLY way that you perpetuate your nonsense is by being sloppy.
And short. The less MEANINGFUL things you say, the less nonsense there is with which others can beat you about the head & shoulders.

So you are reduced to this...

"You don't know much about structural analysis..."

I know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams, Heiwa. Something that, yesterday, you proved that you do not.

I know that a TV set is a structure. I know that it has elements in it. I know that those elements are connected to each other. I know that, if I throw it out of a window, it will fall to the ground ONLY under the influence of gravity. And I know that, when it hits the ground, it will break into a bunch of separate DETACHED pieces.

But let's hear what some other fool says about my TV set:

.


Gee, Heiwa. Who was the fool that said that??

How does he explain my "TV in 100 pieces"?

Explosives, no doubt.

No, Heiwa. You don't say "explosives". In fact, you won't say ANYTHING.

You will - ONCE AGAIN - retreat behind sloppy language.

You will run away from the discussion. Cowardly. Exactly like you refused to answer my direct, ON TOPIC, points.

You will attempt to bluff & bluster.

All of it, unsuccessfully.

Keep trying, tho. Maybe Bill Smith & Kreel still think you're a genius....

Maybe...

tom

What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?
But if you "know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams", why not try to design a structure as per The Heiwa Challenge?

OK, it is 3-D and at least 1000+ diagrams. x-y is ground, z is up!

Start with diagram 1! Intact! What are the stresses in every element/connection? That's easy.
Diagram 2 or 22 or 222! The structure is damaged and element(s) or connection(s) has(ve) failed. What are the stresses then in every element/connection and how much energy has bee used to produce the failures, etc.
I will extend The Heiwa Challenge also to include pure computer/FEA/beam based analysises of a part C one-way crushing down A.
Just get going - hopefully by post #2000 we'll have some results?

[FineWine]

What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?
But if you "know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams", why not try to design a structure as per The Heiwa Challenge?

OK, it is 3-D and at least 1000+ diagrams. x-y is ground, z is up!

Start with diagram 1! Intact! What are the stresses in every element/connection? That's easy.
Diagram 2 or 22 or 222! The structure is damaged and element(s) or connection(s) has(ve) failed. What are the stresses then in every element/connection and how much energy has bee used to produce the failures, etc.
I will extend The Heiwa Challenge also to include pure computer/FEA/beam based analysises of a part C one-way crushing down A.
Just get going - hopefully by post #2000 we'll have some results?


The results achieved on 9/11/01 were definitive.

[beachnut]

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/
Good video; it matches the same level of moronic ideas you like and Heiwa spews. Good job finding a match at the same level of delusions you hold with Heiwa.

[Heiwa]

The results achieved on 9/11/01 were definitive.

Yes, CD 100%. So to clarify matters this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls, submit structures that one-way crushes down as per post #1.

[beachnut]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.
Both you and Heiwa are great anti-intellectual examples of engineering gone wrong. You continue to prove you don't need to use engineering with you lack of understanding 911 and you are so proud you post proof.

Proved wrong on 911, you and Heiwa think made up ideas and talk will suffice to support your failed conclusions.

You and Heiwa have problems grasping the mass and gravity issues of 911 and fail to make rational conclusions. Your failed ideas need explosives or thermite and Heiwa needs more pizza boxes and kids jumping on beds.

The gravity collapse of 911 satisfies this thread and makes your ideas and Heiwa's failed delusions. Changing your name will not hide the fact you had a preconceived conclusion on 911 based on moronic delusions.

You are joined with another evidence free moronic idea producer.
Yes, CD 100%. ... A lie since you have no evidence. Why and how can you keep a moronic delusion based on no evidence? You lost your challenge on 911 due to lack of engineering skills. After 1000 posts Heiwa has failed to refute reality.

[FineWine]

Yes, CD 100%. So to clarify matters this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls, submit structures that one-way crushes down as per post #1.



You're almost right--at least, as close as you'll ever come. The correct probability is CD, 0%. You see, you are an incompetent fraud who is incapable of learning. Every demolition professional in the world rejects your lies about explosives.

The Heiwa Challenge is as bogus as your cash offer. The real engineers have exposed you completely.

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Anders, please. Stop trying to be clever. You are just not very good at it. You are not subtle. You can no longer hide your theory's flaws - even to the LEAST technologically inclined people here.

Do you REALLY think that anyone is fooled by your continued use of the meaningless terms "Part A" and "Part C"?

Do you REALLY think that even musicians, poets & artists now fail to see that you will not discuss the weaknesses of the floors & cross trusses & welds & bolts?

Do you REALLY think that they do not recognize that the concrete floors could not carry the STATIC weight of the debris? Much less the dynamic weight. People are smart, Anders. No amount of your baloney is going to convince an honest person that PLACING a 40 pound concrete block on their head is equivalent to DROPPING the same block on their head from a 12 feet height.


What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?


Every post that I've written to you on this thread has is DIRECTLY related your challenge. Because your silly challenge has TWO parts: theory & a model.

Some folks are likely to waste their time on a model, just to show you what an idiot you are. (I know EXACTLY how I would build a model that WOULD crush down and defeat your stupid theory. Why don't you put up a $20,000 reward. If you do, I WILL produce a model that would collect it. 20 people here could probably do that. At that point, it'd be worth it to put in the time.)

What get discussed here is the theory. And I have answered EXACTLY where your theory fails.

Your ONLY response has been to run away from what I've said. And hide behind silly platitudes and meaningless drivel.

If you'd care to HONESTLY and DIRECTLY discuss the issues that I've brought up with the model I presented, then AFTER you've addressed those issues, I'll tell you exactly how to build that model.

If you continue to just run away & hide, then I'll just sit here with all the others, exposing what a fraud you & your theories are. And having a good laugh at your expense.

You DO realize, don't you, that all your fawning acolytes at ae911t just read that, in your "professional engineering opinion", EVERY PIECE of disconnected debris in the rubble pile at ground zero was detached using explosives.

You DO realize that any building, structure (& yes, TV set) that collapsed for any reason OTHER than CD & had a piece detach makes your "professional engineering opinion" look - as difficult as it is to imagine - even LESS dependable than it was.

You DO realize that there was just a giant, wide-eyed "uh-oh" over there.

tom

[tfk]

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.



LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! ...
Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.


Do you think that you fool anyone, Heiwa.

Do you think that even a CHILD cannot see where you are playing word games?

You just started getting a little bit of fame & notoriety, Anders, with your PR from ae911t.

Stop.
Take a deep breath.
Look yourself in the mirror.
Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.

You KNOW, as well as I know, that nobody is going to allow you to get away with referring to simply "Part A" & "Part C" anymore.

People will FORCE you into talking about the weaker components. You cannot stop them. And you will only end up looking the evasive fool for constantly avoiding the discussion of those components.

Ask yourself whether your very public, professional reputation will be better served by cutting your losses & facing the truth now. Or by hanging onto this nonsense & arriving at a far, far worse point of zero credibility, the disdain of 99.999% of mechanical engineers, and the pity of the general public. Because, even they will see where you've screwed up.

What is FAR worse than being an unknown, incompetent engineer, Anders??

Being a FAMOUS incompetent engineer.

Think about it.

tom

[MIKILLINI]

Are you saying it was never envisioned prior to 911?

If so, why would it have been done after 911?

Here's the point Tony; Controlled demolition needs a virtually straight path down to ensure minimal damage and it's an easier method of destroying a building and removing the rubble.

The key physics is gravity: that it is gravity which brings the building down. More than that, it is gravity that smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble, and it is gravity that is responsible for the sometimes vast clouds of dust and debris that billow out from the site. The explosives used have a marginal additional effect in converting the structure into rubble and dust: their job is to cut supports, often in a carefully timed sequence.

It is also only a few dozen companies who do this type of business and they use the same principal: Take out the lower floors first to initiate descent and gravity does the rest.

Nobody has ever done demolition on buildings even close to the height or design as the twin towers were; So if demolition had been planned for these structures, they had no model of how it would collapse or even how a top down implosion would perform.

ETA; It is this principal that debunks Heiwa's challenge: Upper part "C"
falls upon lower part "A". The beginning of lower part "A" is one story
and this single story has to bear the now moving brunt of upper part "C"; It can't withstand the increased energy brought down upon it, nor can each subsequent floor as more mass is added.
The challenge is flawed.

[Typicallucas]

...
Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.
...

I have personally witnessed someone get denied by a hiring committee because of the unprofessional things he posted on the internet...

I realized the "internet is anonymous" was a myth when I was 14.

Standing on a street corner and shouting through a loudspeaker is more anonymous than publishing on the internet.

[sylvan8798]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.

[FineWine]

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.


I'm not an engineer, but I'm learning a lot from the engineers here. What you write is so clear that it defies belief that anyone could close his mind to such an obvious truth.

[Audible Click]

I have personally witnessed someone get denied by a hiring committee because of the unprofessional things he posted on the internet...

I realized the "internet is anonymous" was a myth when I was 14.

Standing on a street corner and shouting through a loudspeaker is more anonymous than publishing on the internet.

I think many people don't know that even defunct websites and their contents may be archived in places such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

[Typicallucas]

Exactly, archive.org. The internet never forgets, even if you take down your crackpot websites.

[tsig]

That will have no effect on him.He is convinced that his harebrained theory is true and that far more qualified people than he do not know what they are talking about.He would be pleased if you posted his drivellings on other forums.

If any truth can be gained from his drivelings he makes some income from official testimony.

[Typicallucas]

If any truth can be gained from his drivelings he makes some income from official testimony.

I would love to see the Royal [Rule10]-Slap he would get from a judge when he avoids and ignores questions.

[Tony Szamboti]

Whereas falling columns, beams and concrete-lined floors don't have great momentum by virtue of their very high mass ?

Agreed, but not necessarily in relation to what they were hitting and the energy needed to penetrate and/or demolish it.

It is relative with the shotgun pellets and grenade shrapnel also, and it is also a function of the stress required. Since shrapnel and pellets impact a small area with a high momentum there will be high stress and more likely failure at that individual point depending upon the strength of the item being struck.

[Tony Szamboti]

This doesn't even make sense. Nonetheless, what you are describing is not what was happening. The rubble zone became more and more compressed and compacted together as it descended, and was ADDED to with each floor, rather like a snow avalanche. And it picked up speed, so if it was capable of breaking the columns and the floor connections for the 94th floor, then it would be even more lethal to the structure on the 93rd floor.

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.

[Tony Szamboti]

Here's the point Tony; Controlled demolition needs a virtually straight path down to ensure minimal damage and it's an easier method of destroying a building and removing the rubble.

The key physics is gravity: that it is gravity which brings the building down. More than that, it is gravity that smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble, and it is gravity that is responsible for the sometimes vast clouds of dust and debris that billow out from the site. The explosives used have a marginal additional effect in converting the structure into rubble and dust: their job is to cut supports, often in a carefully timed sequence.

I agree that the explosives are marginal in creating rubble and that it is gravity which is depended on to do the work once the potential energy is released by the explosives.


It is also only a few dozen companies who do this type of business and they use the same principal: Take out the lower floors first to initiate descent and gravity does the rest.

Nobody has ever done demolition on buildings even close to the height or design as the twin towers were; So if demolition had been planned for these structures, they had no model of how it would collapse or even how a top down implosion would perform.

ETA; It is this principal that debunks Heiwa's challenge: Upper part "C"
falls upon lower part "A". The beginning of lower part "A" is one story
and this single story has to bear the now moving brunt of upper part "C"; It can't withstand the increased energy brought down upon it, nor can each subsequent floor as more mass is added.
The challenge is flawed.

In reality no demolition company would have attempted a demolition using one upper block to demolish the much larger portion of the building below as there is a good chance it will lose effectiveness. This is the point Heiwa is making. In an ironic way you agree with him.

However, none of what you say here rules out the fact that a series of controlled demolitions could have been used from the top down. It is fully viable to do that regardless of whether or not it had been done prior to 911.

The fact that there is no evidence of a deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 seems to indicate that demolition devices were depended on rather heavily more so than just gravity to ensure the collapse kept moving downward.

[tfk]

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.


Sorry Tony,

I assume that, by impulse, you mean "time derivative of acceleration". What my generation called "jerk".

The papers that I've seen seem to be arguing that there was not a sufficient change in acceleration at each floor. Is this your contention?

tom

[Minadin]

Snow avalanches usually overwhelm whatever is in their path more due to gross yielding from the weight of the snow, than dynamic forces from impact.

I doubt that you can show that a few stories of rubble would have been capable of breaking the columns at the 94th floor and there is no evidence of an impulse involving the upper block there.

Well, that's simply not correct. An avalanche will obliterate a house that might have survived the same amount of snow in a heavy snowfall.

Mudslides destroy buildings from the impact of the water, dirt, and debris. If you piled that debris gently along the same face of the building, it wouldn't have the same effect.

Waterfalls erode rock faces. Niagra Falls has moved 7 miles upstream in the past 10,000 years. and it's carved a 200-ft deep basin at its base. Grand Canyon, anyone? Hey, check out the damage from the reservoir breach at Taum Sauk (http://cafnrcornerpost.com/fs2006/spradley_kyle/091806_photostory.htm).

And, what do you mean by 'breaking the columns'? Only the connections need to be broken. Lots of structural members in the rubble pile at Ground Zero were largely intact in and of themselves, but had become dissasociated from each other.

[tfk]

Tony,

What do you figure the pressure increase in the collapsing floors were, as a volume of air about .9 x 200 x 200 x 12 = 430,000 cubic feet was forced out in about 0.1 seconds.

You've got a piston evacuating at about 4.3 million cubic feet per second. When the South Tower fell, it apparently set up gale force winds all the way over in the North Tower stairwell.



Do you think that it got up to, say, a 1/2 atmosphere overpressure? 7.5 psi?? My guess would be "hell yeah". But that's just a SWAG. I'd love to see some numbers.

At 3 psi overpressure, you've generated about 430 lbs/sq foot load on the concrete floors. I think that they were only rated to about 300 psf, isn't that right?

BTW, the one thing that gets rid of "jerk" REALLY well in cars is shock absorbers. The towers were giant shock absorbers. There is no surprise to me that there was no measurable changes to the acceleration.

Even if your recording equipment had been fast enough to record it.

tom

PS. Do you know if the person who did that analysis looked at every frame?

[MIKILLINI]

I agree that the explosives are marginal in creating rubble and that it is gravity which is depended on to do the work once the potential energy is released by the explosives.




In reality no demolition company would have attempted a demolition using one upper block to demolish the much larger portion of the building below as there is a good chance it will lose effectiveness. This is the point Heiwa is making. In an ironic way you agree with him.

There is no proof of any demolition used in the twin towers, and your still missing my point on the flaw of Heiwa's challenge. In fact I'll make it easier for you to understand:

As the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the other 12 floors above it (Upper part "C") dropped down to floor 97, floor 97 (Lower part "A") was not going to withstand the weight of 13 floors dropping upon it (There, now you have the effect of gravity at work). Just like WTC 2 having 29 floors dropping onto floor 81.
The floors were designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum

However, none of what you say here rules out the fact that a series of controlled demolitions could have been used from the top down. It is fully viable to do that regardless of whether or not it had been done prior to 911.


However, none of what you say here proves that any demolition was used. Seismic readings during collapse did not pick up any ground vibration until sections of the towers had struck nearby buildings. These seismic instruments did not pick up any vibration that explosions would have caused.

The fact that there is no evidence of a deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 seems to indicate that demolition devices were depended on rather heavily more so than just gravity to ensure the collapse kept moving downward.

Once again it is gravity that brings the building down and smashes concrete walls and floors into rubble.

[Heiwa]

Do you think that you fool anyone, Heiwa.

Your words here are PUBLIC.
They will follow you around for the rest of your career.
The internet never forgets.


Think about it.

tom

Thanks for reminding me. My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

[FineWine]

Thanks for reminding me. My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.


The real engineers have shown you the absurd errors you make and your reposnse is to babble mindlessly. You have never demonstrated that you can even understand what they are trying to tell you, much less articulate a coherent reponse. You can't produce a single calculation.

No, you won't talk. You will repeat, like a person whose brain has been numbed by powerful drugs, empty mantras. Your papers are rubbish. No serious journal will publish them.

[tfk]

Thanks for reminding me.


You're welcome.


My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Ahhh, so THAT's what this is all about...


Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.


"... we'll talk"??

Is something going to magically change?

You've adamantly refused to talk to me for about 20 posts now. Instead of talking (i.e., open, back & forth dialog), you keep putting up advertisements for your papers. That is not talking.

It is also not polite.

Tell me, Anders, "How do you do it with the bluffing?" Or in original, "er weiB, dass es ein Fehler ist, aber er kann nichts dagegen machen."

tom

[Heiwa]

Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator


---

So let's continue the discussion there! This thread is just about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls submit you structures!

[Jackanory]

Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator


---

So let's continue the discussion there! This thread is just about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls submit you structures!

Can you clarify what the 'discussion' is?

The Heiwa Challenge has now shifted Heiwa. The challege is to actually see if it gets published and too see how much laughter comes from it. Putting your nonsense into a larger arena can only be a good thing.

[dafydd]

No explosives are intelligence is permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Only gravity.

There,fixed.

[dafydd]

Heiwa,I left school at 16 with no qualifications.I regret that now.I have always been interested in science and I read as much as I can about the subject.I have plenty of time on my hands and I have been following this closely.Using the posts and links provided by those here who know what they are talking about,even I can see where you are going wrong.I couldn't explain it to you myself,but I can see it.If an ignoramus like me can see it,why can't you? I can only conclude that you have the mother of all bees in your bonnet which blinds you to the truth.

[tfk]

So let's continue the discussion there! This thread is just about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls submit you structures!


Sorry Anders,

There is no discussion about "The Heiwa Challenge".

That's not right.

There has been a lively discussion about the challenge. You are just not a part of it. Because you have chosen to not participate.

The rest of us have been having a great time discussing the challenge in your absence. There is a large contingent that finds no merits, and with nobody to defend it...

So, I regret am pleased to inform you, that your theory has gone down in flames. Crashed & burned.

You will be further distressed to note that, when your theory augered in, full throttle, no sign of any attempt to recover, (aka, "uncontrolled flight into terrain"), the various pieces of your theory did NOT remain connected to each other. They ended up scattered all over the map.

The FAA has announced that they do NOT consider the mid-air breakup of your theory to be proof of "explosive demolition". Which, ironically, may have contributed to the crash. As that piece detached from the rest of the theory on its own yesterday.

No memorial services are planned...

tk

[bill smith]

Just got following from ASCE

Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.

Dear Mr Björkman,

Your Discussion, listed above, has been accepted for publication in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

...

You will be notified of a publication date once your paper has been schedule for an issue.

Thank you for submitting your work to ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Parresol
Editorial Coordinator


---

So let's continue the discussion there! This thread is just about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls submit you structures!What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.

[bill smith]

Sorry Anders,

There is no discussion about "The Heiwa Challenge".

That's not right.

There has been a lively discussion about the challenge. You are just not a part of it. Because you have chosen to not participate.

The rest of us have been having a great time discussing the challenge in your absence. There is a large contingent that finds no merits, and with nobody to defend it...

So, I regret am pleased to inform you, that your theory has gone down in flames. Crashed & burned.

You will be further distressed to note that, when your theory augered in, full throttle, no sign of any attempt to recover, (aka, "uncontrolled flight into terrain"), the various pieces of your theory did NOT remain connected to each other. They ended up scattered all over the map.

The FAA has announced that they do NOT consider the mid-air breakup of your theory to be proof of "explosive demolition". Which, ironically, may have contributed to the crash. As that piece detached from the rest of the theory on its own yesterday.

No memorial services are planned...

tk
Stick to your usual verbiage t. You do not have the wit for this type of writing.

[FineWine]

What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.


No, they most emphatically do not. I know something you don't. This should be fun.

We get the idea that you are as obtuse as you are dishonest, but to leap from ASCE's willingness to publish Heiwa's comments on Bazant to a conclusion that real engineers can be snowed by an utter crackpot is embarrassingly stupid even for you.

[Audible Click]

I don't think bill smith understands peer review and it's consequences.

[stateofgrace]

What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.

Bill, you do realise that Hiewa did not write or contribute to "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York", right?

[FineWine]

I don't think bill smith understands peer review and it's consequences.


Bill Smith doesn't understand much of anything. He will understand what happened to his lunatic guru when Bazant gets through with him, however.

[bill smith]

No, they most emphatically do not. I know something you don't. This should be fun.

We get the idea that you are as obtuse as you are dishonest, but to leap from ASCE's willingness to publish Heiwa's comments on Bazant to a conclusion that real engineers can be snowed by an utter crackpot is embarrassingly stupid even for you.
I'll keep it simple for you

No Bazant = No official explanation for the collapses= 9/11 was an inside job.

[FineWine]

I'll keep it simple for you

No Bazant = No official explanation for the collapses= 9/11 was an inside job.


Yes, you are extremely simple. Bazant's is not the "official" explanation of the collapses. Nobody thinks it is. All serious researchers have reached similiar, but not identical, conclusions. Your faith-based inside job idiocy is dead. After eight years, you frauds have produced nothing to support your lies.

You keep running away when I ask you why your tiny, insane movement got everything wrong. Why did nothing turn out the way you losers prayed it would?

[bill smith]

Bill Smith doesn't understand much of anything. He will understand what happened to his lunatic guru when Bazant gets through with him, however.

Forget Bazant- the ASCE obviously has.

....unless of course in your broad mind they have now joined the long list of crazy conspiracy theorists ?

[bill smith]

Yes, you are extremely simple. Bazant's is not the "official" explanation of the collapses. Nobody thinks it is. All serious researchers have reached similiar, but not identical, conclusions. Your faith-based inside job idiocy is dead. After eight years, you frauds have produced nothing to support your lies.

You keep running away when I ask you why your tiny, insane movement got everything wrong. Why did nothing turn out the way you losers prayed it would?
You ar quite wrong. Bazant was the only game in town. No Bazant- no nothing.

[FineWine]

Forget Bazant- the ASCE obviously has.

....unless of course in your broad mind they have now joined the long list of crazy conspiracy theorists ?


Really? You mean you haven't been caught lying again? It's "obvious" that ASCE has "forgotten" about a superstar of the engineering community? Wow.

Gee, what if Bazant were to respond to Heiwa's nonsense? That would be something, wouldn't it?

[stateofgrace]

Forget Bazant- the ASCE obviously has.

....unless of course in your broad mind they have now joined the long list of crazy conspiracy theorists ?

Have they Bill ?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Doesn't look that way to me. The above is the paper your hero did not write and did not contribute to, yet in his post we have this


Ref.: Ms. No. EMENG-296
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Anders Björkman, M.Sc.


Why do you think that is Bill ? You are capable of reading and thinking, right?

[FineWine]

You ar quite wrong. Bazant was the only game in town. No Bazant- no nothing.


Yeah, NIST's ten thousand pages, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations--all just figments of our imaginations.

Yeah, Bazant's early paper is the only game in town. You're giving Ultima1 a good run for his money.


Wow. Just--wow!

[bill smith]

Really? You mean you haven't been caught lying again? It's "obvious" that ASCE has "forgotten" about a superstar of the engineering community? Wow.

Gee, what if Bazant were to respond to Heiwa's nonsense? That would be something, wouldn't it?

I think it would be a miracle if he did. But what if he doesn't now that you have brought it up ? lol

[FineWine]

Have they Bill ?

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Doesn't look that way to me. The above is the paper your hero did not write and did not contribute to, yet in his post we have this



Why do you think that is Bill ? You are capable of reading and thinking, right?



Anyone who attributes the authorship of a paper written by real scientists to his crackpot guru displays an extraordinary combination of stupidity and dishonesty.

[bill smith]

Yeah, NIST's ten thousand pages, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations--all just figments of our imaginations.

Yeah, Bazant's early paper is the only game in town. You're giving Ultima1 a good run for his money.


Wow. Just--wow!

NIST has no analysis for the collapse sequence at all. Purdue are shills as I have shown you before and can show you again. What are the Berkeley simulations ? Nope- you guys are done.

[FineWine]

I think it would be a miracle. But what if he doesn't now that you have brought it up ? lol

Well, you see, Heiwa's comments are part of a discussion. The original authors are permitted to reply.

Heiwa has been torn to shreds by real engineers on this forum. You are incapable of noticing. Maybe he'll do better in the ASCE journal.

Heh-heh. :D

[stateofgrace]

What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.

Still feel this way Bill ? Or is the feeling that once again you are being conned, creeping in?

[FineWine]

NIST has no analysis for the collapse sequence at all. Purdue are shills as I have shown you before and can show you again. What are the Berkely simulations ? Nope- you guys are done.


NIST explained the collapses in great depth. No engineers or physicists anywhere in the world have pointed out errors of science in the NIST reports. You showed nothing about the Purdue simulation. Who are you to "show" anything about Purdue's researchers?-- a crazy, uneducated guy who loves Islamist terrorists.
The Berkeley simulations were conducted by Professor Astaneh's team. When they used a model reflecting exactly how the towers were built, what do you know--the towers collapsed exactly as they did in real life.

Yeah, every real scientist and engineer in the world is "done." America-hating idiots and liars have won.

Dream on.

[bill smith]

Well, you see, Heiwa's comments are part of a discussion. The original authors are permitted to reply.

Heiwa has been torn to shreds by real engineers on this forum. You are incapable of noticing. Maybe he'll do better in the ASCE journal.

Heh-heh. :D

And we look forward to Bazant replying....If he does not, or is unconvincing we will draw your attention to that.

If Bazant does not reply the implications are inescapable.

[bill smith]

NIST explained the collapses in great depth. No engineers or physicists anywhere in the world have pointed out errors of science in the NIST reports. You showed nothing about the Purdue simulation. Who are you to "show" anything about Purdue's researchers?-- a crazy, uneducated guy who loves Islamist terrorists.
The Berkeley simulations were conducted by Professor Astaneh's team. When they used a model reflecting exactly how the towers were built, what do you know--the towers collapsed exactly as they did in real life.

Yeah, every real scientist and engineer in the world is "done." America-hating idiots and liars have won.

Dream on.

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=71#more-71 Purdue debunked by Kevin Ryan
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent
..As promised..
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ The 'Independence'' of Purdue

[Dog Town]

And we look forward to Bazant replying....If he does not, or is unconvincing we will draw your attention to that.

And when your Big H is destroyed again, nary a peep, as you run like hell, as always twoofer!

[Jackanory]

What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.


Pose, Pause ................................................FA IL -Again.

Bill - you suffer from a severe case of foot in mouth.

Engage brain before putting it in Bill. You will look far less like a complete failure that way. Classic stuff from a failed twoofer who idolises fools.

[twinstead]

Bill you can talk the talk, but can your delightful little movement walk the walk? How long do we have to wait for the debate to even leave the internet?

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by bill smith

What is the ASCE again Heiwa ? Is it
The American Society of Civil Engineers ?

And they essentially accept Your version of 9/11 ?

Many congratulations.



No, they reject Heiwa's version, we accept ASCE's version of 9/11.

"ASCE/FEMA WTC Team Presents Findings to Congress
Towers Weakened By Planes; Brought Down By Fire
Recommended areas for study may lead to future building code changes
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented May 1 at a hearing of the House Science Committee. "

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:nxQTKCjwT0MJ:www.asce.org/responds/index.cfm+asce+wtc+9/11&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Jackanory]

Bill you can talk the talk, but can your delightful little movement walk the walk? How long do we have to wait for the debate to even leave the internet?

Can he?

I think once Ultima1 gets his 'declassified' (heavily black marker penned document/ two lines of nothing) FOIA Critic and Heiwa's tripod/challenge/bazant rebutal is/is not published then the internet will just be discussing two more clowns for another 8 years. 911 TM will be remembered (by 50 ish viewers) for its circus failure.

[FineWine]

And we look forward to Bazant replying....If he does not, or is unconvincing we will draw your attention to that.

If Bazant does not reply the implications are inescapable.


Uh, what if Bazant thinks that Heiwa is far too stupid to waste time on, and instead other engineers destroy your giggly guru?

You see, here's how it works. Heiwa has been thoroughly discredited by real engineers who post on this forum. Other real engineers will notice the same egregious errors he makes, his conceptual short-circuits, and his total inability to produce even the simplest calculations. So, if various engineers take your blockheaded guru apart, but Bazant refuses to pay any attention to him, what conclusions are inescapable, other than the one you are too blind to see?

[FineWine]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=71#more-71 Purdue debunked by Kevin Ryan
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ Purdue is not independent
..As promised..
http://thetruthproject.us/2007/06/22/new-911-study-has-direct-links-to-government-pentagon-black-ops/ The 'Independence'' of Purdue


Kevin Ryan is a fraud. Don't waste our time linking to crackpot sites that cater to idiots. Tell us what the Purdue team got wrong.

[tfk]

Neither bill nor Heiwa gets it.

Bill thinks that it is critical that Bazant support the NIST conclusions. Bill, it is not.

It would not matter if Bazant, or a dozen structural engineers, called a press conference tomorrow and announced that they were throwing their professional credibility behind Gage & ae911t. In fact there are several precedences for older scientists doing exactly this sort of strange thing.

If Bazant were to do something that foolish, then community would do two things. First, because of his history & credibility, they would listen carefully to what he had to say. Then his ideas would get critiqued just as rigorously as anyone else's. Bazant himself, because of his age, his lifetime of service, would be treated kindly. As one would with any respected figure who is losing his faculties. And the community would mourn the loss of a great figure. And move on.

The point is that engineering & science are cults of IDEAS, bill. Not cults of personalities.

It does not matter that Bazant's ideas came from Bazant. It's the IDEA that stands or falls on its own.

Bazant's degree only gets his ideas a wide spread audience. It was the community, NOT Bazant, that judged his theories valid.

And these are the parts that Heiwa doesn't get.

He thinks, like you do, that his degree, or his history, are the sources of validity for his nonsense. They are not. He thinks that he, on his own, can judge his ideas correct. He can NOT.

In ALL cases, the consensus of the community emerges from open, rigorous, CHALLENGING debate. It's a painful, blood-letting process for those who get in the arena.

Here is Anders' failing. He is afraid to get into the arena. He refuses to acknowledge, discuss and to respond to challenges to his whacky theories. And without that, there is no opportunity to correct them.

He gets beat up, early & often, then takes his ball & goes home.

What Anders does not realize, but is about to find out, is that you & Kreel are his saboteurs, bill. And that Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, architect, Myriad & his other local "tormentors" are his best friends. Because anyone who points out your errors to you before you go public & embarrass yourself is, in fact, your best friend. It's just the strange nature of this business.
___

Of course, Bazant's background, training, and discipline make it HIGHLY likely that he is not going to commit egregious errors in his analysis. I would wager that he did, in fact, make a bunch of errors in the first drafts. Errors that were caught and corrected precisely because of the collaborative nature of the process.

So, Bill, there is nothing that would prevent a patent clerk, or even a marine architect, from coming up with an idea that turns the field on its head. But those revolutions do not come out of thin air. And it is ALWAYS best to "bet the house" in these cases.

Because the odds are incredibly long. Even if I'd never laid eyes on Heiwa's work, I'd lay 1000 to 1 odds against him. Because, bill, for ever single crackpot who turned out to be an Einstein, there were 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots.

Having seen his work, and his process, it is patently clear that the odds in his favor have plummeted to zero.

tom

PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.

[bill smith]

Neither bill nor Heiwa gets it.

Bill thinks that it is critical that Bazant support the NIST conclusions. Bill, it is not.

It would not matter if Bazant, or a dozen structural engineers, called a press conference tomorrow and announced that they were throwing their professional credibility behind Gage & ae911t. In fact there are several precedences for older scientists doing exactly this sort of strange thing.

If Bazant were to do something that foolish, then community would do two things. First, because of his history & credibility, they would listen carefully to what he had to say. Then his ideas would get critiqued just as rigorously as anyone else's. Bazant himself, because of his age, his lifetime of service, would be treated kindly. As one would with any respected figure who is losing his faculties. And the community would mourn the loss of a great figure. And move on.

The point is that engineering & science are cults of IDEAS, bill. Not cults of personalities.

It does not matter that Bazant's ideas came from Bazant. It's the IDEA that stands or falls on its own.

Bazant's degree only gets his ideas a wide spread audience. It was the community, NOT Bazant, that judged his theories valid.

And these are the parts that Heiwa doesn't get.

He thinks, like you do, that his degree, or his history, are the sources of validity for his nonsense. They are not. He thinks that he, on his own, can judge his ideas correct. He can NOT.

In ALL cases, the consensus of the community emerges from open, rigorous, CHALLENGING debate. It's a painful, blood-letting process for those who get in the arena.

Here is Anders' failing. He is afraid to get into the arena. He refuses to acknowledge, discuss and to respond to challenges to his whacky theories. And without that, there is no opportunity to correct them.

He gets beat up, early & often, then takes his ball & goes home.

What Anders does not realize, but is about to find out, is that you & Kreel are his saboteurs, bill. And that Ryan Mackey, Dave Rogers, architect, Myriad & his other local "tormentors" are his best friends. Because anyone who points out your errors to you before you go public & embarrass yourself is, in fact, your best friend. It's just the strange nature of this business.
___

Of course, Bazant's background, training, and discipline make it HIGHLY likely that he is not going to commit egregious errors in his analysis. I would wager that he did, in fact, make a bunch of errors in the first drafts. Errors that were caught and corrected precisely because of the collaborative nature of the process.

So, Bill, there is nothing that would prevent a patent clerk, or even a marine architect, from coming up with an idea that turns the field on its head. But those revolutions do not come out of thin air. And it is ALWAYS best to "bet the house" in these cases.

Because the odds are incredibly long. Even if I'd never laid eyes on Heiwa's work, I'd lay 1000 to 1 odds against him. Because, bill, for ever single crackpot who turned out to be an Einstein, there were 10,000 crackpots who turned out to be crackpots.

Having seen his work, and his process, it is patently clear that the odds in his favor have plummeted to zero.

tom

PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.

All papers that are accepted for publication are discussion papers T. They have been judged by Heiwa's engineering peers to be worthy of discussion. You are free to go the same route and try for publication though i don't think we should hold our breaths.

NIST have no collapse conclusions for Bazant to support . They only took their analysis up to the point of glabal collapse and no further.

For the rest yuur post is long and rambling as usual and has nohing remarkable to answer.

[beachnut]

...
For the rest yuur post is long and rambling as usual and has nohing remarkable to answer.
Why, because you lack engineering skills to understand his post? Explain each point you failed to understand which you call long and rambling.

"yuur" skills are limited to cut and paste, and posting dirt dumb truther videos. You got "nohing"; or do you have nothing?

What engineering school did you go to?

[FineWine]

All papers that are accepted for publication are discussion papers T. They have been judged by Heiwa's engineering peers to be worthy of discussion. You are free to go the same route and try for publication though i don't think we should hold our breaths.

NIST have no collapse conclusions for Bazant to support . They only took their analysis up to the point of glabal collapse and no further.

For the rest yuur post is long and rambling as usual and has nohing remarkable to answer.


Tfk provided a well-written explanation of how science works. It's one thing to point to your lack of education and conclude that the reason you can't understand anything you read is that you've never been taught how to think. That criticism misses the mark. Ultimately, all education is self-education. Sure, there are obvious benefits to attending an excellent university. Being exposed to fine minds is stimulating. Nothing will help, however, if you resist learning.

Like all "truthers," you are compelled to dismiss without comprehending NIST's decision to stop at the point where global collapse became inevitable. It has been explained to you many, many times that it is not really feasible to model such a complex event. NIST showed why the collapses could not be arrested, and that is sufficient.

Again, the questions you run from are important ones. Why have no scientists or engineers in countries unfriendly to the U.S. found errors of science in the NIST reports? That question is more than inconvenient to your foolish myths; it is devastating.

[BasqueArch]

FineWine, tfk
Excellent posts.

But hey
Pearls before swine

[Regnad Kcin]

Read post #1.Having done so, I do not need to again. I am asking you a direct question. Please have the courtesy to directly reply.

A professor Bazant & Co suggested on 9/13/01 that a small piece of a structure can one-way crush down the remaining structure by gravity alone and this has been adopted as the explanation of the WTC 1 collapse on 9/11/01.No it has not. Not in the least. Not in the slightest.

Again, no. If you, yourself believe that, you are mistaken.

The Challenge is to produce any structure that behaves like that.A meaningless challenge insofar as the broader topic of 9/11 is concerned. Perhaps instead of the Conspiracy subforum you should place your challenge in the Science section.

[Regnad Kcin]

However, none of what you say here rules out the fact that a series of controlled demolitions could have been used from the top down. It is fully viable to do that regardless of whether or not it had been done prior to 911.

The fact that there is no evidence of a deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1 seems to indicate that demolition devices were depended on rather heavily more so than just gravity to ensure the collapse kept moving downward.The idea of controlled demolition being the cause for the destruction of the Twin Towers is 100% impossible. Not only didn't it happen, it was not possible.

Want to know why?

[Regnad Kcin]

...you guys are done.How casually you play your little game.

Please understand, your ficticious imaginings are just that: make believe. 9/11 was no more an inside job than Yogi Bear is a living, breathing, tie-wearing, picnic-basket-devouring, English-speaking, bear.

This "inside job" insanity has not been true, is not true, and won't be true in one-hundred years. Why do people like you persist? What's your agenda?

[R.Mackey]

PS. I thought Heiwa was actually submitting his theories in a paper, not a discussion letter. I retract my predictions of his impending doom. Nobody cares about a discussion letter. It'll get dismissed with a sarcastic remark. And then ignored.

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion (http://pubs.asce.org/editors/journal/generalresource/journalcontent.htm#discussions) in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

Dr. Bazant's paper is not, by the way, the "only game in town." We still have the work of Dr. Seffen (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf) and about a dozen others, even if something wrong was found in all of Dr. Bazant's paper's, which, of course, we have not.

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) suffered by James Gourley.

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

[FineWine]

How casually you play your little game.

Please understand, your ficticious imaginings are just that: make believe. 9/11 was no more an inside job than Yogi Bear is a living, breathing, tie-wearing, picnic-basket-devouring, English-speaking, bear.

This "inside job" insanity has not been true, is not true, and won't be true in one-hundred years. Why do people like you persist? What's your agenda?


You hit the nail on the head! I've been asking myself that question for days. The "truthers" get the stuffing knocked out of them on every single thread. They lie, they make up nonsense, they duck hard questions, and they run away when the heat becomes unbearable. They never get the idea that their conspiracy simply doesn't exist. Absolutely nothing turned out the way they predicted. They don't have a shred of evidence for their stupid myths. Yet, they're willing suffer all these humiliations for--what?

The cause they cling to so desperately is wrong. It's dumb, irrational, and obviously wrong. What agenda is conceivably advanced by making fools of themselves?

[Tony Szamboti]

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion (http://pubs.asce.org/editors/journal/generalresource/journalcontent.htm#discussions) in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

Dr. Bazant's paper is not, by the way, the "only game in town." We still have the work of Dr. Seffen (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/seffen_simple_analysis.pdf) and about a dozen others, even if something wrong was found in all of Dr. Bazant's paper's, which, of course, we have not.

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) suffered by James Gourley.

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

I beg to differ that no errors have been found in Dr. Bazant's papers on the twin tower collapses. He overestimated the axial stiffness of the columns by ten to one, as he came up with 71 GN/m and it turns out when using the actual column sizes a number of engineers, including myself, found it to be 7.1 GN/m. He also does not provide calculations for his estimate of the kinetic energy being 8.4 times greater than the energy absorbing capability prior to first impact. In the work done for the Missing Jolt paper we found that to be highly exaggerated, as it was actually only about 1.4 times. We also only looked at a minimum energy absorption of just the column deformation in only the first stories on either side of the first potential impact.

Let us also not forget that Dr. Bazant assumes an impulsive load took place, which we now know could not be true, as there is no observed deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1.

[R.Mackey]

Your "Missing Jolt" paper is untrammeled flotsam.

Any inaccuracy in his estimates does not change the outcome of his conclusion. Also keep in mind he has written many papers, some of which are designed to be more accurate than others, on purpose. Don't mix them up.

[Tony Szamboti]

Your "Missing Jolt" paper is untrammeled flotsam.

Any inaccuracy in his estimates does not change the outcome of his conclusion. Also keep in mind he has written many papers, some of which are designed to be more accurate than others, on purpose. Don't mix them up.

You are obviously just barking at the moon here, as you haven't justified anything you are saying.

While Dr. Bazant could correct the errors he has in his papers he has not done so thus far. I also know he realizes the errors are there as I have communicated this to him through Dr. Frank Greening.

However, the issue is actually much worse as Dr. Bazant's papers do not match observation, and in reality should be withdrawn.

[R.Mackey]

You are obviously just barking at the moon here, as you haven't justified anything you are saying.

Memories are short in the Truth Movement. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639)

While Dr. Bazant could correct the errors he has in his papers he has not done so thus far. I also know he realizes the errors are there as I have communicated this to him through Dr. Frank Greening.

However, the issue is actually much worse as Dr. Bazant's papers do not match observation, and in reality should be withdrawn.

Says you.

Funny, I don't see your name on any Discussions. Did you have nothing to add to Mr. Gourley, your collaborator, or are you just totally full of crap in your claims above?

[Tony Szamboti]

Memories are short in the Truth Movement. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639)



Says you.

Funny, I don't see your name on any Discussions. Did you have nothing to add to Mr. Gourley, your collaborator, or are you just totally full of crap in your claims above?

I did not know James Gourley was writing the rebuttal he wrote to JEM, and believe that was before I ever worked with him.

However, now that it seems the JEM is accepting discussions, I think I will send one in on the errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper and the lack of it's match with observation. Of course, you should realize that the Bazant and Zhou errors affect the other Bazant et al papers as it is referenced in all of them.

[R.Mackey]

They have been for some time, as Mr. Gourley's example demonstrates.

Please do, and please keep us informed. I hope you learn more from the experience than Mr. Gourley did.

[UNLoVedRebel]

This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.
The small upper block (part C) cannot one-way crush down the bigger lower block (part A)!

[Tony Szamboti]

They have been for some time, as Mr. Gourley's example demonstrates.

Please do, and please keep us informed. I hope you learn more from the experience than Mr. Gourley did.

The errors in the Bazant and Zhou paper that I mentioned above are not subjective and your inability to refute that they are indeed errors shows that you realize it. It is obvious your scoffing is being done for face saving purposes.

[R.Mackey]

Off-topic garbage, Tony.

[MIKILLINI]

Stick to your usual verbiage t. You do not have the wit for this type of writing.

Oh come on, Bill! You have proven yourself to belong in the witless state of mind club; More commonly known as the "truth movement."

[MIKILLINI]

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

The challenge is flawed Heiwa, just re-read the posts that don't agree with you.

[Heiwa]

Yup. The distinction is crucial. Heiwa is not submitting a paper for review at all -- a Discussion (http://pubs.asce.org/editors/journal/generalresource/journalcontent.htm#discussions) in the JEM is nothing more than feedback to an accepted paper. In no circumstance does it mean they're abandoning that paper. Nor is it reviewed for accuracy, the idea is for the author of the original paper to respond.

...

The only difference between the pounding Heiwa has taken here, and the humiliation he will shortly encounter, is that now it'll take place in the permanent record of an established Journal. I fail to see how this is progress for him. One should try to field test one's ideas in informal discussions with peers before making a fool of onesself in public.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

Yes, it is only a friendly and lively Discussion of “What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).

It was submitted 3 February 2009 so it took ASCE/JME four months to decide to publish. When the latter will actually take place, we'll see. Maybe JME will ask Bazant & Co to reply and publish it in same issue? I would say it is a positive sign.

[GlennB]

This is not the first time some yahoo has written up a Discussion. For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) suffered by James Gourley.



Thanks for that, I hadn't read it before. It contains so many rebuttals to truther misconceptions that it's pointless to try to list them all. But required reading for anybody with an interest.

It concludes with the delicious advice :

"Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion
on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information."

[R.Mackey]

Exactly.

That's scientist-speak for "get a life, punk." And well earned in this case.

[GlennB]

Let us also not forget that Dr. Bazant assumes an impulsive load took place, which we now know could not be true, as there is no observed deceleration of the upper block in WTC 1.

This has been debated to death here. Why are you reviving it? Treating the initial collapse as pure axial impact is a perfectly reasonable simplification for the purposes of calculation. The fact that there's no observable 'jolt' doesn't mean Bazant is wrong, just that he's doing theoretical mechanics to demonstrate a point. In reality - of course - it would be a gradual and skewed meeting of damaged sections where the 'deceleration' you crave would be unobservable from moment to moment. You're obsessed by this point just as that idiot here (psikey?) is obsessed about knowing the exact steel dimensions of every member on every floor, top to bottom. Demanding to see something that can never be seen allows you a flimsy excuse to cling to delusions. Your ego is over-invested now, and you can't back off.

[Minadin]

Thanks Mackey for linking to that discussion - it was very informative.

[Heiwa]

For a preview of the beat-down Heiwa is about to receive, please review this past drubbing (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf) suffered by James Gourley.

However, just as Mr. Gourley learned nothing, I predict without fear of disappointment that Heiwa will neither accept nor comprehend the rebuttal. This is why I have him on Ignore, and you should too. I already know exactly what he's going to say.

First we have to see, if there is a rebuttal by Bazant & Co or anybody to my simple, basic, friendly and lively Comments in JEM about the BLGB paper. I am very curious. Anyway, I am grateful to Prof. Ross Corotis and ASCE/JEM for deciding to publish them. R.Mackey - I think you are just feeling ill will because of actual loss of reputation, etc. You see, exclusive loyalty and whole-hearted service to a lost cause are painful.

[stateofgrace]

Make sure you call them obnoxious OCTist and demand they get back on topic rather than attempt to back up anything you claim.

[Tony Szamboti]

This has been debated to death here. Why are you reviving it? Treating the initial collapse as pure axial impact is a perfectly reasonable simplification for the purposes of calculation. The fact that there's no observable 'jolt' doesn't mean Bazant is wrong, just that he's doing theoretical mechanics to demonstrate a point. In reality - of course - it would be a gradual and skewed meeting of damaged sections where the 'deceleration' you crave would be unobservable from moment to moment. You're obsessed by this point just as that idiot here (psikey?) is obsessed about knowing the exact steel dimensions of every member on every floor, top to bottom. Demanding to see something that can never be seen allows you a flimsy excuse to cling to delusions. Your ego is over-invested now, and you can't back off.

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain the mechanics of how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

There should have been a detectable deceleration at every floor impact for the statically insufficient load above to have been able to destroy the structure below. The detection can be done due to the velocity taking time to recover, one does not actually need to observe the actual jolt. Of course, the problem for Bazant's theories and by extension the NIST, as they use Bazant to avoid analyzing the collapse dynamics themselves, is that there were no decelerations of the upper block in WTC 1.

[Heiwa]

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure (part A) designed to handle several times the load above (part C) it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass (of part C)? You do not explain how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

Sorry, TS, for adding parts A and C in your very basic question above, which is the crunch of the whole matter. Why doesn't part C decelerate, when contacting part A?

One reason is, of course, that part C is a very flexible assembly of structural elements and that we are using the top element - the roof line - of part C to measure displacement/velocity/deceleration of part C. It is not colliding with part A. It is just part of an assembly of elements, lower section of which is colliding with part A.

But this part C roof line element is subject to a downward acceleration of 0.65-0.7 g for more than 3 seconds, when 9-13 stories of structure below are supposed to be crushed into rubble.

NIST & Bazant suggest that it is 9-13 stories of part A that are one-way crushed by part C + gravity and that part C remains 99% intact during these 3 seconds, while I suggest that a lower section of part C is being destroyed first by CD. The latter event would explain why there is no deceleration of the roof line. Your paper about the roof line displacement is a very valuable contribution to explain the WTC 1 destruction!

[GlennB]

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=1/2*mv2 .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.

2, The deceleration (in your terms, as far as I can see) consists in the falling object accelerating at less than the unimpeded rate. Because a structure got in the way. I realise, of course, this is not the true meaning of 'deceleration', but rather the observed rate when stuff gets in the way as opposed to the rate expected when stuff doesn't get in the way.

Your error is in supposing there was one titanic and instantaneous clash of WTC sections when, indeed, we might well see a 'jolt', a noticeable reduction in acceleration for a short time. There was no such unit collision, but that's been explained to you many times before. We simply can't see the many thousands of tiny jolts that caused the less-than-freefall rate of acceleration.

You just can't let it go, eh? Too much invested to just walk away?

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry, TS, for adding parts A and C in your very basic question above, which is the crunch of the whole matter. Why doesn't part C decelerate, when contacting part A?

One reason is, of course, that part C is a very flexible assembly of structural elements and that we are using the top element - the roof line - of part C to measure displacement/velocity/deceleration of part C. It is not colliding with part A. It is just part of an assembly of elements, lower section of which is colliding with part A.

But this part C roof line element is subject to a downward acceleration of 0.65-0.7 g for more than 3 seconds, when 9-13 stories of structure below are supposed to be crushed into rubble.

NIST & Bazant suggest that it is 9-13 stories of part A that are one-way crushed by part C + gravity and that part C remains 99% intact during these 3 seconds, while I suggest that a lower section of part C is being destroyed first by CD. The latter event would explain why there is no deceleration of the roof line. Your paper about the roof line displacement is a very valuable contribution to explain the WTC 1 destruction!

Anders, I agree that the two points work hand in hand. The overall force developed in a shock load is a function of mass participation and loose rubble elements do not participate with each other.

You have capably pointed that out here and shown the bankruptness of the notion that this loose amalgam could have continued to crush the lower structure.

Some people here just don't want to get it. They don't want to see that you can't drive a nail with a hammerhead composed of a bag with loose nails in it.

[Tony Szamboti]

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=1/2*mv2 .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.

2, The deceleration (in your terms, as far as I can see) consists in the falling object accelerating at less than the unimpeded rate. Because a structure got in the way. I realise, of course, this is not the true meaning of 'deceleration', but rather the observed rate when stuff gets in the way as opposed to the rate expected when stuff doesn't get in the way.

Your error is in supposing there was one titanic and instantaneous clash of WTC sections when, indeed, we might well see a 'jolt', a noticeable reduction in acceleration for a short time. There was no such unit collision, but that's been explained to you many times before. We simply can't see the many thousands of tiny jolts that caused the less-than-freefall rate of acceleration.

You just can't let it go, eh? Too much invested to just walk away?

The deceleration required for amplification is greater than 1g. It isn't just lesser acceleration.

If you read his 2002 paper with Zhou and it's Addendum you will see that Dr. Bazant thought there would have to be a large powerful jolt to cause a fatal collapse.

The many tiny jolts won't work and naval architect Anders Bjorkman has challenged those who think it will to show it.

[FineWine]

Yes, it is only a friendly and lively Discussion of “What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).

It was submitted 3 February 2009 so it took ASCE/JME four months to decide to publish. When the latter will actually take place, we'll see. Maybe JME will ask Bazant & Co to reply and publish it in same issue? I would say it is a positive sign.


When the real engineers at the ASCE journal finish repeating what the real engineers on this forum have told you countless times, you will intone your mindless mantra ("See my papers for children. Everything is explained."). The experience will demonstrate, redundantly, to all but your terminally stupid parrots that you cannot learn.

[FineWine]

First we have to see, if there is a rebuttal by Bazant & Co or anybody to my simple, basic, friendly and lively Comments in JEM about the BLGB paper. I am very curious. Anyway, I am grateful to Prof. Ross Corotis and ASCE/JEM for deciding to publish them. R.Mackey - I think you are just feeling ill will because of actual loss of reputation, etc. You see, exclusive loyalty and whole-hearted service to a lost cause are painful.


Will there be a rebuttal? Hmmmm, I don't claim any psychic powers, but I'll make you a sporting offer. You were willing to bet $1 million a short while ago--money, I hasten to add, that you don't have. I will bet real money with you, and what's more, I'll give you big odds. I'll wager my thousand dollars against your hundred (you do have a hundred bucks, don't you?) that the engineers at the ASCE journal trash your nonsense. I will bet that nobody there will be persuaded by your mad garble of basic physics.

That's about as simple, friendly, and lively as it gets. What do you say, sport?

[GlennB]

The deceleration required for amplification is greater than 1g. It isn't just lesser acceleration.


I'll happily take your word for it, but still ask .... And ?

The only thing we can visually track is the acceleration of the entire upper section. Not what's happening internally to its component members.

You're still thinking in terms of a monolithic, unit impact. Try not to.

p.s. Bjorkman is much less of a 'naval architect' than you might suppose. Check his CV and contact some of the Naval Architecture publications where he claims he has had 'many articles' published. I have. Try to check out some of the 'International conferences' where he supposedly presented. Even he admits to being thrown out of one of them by the organisers. The man is a charlatan and a shameless liar, as evidenced by his potty ideas about basic physics (the "Two mile drop" being a true classic, among many) and his refusal to acknowledge that he has even said such things.

[Newtons Bit]

If the cash prize for the Heiwa Challenege were actually offered (and verified that it existed) I would provide a structure that would satisfy it. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother. Why would I want to spend a couple thousand dollars of my money to win an argument on the internet?

[Heiwa]

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=1/2*mv2 .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.



But you should! Especially when the falling bricks (part C) drop on identical bricks (part A) (and not on your weak head - part 0).

Take WTC 1 as example. Upper part C has uniform density 0.255 according BLGB. Very light structure. Not like a brick! OK, it is a composite structure with strong steel columns, thin floors mostly of concrete and plenty (>95%)of air.

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.

[Heiwa]

If the cash prize for the Heiwa Challenege were actually offered (and verified that it existed) I would provide a structure that would satisfy it. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother. Why would I want to spend a couple thousand dollars of my money to win an argument on the internet?

No cash prize as ever been offered in The Heiwa Challenge, which is just to produce any structure that self-destructs. Just look around! Can you find any? Enter it in The Heiwa Challenge. Shouldn't cost you a kopek.

No, the cash prize has been offered to selected indivudals that imply that they can prove the phenomenon C one-way crushing A theoretically. In spite of this encouragement they have all given up.

[tfk]

Hey Tony,


Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain the mechanics of how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.


I will assume that you don't mean "how did the failure initiate?" That has been completely explained. I assume that you are asking "why didn't the collapse arrest immediately"? And "why didn't we see the jolts during the collapse"?

Sure. Easy. It's been explained about 20 times in just this thread.

This is a completely false assumption: "... overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it ...".

The COLUMNS of the towers were designed to carry the weight above. The FLOORS of the towers were NEVER designed, intended or CLOSE to capable of carrying the loads of the floors above. They were overloaded by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

Accurate estimates of the force on EACH column of the 12 stories of the North Tower was approx 80 TONS per column. Each column was on the order of 1 square foot. The result pressure was approximately 160,000 psf DYNAMIC load. The floors were designed to support (IIRC) about 300 psf STATIC load.

Notice any difference there, Tony?

Is this really a mystery to you???


There should have been a detectable deceleration at every floor impact for the statically insufficient load above to have been able to destroy the structure below. The detection can be done due to the velocity taking time to recover, one does not actually need to observe the actual jolt. Of course, the problem for Bazant's theories and by extension the NIST, as they use Bazant to avoid analyzing the collapse dynamics themselves, is that there were no decelerations of the upper block in WTC 1.


As you can see above, the stress overload on the concrete floors was a MULTIPLE of ~160,000/300 = 5000. Tell me how much of a deceleration jolt you expect to see from this...!!

Let's create an analogy. We will use a stress based model, so that scaling factors don't complicate things too badly.

A chicken egg (brittle, just like the concrete floors) is "designed" to support the weight of an approximately 1 pound hen, nicely distributed over approximately 3 square inches. If I carefully set a 1 pound hammer on top of the egg, it will support that weight just fine. If I drop a hammer, say from one foot height, onto the egg, there is a certainty that it'll crack. When it does, it'll provide a jolt to the hammer. If one were to take high speed video of the hammer, one might even be able to detect the jolt. IF you had sufficient resolution of time & space to detect the very slight, very high frequency jolt.

Now, without resorting to all those annoying calculations, what does your gut tell you about the magnitude of the jolt if the hammer happened to be "overweighted" by the same multiple (5300x), AND dropped from a, say, one foot height. How much deceleration do you expect to see from dropping a 2 1/2 TON weight onto an egg??

Go do some real NUMBERS, Tony.

Include the MAGNITUDE of the jolt that you expect to see. FYI, the concrete floors were 4" thick. They will certain fracture after having been deflected by 1/2". Then you'd have the ductile failure of the cross trusses & bolts that'd be 90% complete in about, say, 1 foot of deflection. So there's the travel distance of the upper block over which your impulse goes from zero to max to zero again. You have to be able to resolve FRACTIONS of this distance in your data.

Now wrap that number around the resolution of your camera, Tony, when the images are taken from 1/2 mile away. How many FEET is one pixel??

Include the frequency of the jolt that you expect to see, Tony. You've got NTSC video. 30 frames per second. Oooops. INTERLACED. 15 frames per second on successive raster lines. Nyquist sampling theory, tony. Max frequency component that you can resolve is going to be about 2 Hertz.

Now you know why I asked you if you took your data from every frame. You didn't answer me.

And then there's the dampening effects of the air exhaustion that I mentioned earlier. To which you also never replied.

Very "Heiwa-esque" of you, Tony.

Would you answer me now? Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

Do you REALLY think that you'll be able to see this jolt with a video camera from 1/2 mile away??

tom

[beachnut]

(and not on your weak head - part 0).

...Was that a weak insult of just another failed joke as you lie about 911?
Your work gets more moronic each time you post. Your pizza box physics and kids jumping on beds proved you lack engineering skills in structures like the WTC towers.

Your challenges was busted on 911 twice. Your failure to prove the towers did not collapse due to impacts, fire and gravity are public record as you make up stupid axioms and dirt dumb models. Keep up the good work on your conspiracy theories and apologizing for terrorists. Thank you for being disrespectful with your shoddy engineering and failed ideas. With you helping the terrorists I know we will win.

[Gamolon]

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.

But won't Part A rip apart the connections at each floor of part C? Won't the ripped apart pieces of Part C then be added to Part A as it continues downward?

Wouldn't Part C be to much for the floor supports on the perimeter columns and core columns of the top floor of Part A to hold up?

[Heiwa]

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...?

It seems the WTC 1 mast on roof was 360 feet tall or abt 109 m and with a pin joint at base platform, so it must have been supported by cables/wires. The mast was much taller than the width of the Tower.

Most of the wind load on the mast must therefore has been transmitted via the cables/wires to support points on the roof.

As the whole roof/hat truss structure + mast just drop as supports 50-60 m below fail (we are told), then, evidently the mast would drop too. If supports fail unsymmetrically, the roof and mast may tilt at the same time.

According to BLGB the roof is the last major element of part C to be destroyed at crush down, i.e. first is lower structure part A one-way crushed down into rubble, part B, by part C that is not really damaged! Then when part A is completely rubble, upper part C is crushed up by part B. The second last structure to be crushed up is the roof/hat truss and the mast platform. The last object to be destroyed according to BLGB is the 360 feet mast.

The mystery is that the mast disappears pretty quickly in the destruction and is not seen sticking up through the fountain of smoke/dust being ejected by rubble part B throughout one-way crush down for 13 seconds.

The mast is not seen either on top of the rubble after global collapse. So where did the mast go?

[GlennB]

Go do some real NUMBERS, Tony.

Include the MAGNITUDE of the jolt that you expect to see. FYI, the concrete floors were 4" thick. They will certain fracture after having been deflected by 1/2". Then you'd have the ductile failure of the cross trusses & bolts that'd be 90% complete in about, say, 1 foot of deflection. So there's the travel distance of the upper block over which your impulse goes from zero to max to zero again. You have to be able to resolve FRACTIONS of this distance in your data.

Now wrap that number around the resolution of your camera, Tony, when the images are taken from 1/2 mile away. How many FEET is one pixel??

Include the frequency of the jolt that you expect to see, Tony. You've got NTSC video. 30 frames per second. Oooops. INTERLACED. 15 frames per second on successive raster lines. Nyquist sampling theory, tony. Max frequency component that you can resolve is going to be about 2 Hertz.

Now you know why I asked you if you took your data from every frame. You didn't answer me.

And then there's the dampening effects of the air exhaustion that I mentioned earlier. To which you also never replied.

Do you REALLY think that you'll be able to see this jolt with a video camera from 1/2 mile away??

tom

Now you've gone and done it !
I was going to mention that acceleration is a /sec/sec function, and that even if there were a discernible jolt then it could well be so brief that capturing it on video is no gimme. Especially recycled YouTube carp.
But now the poor boy is all confused :(
Perhaps he's busy checking out his hero Heiwa's CV?

[tfk]

Tony,


Anders, I agree that the two points work hand in hand.


This may be the first statement that you've made that I agree with, Tony. Hand in hand right off the cliff.


The overall force developed in a shock load is a function of mass participation and loose rubble elements do not participate with each other.


Isaac said: F = m a.

Show me the qualifying paragraph where he adds "... as long as m is greater than __ kg."

Write me a note about how "loose rubble elements do not participate with each other". I'd like to send it to that lady that was climbing on the same wall I was about 25 years ago. She got hit by "a piece of rubble". It wasn't very big. About a 3 foot block. But it had fallen about 200 feet. Ooops, never mind. She wouldn't really get it. Because the one piece of "rubble" took her arm off & she bled to death hanging there.

Now, you were saying that the rubble would not "participate with her" ...??

I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest that she'd disagree. And has the experimental proof that you have your head lodged somewhere dark & warm, Tony.


You have capably pointed that out here and shown the bankruptness of the notion that this loose amalgam could have continued to crush the lower structure.

Some people here just don't want to get it. They don't want to see that you can't drive a nail with a hammerhead composed of a bag with loose nails in it.


Heiwa? "capable"??

Well, moving on...

Tony, nobody "drove a nail" down thru the towers. Let's improve your analogy a tad.

Let's say a 8 foot x 8 foot x 1" inch thick piece of tempered plate glass could support, say 10 lbs static load in the middle. (This is way too small, but we'll use it.) We'll stand up 95 of them all in a straight line, separated by about, say, 6 feet.

Based on the overload factor that I mentioned last post, I am going to take a 53,000 pound car, well, better make that a 25 ton monster truck. With your "bag of loose nails" strapped to the front.

I put the truck about 12 from the first pane of glass & floor it...

Tell me what your imagination says will happen...?

tom

[Heiwa]

1. But won't Part A rip apart the connections at each floor of part C? Won't the ripped apart pieces of Part C then be added to Part A as it continues downward?

2. Wouldn't Part C be to much for the floor supports on the perimeter columns and core columns of the top floor of Part A to hold up?

1. The stronger elements of part A (e.g. vertical columns) rip apart the weaker elements of part C (e.g. horizontal floors) at contact. The connections are not really affected! This means that the weaker, damaged elements of part C (the floors) are still connected to, e.g. strong elements of part C. There are no loose elements, just damaged ones, and they are not added to part A.

2. Part A carried part C before destruction. What strong elements in part C, i.e. columns, do to weak elements of part A, i.e. floors, is same as in 1. Strong part C elements rip apart weak part A elements, the latter still hanging on to strong part A elements via their connections. As both structures are >95% air, there is plenty of space for damaged elements to displace and get entangled into one another.

And this is the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge to show. Most contenders so far seem to choose structures with plenty of air inside and with rather slender vertical support elements and very heavy, solid, horizontal elements that are supposed to be one-way crushed down from top to bottom without breaking. Fair enough. It has nothing to do with, e.g. WTC 1, but is within Challenge rules. And then they drop a top part C on a lower part A hoping that the bottom horizontal element (a solid floor?) of C will impact the top horizontal element of A (another solid floor) - BANG - and hoping that vertical support elements in A will break from top down. But surprise! It is the vertical support elements in part C that break first - a mini crush up! - while the bottom element of C remains on top of A. And then a second horizontal element in C may contact the bottom element in C, etc. No one-way crush down. Etc, etc. Part A applies big forces on part C. As the structure is not perfect, connections may break somewhere, unsymmetry is developed and elements of part C may slide down outside part A below. Gravity forces tend to take the easiest way down in cases like this.

So beware, if you build a 10 m structure to one-way crush down and test it. Loose elements or whole top may drop outside and hit you on the head. Wear a strong helmet + gloves. If mountain climbers do that, their heads are protected from rocks falling from above.

[tfk]

No cash prize as ever been offered in The Heiwa Challenge, which is just to produce any structure that self-destructs. Just look around! Can you find any? Enter it in The Heiwa Challenge. Shouldn't cost you a kopek.

No, the cash prize has been offered to selected indivudals that imply that they can prove the phenomenon C one-way crushing A theoretically. In spite of this encouragement they have all given up.

This is unexpected & great news.

Please answer these questions directly. Succinctly.

"Yes" or "no" for each question. Embellish as you wish.

1. Is the $1 million prize is available for providing this theoretical proof.

2. What does "selected individuals" mean? I would very much like to get into this club & offer my proof.

3. You must prove that the funds are available. Please arrange to put them into escrow for the duration of your challenge.

4. Who judges? Since you are both unqualified and biased, we MUST have INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED individual or panel to make this judgment.

5. Are there any other stipulations about to arise?

tom

[tfk]

But you should! Especially when the falling bricks (part C) drop on identical bricks (part A) (and not on your weak head - part 0).

Take WTC 1 as example. Upper part C has uniform density 0.255 according BLGB. Very light structure. Not like a brick! OK, it is a composite structure with strong steel columns, thin floors mostly of concrete and plenty (>95%)of air.

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.
.
Bricks don't drop on brick, Anders.

Each layer is comprised of many widely spaced bricks, stood vertically and joined together with a laminate of thin glass & chicken wire. The glass can support 3 pounds of distributed weight before cracking. When assembled, each layer of glass/chicken wire will have one pound of nuts & bolts spread on the glass.

A tall stack of these assemblies is dropped on a taller stack of the same, with the upper bricks landing on the glass.

Stand back. No explosives needed.

Your models suc, uh, are "less than optimal".

[tfk]

bill,


All papers that are accepted for publication are discussion papers T.


You say the CUTEST things, ya little muchkin. ;)


They have been judged by Heiwa's engineering peers to be worthy of discussion.


You say the CUTEST things, ya little muchkin. ;)


You are free to go the same route and try for publication though i don't think we should hold our breaths.


Feel free to run the experiment. Till you turn blue. And then some...


NIST have no collapse conclusions for Bazant to support . They only took their analysis up to the point of glabal collapse and no further.


Would you care to place a small, or large, wager that "NIST has no collapse conclusions"?


For the rest yuur post is long and rambling as usual and has nohing remarkable to answer.


That's why, even tho I made a few side comments to you, that post was not addressed to you.

There are others, less challenged than you, ya little muchkin, who might get the points that I made.

:D

tom

Address the argument rather than personalizing the discussion.

[Myriad]

Anders, I agree that the two points work hand in hand. The overall force developed in a shock load is a function of mass participation and loose rubble elements do not participate with each other.

You have capably pointed that out here and shown the bankruptness of the notion that this loose amalgam could have continued to crush the lower structure.

Some people here just don't want to get it. They don't want to see that you can't drive a nail with a hammerhead composed of a bag with loose nails in it. (emphasis added)


It still intrigues me how anyone can describe rubble that is being compressed between the floors of a standing structure and the floors of a falling structure as "loose."

Try it in a horizontal scenario. From left to right we have: a bulldozer facing right, a 10-foot high pile of "loose" gravel, and a brick wall. The bulldozer goes into gear. I'd ask "what happens next?" but I don't care for evasions or stupid answers, so I'll just answer instead. Some of the gravel will be pushed sideways out of the way, but enough of it will be compressed between the bulldozer and the wall to rupture or knock over the wall, well before the bulldozer blade itself gets to the wall.

The wall will be destroyed by "loose" gravel. Because, of course, the gravel is not actually loose once the bulldozer starts pushing it against the wall.

For a really fair comparison, we'd need a bulldozer with a blade 200 feet wide and 200 feet high.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[tfk]

(emphasis added)


It still intrigues me how anyone can describe rubble that is being compressed between the floors of a standing structure and the floors of a falling structure as "loose."

Try it in a horizontal scenario. From left to right we have: a bulldozer facing right, a 10-foot high pile of "loose" gravel, and a brick wall. The bulldozer goes into gear. I'd ask "what happens next?" but I don't care for evasions or stupid answers, so I'll just answer instead. Some of the gravel will be pushed sideways out of the way, but enough of it will be compressed between the bulldozer and the wall to rupture or knock over the wall, well before the bulldozer blade itself gets to the wall.

The wall will be destroyed by "loose" gravel. Because, of course, the gravel is not actually loose once the bulldozer starts pushing it against the wall.

For a really fair comparison, we'd need a bulldozer with a blade 200 feet wide and 200 feet high.

Respectfully,
Myriad
.
Myriad,

Nice analogy.

Mind if I steal it??

tom

[Gamolon]

1. The stronger elements of part A (e.g. vertical columns) rip apart the weaker elements of part C (e.g. horizontal floors) at contact. The connections are not really affected! This means that the weaker, damaged elements of part C (the floors) are still connected to, e.g. strong elements of part C. There are no loose elements, just damaged ones, and they are not added to part A.

So you mean to tell me that that floor truss seats that I circled in red in this photo...:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/1-4_perimeter-column-1.jpg

...would the resist the weight of Part C coming down on them? The floor truss supports wouldn't shear off or bend downward releasing the concrete floor they supported?

[Newtons Bit]

No cash prize as ever been offered in The Heiwa Challenge, which is just to produce any structure that self-destructs. Just look around! Can you find any? Enter it in The Heiwa Challenge. Shouldn't cost you a kopek.

No, the cash prize has been offered to selected indivudals that imply that they can prove the phenomenon C one-way crushing A theoretically. In spite of this encouragement they have all given up.

Heiwa, structures cost money to either buy or construct. What's my motivation for doing so? Proving you wrong? That ain't enough.

[Minadin]

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain the mechanics of how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

There should have been a detectable deceleration at every floor impact for the statically insufficient load above to have been able to destroy the structure below. The detection can be done due to the velocity taking time to recover, one does not actually need to observe the actual jolt. Of course, the problem for Bazant's theories and by extension the NIST, as they use Bazant to avoid analyzing the collapse dynamics themselves, is that there were no decelerations of the upper block in WTC 1.

Hey Tony,



I will assume that you don't mean "how did the failure initiate?" That has been completely explained. I assume that you are asking "why didn't the collapse arrest immediately"? And "why didn't we see the jolts during the collapse"?

Sure. Easy. It's been explained about 20 times in just this thread.

This is a completely false assumption: "... overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it ...".

The COLUMNS of the towers were designed to carry the weight above. The FLOORS of the towers were NEVER designed, intended or CLOSE to capable of carrying the loads of the floors above. They were overloaded by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

Accurate estimates of the force on EACH column of the 12 stories of the North Tower was approx 80 TONS per column. Each column was on the order of 1 square foot. The result pressure was approximately 160,000 psf DYNAMIC load. The floors were designed to support (IIRC) about 300 psf STATIC load.

Notice any difference there, Tony?

Is this really a mystery to you???



As you can see above, the stress overload on the concrete floors was a MULTIPLE of ~160,000/300 = 5000. Tell me how much of a deceleration jolt you expect to see from this...!!

Let's create an analogy. We will use a stress based model, so that scaling factors don't complicate things too badly.

A chicken egg (brittle, just like the concrete floors) is "designed" to support the weight of an approximately 1 pound hen, nicely distributed over approximately 3 square inches. If I carefully set a 1 pound hammer on top of the egg, it will support that weight just fine. If I drop a hammer, say from one foot height, onto the egg, there is a certainty that it'll crack. When it does, it'll provide a jolt to the hammer. If one were to take high speed video of the hammer, one might even be able to detect the jolt. IF you had sufficient resolution of time & space to detect the very slight, very high frequency jolt.

Now, without resorting to all those annoying calculations, what does your gut tell you about the magnitude of the jolt if the hammer happened to be "overweighted" by the same multiple (5300x), AND dropped from a, say, one foot height. How much deceleration do you expect to see from dropping a 2 1/2 TON weight onto an egg??

Go do some real NUMBERS, Tony.

Include the MAGNITUDE of the jolt that you expect to see. FYI, the concrete floors were 4" thick. They will certain fracture after having been deflected by 1/2". Then you'd have the ductile failure of the cross trusses & bolts that'd be 90% complete in about, say, 1 foot of deflection. So there's the travel distance of the upper block over which your impulse goes from zero to max to zero again. You have to be able to resolve FRACTIONS of this distance in your data.

Now wrap that number around the resolution of your camera, Tony, when the images are taken from 1/2 mile away. How many FEET is one pixel??

Include the frequency of the jolt that you expect to see, Tony. You've got NTSC video. 30 frames per second. Oooops. INTERLACED. 15 frames per second on successive raster lines. Nyquist sampling theory, tony. Max frequency component that you can resolve is going to be about 2 Hertz.

Now you know why I asked you if you took your data from every frame. You didn't answer me.

And then there's the dampening effects of the air exhaustion that I mentioned earlier. To which you also never replied.

Very "Heiwa-esque" of you, Tony.

Would you answer me now? Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

Do you REALLY think that you'll be able to see this jolt with a video camera from 1/2 mile away??

tom

That's a good post, tom. A lot of people don't seem to realize that the structure was designed to be strong as a complete system, but individual elements could fail when things went awry and they experienced loads they weren't designed to handle. And, the structure becomes less able to handle these increasing loads as more of its components are removed from the system.

Mackey also addressed similar issues to Tony's questions here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4350623#post4350623

[A W Smith]

So you mean to tell me that that floor truss seats that I circled in red in this photo...:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/1-4_perimeter-column-1.jpg

...would the resist the weight of Part C coming down on them? The floor truss supports wouldn't shear off or bend downward releasing the concrete floor they supported?

that middle one you circled in the photo to the left? Not a truss seat. that is for the wye reinforcing bars embedded in the lightweight concrete floors above the floor pans which is why they are higher.. IIRC the trusses were 80 inches on center. So every other perimeter column gets a truss seat.

[BasqueArch]

This is unexpected & great news.

Please answer these questions directly. Succinctly.

"Yes" or "no" for each question. Embellish as you wish.

1. Is the $1 million prize is available for providing this theoretical proof.

2. What does "selected individuals" mean? I would very much like to get into this club & offer my proof.

3. You must prove that the funds are available. Please arrange to put them into escrow for the duration of your challenge.

4. Who judges? Since you are both unqualified and biased, we MUST have INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED individual or panel to make this judgment.

5. Are there any other stipulations about to arise?

tom

Tom

Add #6 The $1 meeellion prize to be paid in US Dollars only.

(Check out the Zimbabwe Dollars rate)
http://secedu.net/stylebid.com/images/DSC06314.JPG

[Gamolon]

that middle one you circled in the photo to the left? Not a truss seat. that is for the wye reinforcing bars embedded in the lightweight concrete floors above the floor pans which is why they are higher.. IIRC the trusses were 80 inches on center. So every other perimeter column gets a truss seat.

Thanks AW.

So what happens to the truss seats around the perimeter of that first floor that Part C comes in contact with? Will those not shear off or bend downward?

[A W Smith]

Thanks AW.

So what happens to the truss seats around the perimeter of that first floor that Part C comes in contact with? Will those not shear off or bend downward?


in just about every photo of the debris pile taken during the WTC cleanup. I cannot find a single perimeter column seat, Weather truss, damper, or wye bar, that is not bent downward to vertical. Check for yourself. this can only mean one thing. after collapse initiation the floor pancaked within the perimiter tube and then debris ejected the perimeter outward.

[Newtons Bit]

in just about every photo of the debris pile taken during the WTC cleanup. I cannot find a single perimeter column seat, Weather truss, damper, or wye bar, that is not bent downward to vertical. Check for yourself. this can only mean one thing. after collapse initiation the floor pancaked within the perimiter tube and then debris ejected the perimeter outward.

That must have been where the NWO put the termites to heat-weaken the steel.

[bill smith]

(emphasis added)


It still intrigues me how anyone can describe rubble that is being compressed between the floors of a standing structure and the floors of a falling structure as "loose."

Try it in a horizontal scenario. From left to right we have: a bulldozer facing right, a 10-foot high pile of "loose" gravel, and a brick wall. The bulldozer goes into gear. I'd ask "what happens next?" but I don't care for evasions or stupid answers, so I'll just answer instead. Some of the gravel will be pushed sideways out of the way, but enough of it will be compressed between the bulldozer and the wall to rupture or knock over the wall, well before the bulldozer blade itself gets to the wall.

The wall will be destroyed by "loose" gravel. Because, of course, the gravel is not actually loose once the bulldozer starts pushing it against the wall.

For a really fair comparison, we'd need a bulldozer with a blade 200 feet wide and 200 feet high.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.

[A W Smith]

That must have been where the NWO put the termites to heat-weaken the steel.


yeah!! right on the inside corner of that rolled angle!!! that!s it!! They used a caulking gun filled with quart tubes of thermite!!

and look! evidence in the rooftop rubble! an orange frameless caulking gun!

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc-gallery/briendel/fb-175-parts15.jpg

[A W Smith]

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.


Ever see whats left of a car after a dump truck load of gravel rolls over on it? An entire family visiting from the UK was crushed to death in my town many tears ago. The 3/4 inch pieces of blue stone didn't care.

[Myriad]

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.


I've taken the liberty of creating a diagram illustrating your new analysis of the collapse dynamics following collapse initiation:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/130124a2824faa4dc9.jpg


I do not find it convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gamolon]

in just about every photo of the debris pile taken during the WTC cleanup. I cannot find a single perimeter column seat, Weather truss, damper, or wye bar, that is not bent downward to vertical. Check for yourself. this can only mean one thing. after collapse initiation the floor pancaked within the perimiter tube and then debris ejected the perimeter outward.

Well, that's what my thinking has always been.

Even though the columns are the strong points, the floor trusses (the weakest links) will give first in my thoughts.

Part C hits the top floor of Part A and breaks the floor trusses. That floor becomes added weight along with Part C and hits the next floor.

Is Heiwa claiming that the floor trusses of the top floor of Part A will slow down the downward motion of Part C and that after hitting a certain number of floors, Part C is supposed to cease moving downward?

[bill smith]

I've taken the liberty of creating a diagram illustrating your new analysis of the collapse dynamics following collapse initiation:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/130124a2824faa4dc9.jpg


I do not find it convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad


lol...Looks a bit like Cheney.

[A W Smith]

lol...Looks a bit like Cheney.

Cheney never wore a hat truss. (or a truss hat). Hes more like 2 WFC

http://wirednewyork.com/wfc/images/2wfc_21sept.jpg

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/leftcoastleaner/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg

[Gamolon]

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.

Are you saying that the bottom floor of the descending top block meets the top floor of the stationary bottom block and the floor trusses of the top floor of the bottom block partially resist the descending motion of the top block?

The floor trusses of the first floor resist enough to slow down the descent of the top block enough that after the top top hits a few more floors below it will eventually stop?

So wait. As each floor of each respective block meets, the obliterate one another until all of the top blocks floors are gone, leaving whatever is left of the bottom block?

Am I getting this right?

[Minadin]

Cheney never wore a hat truss. (or a truss hat). Hes more like 2 WFC

http://wirednewyork.com/wfc/images/2wfc_21sept.jpg

http://weblogs.elearning.ubc.ca/leftcoastleaner/cheney_short_of_breath.jpg

Maybe more like the federal courthouse in St. Louis with that grill:

http://www.archprecast.org/images/Courthouse.jpg

[Gamolon]

The concrete floors meet and explode

There was enough energy generated by the descent of the top part of the tower that when the two floors met, they completely destroyed each other?

[Seymour Butz]

I fail to see how this is progress for him.

Easy to explain.

1- Heiwa is also obviously a fraud at engineering
2- Heiwa can't get work, he is an out of work bum.
3- he sees Gage making a living off of troofers
4- he's decided to make a living a la Gage by fleecing troofers also

The end

[bill smith]

I've taken the liberty of creating a diagram illustrating your new analysis of the collapse dynamics following collapse initiation:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/130124a2824faa4dc9.jpg


I do not find it convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Did you ever wonder why we did not see any of the floor pans come flying out of the building along with the steel girders ? Or any rebar mesh from the floor reinforcing. There was 110 ACRES of each of these two items in each building.
Especially the floor pans that the floor concrete was poured into. I believe there were 48 per floor- times 110 equals more than 5,000 of these pans. Believe it or not...there don't seem to be any in the wreckage on the ground either..and virtually no rebar...Any ideas ?

[A W Smith]

Did you ever wonder why we did not see any of the floor pans come flying out of the building along with the steel girders ? Or any rebar mesh from the floor reinforcing. There was 110 ACRES of each of these two items in each building.
Especially the floor pans that the floor concrete was poured into. I believe there were 48 per floor- times 110 equals more than 5,000 of these pans. Believe it or not...there don't seem to be any in the wreckage on the ground either..and virtually no rebar...Any ideas ?

oops

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/132105299_a0ba16d412_b.jpg

[bill smith]

oops

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/132105299_a0ba16d412_b.jpg

That looks impressive but completely loses it's impact when ypu realise that the bottom half of the screen is the footprint of the 500,000 ton building. A section of the perimeter wall of WTC1 is leaning against the wreck of WTC6. Do you see any floor pans in the bottom half of the picture ?

[A W Smith]

That looks good but completely loses it's impact when ypu realise that the bottom half of the screen is the footprint of the 500,000 ton building. A section of the perimeter wall of WTC1 is leaning against the wreck of WTC6. Do you see any floor pans in the bottom half of the picture ?

Here's a close up of a stack of floor pans saved to a hangar at Kennedy airport


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/jones_question_3.jpg

[bill smith]

Here's a close up of a stack of floor pans saved to a hangar at Kennedy airport


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/jones_question_3.jpg

As many as that ? I hadn't realised...

[beachnut]

That looks impressive but completely loses it's impact when ypu realise that the bottom half of the screen is the footprint of the 500,000 ton building. A section of the perimeter wall of WTC1 is leaning against the wreck of WTC6. Do you see any floor pans in the bottom half of the picture ?
The funny part about your posts; you have no point. You never have a point and post stupid statements and moronic videos. Keep up the off topic posts of stupid ideas.

As seen on 911 twice Heiwa's failed ideas went down with WTC1 and WTC2. You support failed ideas on 911 and have no rational conclusions on 911.

[Newtons Bit]

The floor pans are 22ga steel. That's 0.0295" thick. How much of it do you think should steel be in "pan" form?

[A W Smith]

The floor pans are 22ga steel. That's 0.0295" thick. How much of it do you think should steel be in "pan" form?


Enough to ship off to China for the burgeoning housing addition industry.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/2991051686_d86c0e9916_b.jpg

[bill smith]

The floor pans are 22ga steel. That's 0.0295" thick. How much of it do you think should steel be in "pan" form?

Almost razorblade thickness. Hmmm.....it had no stuctural or support function Then ?

[Newtons Bit]

Almost razorblade thickness. Hmmm.....it had no stuctural or support function Then ?

I'll clarify, how much of it do you think should still be in "pan" form post collapse? How would explosive demolition differ in the this amount versus a typical collapse?

[A W Smith]

Almost razorblade thickness. Hmmm.....it had no stuctural or support function Then ?


Little more than form work to support the concrete floor as it cured. It played little significance in the strength of the floor. In fact one of the reasons it is corrugated was to provide stiffness so it would not collapse under the weight of wet concrete. The bridging trusses on which the pans rested prevented the pans from folding up and falling between the floor trusses.

[FineWine]

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.


Yes, it's a good idea to take a condescending tone with someone who knows vastly more than you do.

The mass above is not decreasing, you--ah, what's the use? Your pixiliated guru is quite mad. The collapsing floors ADD mass and gain momentum. Can anything pound this simple concept into your head? Can't you understand that you are spouting nonsense?

[bill smith]

I'll clarify, how much of it do you think should still be in "pan" form post collapse? How would explosive demolition differ in the this amount versus a typical collapse?

Clarify this then. When they poured the concrete and added the rebar it was still wet right ? So how did the floorpans which were up to 1/48th of an acre in size each support that weight of concrete and steel if the steel was only as thick as you imply (0.029''). I hope you were not being misleading ?

[Newtons Bit]

Clarify this then. When they poured the concrete and added the rebar it was still wet right ? So how did the floorpans which were up to 1/48th of an acre in size each support that weight of concrete and steel if the steel was only as thick as you imply (0.029''). I hope you were not being misleading ?

Are you saying that a 22ga deck CANT span the distances required in the WTC?

[beachnut]

Almost razorblade thickness. Hmmm.....it had no stuctural or support function Then ?

A razor blade is .009'' thick, the floor pans are 0.0299'' thick. 3.322 times thicker. You are off on most things 911. You are on the team of dumb ideas on 911 and you have earned your position.

Heiwa is off twice with his challenge beat on 911 by the collapse of the WTC towers.

[bill smith]

Little more than form work to support the concrete floor as it cured. It played little significance in the strength of the floor. In fact one of the reasons it is corrugated was to provide stiffness so it would not collapse under the weight of wet concrete. The bridging trusses on which the pans rested prevented the pans from folding up and falling between the floor trusses.

Good explanation. But it still will not explain where they are all gone. Or the 110 acres of rebar either.

[bill smith]

Are you saying that a 22ga deck CANT span the distances required in the WTC?

I aleady got the answer from AW thanks anyway.

[A W Smith]

Good explanation. But it still will not explain where they are all gone. Or the 110 acres of rebar either.


since the pans were underneath the floor. And the structural steel for the most part fell on top of it with the exception of the floor trusses. Why would you expect to see it laying on top of the pile in the image I posted above?

[Myriad]

Did you ever wonder why we did not see any of the floor pans come flying out of the building along with the steel girders ?


No more than I wonder why pages don't come flying out of a telephone book when you squeeze it. It has always been quite obvious that the floor pans and the concrete bonded to them mostly fell straight down.

No steel girders came flying out of the building. The ones that were propelled horizontally during the collapse were on the exterior of the building to begin with.

Or any rebar mesh from the floor reinforcing. There was 110 ACRES of each of these two items in each building.


No, you are mistaken about that.

Especially the floor pans that the floor concrete was poured into. I believe there were 48 per floor- times 110 equals more than 5,000 of these pans. Believe it or not...there don't seem to be any in the wreckage on the ground either..and virtually no rebar...Any ideas ?


They fell mostly straight down and were broken into small pieces by the impact with the ground, forming a considerable portion of the 5-7 stories of compacted debris within the towers' footprints.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

since the pans were underneath the floor. And the structural steel for the most part fell on top of it with the exception of the floor trusses. Why would you expect to see it laying on top of the pile in the image I posted above?

If it is corrugated iron as I know corrugated iron and there were 5,000 huge pieces in the collapse I would expect to see it abolutely everywhere. The same goes for the rebar.

[Newtons Bit]

I aleady got the answer from AW thanks anyway.

You never answered my original question, you just kept changing the subject:

How much of it do you think should still be in "pan" form post collapse? How would explosive demolition differ in the this amount versus a typical collapse?

[Newtons Bit]

If it is corrugated iron as I know corrugated iron and there were 5,000 huge pieces in the collapse I would expect to see it abolutely everywhere. The same goes for the rebar.

Psssst, deck comes in 36" or 24" wide pieces.

[bill smith]

You never answered my original question, you just kept changing the subject:

How much of it do you think should still be in "pan" form post collapse? How would explosive demolition differ in the this amount versus a typical collapse?

Personally I think that basicly the whole lot- rebar and floorpans were mostly evaporated by the nanothermite that was impregnated into the concrrete floors. But that is another subject.

[bill smith]

Psssst, deck comes in 36" or 24" wide pieces.

Multiply by the appropriate factor then...

[Dog Town]

Multiply by the appropriate factor then...

You first, please.:rolleyes:

[MIKILLINI]

Myriad..see it in slow moton... The top block falls and impacts the top of part A. The concrete floors meet and explode and the columns in both parts are the first next thing to reach their respctive next floors. Of course they completely chew them up as teeth chew food. Not only that...the upper and lower teeth are meshing. Some pieces of floors are still janging off columns and getting caught up. Friction is increasing, the mass above is decreasing as it's former floors turn to loose rubble, much of which will all away to the sides.

Hey Bill, even with the video in slow motion, it's still the same non-high speed camera. The mass above may appear to be decreasing but is it the lighter material or the heavier material blowing out to the sides?

[Heiwa]

So you mean to tell me that that floor truss seats that I circled in red in this photo...:
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/1-4_perimeter-column-1.jpg

...would the resist the weight of Part C coming down on them? The floor truss supports wouldn't shear off or bend downward releasing the concrete floor they supported?

Well, if the truss seat connections fail (there are plenty per floor), the perimeter columns should remain intact, and big parts of the floors.

But, please, the weight of Part C is not coming down on them. Only an element of part C contacts an element of part A and you should ask; what happens to the elements? Do they break or is a load on an element transmitted via any connections? What happens then? When would a connection break? Etc, etc.

[Heiwa]

This is unexpected & great news.

Please answer these questions directly. Succinctly.

"Yes" or "no" for each question. Embellish as you wish.

1. Is the $1 million prize is available for providing this theoretical proof.

2. What does "selected individuals" mean? I would very much like to get into this club & offer my proof.

3. You must prove that the funds are available. Please arrange to put them into escrow for the duration of your challenge.

4. Who judges? Since you are both unqualified and biased, we MUST have INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED individual or panel to make this judgment.

5. Are there any other stipulations about to arise?

tom

1. Yes! Not part of The Heiwa Challenge, though.

2. "Yes" or "no", i.e. yes I read what you say but no I cannot answer it with a "yes" or "no". Please ask questions that can be answered with "Yes" or "no", as requested. What club are you talking about? The Heiwa Challenge fan club?

3. What is the question?

4. See 2. But, yes, I am of course the judge. Your further comment is noted, though. Pls provide names of qualified judges.

5. No. Just get working on your structure or theory.

I am glad that you ask these questions. So you admit that NIST, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey and other clowns so far have not managed to provide the necessary info/structure/theory? Yes or no?

[dafydd]

Thanks for reminding me. My papers are on the Internet (http://heiwaco.tripod.com ) since many years and I will ensure that continues. Very popular papers, to say the least.

Just copy/paste anything you disagree with and we'll talk.

Thanks for the warning.One to avoid.

[dafydd]

NIST has no analysis for the collapse sequence at all. Purdue are shills as I have shown you before and can show you again. What are the Berkeley simulations ? Nope- you guys are done.

This thread is so funny,better than anything on tv.Thanks Bill.

[dafydd]

Why, because you lack engineering skills to understand his post? Explain each point you failed to understand which you call long and rambling.

"yuur" skills are limited to cut and paste, and posting dirt dumb truther videos. You got "nohing"; or do you have nothing?

What engineering school did you go to?

Yes Bill,which noble seat of learning did you attend?

[A W Smith]

Yes Bill,which noble seat of learning did you attend?


Sometimes he sits and thinks. sometimes he....well.....

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2102113/JetSiphonicClose-coupledToilet-main_Full.jpg

[dafydd]

You first, please.:rolleyes:

Because you can't do the calculation?

[bill smith]

I've taken the liberty of creating a diagram illustrating your new analysis of the collapse dynamics following collapse initiation:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/130124a2824faa4dc9.jpg


I do not find it convincing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

As a matter of interest what did you see to be the main problems with that analysis ?

[beachnut]

Yes Bill,which noble seat of learning did you attend?
Topix with undergrad work at the KeyBoard of Google.

[MIKILLINI]

Sometimes he sits and thinks. sometimes he....well.....

http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2102113/JetSiphonicClose-coupledToilet-main_Full.jpg

:dl: :dl: :dl:

[Jackanory]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Heiwa is at the end of his not so illustrious shipping career and is due to retire?

Do you also get the impression that Heiwa and his lap dog Bill are in PM/email communication. Bill Smith isnt intelligent enough to ask veiled engineering questions so needs some prompting from his master. Oh well, i suppose this is Heiwas thread, Heiwas ego - let Bill derail this one too with more stupid. End game is FAIL.

[MIKILLINI]

Does anyone else get the feeling that Heiwa is at the end of his not so illustrious shipping career and is due to retire?

Do you also get the impression that Heiwa and his lap dog Bill are in PM/email communication. Bill Smith isnt intelligent enough to ask veiled engineering questions so needs some prompting from his master. Oh well, i suppose this is Heiwas thread, Heiwas ego - let Bill derail this one too with more stupid. End game is FAIL.

Indeed. Heiwa's challenge is flawed. An EPIC FAIL.

[Tony Szamboti]

Clarify this then. When they poured the concrete and added the rebar it was still wet right ? So how did the floorpans which were up to 1/48th of an acre in size each support that weight of concrete and steel if the steel was only as thick as you imply (0.029''). I hope you were not being misleading ?

The floor pans were corrugated or fluted which gave them stiffness.

[BigAl]

Clarify this then. When they poured the concrete and added the rebar it was still wet right ? So how did the floorpans which were up to 1/48th of an acre in size each support that weight of concrete and steel if the steel was only as thick as you imply (0.029''). I hope you were not being misleading ?

The pans were well-supported by a truss system.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

The trusses were very thin steel sections and anywhere the truss fireproofing was substandard and exposed to fire, the steel quickly heated to temperatures sufficient to cause a truss to fail.

[Myriad]

As a matter of interest what did you see to be the main problems with that analysis ?


1. It's wrong.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Newtons Bit]

The pans were well-supported by a truss system.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

The trusses were very thin steel sections and anywhere the truss fireproofing was substandard and exposed to fire, the steel quickly heated to temperatures sufficient to cause a truss to fail.

I'm pretty sure that the corrugations in that diagram are going the wrong direction.

[Justin39640]

I'm pretty sure that the corrugations in that diagram are going the wrong direction.

no those are right
http://www.john-knapton.com/WTC10.JPG

edit: thats not an entire 1/4 floor
thats just 1 section
the main trusses went from the core to the tube

[Dog Town]

I'm pretty sure that the corrugations in that diagram are going the wrong direction.

I thought so too, at first glance.Then I noticed the bridging truss spaced out for support. It seemed ok after that. I ain't no engineer though.

[Newtons Bit]

I thought so too, at first glance.Then I noticed the bridging truss spaced out for support. It seemed ok after that. I ain't no engineer though.

Maybe Heiwa can tell me :D

[Dog Town]

Maybe Heiwa can tell me :D


Fair enough, like I said...:whistling

[A W Smith]

I'm pretty sure that the corrugations in that diagram are going the wrong direction.

they are counter to the direction pans are normally run. Which is why they are supported by the bridging trusses. This allows the edge of the pans to be tack welded to the top angle iron of the upper chord on the main trusses allowing the knuckles to protrude into the concrete floor. the yellow circles show the Wye reinforcing steel tying into every other perimeter columns i mentioned earlier.

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wallcon.jpg

[Heiwa]

Maybe Heiwa can tell me :D

If floor pans are elements in The Heiwa Challenge structure, they may be corrugated in any direction! Please note that fire is not required to inititiate the test! Just drop part C on part A, etc.

"But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with". Barack Obama, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009.

Luckily, The Heiwa Challenge is apparently still possible to discuss and execute, though. Good luck with your structures. Report your facts so we can deal with them!