The Heiwa Challenge

[beachnut]

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!
The president of the United States knows you ideas on 911 are false. But you are free to post your failed challenge; proved wrong twice on 911.

Why can't you refute the gravity collapse of the WTC towers with evidence and engineering? Your current work is wrong; when will you submit new information and calculations?

[Minadin]

Bill - They don't typically use rebar to reinforce concrete floors in commercial office buildings.

[beachnut]

...
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.
You can't? Can you prove that? Can you show me with your engineering skills how you can't get a bag (my bag is very strong) of loose nails to drive in a nail? Do I drive the nail through the air, or do you need the bag of nails moving at 2,000 mph to drive that nail through something substantial? I thought you truther engineers had an imagination but I was in error; you have delusions of CD and other idiotic and moronic conclusions on 911. I can take one loose nail and drive a nail! Bag? A bag? Who needs a stinking bag? I have used one (1) loose nail to drive a nail. ouch (are you really an engineer; I am, but you don't seem to be using that engineering stink properly)

How does an pile of loose snow move a house?

How does water cut through objects? All those loose molecules of water?

How does an explosive work? All those loose molecules of expanding gas?

How does a hand break wood? Those loose bones and skin and other hand stuff?

Why does 25,000,000 pounds make a floor in the WTC fail? 25,000,000 pounds of loose anything!

At least you are a good cheerleader for Heiwa's failed junk ideas! Keep up the good work.

The floor pans were corrugated or fluted which gave them stiffness.
You have another loyal believer who has no clue on the WTC engineering aspects but he is behind your failed CD ideas 110 percent. You are lucky to have bill smith as your expert supporter. Do you think the floor pans were explosives too like bill smith? This why Heiwa thinks his challenge is real because he believes like you do in CD as the only way the indestructible WTC towers could be taken down. How much explosives does your CD scenario take vs Heiwa's and bill smith's?

Why can't you, bill smith, and Heiwa get Robertson on board your CD train? Robertson says CD is stupid! What can you tell him about Heiwa's moronic challenge that would change Robertson's mind on this CD deal; the realcddeal?

[Heiwa]

Why can't you refute the gravity collapse of the WTC towers with evidence and engineering? Your current work is wrong; when will you submit new information and calculations?

This is what The Heiwa Challenge is all about! Nothing wrong with it. It is a challenge. Just present a structure that collapses due to gravity by dropping part C on part A.

Pls note that part C must have same structure as part A and was previously carried by part A. Every OCTist I know has failed the challenge. I wonder why? Fundamentalist religious beliefs? Personal relations? Group thinking?

[stateofgrace]

This is what The Heiwa Challenge is all about! Nothing wrong with it. It is a challenge. Just present a structure that collapses due to gravity by dropping part C on part A.

Pls note that part C must have same structure as part A and was previously carried by part A. Every OCTist I know has failed the challenge. I wonder why? Fundamentalist religious beliefs? Personal relations? Group thinking?

Well, DUH, you forgot the obnoxious bit when you said OCTist.

Fundamentalist religious beliefs? No.
Personnel relations? No
Group thinking? No.

You challenge is complete garbage? Yup
Does anybody other than you believe the building was one way crushed? No

Will this sink in? No.

Will you back up a single claim you make? No

I wonder why.

[bill smith]

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

lol

[bill smith]

Bazant's theory depends absolutely on the upper blpck C remaining as a rigid block. The second it becomes mostly loose rubble the theory is completely blown. Why is that ? Because , although it is much heavier, a bag of nails will never drive another nail. (That's a little gem from Tony Sz. and is as true as true can be)

[beachnut]

Bazant's theory depends absolutely on the upper blpck C remaining as a rigid block. The second it becomes mostly loose rubble the theory is completely blown. Why is that ? Because , although it is much heavier, a bag of nails will never drive another nail. (That's a little gem from Tony Sz. and is as true as true can be)
You never read his paper or will you understand it. Take a look at the last set of dolts who tried to refute the paper. Just like you, tony and heiwa, you guys and girls have no chance to produce any effort to refute anything about 911. You lack the evidence. Heiwa, Tony, and you are not structural engineers with any experience with the equal of the WTC towers. It is utter nonsense to see you post BS and junk ideas about Bazant's work.

What did they get wrong? Heiwa's challenge failed twice on 911 and you can't produce one paragraph worthy to support Heiwa or refute Bazant's work. Comment on this. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf Here is where your cut and paste support of 911 will fail to help.

BTW, I can use one nail to drive another nail; experience beats talk again.

[bill smith]

You never read his paper or will you understand it. Take a look at the last set of dolts who tried to refute the paper. Just like you, tony and heiwa, you guys and girls have no chance to produce any effort to refute anything about 911. You lack the evidence. Heiwa, Tony, and you are not structural engineers with any experience with the equal of the WTC towers. It is utter nonsense to see you post BS and junk ideas about Bazant's work.

What did they get wrong? Heiwa's challenge failed twice on 911 and you can't produce one paragraph worthy to support Heiwa or refute Bazant's work. Comment on this. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf Here is where your cut and paste support of 911 will fail to help.

BTW, I can use one nail to drive another nail; experience beats talk again.

What about one-tenth of a nail dropped on the other 90% of the nail ?

[stateofgrace]

What about one-tenth of a nail dropped on the other 90% of the nail ?

Haven't you heard Bill the entire scientific community now thinks this way, every scientist and engineer thinks that by dropping one tenth of a nail on the other 9/10 it will suddenly get crushed.

Everybody knows that if you drop one lemon on top of nine other lemons the other nine will suddenly get crushed, everybody knows that if you drop one pizza box on top of nine other pizza boxes they will all get crushed. It is now scientific fact and everybody thinks like this.

Who do you think you are BIll ? What planet do you and you crackpot hero live one? Who do you think you are to tell anybody what they believe?

" Well DUH them OCTist think that 1/10 of something can crush the other 9/10ths of something well DUH, lets pretend that everybody on the planet is this stupid and I am really smart, DUH". Stop for god sake Bill.

Let me spell this out to you for the billionth time.

NOBODY THINKS THAT 1/10th OF WTC1 CRUSHED THE OTHER 9/10ths.

Is that simple enough Bill ?

[dafydd]

Haven't you heard Bill the entire scientific community now thinks this way, every scientist and engineer thinks that by dropping one tenth of a nail on the other 9/10 it will suddenly get crushed.

Everybody knows that if you drop one lemon on top of nine other lemons the other nine will suddenly get crushed, everybody knows that if you drop one pizza box on top of nine other pizza boxes they will all get crushed. It is now scientific fact and everybody thinks like this.

Who do you think you are BIll ? What planet do you and you crackpot hero live one? Who do you think you are to tell anybody what they believe?

" Well DUH them OCTist think that 1/10 of something can crush the other 9/10ths of something well DUH, lets pretend that everybody on the planet is this stupid and I am really smart, DUH". Stop for god sake Bill.

Let me spell this out to you for the billionth time.

NOBODY THINKS THAT 1/10th OF WTC1 CRUSHED THE OTHER 9/10ths.

Is that simple enough Bill ?

Still not simple enough for our Laurel and Hardy.Try using words of one syllable.Come to think of it,this thread is not so funny after all,we are talking about a lot of dead people.Bill and Heiwa should be ashamed of themselves.As for the challenge Heiwa,has it sunk in yet that nobody gives a flying one about it? I notice that they avoided answering my question about how the explosives were placed and wired up without a soul noticing.No surprise there,they are past masters at avoiding the awkward questions.

[bill smith]

[
[/FONT]
NOBODY THINKS THAT 1/10th OF WTC1 CRUSHED THE OTHER 9/10ths.

Is that simple enough Bill ?

So how would you say it collapsed ?

[stateofgrace]

So how would you say it collapsed ?

No Bill this is not how it works, I take it your hero told you to ask this, right?

Ask him why he thinks everybody believes WTC 1 was one way crushed. This is his challenge is it not, the one way crush.

Did it one way crush Bill? Did 1/10th of the building completely one way crush the other 9/10ths? Yes or no?
Did the core get crushed, the external perimeters get one way crushed?yes or no ?

[bill smith]

No Bill this is not how it works, I take it your hero told you to ask this, right?

Ask him why he thinks everybody believes WTC 1 was one way crushed. This is his challenge is it not, the one way crush.

Did it one way crush Bill? Did 1/10th of the building completely one way crush the other 9/10ths? Yes or no?

He says No way-no how.

[stateofgrace]

He says No way-no how.

Well message boy give him my three word reply.

Welcome to ignore.

Goodbye to you too Bill, You have demonstrated your inability to think for yourself and be rational, I wish you and your hero a long and blissfully ignorant career together.

[bill smith]

Well message boy give him my three word reply.

Welcome to ignore.

Goodbye to you too Bill, sad utterly sad.

I bet that you will ignore Heiwa.I will watch to see if you make a mistake that shows he is not on your ignore list. (not that you will see this post of course)

[Newtons Bit]

Bill - They don't typically use rebar to reinforce concrete floors in commercial office buildings.

Yup, we use welded wire fabric these days. It's usually something like 9 gauge wires in a 16"x16" or so grid. You typically don't want to use rebar @ 12" o.c. as the construction workers are forever stepping on them and knocking them off their stands.

[tfk]

Yup, we use welded wire fabric these days. It's usually something like 9 gauge wires in a 16"x16" or so grid. You typically don't want to use rebar @ 12" o.c. as the construction workers are forever stepping on them and knocking them off their stands.

Do you know what they used in the towers? I remember seeing some images of the floor pours, in which there was some sort of reinforcement.

[bill smith]

Yup, we use welded wire fabric these days. It's usually something like 9 gauge wires in a 16"x16" or so grid. You typically don't want to use rebar @ 12" o.c. as the construction workers are forever stepping on them and knocking them off their stands.

Would they not need to use something stiffer than wire for such large spans that will be suspended. Otherwise he forces on the supporting trusses would be a lot higher surely ?

[Justin39640]

Do you know what they used in the towers? I remember seeing some images of the floor pours, in which there was some sort of reinforcement.

it was rebar tied together in grids
theres video of workers installing it

[Newtons Bit]

Would they not need to use something stiffer than wire for such large spans that will be suspended. Otherwise he forces on the supporting trusses would be a lot higher surely ?

Err, WHAT?!? :confused:

The spans are TINY. I regularly use 3" composite deck that spans ten feet. The deck in the WTC spanned what, 3'-0"?

The deck bears on the trusses, it is not suspended from the trusses.

The reaction from the deck to the truss is the same regardless of rebar as the deck itself carries the entire weight of the concrete. And even if it was suspended, the rebar wouldn't change how the load is delivered to the trusses.

Do you ever get anything right?

[Regnad Kcin]

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?A few obvious possibilities come to mind:

1) ego

2) rage against the machine, man!

3) armchair anarchy

4) puerile amusement at playing a tune and watching others dance

There are those who choose to contribute to society*, which takes some real, long-term effort, and those who by their lazy, immature nature can't be bothered**, and loll around complaining, whining, and finding fault, which of course requires no work at all.



*For instance, workers who labor for days on end to erect a skyscraper.
**For instance, those who choose to destroy the work of others with little more than a token effort.

[BigAl]

Would they not need to use something stiffer than wire for such large spans that will be suspended. Otherwise he forces on the supporting trusses would be a lot higher surely ?

Bill, Bill, Bill. You are a font of false conjecture.

It wasn't "large spans". The congregated steel was structurally supported every few feet. Someone else probably knows real dimensions, but I guess every 4 ft. The congregated steel is very stiff and strong.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wtc_floor_truss_system.png

The wire isn't load-bearing. It's there to keep any cracks in the slab from propagating.

[Newtons Bit]

The wire isn't load-bearing. It's there to keep any cracks in the slab from propagating.

This isn't exactly common knowledge, but putting rebar into a 4" slab will actually CAUSE small cracks. The rebar is there to hold the concrete together once cracks are spread throughout the whole system.

[A W Smith]

it was rebar tied together in grids
theres video of workers installing it


I will have to review the film "the building of the world trade towers"
what they could have been tying together is pencil rod. Most WWF that iv'e seen is six by six. In both mats and rolls (and damn them full rolls are heavy)


(off topic)

funny story. Ive mostly bought half rolls of WWF for jobs that Ive done. they are pretty much manageable as one guy can pick them up. One day I told my ex business partner to meet me at the job site but to stop at a masonry supply yard and pick up a roll of wire fabric. Now Steve is a big guy. 6-3 240 from the UK originally a bodybuilder as a hobby (the ladies love his Birmingham accent) so he calls me up from the yard telling me hes having difficulty loading the welded wire fabric. "Its so bloody heavy its untrue!?" he would say . I'm thinking to myself WTF? Steve what the hells wrong with you? I can carry a roll by myself no problem! Well he manages to get to the job and I see this giant roll of wwf on his truck. Took both of us to get it over to the slab. Didn't even occur to me that I had been buying half rolls all these years.

[Newtons Bit]

I will have to review the film "the building of the world trade towers"
what they could have been tying together is pencil rod. Most WWF that iv'e seen is six by six. In both mats and rolls (and damn them full rolls are heavy)


(off topic)

funny story. Ive mostly bought half rolls of WWF for jobs that Ive done. they are pretty much manageable as one guy can pick them up. One day I told my ex business partner to meet me at the job site but to stop at a masonry supply yard and pick up a roll of wire fabric. Now Steve is a big guy. 6-3 240 from the UK originally a bodybuilder as a hobby (the ladies love his Birmingham accent) so he calls me up from the yard telling me hes having difficulty loading the welded wire fabric. "Its so bloody heavy its untrue!?" he would say . I'm thinking to myself WTF? Steve what the hells wrong with you? I can carry a roll by myself no problem! Well he manages to get to the job and I see this giant roll of wwf on his truck. Took both of us to get it over to the slab. Didn't even occur to me that I had been buying half rolls all these years.

As I recall, the floor slab did have #4 bars at 12" o.c. I'm not even sure if welded wire fabric existed back in the '60's. But I digress, I got everyone off topic by saying that, "Yup, we use welded wire fabric these days." Not trying to imply that they used WWF back then, but that it's a good solution used today.

[bill smith]

Err, WHAT?!? :confused:

The spans are TINY. I regularly use 3" composite deck that spans ten feet. The deck in the WTC spanned what, 3'-0"?

The deck bears on the trusses, it is not suspended from the trusses.

The reaction from the deck to the truss is the same regardless of rebar as the deck itself carries the entire weight of the concrete. And even if it was suspended, the rebar wouldn't change how the load is delivered to the trusses.

Do you ever get anything right?

A truss every few feet ? These Towers just keep getting stronger. I only thouht the floors might need the nebar to reduce flexibility in the concrete plates and stop cracking. What WAS he entire weight of concrete on each floor ? I have heard 1150 tons and I have heard 650 tons.

PS it sounds like it was rebar from the other posts. Any idea where it went ? The whole 110 acres ?

[tfk]

As I recall, the floor slab did have #4 bars at 12" o.c. I'm not even sure if welded wire fabric existed back in the '60's. But I digress, I got everyone off topic by saying that, "Yup, we use welded wire fabric these days." Not trying to imply that they used WWF back then, but that it's a good solution used today.


But, out of these comments comes info. Such as your comment above about cracking in reinforced concrete.

Which, I would expect, means that the energy for gross "comminuation" is quite a variable. Which impacts a bunch of those energy estimates. It means you have to look at the raw data to see under what conditions they came up with their numbers. (I would confidently wager a 6-pack that no controlled test set their samples aside for 40 years...)

BTW, you didn't really get anyone off topic, Newt. The topic is supposed to be "Heiwa's Challenge". But since he won't answer any questions, there's no conversation there.

tom

[Newtons Bit]

A truss every feet ? These Towers just keep getting stronger. I only thouht the flors might need the nebar to reduce flexibility in the concrete plates and stop cracking. What WAS he entire weight of concrete on each floor ? I have heard 1150 tons and I have heard 650 tons.

PS it sounds like it was rebar from the other posts. Any idea where it went ? The whole 110 acres ?

You feel no embarrassment from getting everything wrong, do you?

[A W Smith]

Good grief B S. We went through all the trouble to explain the floor detail and you are still totally lost. Have you no shame?

[Newtons Bit]

But, out of these comments comes info. Such as your comment above about cracking in reinforced concrete.

Which, I would expect, means that the energy for gross "comminuation" is quite a variable. Which impacts a bunch of those energy estimates. It means you have to look at the raw data to see under what conditions they came up with their numbers. (I would confidently wager a 6-pack that no controlled test set their samples aside for 40 years...)

BTW, you didn't really get anyone off topic, Newt. The topic is supposed to be "Heiwa's Challenge". But since he won't answer any questions, there's no conversation there.

tom

Why would you even need to know what the total energy lost in destruction of the concrete is? Are you referring to the long since debunked Ross model?

[tfk]

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

Nah Minadin. Mine was actually kind of mediocre. Ryan, Dave Rogers, and others did a far better job in that thread you pointed to.


tom

[Grizzly Bear]

Nah Minadin. Mine was actually kind of mediocre. Ryan, Dave Rogers, and others did a far better job in that thread you pointed to.


tom

I think the point remains the same though. I've addressed the same point to Heiwa before and he counters that he's aware of how the design works as a system. Some of the professionals who subscribe to the CD fantasy hold that position, but analyze the collapse totally opposite of that understanding as well.

[Gamolon]

PS it sounds like it was rebar from the other posts. Any idea where it went ? The whole 110 acres ?

110 acres? Are you sure about that?

[FineWine]

So how would you say it collapsed ?


I am going to ask you a simple question. I have asked it maybe six or seven times, and you've run from it each time.

Floors C1-13 collapse and fall on A97. Does it matter if the contents of C1, the bottom of the collapsing mass, are light or heavy?

Let's assume that C1 contains lightweight lawn furniture and C2 contains metal printers' plates weighting over a ton each. If you were sitting at your desk on A97, should you

a) say your prayers: you're as good as dead;

b) keep talking on the phone--Heiwa thinks you're perfectly safe;

c) be glad that C1 is the one with the lawn furniture.

One of these answers is correct.

[bill smith]

You feel no embarrassment from getting everything wrong, do you?

Well I don't get eveything wrong but when I do I'm not in the least ashamed about it, no. I try to learn from the mistake. Do you get embarassed when you make a mistake ?

[bill smith]

I am going to ask you a simple question. I have asked it maybe six or seven times, and you've run from it each time.

Floors C1-13 collapse and fall on A97. Does it matter if the contents of C1, the bottom of the collapsing mass, are light or heavy?

Let's assume that C1 contains lightweight lawn furniture and C2 contains metal printers' plates weighting over a ton each. If you were sitting at your desk on A97, should you

a) say your prayers: you're as good as dead;

b) keep talking on the phone--Heiwa thinks you're perfectly safe;

c) be glad that C1 is the one with the lawn furniture.

One of these answers is correct.

I really coudn't say. That would be for Ryan Mackey or Newton here to answer. They perhaps fall in the category of OCT engineers.

[bill smith]

110 acres? Are you sure about that?

Assuming 110 one-acre floors-if they wre all reinforced uniformly then Yes- 110 acres.

[Regnad Kcin]

Well I don't get eveything wrong but when I do I'm not in the least ashamed about it, no. I try to learn from the mistake.What do you propose is the specific cause and/or method used for the destruction of the Twin Towers?

[bill smith]

What do you propose is the specific cause and/or method used for the destruction of the Twin Towers?

Now that would be a long post. I don't want to cause your hair to go white prematurely so maybe it's better if I keep my powder dry for now.

[stateofgrace]

I am going to ask you a simple question. I have asked it maybe six or seven times, and you've run from it each time.

Floors C1-13 collapse and fall on A97. Does it matter if the contents of C1, the bottom of the collapsing mass, are light or heavy?

Let's assume that C1 contains lightweight lawn furniture and C2 contains metal printers' plates weighting over a ton each. If you were sitting at your desk on A97, should you

a) say your prayers: you're as good as dead;

b) keep talking on the phone--Heiwa thinks you're perfectly safe;

c) be glad that C1 is the one with the lawn furniture.

One of these answers is correct.


I have found the Bill and Heiwa explanation as to what happens when massive weights fall on things.

NLq3Pr0a_y0

Happens everytime.;)

[bill smith]

I have found the Bill and Heiwa explanation as to what happens when massive weights fall on things.

NLq3Pr0a_y0

Happens everytime.;)

I find hat very cheesey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT5kI3zJFmA

[Regnad Kcin]

Now that would be a long post. I don't want to cause your hair to go white prematurely so maybe it's better if I keep my powder dry for now.Doesn't have to be long at all. But I suppose the thread would wander off-topic, not that there really is one, so nevermind.

But just so you are aware, any suggestion that 9/11 was in any way the result of some sort of "inside job" is 100% impossible. You know at least that much, correct?

[Gamolon]

Assuming 110 one-acre floors-if they wre all reinforced uniformly then Yes- 110 acres.

Did you take out the core area for each floor?

[Heiwa]

Now that would be a long post. I don't want to cause your hair to go white prematurely so maybe it's better if I keep my powder dry for now.

Yes, better keep this thread to topic The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure where part C one-way crushes part A ... by gravity after dropping C on A, etc. No powder of any kind is permitted - only structural elements + connections.

[Jackanory]

Yes, better keep this thread to topic The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure where part C one-way crushes part A ... by gravity after dropping C on A, etc. No powder of any kind is permitted - only structural elements + connections.

For realistic effect, can we add C4, PE4 or thermite? You know - to see if it reacts like a CD?

[Heiwa]

I am going to ask you a simple question. I have asked it maybe six or seven times, and you've run from it each time.

Floors C1-13 collapse and fall on A97. Does it matter if the contents of C1, the bottom of the collapsing mass, are light or heavy?

Let's assume that C1 contains lightweight lawn furniture and C2 contains metal printers' plates weighting over a ton each. If you were sitting at your desk on A97, should you

a) say your prayers: you're as good as dead;

b) keep talking on the phone--Heiwa thinks you're perfectly safe;

c) be glad that C1 is the one with the lawn furniture.

One of these answers is correct.

Loose parts inside a structure of The Heiwa Challenge are generally not accepted, but if you feel they are necessary, pls put them in. Do you intend to fill upper part C with enriched uranium?

Simpler is to make the horizontal elements heavier (everywhere - part C shall be similar to part A) and reinforce the vertical supports and the connections accordingly. And then drop C on A and see if there is a one-way crush down of A. Please report result!

[bill smith]

Did you take out the core area for each floor?

No. So it would be a bit less I suppose.

[FineWine]

Loose parts inside a structure of The Heiwa Challenge are generally not accepted, but if you feel they are necessary, pls put them in. Do you intend to fill upper part C with enriched uranium?

Simpler is to make the horizontal elements heavier (everywhere - part C shall be similar to part A) and reinforce the vertical supports and the connections accordingly. And then drop C on A and see if there is a one-way crush down of A. Please report result!


Stop the gibberish. I am talking about a building--a specific building--collapsing. The top thirteen floors are falling on the floor directly under them.

Now, when floors C1-13 hit A97, does it matter if the contents of C1 are heavier than the contents of C2? I keep asking you and your parrot, but he runs away and you babble incoherently. Give me a straight answer.

Here's a related question: Do all thirteen collapsing floors hit A97, or does only C1 impact on it? You have implied in the past that C1 kisses A97 gently, while C2-13 float in midair. Clarify this matter for us.

[bill smith]

But if you acknowledge that my question has you utterly baffled, how do you presume to argue with engineers for whom it is childishly simple? Heiwa, who somehow received a degree in engineering, is hopelessly befuddled by it.

Try a thought experiment. What do you think happens when C1-13 fall on top of A97?

I have no time right now but was it the chairs on C1 and the big printer on C2 or was it the other way around ?

[FineWine]

I have no time right now but was it the chairs on C1 and the big printer on C2 or was it the other way around ?


Stupidity and snideness make an unattractive combination. You really have no sense of how ridiculous you appear.

A simple question causes you to short-circuit, and you can't draw any conclusions from your failure. The question is very easy if you're not a fool.

[Tony Szamboti]

Bill - They don't typically use rebar to reinforce concrete floors in commercial office buildings.

All of the floors in the twin towers had reinforcement in the concrete. The floors between the core and perimeter used two layers of .230" diameter 70,000 to 90,000 psi welded wire fabric with a mesh pattern of 4" x 10". This is in the NIST Report with all of the attendant properties. You can even see photos of the reinforcement done for the floor truss tests.

[UNLoVedRebel]

This is what The Heiwa Challenge is all about! Nothing wrong with it. It is a challenge. Just present a structure that collapses due to gravity by dropping part C on part A.

Pls note that part C must have same structure as part A and was previously carried by part A. Every OCTist I know has failed the challenge. I wonder why? Fundamentalist religious beliefs? Personal relations? Group thinking?

p22OkclAU3o&feature=channel_page

PM me for my bank account number. I expect it deposited by Monday.

[Heiwa]

I am talking about a building--a specific building--collapsing. The top thirteen floors are falling on the floor directly under them.

1. Now, when floors C1-13 hit A97, does it matter if the contents of C1 are heavier than the contents of C2? I keep asking you and your parrot, but he runs away and you babble incoherently. Give me a straight answer.

2. Here's a related question: Do all thirteen collapsing floors hit A97, or does only C1 impact on it? You have implied in the past that C1 kisses A97 gently, while C2-13 float in midair. Clarify this matter for us.

1. Loose contents of C1 will drop together with the elements of C1 they are located on. When the element of C1 contacts something, e.g. an element in A97, loose contents will evidently contact elements in C1. Maybe the loose elements will be damaged?

2. Only elements of C1 contacts elements of A97. That's the key of The Heiwa Challenge! Other elements in C are affected by forces produced by the contacts of remote elements, e.g. they are broken? You see, you cannot regard part C as one rigid mass of uniform density as certain 'expert's do.

How are you getting on with your Heiwa Challenge structure?

[Heiwa]

p22OkclAU3o&feature=channel_page

PM me for my bank account number. I expect it deposited by Monday.

Brick Apartment blows up? I cannot see any part C dropping on a part A producing a one-way crush down. It seems they remove the bottom supports of the structure and the structure collapses from bottom/up.

Pls read the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge in post #1.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Brick Apartment blows up? I cannot see any part C dropping on a part A producing a one-way crush down. It seems they remove the bottom supports of the structure and the structure collapses from bottom/up.

Pls read the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge in post #1.

Hey genius. "They" didn't remove anything, as you the video indisputeably shows. The fire was on top as the video indisputeable shows.

Part C one-way crushed down part A!

PM me so we can take care of the money issues.

[releaseeabode]

Hey genius. "They" didn't remove anything, as you the video indisputeably shows. The fire was on top as the video indisputeable shows.

Part C one-way crushed down part A!

PM me so we can take care of the money issues.

You shouldn't qualify for the money for two reasons...

1. The collapse is nowhere near to satisfying the criteria as laid down by Heiwa.

2. If you don't understand the very simple criteria then how could you be trusted with that amount of money?

[UNLoVedRebel]

You shouldn't qualify for the money for two reasons...

1. The collapse is nowhere near to satisfying the criteria as laid down by Heiwa.

2. If you don't understand the very simple criteria then how could you be trusted with that amount of money?

You're an idiot for three reasons...

1. You're defending Heiwa

2. You're defending Heiwa.

3. You think a question is a reason.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Thanks for reporting my post!

[releaseeabode]

Thanks for reporting my post!

You're welcome but, your defence of your nomination for the Heiwa Challenge crumbled into nothing pretty quickly didn't it. Amazing you never sustained that and resorted to being personal at the slightest provocation.

[UNLoVedRebel]

You're welcome but, your defence of your nomination for the Heiwa Challenge crumbled into nothing pretty quickly didn't it. Amazing you never sustained that and resorted to being personal at the slightest provocation.

2. If you don't understand the very simple criteria then how could you be trusted with that amount of money?
Hypocrite much.
You're welcome but, your defence of your nomination for the Heiwa Challenge crumbled into nothing pretty quickly didn't it.
There is no need to defend my nomination. You did not even try to explain why it did not satisfy Heiwa requirements.

[releaseeabode]

Hypocrite much.

If I was the one making a ridiculous claim with that collapse video I'd accept your accusation wholeheartedly. As it stands I don't think you have anything to complain about.

Have a nice life.

[UNLoVedRebel]

If I was the one making a ridiculous claim with that collapse video I'd accept your accusation wholeheartedly. As it stands I don't think you have anything to complain about.

Have a nice life.
Try to make your fourth post worth reading. So far you're 0 for 3.

[releaseeabode]

This is what The Heiwa Challenge is all about! Nothing wrong with it. It is a challenge. Just present a structure that collapses due to gravity by dropping part C on part A.

Pls note that part C must have same structure as part A and was previously carried by part A. Every OCTist I know has failed the challenge. I wonder why? Fundamentalist religious beliefs? Personal relations? Group thinking?

A little of each of those comes into play but, ultimately no one will beat your challenge because the simplifications you made make the result inevitable.

The most interesting thing to learn from this challenge is how much twisting and contorting of your model people are prepared to resort to in order to make it fit with belief.

[Newtons Bit]

All of the floors in the twin towers had reinforcement in the concrete. The floors between the core and perimeter used two layers of .230" diameter 70,000 to 90,000 psi welded wire fabric with a mesh pattern of 4" x 10". This is in the NIST Report with all of the attendant properties. You can even see photos of the reinforcement done for the floor truss tests.

Could you site that for me, please? It's not a conspiracy theory related item, I'm just interested in the history.

[Newtons Bit]

A little of each of those comes into play but, ultimately no one will beat your challenge because the simplifications you made make the result inevitable.

The most interesting thing to learn from this challenge is how much twisting and contorting of your model people are prepared to resort to in order to make it fit with belief.

Which model of his are you referring to? The pizza boxes?

[dtugg]

I prefer the sponge model myself. Drop a sponge on a stack of ten sponges. The stack of sponges isn't destroyed! Therefore, 9/11 was an inside jobby job!

[bill smith]

All of the floors in the twin towers had reinforcement in the concrete. The floors between the core and perimeter used two layers of .230" diameter 70,000 to 90,000 psi welded wire fabric with a mesh pattern of 4" x 10". This is in the NIST Report with all of the attendant properties. You can even see photos of the reinforcement done for the floor truss tests.

Considering that most of the concrete was pulverised as proven by the fact that we see very little in the rubble should we not see much more mats or grids of the wire reinforcing and also much more floor pans scattered around and sticking out of te rubble piles ? Between them here must have been 200 acres if laid out flat. I know a lot of it would have been crushed up and so on but both these materials (corrugated steel and mats of wire mesh) are notoriously indestructible in this kind of gravity collapse and with so much of it...?.

[UNLoVedRebel]

A little of each of those comes into play but, ultimately no one will beat your challenge because the simplifications you made make the result inevitable.

The most interesting thing to learn from this challenge is how much twisting and contorting of your model people are prepared to resort to in order to make it fit with belief.

You are defending a man who compared the World Trade Center towers to cheese.

[Redtail]

Considering that most of the concrete was pulverised as proven by the fact that we see very little in the rubble should we not see much more mats or grids of the wire reinforcing and also much more floor pans scattered around and sticking out of te rubble piles ? Between them here must have been 200 acres if laid out flat. I know a lot of it would have been crushed up and so on but both these materials (corrugated steel and mats of wire mesh) are notoriously indestructible in this kind of gravity collapse and with so much of it...?.

When did you see how much was in the rubble?

[bill smith]

When did you see how much was in the rubble?

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

[Gamolon]

No. So it would be a bit less I suppose.

Uh no. Not a "bit" less. More like about 24 acres less (1045440 square feet). You were wrong by about 22%.

Is that how you do all your calculations?

[BigAl]

Considering that most of the concrete was pulverised as proven by the fact that we see very little in the rubble should we not see much more mats or grids of the wire reinforcing and also much more floor pans scattered around and sticking out of te rubble piles ? Between them here must have been 200 acres if laid out flat. I know a lot of it would have been crushed up and so on but both these materials (corrugated steel and mats of wire mesh) are notoriously indestructible in this kind of gravity collapse and with so much of it...?.

This is deja-vu all over again. Bill flogged this stupidity a month or two ago.

[bill smith]

Uh no. Not a "bit" less. More like about 24 acres less (1045440 square feet). You were wrong by about 22%.

Is that how you do all your calculations?
I can go with a ballpark figure of 80 acres without a problem. So how much steel mesh and floorpans is that ? Well about enough to cover 100 American football fields. So where is it all gone ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

[Gamolon]

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

You would be able to see wire mesh in that photo? Wow. I can hardly make out people in that photo and you think you would be able to make out wire mesh? Is there a zoom feature I'm missing?

You must think that the tower collapse is similar to the card trick where a magician takes a card, puts it back in the deck, and then makes it appear on the top of the deck.

Can you explain how 110 acres (I mean 86 acres :rolleyes:)... 86 acres of wire mesh used in the concrete floors of the towers magicially appeared on the TOP of the rubble pile for all to see?

[tsig]

I can go with a ballpark figure of 80 acres without a problem. So how much steel mesh and floorpans is that ? Well about enough to cover 100 American football fields. So where is it all gone ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

Where has all the concrete gone

long time passing

Where has all the concrete gone

long time ago.

(Where have all the flowers gone)

http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/flowers-gone.shtml

[bill smith]

You would be able to see wire mesh in that photo? Wow. I can hardly make out people in that photo and you think you would be able to make out wire mesh? Is there a zoom feature I'm missing?

You must think that the tower collapse is similar to the card trick where a magician takes a card, puts it back in the deck, and then makes it appear on the top of the deck.

Can you explain how 110 acres (I mean 86 acres :rolleyes:)... 86 acres of wire mesh used in the concrete floors of the towers magicially appeared on the TOP of the rubble pile for all to see?

Well find yur own photo. Remember-at least 100 full size American football fields worth so we will not be satisfied with one or two square meters.

[BigAl]

I can go with a ballpark figure of 80 acres without a problem. So how much steel mesh and floorpans is that ? Well about enough to cover 100 American football fields. So where is it all gone ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

Any idiot can find a picture that doesn't show something.

[Gamolon]

I can go with a ballpark figure of 80 acres without a problem. So how much steel mesh and floorpans is that ? Well about enough to cover 100 American football fields. So where is it all gone ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acre
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

First you need to explain how "100 American football fields" worth of steel mesh and floorpans magically would come to rest on the TOP of the debris pile for you to see.

Why don't we see all 99 elevators right on top of the debris pile? By your logic, that's what we should see right?

[bill smith]

First you need to explain how "100 American football fields" worth of steel mesh and floorpans magically would come to rest on the TOP of the debris pile for you to see.

Why don't we see all 99 elevators right on top of the debris pile? By your logic, that's what we should see right?

I'll accept 5 football fields worth.

[Gamolon]

Well find yur own photo. Remember-at least 100 full size American football fields worth so we will not be satisfied with one or two square meters.

Of course. I would expect that kind of response after posting such a stupid photo. You posted a photo as evidence of there NOT being 100 American football fields worth of mesh and pans. Problem is, you wouldn't be able to see it if there was some. See the point?

Nice try though.

[Tony Szamboti]

Could you site that for me, please? It's not a conspiracy theory related item, I'm just interested in the history.

I went to the NIST site right after posting to come back and site which chapter it is in and it appears that the NIST server with the WTC reports on it is down for maintenance this weekend. I don't remember the exact chapter(s) and I don't have the reports downloaded right now.

If you have the reports downloaded then you should be able to find it quickly. Part of it would be under design and construction and the photos, showing the reinforcement, would be where the floor assembly fire testing is described.

[bill smith]

Of course. I would expect that kind of response after posting such a stupid photo. You posted a photo as evidence of there NOT being 100 American football fields worth of mesh and pans. Problem is, you wouldn't be able to see it if there was some. See the point?

Nice try though.

Well if you think that does not sound like a very hollow empty answer good for you. I'm sure nobody noticed.

[Tony Szamboti]

Considering that most of the concrete was pulverised as proven by the fact that we see very little in the rubble should we not see much more mats or grids of the wire reinforcing and also much more floor pans scattered around and sticking out of te rubble piles ? Between them here must have been 200 acres if laid out flat. I know a lot of it would have been crushed up and so on but both these materials (corrugated steel and mats of wire mesh) are notoriously indestructible in this kind of gravity collapse and with so much of it...?.

It is kind of odd that we don't see much of this reinforcement in the rubble. The rods were .230" diameter and there were two layers per floor so the use of the term welded wire fabric doesn't provide a real good picture if one doesn't fully appreciate what it is being discussed.

[Gamolon]

I'll accept 5 football fields worth.
But this was a controlled demolition that came straight down into it's own footprint.

You are asking me to produce 7 floors worth of mesh and pans that magically came to the TOP of the debris pile.

Are you understanding yet?

Please explain how even 7 floors of mesh and pans would have magically come to rest on the TOP of the debris pile for all to see.

I want to see this explanation.

[Gamolon]

Well if you think that does not sound like a very hollow empty answer good for you. I'm sure nobody noticed.

You mean as hollow as your photo which was supposed to show the lack of steel mesh and floorpans when you wouldn't even be able to see it anyways?

:rolleyes:

[bill smith]

It is kind of odd that we don't see much of this reinforcement in the rubble. The rods were .230" diameter and there were two layers per floor so the use of the term welded wire fabric doesn't provide a real good picture if one doesn't fully appreciate what it is being discussed.
Is it only 'odd' though or is it VERY odd ?

[BigAl]

I'll accept 5 football fields worth.


.230 inch diameter wire is going to less than one pixel wide and invisible in any photo that isn't a close-up.

Do you have X-Ray eyes? It's buried.

[bill smith]

You mean as hollow as your photo which was supposed to show the lack of steel mesh and floorpans when you wouldn't even be able to see it anyways?

:rolleyes:

Like I said...you are free to find your own photos in the thousands that are out there.

[Gamolon]

It is kind of odd that we don't see much of this reinforcement in the rubble. The rods were .230" diameter and there were two layers per floor so the use of the term welded wire fabric doesn't provide a real good picture if one doesn't fully appreciate what it is being discussed.

Right, a little less than the diameter of a pen.

[Macgyver1968]

What? Is Bill claiming some of the rubble pile is missing?

[bill smith]

When I said 80 acres I was only talking about a single layer of steel mesh being enough to cover 100 merican football fields.Now that we know there were TWO layers the 100 becomes 200. And if we add the floorpans we get 300.

So where are the 300 American football field's worth of steel mesh and floorpans ?

[Gamolon]

Like I said...you are free to find your own photos in the thousands that are out there.

Still waiting for you to explain how 7 floors worth of mesh and pans was supposed to magically appear on TOP of the debris pile.

If you can explain to me how this wonderous event occured and why I should expaect to find what you claim in photos, I'll be happy to try and find what you ask.

[BigAl]

When I said 80 acres I was only talking about a single layer of steel mesh being enough to cover 100 merican football fields.Now that we know there were TWO layers the 100 becomes 200. And if we add the floorpans we get 300.

So where are the 300 American football field's worth of steel mesh and floorpans ?

It's buried under the pile, Bill.

[Gamolon]

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

Tell you what. Tony posted that the mesh was composed of .23" diameter steel.

Look at your photo above and find me some computer network cabling.

[Justin39640]

Tell you what. Tony posted that the mesh was composed of .23" diameter steel.

Look at your photo above and find me some computer network cabling.

here is a better pic
i honestly think ole bill never looked at these closeup shots of the pile
there is just tons of stuff

truthers like to think it was all concrete and steel
they dont even consider all the siding used (wtc sometimes was referenced as the "worlds largest aluminum siding job")

just sick really

http://www.911truth.dk/first/img/groundZeroJB1large.jpg

ETA: i read too that all the rebar was a problem at ground zero
trucks would run it over and it would snap back (like a tree branch) making it very dangerous

[Gamolon]

Like I said...you are free to find your own photos in the thousands that are out there.

Like this one?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/floorpan.jpg

Why don't you post the photos you are looking at so we can see exaclty what makes you think that there is no mesh or floorplans present.

[bill smith]

Tell you what. Tony posted that the mesh was composed of .23" diameter steel.

Look at your photo above and find me some computer network cabling.
hat's another god point. There must hae been thousands of miles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

[BigAl]

hat's another god point. There must hae been thousands of mles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

It's buried under the pile, Bill.

What is on the surface is invisible in any wide-angle shot of the pile.

[bill smith]

Like this one?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/floorpan.jpg

Why don't you post the photos you are looking at so we can see exaclty what makes you think that there is no mesh or floorplans present.

There is no need for me to look. I aleady know it's not there having looked for it before. If you dispute what I say then come up eith the pictures or accept what I say.

[Justin39640]

hat's another god point. There must hae been thousands of mles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

they found a lot of stuff bill
look at the closeups

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg

[Justin39640]

There is no need for me to look. I aleady know it's not there having looked for it before. If you dispute what I say then come up eith the pictures or accept what I say.

bill dont look at anything
like many truthers hes been caught blindly copy and pasting from truther sites
even though what he pastes debunks himself
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4782976&postcount=3628
admitted never watched the movie that the article is about
so why post about it if you dont know anything about it?

"CAUSE ITS THE TROOOF"

[bill smith]

they found a lot of stuff bill
look at the closeups

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg

Well I should hope so Justin. 500,000 ton buildings DO usually leve some trace of themselves when they fall. Unfortunately there is none of what we are looking for in that rubbble.

[BigAl]

hat's another god point. There must hae been thousands of mles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

Cherrypick quotes much?

That quote if from a fireman and published in Report From Ground Zero. If you read the entire book, you'd realize how stupid the conclusion you draw from a 6 words out of 400 pages of eyewitness accounts from WTC on 9/11 is.

Close-up pictures (and, in my case, conversations with people that worked on the pile) show that it is hyperbole and metaphor and is taken literally only by the ignorant.

How did explosives that nobody heard grind up the office contents any better than 100,000 tons of steel beams falling 1,000 ft did? The idea that explosives made the pile what it was is dumb dumb dumb.

Not one of the estimated 7,000 people that worked on the pile think that anything but fire and gravity caused the collapse.

[Macgyver1968]

Well I should hope so Justin. 500,000 ton buildings DO usually leve some trace of themselves when they fall. Unfortunately there is none of what we are looking for in that rubbble.

If it's missing...where did it go? What are you proposing happened to it? (real questions, please answer..you have me confused)

[BigAl]

Well I should hope so Justin. 500,000 ton buildings DO usually leve some trace of themselves when they fall. Unfortunately there is none of what we are looking for in that rubbble.

The wire is buried under the pile, Bill.

[Alt+F4]

There must hae been thousands of miles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

Some of the items that were recovered:


4,257 pieces of human remains
54,000 personal effects—95% belonging to survivors, including 610 pieces of jewelry
$76,318.47 found loose in the fields
6 kilograms of narcotics
4,000 photos—found and delivered to Kodak Laboratories and NFL Films to be decontaminated and restored
1,358 destroyed vehicles processed: 102 pieces of fire apparatus, 61 police department vehicles, and 1,195 personal automobiles
Hundreds of airplane fragments
Several pieces of Auguste Rodin sculptures from the offices of the investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald
Thousands of rounds of unexploded ammunition
Linky:
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/notes.html

[Justin39640]

Well I should hope so Justin. 500,000 ton buildings DO usually leve some trace of themselves when they fall. Unfortunately there is none of what we are looking for in that rubbble.

bill there is wire and rebar in that pic
OPEN YOUR EYES

[Gamolon]

hat's another god point. There must hae been thousands of miles of varous kinds of cabling in the building which also seems to be kind of rare in the rubble. You would expect there to be loads of it. Very little else was left of the computers, desks, filng cabinets.. phones...you name it. This is all kind of surprising for a gravity collapse.

Really?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/wtcdebris.jpg

[bill smith]

If it's missing...where did it go? What are you proposing happened to it? (real questions, please answer..you have me confused)

I'm going to jump to the general discussion thread with this. I am imposing on Heiwa'a hospitality here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4786291&posted=1#post4786291

[Gamolon]

There is no need for me to look. I aleady know it's not there having looked for it before. If you dispute what I say then come up eith the pictures or accept what I say.

Typical.

:D

[Macgyver1968]

I'm going to jump to the general discussion thread with this. I am imposing on Heiwa'a hospitality here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4786291&posted=1#post4786291

Thank you, I will repost the question there.

[Gamolon]

I'm going to jump to the general discussion thread with this. I am imposing on Heiwa'a hospitality here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4786291&posted=1#post4786291

Oh boy. Bill gets trapped into a corner and then runs.

Typical truther I must say.

[Justin39640]

Oh boy. Bill gets trapped into a corner and then runs.

Typical truther I must say.

bill has ended up running away several times in the last few days

[tsig]

bill has ended up running away several times in the last few days

It's the Bill of the gaps theory.

[Heiwa]

Please, gentlefolks, do not worry about the area of your structure - one or 100 acres. Keep it 1-D = area is 0! And start with some simple physical crush model!

For example!

Upper part C consists of 10 material points with mass m at various locations x linked by springs. It is floating. Evidently part C is not one rigid point with one mass. Such a point will destroy anything it touches.

Lower part A consists of 90 material points with mass m at various locations x linked by springs. It is fixed at one end (ground).

Before test assembly C is put on A and the springs are adjusted to elastically compress equally, i.e. the bottom springs of A are stronger than the top springs of C. The elastic strain energy absorbed by the springs in this static test is then known. Let’s say it is 30% of the maximum elastic strain energy that the springs can absorb. The model is 1-D! Material point masses held apart by forces!

At test C is dropped on A, i.e. C’s bottom material point contacts the top material point of A!

The total potential energy of A and C relative, e.g. ground is known before the test/drop. C is a floating in the air, A is connected to ground.

What happens when C’s bottom material point contacts the top material point of A?

We know the energy applied at contact!

That energy is absorbed by the springs of C and A, and all 100 material points will displace from their locations x at contact, i.e. the springs compress … and decompress with time. Ground is assumed to be rigid, i.e. it does not deform and can absorb infinite forces.

The dynamic forces in the A and C springs at and after contact vary everywhere with time. But it is easy to show that the forces are maximum at contact C/A and in the vicinity of interface C/A.

If no spring breaks and you assume that the springs are visco-elastic, i.e. dampens the impact C/A the system will after a while come to rest. A arrested C! All energy applied has become heat in the springs. The springs have become a little warmer. Easy to calculate.

You can actually calculate the forces in every A/C spring over time, after C has contacted A.

Now we increase the energy applied, e.g. C is dropped from a higher distance above A. We want to see what spring breaks first … and what happens then.

Thus one spring in the system must first compress elastically to its maximum, then compress plastically and then fail, while the other springs only deform elastically or, maybe, some also deform plastically without failing.

Many things can happen! The bottom spring of A may break first. Or the top spring of A. Or the bottom spring of C. But hardly the top spring of C.

In The Heiwa Challenge structure you must ensure that it is the top spring of A that fails first (and not the bottom A or C springs). It is a tricky task, but it may be possible with some funny structure.

Then you must ensure that when part C drops again due to this failure of A top spring, that it is the next top spring of A that fails, etc, etc. That is a big problem = The Heiwa Challenge.

Step 1 is fairly easy to solve 1-D on paper with some Lagrangian sums of potential energy before drop, at contact, etc, and with some Euler-Lagrangian differential equations of motions until one spring fails.

Step 2 is more complex. A spring has broken (the top A spring!) and C - still oscillating but free to drop again - contacts an oscillating assembly A (with one spring less). Actually it is the top A material point mass that contacts the material A point below first with C following, so keep track of your material points.

If you, like Bazant and Seffen (and Mackey!), regard C as only ONE rigid material point, then there is no problem to show that this MAGIC point can one-way crush down, from top to bottom, part A and its 90 material points.

But in the real 1-D world C is not magic. C consists of 10 material points with springs in between.

Now, when you have solved Step 2 you must transform your knowledge to a 3-D Heiwa Challenge structure. That is step 3!

Please, keep it 1 m² cross area! Not one acre!

As my favourite material girl told me. Anders, you are a hard material point ... but I like your spring!

[FineWine]

1. Loose contents of C1 will drop together with the elements of C1 they are located on. When the element of C1 contacts something, e.g. an element in A97, loose contents will evidently contact elements in C1. Maybe the loose elements will be damaged?

2. Only elements of C1 contacts elements of A97. That's the key of The Heiwa Challenge! Other elements in C are affected by forces produced by the contacts of remote elements, e.g. they are broken? You see, you cannot regard part C as one rigid mass of uniform density as certain 'expert's do.

How are you getting on with your Heiwa Challenge structure?



Nobody capable of writing such nonsense is fit to be called an engineer. Thirteen floors have collapsed, and you are seriously claiming that only the bottom floor of the falling mass makes contact?!?! Where does the mass of floors C2-12 go when C1 hits A97? Does it float in midair? Does it weigh less because it has collapsed?

I am asking the basic questions that would occur to anyone who lacks a background in engineering. Newton's Bit, tfk, Myriad, RWGuinn have shown that they are well-qualified to provide clear explanations of what happened on 9/11. You, by contrast, become ever more hopelessly befuddled as you attempt to support your absurd garble of physics.

[FineWine]

A little of each of those comes into play but, ultimately no one will beat your challenge because the simplifications you made make the result inevitable.

The most interesting thing to learn from this challenge is how much twisting and contorting of your model people are prepared to resort to in order to make it fit with belief.


Why haven't you noticed that Heiwa's bogus "challenge" has nothing to do with the collapses of the towers?

[Heiwa]

Nobody capable of writing such nonsense is fit to be called an engineer. Thirteen floors have collapsed, and you are seriously claiming that only the bottom floor of the falling mass makes contact?!?! Where does the mass of floors C2-12 go when C1 hits A97? Does it float in midair? Does it weigh less because it has collapsed?

I am asking the basic questions that would occur to anyone who lacks a background in engineering. Newton's Bit, tfk, Myriad, RWGuinn have shown that they are well-qualified to provide clear explanations of what happened on 9/11. You, by contrast, become ever more hopelessly befuddled as you attempt to support your absurd garble of physics.

See my post #1366 above. Try to solve it 1-D before you suggest that thirteen floors have collapsed, etc. Use your spring, i.e. your head!

[FineWine]

See my post #1366 above. Try to solve it 1-D before you suggest that thirteen floors have collapsed, etc. Use your spring, i.e. your head!

Again I ask that you stop the idiocy. ALL the floors above the impact zone collapsed. ONE floor only does not hit the top floor below the collapse; ALL the collapsing floors hit A97.

Try this:

You are sitting in a chair on A97. Floors 98-110 have collapsed and are about to fall on top of your floor.
ARE YOU SAFE?
WOULD YOU BE SAFE ON A96?
HOW ABOUT A50?

WHAT ARRESTS THE COLLAPSE???

[Heiwa]

Again I ask that you stop the idiocy. ALL the floors above the impact zone collapsed. ONE floor only does not hit the top floor below the collapse; ALL the collapsing floors hit A97.

Try this:

You are sitting in a chair on A97. Floors 98-110 have collapsed and are about to fall on top of your floor.
ARE YOU SAFE?
WOULD YOU BE SAFE ON A96?
HOW ABOUT A50?

WHAT ARRESTS THE COLLAPSE???

YIHWYS!

So all upper part C floors C 98 ... C 110 collapsed - they were weak - and they all hit A97.

????

According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST and other experts upper part C is rigid. Doesn't collapse. Pls, clarify.

[Regnad Kcin]

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?Well, friends?

See, the problem is you've hitched your wagon to an idea ("inside job") that isn't even slightly, maybe, could-be-in-a-parallel-universe-where-Spock-has-a-goatee, possible. Not a little. Not a little little.

So...why?

[Regnad Kcin]

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?So, Bill Smith? I'm interested in hearing -- what's your agenda?

[Regnad Kcin]

...But just so you are aware, any suggestion that 9/11 was in any way the result of some sort of "inside job" is 100% impossible. You know at least that much, correct?Mr. Smith? You do know that much, yes?

[Regnad Kcin]

Heiwa:

Once again. Insofar as your "challenge" has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to either of the Twin Towers, what is your point? Why are you presenting this question here in the Conspiracy subforum rather than in Science?

These are simple questions.

[Tweeter]

I see why your post count is so high, Regnad Kcin,
YOU KEEP ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTIONS!

[AJM8125]

I see why your post count is so high, Regnad Kcin,
YOU KEEP ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTIONS!

Surprisingly enough, that also seems to explain your low IQ on 9/11.

[FineWine]

YIHWYS!

So all upper part C floors C 98 ... C 110 collapsed - they were weak - and they all hit A97.

????

According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST and other experts upper part C is rigid. Doesn't collapse. Pls, clarify.


How long do you expect to maintain this mad charade? The plane hits several floors simultaneously. There is considerable impact damage, and the resultant extensive fires, abetted by the loss of fireproofing, weaken the structural steel. Eventually, the perimeter columns bow inward, the floor trusses give way, and a global collapse ensues, which means that the floors above the impact floors are falling too. You keep raving about part C being "rigid." Nobody can figure out what that term means to you or its significance.

What can you possibly be suggesting when you claim, insanely, that only the bottom floor of the collapsing mass hits the top floor of the rest fo the building? What happens to the falling mass of C2-13? Do those floors float in midair?

[Tony Szamboti]

How long do you expect to maintain this mad charade? The plane hits several floors simultaneously. There is considerable impact damage, and the resultant extensive fires, abetted by the loss of fireproofing, weaken the structural steel. Eventually, the perimeter columns bow inward, the floor trusses give way, and a global collapse ensues, which means that the floors above the impact floors are falling too. You keep raving about part C being "rigid." Nobody can figure out what that term means to you or its significance.

What can you possibly be suggesting when you claim, insanely, that only the bottom floor of the collapsing mass hits the top floor of the rest fo the building? What happens to the falling mass of C2-13? Do those floors float in midair?

The plane impact structural damage being a cause is actually a non-sequitur. The loads were easily redistributed with plenty of reserve to spare. The NIST itself has said that if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

While the NIST came up with a somewhat plausible scenario for collapse initiation, the problem they have is a need for an explanation of what occurs afterward to continue the collapse. Bazant's theory has now been shown not to conform to observation. The upper block of WTC 1 does not decelerate at all. How is it possible to explain a natural cause for the collapse of the central core without a deceleration of the upper block?

[Grizzly Bear]

The plane impact structural damage being a cause is actually a non-sequitur. The loads were easily redistributed with plenty of reserve to spare. The NIST itself has said that if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

While the NIST came up with a somewhat plausible scenario for collapse initiation, the problem they have is a need for an explanation of what occurs afterward to continue the collapse. Bazant's theory has now been shown not to conform to observation. The upper block of WTC 1 does not decelerate at all. How is it possible to explain a natural cause for the collapse of the central core without a deceleration of the upper block?

For debris to overtake the main collapse indicates that there was some apparent deceleration as the collapse of the floors progressed... Since gravity essentially won that battle I'm not sure why it's strange that as the collapse progressed with a net gain in speed. Especially considering that with how the collapse propagated the core wasn't largely responsible for allowing the collapse to continue after it had already begun in the impact regions.

[Quad4_72]

Again, I feel the need to remind everyone that Heiwa thinks that the twin towers are comparable to pizza boxes. Debate with him is futile. With that reminder, everyone carry on.

[Tony Szamboti]

For debris to overtake the main collapse indicates that there was some apparent deceleration as the collapse of the floors progressed... Since gravity essentially won that battle I'm not sure why it's strange that as the collapse progressed with a net gain in speed. Especially considering that with how the collapse propagated the core wasn't largely responsible for allowing the collapse to continue after it had already begun in the impact regions.

When kinetic energy is transferred it requires a loss of velocity by the object transferring the energy. The falling upper block could not destroy the columns below, which were designed to take multiples of it's load, and gain speed at the same time.

There was no deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1. Go measure it's fall yourself.

The only way the upper block could gain speed was for the strength of the columns below to be degraded to where they could not support it's static load.

[beachnut]

When kinetic energy is transferred it requires a loss of velocity by the object transferring the energy. The falling upper block could not destroy the columns below, which were designed to take multiples of it's load, and gain speed at the same time.

There was no deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1. Go measure it's fall yourself.

The only way the upper block could gain speed was for the strength of the columns below to be degraded to where they could not support it's static load.
There was deceleration. The video does not have the time and space resolution to see the deceleration. But the momentum transfer model matches the time of fall for the WTC. You forgot to use some engineering skills like sampling theory to see your ideas are delusions.

If there were no deceleration the WTC would have fallen in 9 seconds. We have times greater than 12.08 seconds. This means there were decelerations. Do you need some refresher courses on sampling theory and basic physics?

Do you need for me to explain pixels and frame per second again for observing the collapse? This is funny to see how poorly you are performing as an engineer. You can change your name but you are still the realcddeal with zero evidence to support your realcddeal.

[phunk]

When kinetic energy is transferred it requires a loss of velocity by the object transferring the energy. The falling upper block could not destroy the columns below, which were designed to take multiples of it's load, and gain speed at the same time.

There was no deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1. Go measure it's fall yourself.

The only way the upper block could gain speed was for the strength of the columns below to be degraded to where they could not support it's static load.

You didn't pass high school physics, did you? There is no need to lose velocity, only has to lose acceleration.

[Newtons Bit]

You didn't pass high school physics, did you? There is no need to lose velocity, only has to lose acceleration.

It does actually need to lose velocity to apply a force GREATER than it's own m*a. Which is, I believe, his entire point.

However, this assumes that the upper block is actually causing the damage below and not the rubble layer.

[Grizzly Bear]

When kinetic energy is transferred it requires a loss of velocity by the object transferring the energy. The falling upper block could not destroy the columns below, which were designed to take multiples of it's load, and gain speed at the same time.

There was no deceleration of the upper block of WTC 1. Go measure it's fall yourself.

The columns never needed to be destroyed in the first place in order to fail, and few of the columns in the debris pile ever were destroyed. The majority of failure points were the bolts and welds that contributed to the structures' stability, and that's readily apparent at initiation, progression, and aftermath. There's nothing unexpected there. The deceleration you're looking for is in the average acceleration of the overall collapse; where the collapse front proceeded downward to the ground slower than the debris that fell independent of the rest of the building. The reason why there's no substantial visible "jolt" is because the individual floors were overwhelmed immediately upon impact and the net acceleration wasn't substantially reduced in the process.


The only way the upper block could gain speed was for the strength of the columns below to be degraded to where they could not support it's static load.
Or as you're aware apply a dynamic load which changes based on the distance of travel and the acceleration of the mass and exceed the strength of the underlying connections that hold them together. Add insult to injury by applying those loads axially. That's generally the reason why the collapse was able to progress... This stuff has been discussed to death, though admittedly by people with better qualifications than me.

[phunk]

It does actually need to lose velocity to apply a force GREATER than it's own m*a. Which is, I believe, his entire point.

However, this assumes that the upper block is actually causing the damage below and not the rubble layer.

This is true, but it also assumes that greater than m*a is necessary to cause collapse. It is not needed if the columns are offset and not colliding head-on with the columns below. If the load falls between the columns, or on the floors, or anywhere other than square on top of the lower columns, there's no chance of collapse arrest even if the load is gently lowered down.

[Heiwa]

It does actually need to lose velocity to apply a force GREATER than it's own m*a. Which is, I believe, his entire point.

However, this assumes that the upper block is actually causing the damage below and not the rubble layer.

Rubble layer causing damage? Well, in The Heiwa Challenge any means to break elements and connections in A are permitted as long as initial energy applied is by dropping part C on part A using gravity.

This energy application will evidently disturb the static equilibrium of A and C and, apart of deforming and, maybe, breaking elements/connections at interface C/A (or maybe somewhere else? - interface A/ground?) may produce rubble = free, broken elements, B! OK, fair enough! And now these broken elements B produce a one-way crush down of A ... with C pushing from behind?

Can you give an example of any such composite structure and what kind of broken, fully disconnected elements of it can destroy the complete structure from top down?

[Minadin]

I went to the NIST site right after posting to come back and site which chapter it is in and it appears that the NIST server with the WTC reports on it is down for maintenance this weekend. I don't remember the exact chapter(s) and I don't have the reports downloaded right now.

If you have the reports downloaded then you should be able to find it quickly. Part of it would be under design and construction and the photos, showing the reinforcement, would be where the floor assembly fire testing is described.

I have the report saved via PDF, I'll try to do a search on it.


ETA: Well, I was mistaken. I only have NCSTAR 1-2 saved. It's not in that one, though.

[bio]

Rubble layer causing damage? Well, in The Heiwa Challenge any means to break elements and connections in A are permitted as long as initial energy applied is by dropping part C on part A using gravity.

This energy application will evidently disturb the static equilibrium of A and C and, apart of deforming and, maybe, breaking elements/connections at interface C/A (or maybe somewhere else? - interface A/ground?) may produce rubble = free, broken elements, B! OK, fair enough! And now these broken elements B produce a one-way crush down of A ... with C pushing from behind?

Can you give an example of any such composite structure and what kind of broken, fully disconnected elements of it can destroy the complete structure from top down?

one question:
How much of the broken elements were transformed into clouds and then pressed out from the crushing zone? When I see the immense clouds during the collapse, I would estimate, that 90 % of the material was thrown / pressed out during the top-down demolition (this is for me the most probably scenario).
It is clear, that the broken elements did mainly not stay in the crushing zone or?

[Redtail]

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg Huge photo (slow loading,zoomable)

(F11 may toggle fullscreen on/off on yur computer)

You have no idea how big those cranes are do you?

[BigAl]

one question:
How much of the broken elements were transformed into clouds and then pressed out from the crushing zone? When I see the immense clouds during the collapse, I would estimate, that 90 % of the material was thrown / pressed out during the top-down demolition (this is for me the most probably scenario).
It is clear, that the broken elements did mainly not stay in the crushing zone or?


I dunno what "in the crushing zone " means.

The debris for WTC1 and 2 was spread over the 24 acre plaza.

[Newtons Bit]

Rubble layer causing damage? Well, in The Heiwa Challenge any means to break elements and connections in A are permitted as long as initial energy applied is by dropping part C on part A using gravity.

This energy application will evidently disturb the static equilibrium of A and C and, apart of deforming and, maybe, breaking elements/connections at interface C/A (or maybe somewhere else? - interface A/ground?) may produce rubble = free, broken elements, B! OK, fair enough! And now these broken elements B produce a one-way crush down of A ... with C pushing from behind?

Can you give an example of any such composite structure and what kind of broken, fully disconnected elements of it can destroy the complete structure from top down?

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF

You see this Heiwa? It's not real. Part C&D&E never happens. The columns never get tied up in the trusses because the trusses rotate and snap (like all steel thicker than wire). All the concrete and office contents fall to the bottom and overload each successive floor. The columns, which were once supported in the out-of-plane direction by the floor are now unstable and collapse under their own self-weight.

The "upper block" as it were, doesn't actually cause the lower block to collapse. The rubble from the upper block and lower block together does.

[tfk]

one question:
How much of the broken elements were transformed into clouds and then pressed out from the crushing zone? When I see the immense clouds during the collapse, I would estimate, that 90 % of the material was thrown / pressed out during the top-down demolition (this is for me the most probably scenario).
It is clear, that the broken elements did mainly not stay in the crushing zone or?
.
bio,

You need to distinguish between:

"... opaque dust & debris laden air ..."
and
"... mass ...".

If the portion of the debris that you are considering does not immediately descend as in a gravity fall, but hangs in the air, that IMMEDIATELY tells you that this component is low density and small. Ergo, it does not have much total mass.

And, to the precision of all but the MOST rigorous of calculations, is negligible.

The estimates that I've seen say that the amount of total mass that is thrown out of the footprint of the buildings is around 1/4th to 1/3rd. No where near 90%.

tom

[Heiwa]

The "upper block" as it were, doesn't actually cause the lower block to collapse. The rubble from the upper block and lower block together does.

Amazing what rubble can do! But this is The Heiwa Challenge thread and any structure is permitted where part C one-way crushes part A as per post #1. If rubble of parts A and C assist ... pls, feel free to demonstrate it.

But rubble from part C? According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey & Co (NIST?) part C is supposed to be intact ... and drive the whole one-way crush down destruction. You do not seriously believe that broken off elements of a structure can break intact elements of same structure?

[Heiwa]

one question:
How much of the broken elements were transformed into clouds and then pressed out from the crushing zone? When I see the immense clouds during the collapse, I would estimate, that 90 % of the material was thrown / pressed out during the top-down demolition (this is for me the most probably scenario).
It is clear, that the broken elements did mainly not stay in the crushing zone or?

According Bazant & Co only air and smoke are ejected outside the foot print. Broken elements of part A are supposed to compress into a rubble layer part B that in turn one-way crushes down intact structure of part A. I know it sounds ridiculous but it is part of the OCT.

Part C starting the whole thing is supposed to be crushed up at the end of the drama. These OCTists really invent fairy tales and you are not supposed to ask any questions for obvious reasons.

[Newtons Bit]

Amazing what rubble can do! But this is The Heiwa Challenge thread and any structure is permitted where part C one-way crushes part A as per post #1. If rubble of parts A and C assist ... pls, feel free to demonstrate it.

But rubble from part C? According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey & Co (NIST?) part C is supposed to be intact ... and drive the whole one-way crush down destruction. You do not seriously believe that broken off elements of a structure can break intact elements of same structure?

1. I seriously think you have no idea what you're talking about. Ever wonder why it's "Heiwa's" Axiom and not <insert old long since dead european dude>'s theorem?

2. I seriously think that rubble has mass and that due to gravity this rubble has weight. The floors can only support approximately their own self-weight and an additional 100psf. Which means that one floor can support, at most, rubble created from three floors above. Once a floor gets overloaded by three floors above, it collapses as well.

3. Whether or not Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, Gordon Ross, Heiwa, and/or Newtons.Bit have provided an incorrect model for collapse has nothing to do with how it actually collapsed. We all base theoretical models on assumptions, which may or may not be accurate or based on real physics (like your assumptions)

[tfk]

Hewia,

Regarding Newton's post above:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF

You see this Heiwa? It's not real. Part C&D&E never happens. The columns never get tied up in the trusses because the trusses rotate and snap (like all steel thicker than wire). All the concrete and office contents fall to the bottom and overload each successive floor. The columns, which were once supported in the out-of-plane direction by the floor are now unstable and collapse under their own self-weight.

The "upper block" as it were, doesn't actually cause the lower block to collapse. The rubble from the upper block and lower block together does.

If you were the foreman on the job, and you were familiar with the VERTICAL assembly of the columns (4 x Ø1" bolts in the adjoining plates), how many 3 story tall assemblies would you allow your crew to stack with ONLY those 4 bolts holding the stack from falling over?

How many would you expect to stand, unsupported except by those 4 bolts) on a breezy day (say wind gusts to 15 knots)?

How many would you expect to stand with wind gusts of 500 knots (as some estimates have suggested from the expulsion of 4 million cubic feet per second of debris laden air, and an avalanche of solid debris?

And yet, for some reason, your drawing shows vertical, unsupported columns reaching upwards & downwards 15 stories... Thru debris ...

Curious.

[beachnut]

According Bazant & Co only air and smoke are ejected outside the foot print. Broken elements of part A are supposed to compress into a rubble layer part B that in turn one-way crushes down intact structure of part A. I know it sounds ridiculous but it is part of the OCT.

Part C starting the whole thing is supposed to be crushed up at the end of the drama. These OCTists really invent fairy tales and you are not supposed to ask any questions for obvious reasons.
Your idea of dropping 10 percent of a building on itself from 2 miles make your ideas insane and stupid.

After you lost your challenge twice on 911 your posts are entertaining as delusions and parody on engineering. Explain your pizza box theory again please. How does the pizza box delusion fit with your challenge and nonsensical axiom? If you had practical knowledge of models, would that help you see your challenge is a failure?

[FineWine]

According Bazant & Co only air and smoke are ejected outside the foot print. Broken elements of part A are supposed to compress into a rubble layer part B that in turn one-way crushes down intact structure of part A. I know it sounds ridiculous but it is part of the OCT.

Part C starting the whole thing is supposed to be crushed up at the end of the drama. These OCTists really invent fairy tales and you are not supposed to ask any questions for obvious reasons.


By "OCTists" you are referring to ALL the serious physicists and engineers in the world. You keep trying to trick people who know vastly more and who think far more clearly than you do that there are three parts of the collapsing structure. You have achieved nothing apart from establishing that you are an incompetent.

In reality, there were the collapsing floors, including the impact floors and the floors above them, and the floors they crushed. As the collapse progressed, it added mass and momentum. All the smoke you've blown, all the absurd mangling of basic physics you've indulged in, and all the ideological posturing you put on display can't change the facts. NIST's thousand consultants, the FEMA group, the Purdue and Berkeley teams, the independent academics who have written papers you can't understand, and the highly-qualified engineers on this forum, all of them are right and you are WRONG.

[Grizzly Bear]

Hewia,

<snip brevity>
And yet, for some reason, your drawing shows vertical, unsupported columns reaching upwards & downwards 15 stories... Thru debris ...

Curious.

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).

[Newtons Bit]

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).

The perimeter columns of the WTC near the location of failure were close to modern HSS 14x14x5/16
A = 15.7in^2
I = 739 in^4
S = 92.3 in ^3

Pn = 557k (from AISC LRFD 3rd, table 4-6 with an unbraced length, KL = 12’-4”)
Mn = 92.3in^3*46ksi = 4645 kip*in (Mn = maximum bending capacity)

[bill smith]

What would happen if you had 47 stacks of glued together sugar cubes standing on a table. The stacks would be lightly braced in position relative to each other. What then if you dropped a muslin bag containing three kilos of sugar cubes on top ?

[Heiwa]

2. I seriously think that rubble has mass and that due to gravity this rubble has weight. The floors can only support approximately their own self-weight and an additional 100psf. Which means that one floor can support, at most, rubble created from three floors above. Once a floor gets overloaded by three floors above, it collapses as well.



This is the NIST pancake theory that has caused LOL! So the way to destroy a structure is just to overload some elements? LLOL! You don't really know anything about structures and structural damage analysis, do you?

[Heiwa]

Hewia,

Regarding Newton's post above:



If you were the foreman on the job, and you were familiar with the VERTICAL assembly of the columns (4 x Ø1" bolts in the adjoining plates), how many 3 story tall assemblies would you allow your crew to stack with ONLY those 4 bolts holding the stack from falling over?

How many would you expect to stand, unsupported except by those 4 bolts) on a breezy day (say wind gusts to 15 knots)?

How many would you expect to stand with wind gusts of 500 knots (as some estimates have suggested from the expulsion of 4 million cubic feet per second of debris laden air, and an avalanche of solid debris?

And yet, for some reason, your drawing shows vertical, unsupported columns reaching upwards & downwards 15 stories... Thru debris ...

Curious.

Stupid, off topic questions! The Heiwa Challenge structure part A is supposed to carry part C, etc. Then drop C on A. Do your calculations first, design the structure and ask your foreman to work according to specification to get it together. No hanky panky, please!

[Newtons Bit]

This is the NIST pancake theory that has caused LOL! So the way to destroy a structure is just to overload some elements? LLOL! You don't really know anything about structures and structural damage analysis, do you?

This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. Not funny, "ha ha", but funny, "oh god this guy is a complete moron" funny. NIST did not develop the "pancake theory". The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire. The FEMA report, which you seem to be incorrectly (as usual) alluding to, came up with the "Pancake theory", a theory on collapse initiation, which ultimately proved incorrect, that thermal expansion of the floor trusses caused them to slip their bolts, and then subsequent cooling caused them to pancake on top of each other, thus starting the collapse.

By the way, how many buildings have you designed or worked on the primary load bearing system? I've done over 100. I actually do know something about structures, and 9/11. Designing buildings is my profession, I get paid to do it. You, on the other hand, can't even distinguish a collapse initiation theory from a collapse progression theory. That's rather sad.

I won this argument, conclusively. And to further expound on that fact, let's both agree that the major scientific bodies of the world conclude that WTC1&2 collapsed due to airplane damage, fire and gravity. Which then forces us to conclude that your "Heiwa Challenge" is satisfied. Your "Heiwa's Axiom" is also thus also disproved by the direct proof of the WTC1&2 collapse.

[Grizzly Bear]

The perimeter columns of the WTC near the location of failure were close to modern HSS 14x14x5/16
A = 15.7in^2
I = 739 in^4
S = 92.3 in ^3

Pn = 557k (from AISC LRFD 3rd, table 4-6 with an unbraced length, KL = 12’-4”)
Mn = 92.3in^3*46ksi = 4645 kip*in (Mn = maximum bending capacity)

Thanks for the specs man. I owe you...

[tfk]

Off-topic (or on depending on how this can be applied) - If you don't mind me asking as it's been a while since I've applied basic load capacity calcs for a simple generic column assembly. Would I be able to apply those calcs using the WTC column specifications? The cross-sectional area of the columns is mostly where my question is concerned since the columns used in the WTC weren't the standard ones that we calculated for when I took structures II. If not I can always use a basic calc I did in-class to demonstrate the principal Heiwa missed (as obvious as his flaws are).
.
Griz,

When you're doing quick calcs, the first thing to do would be to try to identify the real failure mode.

To me, that means that the issue of the strength or size of the columns is virtually inconsequential. They could be made of unobtianium, infinitely strong, infinitely stiff.

The most common failure mode is the snapping of the various retaining bolts, with each 3 story, 3 column assembly having four bolts (tensile failure) in the bottom plate and about 6 bolts (shear failure) to cross trusses at each floor, and some retainers to the Wye connectors for the rebar tensioning (that I haven't looked at. Make your best guess as to the failure mode).

Evidence shows that additional failure modes were the hanger welds shear, and the bolts "pulled thru" the holes in the hangers. But, if these failures happened, they happened at stresses & energies that were less than that required for bolt snap or shear. So, using the bolt shap or shear is gonna be a conservative, over-estimate for the real forces required. The practical advantage of this approximation is that the bolt tensile & shear capacities are readily available.

If you want to do a force analysis, this is all you need. You don't need to consider the forces of welds or bolts to adjacent column assemblies, because those are undergoing the same destruction in the global collapse.

The energy calc (how much each component can absorb before failure) would be interesting. But you already know (without any calcs) that this is gonna be several orders of magnitude less than the energy absorbed by the structure during the descent. So, while it may be interesting, it would be hard to describe it as useful...

tom

[Grizzly Bear]

The only reason I bring up the calculations for column load capacities is for a very generalized point since the basic idea applies whether you consider the column as a continuous entity or as an assembly of connected components. But yeah, :\ short of that with everything you and Newton have been discussing this wouldn't have much use at this point. The failure points as you elaborated weren't the columns themselves, rather the connections that held it all together.

[Heiwa]

This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire.

?? Applied energy exceeding the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure? LOL!

But it is the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure A that cannot absorb the strain energy applied by a part C of it. If you have designed 100+ structures (and got paid), have a go at The Heiwa Challenge! No pay, though. Just honour!

[Heiwa]

.
Griz,

When you're doing quick calcs, the first thing to do would be to try to identify the real failure mode.

...

The energy calc (how much each component can absorb before failure) would be interesting. But you already know (without any calcs) that this is gonna be several orders of magnitude less than the energy absorbed by the structure during the descent. So, while it may be interesting, it would be hard to describe it as useful...

tom

Good ideas. Identify the real failure mode ... modes. But do not forget the energy calc ... calcs, because any structure so far presented in The Heiwa Challenge runs out of energy.

[Newtons Bit]

?? Applied energy exceeding the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure? LOL!

But it is the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge. Design a structure A that cannot absorb the strain energy applied by a part C of it. If you have designed 100+ structures (and got paid), have a go at The Heiwa Challenge! No pay, though. Just honour!

As you didn't bother to read my post, I'll just post it again. Hell I'm not even sure what the hell you're even responding to. It surely wasn't what I wrote.


This is quite hilarious, Heiwa. Not funny, "ha ha", but funny, "oh god this guy is a complete moron" funny. NIST did not develop the "pancake theory". The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire. The FEMA report, which you seem to be incorrectly (as usual) alluding to, came up with the "Pancake theory", a theory on collapse initiation, which ultimately proved incorrect, that thermal expansion of the floor trusses caused them to slip their bolts, and then subsequent cooling caused them to pancake on top of each other, thus starting the collapse.

By the way, how many buildings have you designed or worked on the primary load bearing system? I've done over 100. I actually do know something about structures, and 9/11. Designing buildings is my profession, I get paid to do it. You, on the other hand, can't even distinguish a collapse initiation theory from a collapse progression theory. That's rather sad.

I won this argument, conclusively. And to further expound on that fact, let's both agree that the major scientific bodies of the world conclude that WTC1&2 collapsed due to airplane damage, fire and gravity. Which then forces us to conclude that your "Heiwa Challenge" is satisfied. Your "Heiwa's Axiom" is also thus also disproved by the direct proof of the WTC1&2 collapse.


Are you going to own up to the fact that you don't understand the difference between the Bazant model of collapse progression, the NIST model of collapse initiation and the FEMA model of collapse initiation?

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?

Are you going to own up to the fact that "Heiwa's Axiom" self debunks?

[tfk]

Stupid, off topic questions! The Heiwa Challenge structure part A is supposed to carry part C, etc. Then drop C on A. Do your calculations first, design the structure and ask your foreman to work according to specification to get it together. No hanky panky, please!
.
Gee, I find myself taking a patronizing, bemused satisfaction from your assessment of my question as "stupid". Clear evidence that you don't want to answer the question. :D

Now that you've had your temper tantrum, on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

How do the columns stay intact?
How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

BTW, I would love to discuss the germane points of the Heiwa Challenge. I HAVE discussed, in post after post, details of the Heiwa challenge.

It is YOU that refuses to discuss them.

Let me know when you're ready to BEGIN the discussion...

tom

[Newtons Bit]

.
Gee, I find myself taking a patronizing, bemused satisfaction from your assessment of my question as "stupid". Clear evidence that you don't want to answer the question. :D

Now that you've had your temper tantrum, on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

How do the columns stay intact?
How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

BTW, I would love to discuss the germane points of the Heiwa Challenge. I HAVE discussed, in post after post, details of the Heiwa challenge.

It is YOU that refuses to discuss them.

Let me know when you're ready to BEGIN the discussion...

tom

He's pretty crazy. I honestly think that he expects us to spend $1000's of our own money to prove him wrong. And then afterwards, he'll forget the Heiwa challenge ever existed and move on to something else.

[tfk]

He's pretty crazy. I honestly think that he expects us to spend $1000's of our own money to prove him wrong. And then afterwards, he'll forget the Heiwa challenge ever existed and move on to something else.
.
I honestly don't think "crazy".

I think that he's become enthralled with the prospect of "celebrity to the technically ignorant". And find that position preferable to "laughingstock to the informed".

You see this sort of thing all the time amongst doctors (even real doctors, at some distant point in their past) who start selling laetrile, coral calcium, vitamins to cure AIDS, etc. They are perfectly willing, for some strange reason, to accept the status of pariah within their own profession in exchange for pop guru status.

I've seen a bunch of those guys up close, and it appears to me that most of them do it because:

1. they like celebrity, and there's zero chance of that occurring thru talent within their old profession.

2. they're looking to hook up with some attractive neophytes. (Plural emphasized.)

3. they're tired of "working for a living", and the guru gig has lots of perks.

As old PT said, "tell 'em what they want to hear".

tk

[Heiwa]

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?



Do they - I thought they have been destroyed? Anyway, produce another structure that satisfy The Heiwa Challenge. And do the test. Maybe just copy/paste one of your 100 designs?

[tfk]

The only reason I bring up the calculations for column load capacities is for a very generalized point since the basic idea applies whether you consider the column as a continuous entity or as an assembly of connected components. But yeah, :\ short of that with everything you and Newton have been discussing this wouldn't have much use at this point. The failure points as you elaborated weren't the columns themselves, rather the connections that held it all together.
.
Griz,

A working example. Have you ever put together one of those "build-it-yourself" bookcases?

You get the following pieces:
(2) 16" x 6' x 1" thick wood (expensive) or particle board (cheap) side walls
(1) each 16" x 3' x 1" thick top & bottom, and fixed middle shelf
(1) 3' x 6' x 1/16" thick cardboard backing piece
(30) brads for the backing piece
(4) 16" x 3' x 3/4" shelves
(16) clip hangers

What is the piece that gives it stability? The 1/4" thick cardboard backing & the brads. Without these, the whole thing collapses into a parallelogram.

So, calculating the loads that the 1" thick sides could sustain is both pointless and, for those who flaunt it when others have pointed out its irrelevance, deceptive.

tom

[Heiwa]

.

on what basis do your defend the first set of drawings in Section 1.3 on your WTC Collapse page?

1. How do the columns stay intact?
2. How do the concrete & truss floor assemblies collapse & tilt downward & stay intact?

tom

You refer to my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?

1. The columns stay intact as they are stronger than any other elements they encounter, e.g. when damaging the floors.

2. The floor assemblies are locally damaged/broken away from their end connections (by columns) and the two resulting floor parts (the undamaged parts) hinge down around the end connections. No real collapse - just local failure! This is a 2-D simplification. In 3-D many areas of the floors will not be damaged.

But evidently upper part C cannot drop on lower part A like that at WTC 1. In reality the columns between A and C may fail due to heat but A and C will never be disconnected - buckled columns will still connect them. So both A and C should remain undamaged!

Thanks for asking! How are you getting along with The Heiwa Challenge structure?

[Newtons Bit]

.
Griz,

A working example. Have you ever put together one of those "build-it-yourself" bookcases?

You get the following pieces:
(2) 16" x 6' x 1" thick wood (expensive) or particle board (cheap) side walls
(1) each 16" x 3' x 1" thick top & bottom, and fixed middle shelf
(1) 3' x 6' x 1/16" thick cardboard backing piece
(30) brads for the backing piece
(4) 16" x 3' x 3/4" shelves
(16) clip hangers

What is the piece that gives it stability? The 1/4" thick cardboard backing & the brads. Without these, the whole thing collapses into a parallelogram.

So, calculating the loads that the 1" thick sides could sustain is both pointless and, for those who flaunt it when others have pointed out its irrelevance, deceptive.

tom

I bought a bookshelf that was a self-assmebly thing much like this. I left halfway through building it and my brother threw away one of the cardboard backings (it had two). It's..er.. not too stable :o

[Newtons Bit]

Do they - I thought they have been destroyed? Anyway, produce another structure that satisfy The Heiwa Challenge. And do the test. Maybe just copy/paste one of your 100 designs?

What the ::rule10::?! How could a structure that satisfies the "Heiwa Challenge" NOT be destroyed? That's the whole point. It already happened.

And I'm sorry Heiwa, but the cheapest building I've done was over $2 million. If you would be willing to deposit that amount of money into an offshore bank account of my choosing, I'd gladly hire a contractor and produce another for you and you could perform whatever experiment on it that you wished.

Are you going to own up to the fact that you don't understand the difference between the Bazant model of collapse progression, the NIST model of collapse initiation and the FEMA model of collapse initiation?

Are you going to own up to the fact that WTC 1 & 2 already satisfy your Heiwa Challenge?

Are you going to own up to the fact that "Heiwa's Axiom" self debunks?

[Justin39640]

You refer to my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ?

1. The columns stay intact as they are stronger than any other elements they encounter, e.g. when damaging the floors.

2. The floor assemblies are locally damaged/broken away from their end connections (by columns) and the two resulting floor parts (the undamaged parts) hinge down around the end connections. No real collapse - just local failure! This is a 2-D simplification. In 3-D many areas of the floors will not be damaged.

But evidently upper part C cannot drop on lower part A like that at WTC 1. In reality the columns between A and C may fail due to heat but A and C will never be disconnected - buckled columns will still connect them. So both A and C should remain undamaged!

Thanks for asking! How are you getting along with The Heiwa Challenge structure?

um arent these drawings misleading?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1slicea.GIF

they dont properly illustrate the connections of the floor to the center core

it shows the floors dropping between the core columns - assuming this is a simplified cross section of tower 1
if it not a cross section then it also wrongly assumes that the core columns extend through the floor to the outer wall greating this area for floors to fall apart and get trapped

in reality the floors dropped into open spaces
there was a lot of evidence for local failures prior to collapse
but when you have too many local failures in one structure
the only result is total collapse

the outer walls sheared away
due to lack of support
once a GIANT building starts moving like that nothing will stop it

[tsig]

.
I honestly don't think "crazy".

I think that he's become enthralled with the prospect of "celebrity to the technically ignorant". And find that position preferable to "laughingstock to the informed".

You see this sort of thing all the time amongst doctors (even real doctors, at some distant point in their past) who start selling laetrile, coral calcium, vitamins to cure AIDS, etc. They are perfectly willing, for some strange reason, to accept the status of pariah within their own profession in exchange for pop guru status.

I've seen a bunch of those guys up close, and it appears to me that most of them do it because:

1. they like celebrity, and there's zero chance of that occurring thru talent within their old profession.

2. they're looking to hook up with some attractive neophytes. (Plural emphasized.)

3. they're tired of "working for a living", and the guru gig has lots of perks.

As old PT said, "tell 'em what they want to hear".

tk

It's better to rule in hell than serve in Heaven?

Milton IIRC

[Regnad Kcin]

So, Bill Smith? I'm interested in hearing -- what's your agenda?C'mon, Mr. Smith. This is a simple request.

[Regnad Kcin]

Heiwa:

Once again. Insofar as your "challenge" has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to either of the Twin Towers, what is your point? Why are you presenting this question here in the Conspiracy subforum rather than in Science?

These are simple questions.C'mon, Mr. Whatever Your Name Is. Simple stuff, these questions.

[FineWine]

This is the NIST pancake theory that has caused LOL! So the way to destroy a structure is just to overload some elements? LLOL! You don't really know anything about structures and structural damage analysis, do you?


He does; you don't.

Even those of us who are not engineers know that there is no "NIST pancake theory." No real engineer could possibly be as uninformed and obtuse as you.

[FineWine]

Good ideas. Identify the real failure mode ... modes. But do not forget the energy calc ... calcs, because any structure so far presented in The Heiwa Challenge runs out of energy.


Why do you talk about calculations? You are too incompetent to present any.

[Minadin]

<snip>

NIST did not develop the "pancake theory". The NIST report shows an extremely detailed analysis of global column failure from damage and fire.

</snip>


That's only because IHOP beat them to the punch on pancake theory. (No relation to MIHOP or LIHOP)

[Newtons Bit]

That's only because IHOP beat them to the punch on pancake theory. (No relation to MIHOP or LIHOP)

ba dum tcshiss. :D

[Grizzly Bear]

.
Griz,

.........
What is the piece that gives it stability? The 1/4" thick cardboard backing & the brads. Without these, the whole thing collapses into a parallelogram.

So, calculating the loads that the 1" thick sides could sustain is both pointless and, for those who flaunt it when others have pointed out its irrelevance, deceptive.

tom

I understand where you're coming from... but you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I was assuming the most bare basic model you can use to do the calculation to explain the concept that, the more slender a column the less that column can carry. It had to do with Heiwa's model having the debris be contained in 15 stories of unsupported column legth. But I don't think that misunderstanding matters all that much at this point... having looked at my post and looking at the posts that came before it (specifically yours) I feel like an idiot :boxedin: I apologize for making a rather insignificant point that was much more professionally explained before hand. I was in the wrong there, and apologize for any confusion that post lead to.

Newton I nevertheless thank you for retrieving the information of the columns used in the trade center. I don't have the handbook with the information on those column classifications, I only have them for the wide flange steel members which essentially means that even if the calcs I wanted to attempt had much of an impact to make I wouldn't have otherwise had the right information to work with.

[Newtons Bit]

I understand where you're coming from... but you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I was assuming the most bare basic model you can use to do the calculation to explain the concept that, the more slender a column the less that column can carry. It had to do with Heiwa's model having the debris be contained in 15 stories of unsupported column legth. But I don't think that misunderstanding matters all that much at this point... having looked at my post and looking at the posts that came before it (specifically yours) I feel like an idiot :boxedin: I apologize for making a rather insignificant point that was much more professionally explained before hand. I was in the wrong there, and apologize for any confusion that post lead to.

Newton I nevertheless thank you for retrieving the information of the columns used in the trade center. I don't have the handbook with the information on those column classifications, I only have them for the wide flange steel members which essentially means that even if the calcs I wanted to attempt had much of an impact to make I wouldn't have otherwise had the right information to work with.

Don't mention it, I just copied and pasted it from a topic I started on JREF awhile back. The point about stability that you would like to make to Heiwa, while pertinent and correct, is one that he can't understand. He doesn't understand that the floor diaphragms are necessary to provide out-of-plane bracing to the columns.

[Tony Szamboti]

Could you site that for me, please? It's not a conspiracy theory related item, I'm just interested in the history.

The NIST server is back on line.

The chapter which provides all of the information on the concrete floor reinforcement is the one describing the floor truss system fire testing NCSTAR 1-6B. There is a description of the welded wire fabric used, the diameter of the rods used and mesh size, and photos starting on page 21, and mill test reports giving the actual tested strength of the rod in the Appendix A.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

[Heiwa]

The NIST server is back on line.

The chapter which provides all of the information on the concrete floor reinforcement is the one describing the floor truss system fire testing NCSTAR 1-6B. There is a description of the welded wire fabric used, the diameter of the rods used and mesh size, and photos starting on page 21, and mill test reports giving the actual tested strength of the rod in the Appendix A.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

Good! Reinforced concrete floor elements are of course permitted as elements in The Heiwa Challenge structures. Or rather as flanges of wire trusses. Good to glue wall carpets on and then furniture, etc. OK, do not glue the furniture on the carpets. Makes office cleaning difficult.

[Heiwa]

I feel like an idiot :boxedin: I apologize for making a rather insignificant point ...

Nobody is perfect. Now, how is your The Heiwa Challenge structure? Any religious problems with it

[tfk]

I understand where you're coming from... but you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I was assuming the most bare basic model you can use to do the calculation to explain the concept that, the more slender a column the less that column can carry. It had to do with Heiwa's model having the debris be contained in 15 stories of unsupported column legth. But I don't think that misunderstanding matters all that much at this point... having looked at my post and looking at the posts that came before it (specifically yours) I feel like an idiot I apologize for making a rather insignificant point that was much more professionally explained before hand. I was in the wrong there, and apologize for any confusion that post lead to.

Newton I nevertheless thank you for retrieving the information of the columns used in the trade center. I don't have the handbook with the information on those column classifications, I only have them for the wide flange steel members which essentially means that even if the calcs I wanted to attempt had much of an impact to make I wouldn't have otherwise had the right information to work with.
.
Griz,

Hey, no problemo, amigo. I'm sorry that I missed your point.

And there is zero reason to feel like an idiot. In fact, quite the opposite.

The fact is that you did two things in succession that were perfect.

First, you tried to understand things in your own terms. This forces you to examine things in your mind, to really think about the details. This is far better than just taking someone else's word for things.

Then, you asked for help. And listened. This is the step that appears impossible to twoofers. The fact is that there are lots of different ways to look at things. Frequently only a small percent of them end up being really useful. And this is essentially what engineering is: a weeding thru the numerous ways to try to understand things to keep only the useful ones.

I've learned lots of things here. Especially in the specialty of collision & impact. I've never worked in a field that required this. Same rules apply for me: Try to figure it out myself based on first principles (i.e., the science), and then find out how the experts do it (i.e., the engineering). Inevitably, there will be factors that you are unlikely to predict that dominate the issues.

tom

PS.
The gist of my message in numbers:

Putting real numbers to the idea that I was trying to get across, this fellow (Gregory Szuladzinski) estimates that "This results in 78.26 tons supported by one outer column".
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf

(While I don't accept this guys overall conclusions, a quick check tells you that this number, that he says he got from FEMA, is reasonable, putting the weight of the upper 15 stories at about 48 Kiloton.)

Considering factors of safety, this tells you that, properly assembled & cross-braced, the column was capable of supporting about double this value, a total of about 150 tons, properly distributed at 1 story intervals.

To show you the huge discrepancy that can exist between misdirected theory & practice, my "feel" tells me that, without cross bracing, this column was capable of supporting ZERO load. That, in a stack, bolted together with 1" diameter bolts, a fifteen story (5 assembly) stack could not have stood on its own without toppling. (This is the question that Heiwa refused to answer.)

[Jackanory]

Nobody is perfect. Now, how is your The Heiwa Challenge structure? Any religious problems with it

Plenty of problems with it! The main one being the author, who has set out his stall of incompetance based on an engineering degree gained from the internet. Can you explain why Europe has never heard of your safety at sea co and why they are questioning your use of the emblem?

Please clarify why the EU has stated that your company, European Agency for Safety at Sea, does not come within the institutional setup of the European Union.

[GlennB]

Plenty of problems with it! The main one being the author, who has set out his stall of incompetance based on an engineering degree gained from the internet...

In fairness, I think it's likely that Bjorkman does have a Swedish marine engineering degree (see his CV). A quick call to his old Uni would probably sort that question but frankly I couldn't be bothered. The possession (or otherwise) of such a degree has nothing to do with his idiotic lack of basic scientific knowledge. Or does he deliberately troll to promote visits to his website and sales of his CT e-books? Could be a good marketing ploy :)

[Jackanory]

In fairness, I think it's likely that Bjorkman does have a Swedish marine engineering degree (see his CV). A quick call to his old Uni would probably sort that question but frankly I couldn't be bothered. The possession (or otherwise) of such a degree has nothing to do with his idiotic lack of basic scientific knowledge. Or does he deliberately troll to promote visits to his website and sales of his CT e-books? Could be a good marketing ploy :)

Promotion of his website IS the reason he is here. Probably close to retirement and business failure. Says that his business is booming yet his website apparently states not.

Those that continue to wrangle the engineering/physics with this fool are simply giving him a free education and feeding him. He is a failed fraud.

[bill smith]

In fairness, I think it's likely that Bjorkman does have a Swedish marine engineering degree (see his CV). A quick call to his old Uni would probably sort that question but frankly I couldn't be bothered. The possession (or otherwise) of such a degree has nothing to do with his idiotic lack of basic scientific knowledge. Or does he deliberately troll to promote visits to his website and sales of his CT e-books? Could be a good marketing ploy :)

I suppose the real point is what will Bazant say in his motivated response. If he doesn't respond within a reasonable time frame it would be fair to draw certain conclusions from that. It will not be enough for him to say that he will not deign to defend the position he has dug for himself. Not with the ASCE involved. So the real test of Heiwa's axiom is pending. If Bazant is no more convincing than the OCT engineers here it will drive the Truth Movement forward by leaps and bounds. Another Controlled Demolition of the official story is pending I suspect.

[FineWine]

I suppose the real point is what will Bazant say in his motivated response. If he doesn't respond within a reasonable time frame it would be fair to draw certain conclusions from that. It will not be enough for him to say that he will not deign to defend the position he has dug for himself. Not with the ASCE involved. So the real test of Heiwa's axiom is pending. If Bazant is no more convincing than the OCT engineers here it will drive the Truth Movement forward by leaps and bounds. Another Controlled Demolition of the official story is pending I suspect.

The real engineers here have totally destroyed your silly guru. You can't comprehend anything you try to read, so you haven't noticed.

What conclusions will you draw when another set of real engineers exposes Heiwa as a fool and a fraud? Your insane movement is dead.

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose the real point is what will Bazant say in his motivated response. If he doesn't respond within a reasonable time frame it would be fair to draw certain conclusions from that. It will not be enough for him to say that he will not deign to defend the position he has dug for himself. Not with the ASCE involved. So the real test of Heiwa's axiom is pending. If Bazant is no more convincing than the OCT engineers here it will drive the Truth Movement forward by leaps and bounds. Another Controlled Demolition of the official story is pending I suspect.

This is kind of sad, actually. Bill doesn't have any actual truth movement victories to crow about, so he keeps doing this - making up scenarios where the truth movement wins a victory, then doing some speculative crowing just in case his fantasy comes true. By the time reality has intervened, he'll have already conveniently forgotten his dream scenario, and will have dreamed up two or three more. Reality doesn't enter into the picture at any stage.

Dave

[Jackanory]

This is kind of sad, actually. Bill doesn't have any actual truth movement victories to crow about, so he keeps doing this - making up scenarios where the truth movement wins a victory, then doing some speculative crowing just in case his fantasy comes true. By the time reality has intervened, he'll have already conveniently forgotten his dream scenario, and will have dreamed up two or three more. Reality doesn't enter into the picture at any stage.

Dave

It is sad Dave. Yet Bill has his fingers in so many conspiracies that he will simply move onto the next one - and get them burnt there too:D

[Grizzly Bear]

When one CT doesn't work... hell, try 'em all! ANd if that don't work, cycle through again and again until one does.

[bill smith]

When one CT doesn't work... hell, try 'em all! ANd if that don't work, cycle through again and again until one does.

Actually that's not true. I am a one-conspiracy person- 9/11. It's my one and only conspiracy.

[Jackanory]

Actually that's not true. I am a one-conspiracy person- 9/11. It's my one and only conspiracy.

Then you need a new hobby because you suck at this one.

[Jackanory]

Its all gone quiet in the Heiwa camp. Perhaps the French Battalion of the NWO have raided his peddalo in Monaco.

[Minadin]

The NIST server is back on line.

The chapter which provides all of the information on the concrete floor reinforcement is the one describing the floor truss system fire testing NCSTAR 1-6B. There is a description of the welded wire fabric used, the diameter of the rods used and mesh size, and photos starting on page 21, and mill test reports giving the actual tested strength of the rod in the Appendix A.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

Well, that certainly shows that the NIST used wwf in the reconstruction they did for fire testing. I am willing to assume that they used that instead of rebar because that was actually in the Towers, because they were so careful about re-creating the other details. (also because I had assumed they used wwf in the Towers initially)

Thanks for the link.

[Justin39640]

Then you need a new hobby because you suck at this one.

lol +1

[Newtons Bit]

The NIST server is back on line.

The chapter which provides all of the information on the concrete floor reinforcement is the one describing the floor truss system fire testing NCSTAR 1-6B. There is a description of the welded wire fabric used, the diameter of the rods used and mesh size, and photos starting on page 21, and mill test reports giving the actual tested strength of the rod in the Appendix A.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

They apparently used #4 bars @ 24" o.c. and WWF. I've never heard of using both in concrete on a non-composite deck.

[bill smith]

u7vfThis is kind of sad, actually. Bill doesn't have any actual truth movement victories to crow about, so he keeps doing this - making up scenarios where the truth movement wins a victory, then doing some speculative crowing just in case his fantasy comes true. By the time reality has intervened, he'll have already conveniently forgotten his dream scenario, and will have dreamed up two or three more. Reality doesn't enter into the picture at any stage.

Dave

If you call revealing the Truth a victory Dave then we have won several victories conclusively. CIT has proven beyond any easonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario. Steven Jones et Al have proven empirically that nanothermite was presnt in large quantities at the WTC. This last has been written up, successfully peer reviewed and published. David Chandler has forced NIST to categorically admit freefall for part of the WTC7 collspse. NIST themselves have said that this is impossible for a steel framed building i a gravity-alone collapse..
So it is not very convincing to say that we have nothing. Heiwa is now engaging Bazant and we will have to see what comes of it. From your point of view Bazant had better get it right or you are all done.

[Redtail]

If you call revealing the Truth a victory Dave then we have won several victories conclusively.
Really?

CIT has proven beyond any easonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario.

No they haven't. This has been explained several times on this forum.

Steven Jones et Al have proven empirically that nanothermite was presnt in large quantities at the WTC. This last has been written up, successfully peer reviewed and published.

No, this has been explained several times on this forum also.

David Chandler has forced NIST to categorically admit freefall for part of the WTC7 collspse.
Even if this were true it would require ignoring the collapse of the penthouse.

NIST themselves have said that this is impossible for a steel framed building i a gravity-alone collapse..

What?

So it is not very convincing to say that we have nothing. Heiwa is now engaging Bazant and we will have to see what comes of it. From your point of view Bazant had better get it right or you are all done.

Ok... Let's say all of what you said is true.

What is the reason for the truth movement getting nothing done in bringing the true criminals to justice?

[tuc0]

If you call revealing the Truth a victory Dave then we have won several victories conclusively.

Wrong.

CIT has proven beyond any easonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario.Wrong.

Steven Jones et Al have proven empirically that nanothermite was presnt in large quantities at the WTC.Wrong.

This last has been written up, successfully peer reviewed and published.Wrong.

David Chandler has forced NIST to categorically admit freefall for part of the WTC7 collspse. NIST themselves have said that this is impossible for a steel framed building i a gravity-alone collapse..I know nothing about this one, but based on your record so far I'm skeptical.

So it is not very convincing to say that we have nothing.Wrong.

Heiwa is now engaging Bazant and we will have to see what comes of it. From your point of view Bazant had better get it right or you are all done.Wrong.

Better luck next time.

[dafydd]

The perimeter columns of the WTC near the location of failure were close to modern HSS 14x14x5/16
A = 15.7in^2
I = 739 in^4
S = 92.3 in ^3

Pn = 557k (from AISC LRFD 3rd, table 4-6 with an unbraced length, KL = 12’-4”)
Mn = 92.3in^3*46ksi = 4645 kip*in (Mn = maximum bending capacity)

That is Greek to me. Heiwa,could you explain it to me?

[Dave Rogers]

If you call revealing the Truth a victory Dave then we have won several victories conclusively. CIT has proven beyond any easonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario. Steven Jones et Al have proven empirically that nanothermite was presnt in large quantities at the WTC. This last has been written up, successfully peer reviewed and published. David Chandler has forced NIST to categorically admit freefall for part of the WTC7 collspse. NIST themselves have said that this is impossible for a steel framed building i a gravity-alone collapse..

As I said, reality doesn't enter into the picture at any stage. You couldn't have proved my point better.

Dave

[bill smith]

As I said, reality doesn't enter into the picture at any stage. You couldn't have proved my point better.

DaveWhy, thank you kind Sir. You can be sure I will strive to maintain the same standard of excellence in the future.

[Heiwa]

That is Greek to me. Heiwa,could you explain it to me?

It would appear that NB is talking about a box column with side 35.6 cm and wall thickness 8 mm with cross area A is 101.3 cm², moment of inertia I is 30760 cm4 and the section modulus S 1513 cm3. Every 3.7 m a floor truss is hanging on it.

Maybe A should be say 112 cm², I abt. 24000 cm4 and S abt. 1330 cm3 but it really doesn’t matter. Say it is normal steel with yield stress 2.3 ton/cm², so it can carry almost 260 ton!

How much load does a floor truss transmit to it? 2 ton ? 3 ton ? (Depends on the length of and load on the truss) http://heiwaco.tripod.com/loaddistribution.htm .

Say that 15 floor trusses are connected to this column and that the total load is say 50 ton! Compressive stress is then only 0.45 ton/cm² or only 20% of yield. Tallies with my calculations at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm#2 .

There are 60+ of these box columns in a wall held/rivetted/bolted together by strong spandrels every 3.7 m. The box columns are also just bolted together at regular intervals on top of each other ... it seems. Strange connection? I would have welded them together!

Anyway, in the The Heiwa Challenge structure you are permitted to bolt together the elements as you like!

[FineWine]

u7vf

If you call revealing the Truth a victory Dave then we have won several victories conclusively. CIT has proven beyond any easonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario. Steven Jones et Al have proven empirically that nanothermite was presnt in large quantities at the WTC. This last has been written up, successfully peer reviewed and published. David Chandler has forced NIST to categorically admit freefall for part of the WTC7 collspse. NIST themselves have said that this is impossible for a steel framed building i a gravity-alone collapse..
So it is not very convincing to say that we have nothing. Heiwa is now engaging Bazant and we will have to see what comes of it. From your point of view Bazant had better get it right or you are all done.


This is the point I and other sane people keep making. You present a list of outright lies and claim your dishonest, insane movement has proved something. It is 100% accurate to say that you have nothing. The drooling imbeciles at CIT have sold a handful of worthless DVDs to sub-morons. Beyond that, they have accomplished zilch. Nobody saw a flyover; there was none. End of story. Jones is a complete fraud who will never submit his red paint chips for independent verification. Chandler has forced no--zero--"admissions "from NIST. NIST has never published a word that lends any credence to the impossibly stupid myths you pathetic people cling to.

Bazant could change careers and run off with the circus, and the "truth" movement would still be absolutely devoid of truth.

[FineWine]

Why, thank you kind Sir. You can be sure I will strive to maintain the same standard of excellence in the future.



Now, about those Israelis who had advance knowledge of terrorist attacks that never actually happened...

[sylvan8798]

CIT has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that flight 77 could not have hit the Pentagon according to the government's scenario.

Perhaps your standard of reasoning is too low.

[Regnad Kcin]

Actually that's not true. I am a one-conspiracy person- 9/11. It's my one and only conspiracy.Considering, one more time, that any "inside job" conspiracy with regard to the events of 9/11 is 100% impossible, I ask again:

What is your agenda?

[Tony Szamboti]

They apparently used #4 bars @ 24" o.c. and WWF. I've never heard of using both in concrete on a non-composite deck.

Yes, they also used some heavier rebar in the floors along with the WWF. It seems that it was used to support and keep the WWF positioned vertically prior to and during pouring. It appears it was also used as an end tie.

[A W Smith]

Yes, they also used some heavier rebar in the floors along with the WWF. It seems that it was used to support and keep the WWF positioned vertically prior to and during pouring. It appears it was also used as an end tie.


According to nist the 5/8 inch rebar (#5) was only used in pairs above the bridging trusses and 1/2 inch rebar (#4) at the ends of the span 3 inches from the end the testing frame

page 28 & 75 which you linked to above. The bridging trusses were spaced 13 feet 4 inches. (page 7)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

[Tony Szamboti]

According to nist the 5/8 inch rebar (#5) was only used in pairs above the bridging trusses and 1/2 inch rebar (#4) at the ends of the span 3 inches from the end the testing frame

page 28 & 75 which you linked to above. The bridging trusses were spaced 13 feet 4 inches. (page 7)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf

Was the 5/8 inch rebar tied into the bridging trusses somehow? I looked and couldn't find anything on that. I am wondering if it was used to make the bridging trusses composite with the slab also.

It seems to me that the 1/2 inch rebar would have been used at the ends of the welded wire fabric to ensure the ends were tight.

[A W Smith]

Was the 5/8 inch rebar tied into the bridging trusses somehow? I looked and couldn't find anything on that. I am wondering if it was used to make the bridging trusses composite with the slab also.

It seems to me that the 1/2 inch rebar would have been used at the ends of the welded wire fabric to ensure the ends were tight.

The bridging trusses would have to pass through the main trusses directly under a knuckle.(fig 3-1 and fig 4-7 fig 4-12 ) From what I can see the twin #5 bars passed on either side of this knuckle. Those bars were tied to the second layer of 4 X 10 mesh. But there is no mention of them being wired or tack welded to the knuckles. In fact in fig 4-17 the bars appear to be 10 inches apart and miss the knuckle by a wide margin. The page numbers I gave above post were the document pages, not the pdf page numbers.

[releaseeabode]

Which model of his are you referring to? The pizza boxes?

As evidenced by the replies I received.

While they make the attacks more personal I see you sticking to your guns well, great fortitude.

[beachnut]

As evidenced by the replies I received.

While they make the attacks more personal I see you sticking to your guns well, great fortitude.
Your support of the moronic ideas of Heiwa without evidence or calculations is standard for non engineers and 911TruthLies.

Heiwa's challenged was met twice on 911. Your inability to understand this fact is your problem.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa's challenged was met twice on 911.

The Heiwa Challenge is to repeat the process once!

[Dipsy]

I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to edited, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge is to repeat the process once!

Your moronic challenge was met twice on 911. Your pizza box physics is a big hint at your lack of expertise in engineering. Saying you can drop a part of building from 2 miles and it will not damage the lower section of a building is dumb.

[Heiwa]

I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to edited, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.

Aha, a new participant of The Heiwa Challenge! Remind you that part C shall brain part A assisted by gravity only. No shovels.

[Tweeter]

I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to edited, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.

I see youre new here , but that doesnt make you immune to the rules .
Threatening to brain someone with a shovel even jokingly is not allowed and you could be suspended (i was). You leave me no choice but to report you.
Welcome to the forum.:)

[Dipsy]

Tweeter, I can see why you're a truther.

Dipsy.

[stateofgrace]

Delete.

[bill smith]

Aha, a new participant of The Heiwa Challenge! Remind you that part C shall brain part A assisted by gravity only. No shovels.

Heiwa do you think they deliberately designed-in the top block - bottom block scenario or did they just make the best of a bad job ?

[Heiwa]

Heiwa do you think they deliberately designed-in the top block - bottom block scenario or did they just make the best of a bad job ?

Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!

[FineWine]

Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!


It is easy for you to produce fraudulent scientific papers because you are an incompetent driven by a bizarre political agenda. It is incredibly difficult for real scientists and engineers to perpetrate a fraud because they are subject to the criticism of their peers. Professionals take informed criticism seriously. You can ignore everything that demolishes your absurd burlesque of science because you are a bad joke.

[Heiwa]

It is easy for you to produce fraudulent scientific papers because you are an incompetent driven by a bizarre political agenda. It is incredibly difficult for real scientists and engineers to perpetrate a fraud because they are subject to the criticism of their peers. Professionals take informed criticism seriously. You can ignore everything that demolishes your absurd burlesque of science because you are a bad joke.

You are kindly requested to enter a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that demonstrates what you suggest! See post #1 for details.
Re fraud in science - fraud occurs everywhere! Grow up!

[bill smith]

Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!

When they hit WTC1 so high up they were knowingly creating a very small top block C- only 13 floors out of 110. They must have known that that would look kind of ropey. Maybe they had to hit it so high for some reason to do with the antenna ?

[dtugg]

Re fraud in science - fraud occurs everywhere! Grow up!

Yes. For example, you are a gigantic fraud.

[beachnut]

When they hit WTC1 so high up they were knowingly creating a very small top block C- only 13 floors out of 110. They must have known that that would look kind of ropey. Maybe they had to hit it so high for some reason to do with the antenna ?
More like 14 floors. The terrorist flew a plane into the WTC after he killed the pilots. What dirt dumb idea are you implying with this post?

One floor of the WTC can only hold 11 more floors and it fails. So Heiwa's moronic ideas are based on nothing but his failed opinion. Can you use engineering to back up your support of Heiwa's failed ideas?

[bill smith]

More like 14 floors. The terrorist flew a plane into the WTC after he killed the pilots. What dirt dumb idea are you implying with this post?

One floor of the WTC can only hold 11 more floors and it fails. So Heiwa's moronic ideas are based on nothing but his failed opinion. Can you use engineering to back up your support of Heiwa's failed ideas?

I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.

[beachnut]

I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.
Do you make up this moronic lie, or did you copy and paste it from other liars? That was the dumbest statement you can make about structures. Your post is a dead giveaway you don't know what you are talking about.

You make up lies for a gravity collapse due to fire and impacts caused by terrorist you apologize for and spit on the graves of those who died because you make this up without evidence. No evidence; 7 years and no clue from you. You could learn here but you post lies instead.

[Tweeter]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?

[dtugg]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?

Why would anybody waste all the time and money necessary to enter Heiwa's fraudulent challenge just win an argument with some loons on the internet? Now if he weren't a fraud and a liar, and actually had and was willing to put up a million dollars, that would be a different story.

[tuc0]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?

When Myriad accepted the challenge Heiwa started changing the "rules" and ran away. There have been others... with the same result.

[Heiwa]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?

Good idea. So far a couple of OCTists have proposed some 'structures', none of which, where part C can one-way crush down part A as per post #1 - unchanged since start! And Heiwa never runs away! All serious proposals/questions/suggestions on topic are attended to in this thread.

It seems that part C cannot apply sufficient energy on the structure that exceeds the strain energy that part A can absorb! So no one-way crush down takes place or part C is destroyed.

The result so far of The Heiwa Challenge thus invalidates the NIST proposal in its WTC 1/2 reports (just 10 000+ pages) that global collapse should ensue.

[Tweeter]

Why would anybody waste all the time and money necessary to enter Heiwa's fraudulent challenge just win an argument with some loons on the internet? Now if he weren't a fraud and a liar, and actually had and was willing to put up a million dollars, that would be a different story.

Some debunkers have wasted years of there lives here arguing 911 cts.
Prove him wrong and end all the debates. You`d be a hero.

[GlennB]

Prove him wrong and end all the debates. You`d be a hero.

Or you'd be the idiot who wasted $000's and weeks of your life building a large, dangerous structure to debunk a proven fraudster.

[dtugg]

Some debunkers have wasted years of there lives here arguing 911 cts.
Prove him wrong and end all the debates. You`d be a hero.

A hero for proving Heiwa wrong. LOL! Everybody here with a properly functioning brain already knows that Heiwa has no idea what he is talking about. I mean, this is a guy that thinks massive skyscrapers are comparable to pizza boxes, lemons, and sponges. Why would anybody waste thousands of dollars of their own money to prove the glaringly obvious?

[bill smith]

A hero for proving Heiwa wrong. LOL! Everybody here with a properly functioning brain already knows that Heiwa has no idea what he is talking about. I mean, this is a guy that thinks massive skyscrapers are comparable to pizza boxes, lemons, and sponges. Why would anybody waste thousands of dollars of their own money to prove the glaringly obvious?

At the end of the day it's Bazant's reply to Heiwa's paper that will count. He is in the hot seat now. If he declines to answer we will automatically have our confirmation. If he does answer we will see just how much further he can stretch credibiility. He does not have forever to answer either.Not if he wants to look honest.

[Heiwa]

Why would anybody waste all the time and money necessary to enter Heiwa's fraudulent challenge just win an argument with some loons on the internet? Now if he weren't a fraud and a liar, and actually had and was willing to put up a million dollars, that would be a different story.

The Heiwa Challenge is practical - just a real structure. No calculations.

The big prize - $1M - has been offered in another thread to some persons, if they can prove a 3-D one-way crush down by gravity theoretically, e.g. how a 3-D structure of n number of material points linked viscoelastically together to make up the structure can be one-way crushed down by a part C (with 0.1 n material points) being dropped on part A (with 0.9 n material points) of same structure, where part A previously carried part C, etc. Quite difficult!

If you start in 1-D with n material points on two vertical strings A below fixed to ground, C above, first fixed to A and then floating, dropped on A, you'll find what the forces developing in the A and C strings do and how the energy applied is absorbed in the links as deformations or failure. As we are in 1-D, when failure occurs, the failure will provoke a new drop (distance of link), etc. Can top string C one-way crush bottom string A in 1-D?

If you think so, then you shall develop your model into 2-D - two vertical sheets of material points A and C colliding along upper edge of A. Then the upper sheet C have the possibility to spill out sideways outside A and you will learn a lot!

The ultimate challenge is the 3-D model! But all this is off topic for this thread. Here you just shall produce a real structure - no calculations are required.

[dtugg]

At the end of the day it's Bazant's reply to Heiwa's paper that will count. He is in the hot seat now. If he declines to answer we will automatically have our confirmation. If he does answer we will see just how much further he can stretch credibiility. He dos not have forever to answer either.Not if he wants to look honest.

How are you able to function in society being the way you are? Well, I suppose I may be giving you too much credit by assuming that you are able to function.

[dtugg]

The Heiwa Challenge is practical - just a real structure. No calculations.

The big prize - $1M - has been offered in another thread to some persons, if they can prove a 3-D one-way crush down by gravity theoretically, e.g. how a 3-D structure of n number of material points linked viscoelastically together to make up the structure can be one-way crushed down by a part C (with 0.1 n material points) being dropped on part A (with 0.9 n material points) of same structure, where part A previously carried part C, etc. Quite difficult!

If you start in 1-D with n material points on two vertical strings A below fixed to ground, C above, first fixed to A and then floating, dropped on A, you'll find what the forces developing in the A and C strings do and how the energy applied is absorbed in the links as deformations or failure. As we are in 1-D, when failure occurs, the failure will provoke a new drop (distance of link), etc. Can top string C one-way crush bottom string A in 1-D?

If you think so, then you shall develop your model into 2-D - two vertical sheets of material points A and C colliding along upper edge of A. Then the upper sheet C have the possibility to spill out sideways outside A and you will learn a lot!

The ultimate challenge is the 3-D model! But all this is off topic for this thread. Here you just shall produce a real structure - no calculations are required.


You offered a million dollars in this thread to anybody who could disprove your retarded axiom. Beating your stupid challenge would simultaneously disprove your moronic axiom. But since you are a liar and a fraud and don't even have a million dollars, you are furiously backing out. This is plain as day to anybody who is not one of your few mindless followers.

[bill smith]

How are you able to function in society being the way you are? Well, I suppose I may be giving you too much credit by assuming that you are able to function.

How Bazant must love this. He has been forced to accept the challenge that none here have come close to meeting. I wonder if he looks in here from time to time to see if anybody comes up with something he might be able to use ?

I'm pretty sure this was not supposed to happen. The local OCT engineers had better get their fingers out if they want to assist Bazant in his rebuttal of Heiwa's paper.

[dtugg]

How Bazant must love this. He has been forced to accept the challenge that none here have come close to meeting. I wonder if he looks in here from time to time to see if anybody comes up with something he might be able to use ?

I'm pretty sure this was not supposed to happen. The local OCT engineers had better get their fingers out if they want to assist Bazant in his rebuttal of Heiwa's paper.

You see bill, things like this are what have me wonder if you serious. It's hard to imagine that somebody could actually be the way that present yourself as. Anyway...

On one hand we have a world renowned structural engineer.

On the other we have a know nothing fraud who thinks massive skyscrapers are comparable to stacks of pizza boxes, lemons, and sponges.

I'm sure Bazant is quaking in his boots. :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

You see bill, things like this are what have me wonder if you serious. It's hard to imagine that somebody could actually be the way that present yourself as. Anyway...



Bill is consciously and deliberately adopting the single most irritating and provocative position he can dream up, post to post. It's his idea of fun.

[funk de fino]

Bill is consciously and deliberately adopting the single most irritating and provocative position he can dream up, post to post. It's his idea of fun.

Possibly a turn on for him.

[tfk]

Could we get back to the topic of this thread?
Have any debunkers even tried to complete the challenge?
.
Several of us have attempted to discuss specific details of his challenge. He simply refuses to discuss any issue that shows that his thesis is nonsense. He simply refuses to acknowledge or discuss the numerous errors in his statements.

And simply returns to "Rainman-ing" his assertion.

This isn't "winning an argument". This is Heiwa, sticking his fingers in his ears while his arguments get drawn & quartered. And then claiming victory. :rolleyes:

This has been his constant, trollish behavior that has the veteran posters here so jaded with the thought of any more discussion with him.

And nobody else on his side (your side, too?) of the argument has the technical competence to even attempt to defend anything.

The monologue from the local & nonlocal experts on mechanics & structures - that his "axiom" is a load of hogwash - has been well & truly rendered.

Please tell me, Tweets, where is the dialog supposed to come from?

tom

PS. Were you the person in class who always got his butt whomped for being the class tattle tale (aka, "reporting to the mods")?

[tfk]

Bill is consciously and deliberately adopting the single most irritating and provocative position he can dream up, post to post. It's his idea of fun.
.
And since knowledge, reason & facts are beyond his capacity and honesty beyond his concern, this is his only remaining tactic.

Not a pretty site.

But there's always a "lol" around the corner...

tom

[bill smith]

.
And since knowledge, reason & facts are beyond his capacity and honesty beyond his concern, this is his only remaining tactic.

Not a pretty site.

But there's always a "lol" around the corner...

tom

Especially for you T.- because you're worth it.

[Justin39640]

is the Hewia challenge about a structure like this?
http://algoxy.com/conc/images/wtccoreshilouette.jpg
doesn't sound like it