The Heiwa Challenge

[GlennB]

Is it true that the winner gets 1 million dollars? I know of only two structures so far that win the Heiwa Challenge: Skyblue post 1641 and GlennB post 1682. Do we have to share or do we get a million each? There are lots more simple structures that would fail when you apply a significant overstress to things like connections.

How do we collect... or are you just a bit of a fraud Anders?

It's clear that my bookcase idea was just a theoretical twist on your pizza box working model. The $1,000,000 is yours really. However .... I live just along the Mediterranean from Bjorkman and know some seriously heavy Greek bandits. They work cheap. Open to negotiation. The catch would be that Bjorkman might be just a bitter retired under-achiever living in a little apartment in Beausoleil, which he pretends is the headquarters of some fancy EU 'agency' or other, while posting bilge on the interwebs. Dunno ... If you'll front-up say $100,000 for working expenses I'll guarantee you the balance of $900,000 on receipt. Might even start a thread here .... The GlennB Guarantee :) It would be here in black and white! You could quote my very words!!

[Bluesky]

It's clear that my bookcase idea was just a theoretical twist on your pizza box working model. The $1,000,000 is yours really. However .... I live just along the Mediterranean from Bjorkman and know some seriously heavy Greek bandits. They work cheap. Open to negotiation. The catch would be that Bjorkman might be just a bitter retired under-achiever living in a little apartment in Beausoleil, which he pretends is the headquarters of some fancy EU 'agency' or other, while posting bilge on the interwebs. Dunno ... If you'll front-up say $100,000 for working expenses I'll guarantee you the balance of $900,000 on receipt. Might even start a thread here .... The GlennB Guarantee :) It would be here in black and white! You could quote my very words!!

The GlennB Guarentee looks as bona fide as the Heiwa Challenge But fortunately I have just recieved a very generous offer from a Nigerian Banker. if you would mind sending me your bank account details then I can organize it directly

Any its nice to know that we solved the heiwa challenge. We did it..Its easy.!

its good to see how Heiwa is completely speechless and just pretends that we didnt solve it. He seems to have as much integrity as my Nigerian Banker.!!
:boxedin:

[Audible Click]

I think you're insulting Nigerian Bankers. :D

[triforcharity]

Does Nigeria even HAVE banks???

[jhunter1163]

Their concern is that engineers and physicists in countries around the world will detect errors, not that agenda-driven crackpots trolling tiny internet forums won't understand them.

Minor nitpick, but JREF isn't a tiny forum. Last I saw we were in the top 400 in all teh Interwebs.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa is one of the ae911truth experts. I guess he has had his whacky theory checked out by the other experts such as the road engineer, the graduate from 2007, or the guy who didn't quite get his masters.

Anyone wanting to fall for this stupid Heiwa Challenge...should restart the conversation a few thousand postings ago.

Lots of people have done it...its easy.!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Sorry Bluesky. Nobody has managed to design a structure where part C can one-way crush part A. But you can still try!

[Audible Click]

Does Nigeria even HAVE banks???

Yes we call them "lads" but that's a post for another thread.

[newton3376]

Nice dance, but give me one good reason why I might be lying about my timezone. Hmmmm......

I can't really. I just had a strong feeling you were English and the 2-hour timezone difference made me wonder.

Similar to Bill's response to the question "Can you give me one good reason why 911 was an inside job?"....

"I can't really. I just had a strong feeling it was and the videos on youtube made me wonder."

Ah truthers...

They are the finest investigooglers in the world....

[TheDaver]

Sorry Bluesky. Nobody has managed to design a structure where part C can one-way crush part A. But you can still try!
How is that relevant to anything in the real world anyway?

You’re not implying that the “official story” insists on a one-way crush, are you?

[Heiwa]

How is that relevant to anything in the real world anyway?

You’re not implying that the “official story” insists on a one-way crush, are you?

The one-way crush down is a Bazant invention. Ever heard of Bazant?

The official story is that PE>SE = global collapse ensues (as explained in my papers). However I have shown many times that SE>PE = arrest and nobody seems to be able to debunk that.

But have a try. Design a structure that can be one-way crushed. See post #1.

[dafydd]

Similar to Bill's response to the question "Can you give me one good reason why 911 was an inside job?"....

"I can't really. I just had a strong feeling it was and the videos on youtube made me wonder."

Ah truthers...

They are the finest investigooglers in the world....

Investigoolers! I love it.

[Justin39640]

Investigoolers! I love it.

more like a google-ectomy

[bio]

Hm, The Heiwa Challenge is open for everybody. Physics is a practical and experiemental science of the world around us. If anybody suggests that structures one-way crush down and self-destruct due to gravity, they should show this with real structures!! In The Heiwa Challenge only ONE structure suffices. No theoretical models are permitted.

Theoretical models suggesting that structures can one-way crush down when a part drops on the whole are very suspect. Bazant, BLGB and Seffen have a lot to explain, like NIST, FEMA, Purdue university, Mackey, etc. They can do it by participating in The Heiwa Challenge and produce ONE real structure that behaves as they postulate. Until then their theories are of no value. KISS.

I do not know, why the OCTists are thinking, you should concede. Their model did not self-destruct, it only fall down. During the "collapse" of WTC 1,2 everybody can see, that there is no pile-driver oder pancaking floors (like in this model). The structure is pulverized during the crash like in a controlled demolition.

[bio]

Heiwa, you owe this man $1,000,000.

What an immature post!:o

[Glockjaw]

oops didn't mean to post here, sorry.

[FineWine]

What an immature post!:o


Would you say that it was immature of Heiwa to offer money he doesn't have and make a wager he didn't intend to pay?

[Heiwa]

Would you say that it was immature of Heiwa to offer money he doesn't have and make a wager he didn't intend to pay?

In The Heiwa Challenge thread no money is at stake. Just honour = design and demonstrate a structure A that is one-way crushed down when a part C of A (C=1/10A) is dropped on A by gravity. Have a try! This anybody should be able to do at home.

In another thread = http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=133271 money (plenty) was offered by me to selected candidates, if they could prove the same thing theoretically. I haven't heard from them since.

One person has actually produced a very impressive paper (in 1-D) showing what happens when C due gravity drop impacts A.

He considers a classical system of n material points constrained to move without friction along a straight line. Each material point i is characterized by a constant mass charge mi and by a position xi relative to an origin O (with infinite inertial mass) at position 0. It is supposed that two adjacent material points are linked by a potential (e.g. a spring), thereby forming a chain.

There are two chains, one C, free, that impacts another A that is fixed to ground. The potentials are assumed to first deform elastically and then break.

The potential yields a Lagrangian sum L of masses involved, giving two Euler-Lagrange equations of motion of all the mi masses involved in C and A due to their links and the contact forces. We can thus study what happens to chains C and A and their masses and links at impact.

Both C and A, their links, first deform elastically in various ways after impact - A more than C actually, because A is bigger and has more links - and a top link of A may in fact fail before a failure in a C link takes place. We are jointly working what happens next; when intact chain C continues to displace down into A with one damaged (top) link. Will a second link in A fail? When does the first link in C fail?

It would appear that at some time in 1-D a link in C fails and that it is the start of the arrest of link failures. Chain A arrests chain C.

We are even developing the model into 2-D. Links and masses can then displace sideways! Then A arrests C even quicker. Quite interesting stuff. I will send the final paper to ASCE JEM when we have put it all together.

Anyway, it seems it is possible to show theoretically that it is impossible to produce a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on by gravity. But you can always try.

[BigBird]

Anyway, it seems it is possible to show theoretically that it is impossible to produce a structure A that is one-way crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on by gravity. But you can always try.

See: WTC 1 and WTC 2.

[Grizzly Bear]

These people raise the incomprehension of Bazant's model to an art form.... *face palm*

[FineWine]

In The Heiwa Challenge thread no money is at stake. Just honour.


So, in other words, you have nothing to lose

[Justin39640]

my latest entry
although theres some problem with the floor texture i gotta figure out :(

GayiIRsLdsM

64 levels
2305 pieces

[releaseeabode]

Typically JREF thread.

1770 posts the majority of which are irrelevant or personal attacks.

Keep going Heiwa.

[beachnut]

Typically JREF thread.

1770 posts the majority of which are irrelevant or personal attacks.

Keep going Heiwa.
Typical no evidence truther can't defend Heiwa's work except with whining. Where are your calculations to support Heiwa's work? You have nothing! Typical.

You failed; Heiwa was proved wrong on 911 and you posted off topic whining the only thing you have produced at JREF as a JREF poster instead of presenting the evidence. The evidence you don't have.

Please tell me how Heiwa work is credible? Got engineering?

[Anti-sophist]

I have a serious question. Would the following structure satisfy all of the required elements of the challenge.

I take 4 steel rods with holes in them (like what you'd use for those closet hangers). I use these 4 steel rods as columns. I attach 10 bricks, floors, to these 4 rods using toothpicks and glue. The only thing holding up the brick is 4 toothpicks connecting it to the steel rod. I drop a brick onto the top "floor", breaking the toothpicks, causing a progressive collapse all the way down.

If someone built that, would that win?

[triforcharity]

Anti,

Yes, it should. But, he will make up some new rule about how there were no pizza boxes or linguini in it, so it doesn't count.

[Heiwa]

I have a serious question. Would the following structure satisfy all of the required elements of the challenge.

I take 4 steel rods with holes in them (like what you'd use for those closet hangers). I use these 4 steel rods as columns. I attach 10 bricks, floors, to these 4 rods using toothpicks and glue. The only thing holding up the brick is 4 toothpicks connecting it to the steel rod. I drop a brick onto the top "floor", breaking the toothpicks, causing a progressive collapse all the way down.

If someone built that, would that win?

So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.

You are supposed to disconnect part C from part A so C = A/10 A, e.g. 1 brick + pieces of steel rods, toothpicks and glue connections.

And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged. The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks. So you fail!

[triforcharity]

See, my point exactly.

Um, you got one of those Insta-Goalposts don't you??? Just push a button, and it fold up into a nice near pile, then you roll it over to the next place, push another button, and VWALA!! New goalposts!!

[tsig]

So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.

You are supposed to disconnect part C from part A so C = A/10 A, e.g. 1 brick + pieces of steel rods, toothpicks and glue connections.

And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged. The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks. So you fail!

I have a feeling that your warm buttocks will not get damaged by a thick prick.

[Anti-sophist]

So we have the following elements in part A; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 bricks, unknown number of toothpicks.
Then we have unknown number of connections - glue.

Let's say 40 toothpicks, 4 per brick. And 80 connections, glue, gluing the toothpick to both the brick and the steel.


And then drop C on A. Will C one-way crush down A?

Probably not. There will be local failures at contact bottom of C with top of A. I have a feeling many connections will not fail and that many toothpicks will remain undamaged.


Aren't you the one who keeps bemoaning scenarios and mental theorizing? I'm not asking what you THINK will happen. This is about your challenge and what does and does not qualify as an "approved" structure. I'm asking IF it resulted in a progressive collapse, would it satisfy your challenge? Does this structure meet all of your required elements?

The steel rods will not get damaged at all and the same with the bricks.

Nothing in your original challenge said ANYTHING about damaging the components. You said...

Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.


I feel that your "answer" didn't really answer my question. Let's presume I built this. Let's presume that I drop a brick onto the top floor.. and let's presume that the resulting collapse disconnects every brick from no less than 3 of the columns. This means that more than 75% of the connections will have been broken, nothing will be standing, and the "building" is completely collapsed.

If this was built, and if it collapsed as I've stated, does this satisfy your challenge?

[Gamolon]

Nothing in your original challenge said ANYTHING about damaging the components. You said...

Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.


Good point. He tried to pull the same schtick with me when I proposed my model.

Heiwa, here is my model that I am going to use and beat your challenge.

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

[BigAl]

Let's say 40 toothpicks, 4 per brick. And 80 connections, glue, gluing the toothpick to both the brick and the steel.



Stuff the model with cotton to simulate the flammable contents of the floors.
Shoot a .410Ga shotgun round into the model to simulate the damage of the airplane impact.
Add weight proportional to 100 tons in one corner of one floor to simulate the excess and unplanned floor loading of the aircraft debris.
Squirt lighter fluid into the model and set fire inside the model to simulate the resulting fire.
If the model is still standing, drop Part A onto Part C or whatever stupid nomenclature Heiwa uses to try to explain his theory.


To quote one of the people involved on the design the WTC towers:


Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

[Heiwa]

Let's say 40 toothpicks, 4 per brick. And 80 connections, glue, gluing the toothpick to both the brick and the steel.




Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.




If this was built, and if it collapsed as I've stated, does this satisfy your challenge?

So we have the following elements; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 (or 11) bricks, and 40 toothpicks. There are total 80 (or 84) glued connections.

70% of the connections must fail, i.e. 56 or so.

Have a try! Purpose is to see if part C can one-way crush down part A. Maybe only one connection (of eight) will fail at first impact, then top brick of part A displaces at one corner, part C will be pushed to that side and maybe a few more connections fail. But not 56!

So to start with, ensure that all eight top connections steel rod/toothpick/brick fails similtaneously. If only four connections fail - 50% - you are off to a bad start.

Maybe with luck, you may break 40 connections in part A, but any time you break one connection there is another with no load acting on it. Difficult to break that one.

I have a feeling a lot of toothpicks will remain attached to rods or bricks after your attempt.

Why not glue the bricks to the steel rods and forget the toothpicks? Then there are only 40 or 44 connections to break and you must only break 28 or 30 for success.

Don't forget the lateral load check prior crush down test!

[GlennB]

I have a feeling a lot of toothpicks will remain attached to rods or bricks after your attempt.


I would expect better from a "good European" and an engineer.

If you are having problems with the terms you stated in your o/p, then please re-state them in the light of experience you have gained through the responses in this thread. At the moment you are in breach of contract, to put it in legal terms.

10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

"Element" in your o/p cannot be considered to include joints, but purely the structural members that are connected by the joints. Whether a toothpick snaps or pulls out in its entirety is not a consideration in the o/p. To illustrate - if I screw together two pieces of wood, I have two elements (the pieces of wood). Expecting the screw also to detach when breaking this joint would be plain bizarre. If the two pieces come apart, I have 100% "disconnected" status. Agreed?

[Heiwa]

Good point. He tried to pull the same schtick with me when I proposed my model.

Heiwa, here is my model that I am going to use and beat your challenge.

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a seperate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

What do you think would happen? Are the "thumbtack" connections going to arrest the upper part and stop it from bringing everything down the the ground?

OK, here we have a nice structure with say n discs with mass held by a center pole? Every disc is attached to the pole via only one connection. .

Now we cut the pole to get two parts A and C. Upper part C consists of n/10 discs attached to a pole, which is 1/10th of the original pole.

Part A is evidently the rest; 9n/10 disc connected to a pole 9/10th of the original one.

Now drop part C on part A. First contact will be between the two poles!

What happens? Well pole C applies a force on pole A that transmits the force to ground. Pole A also applies a force on pole C that is stopped ... I assume. Or it will tumble on the side.

When pole C stops/tumbles on its side, maybe connections between C discs/pole break and the C discs start falling down. I doubt very much that the C-discs will break off all A discs. The C pole is not centered on A any more!

Remember that parts A and C must have same structures, incl. pole, etc, etc.

[alienentity]

Heiwa, where's your million dollars?

Do you actually have it or are you full of you-know-what?

Documentation please.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa, where's your million dollars?

Do you actually have it or are you full of you-know-what?

Documentation please.

For sure I have $1M but this thread is not about money; it is a challenge! Try to beat it. Produce a structure that self-destructs by dropping a piece of it on it. You'll get rich! Patent it.
Most contenders have not read the rules! They design a structure A and then take another structure C and drop on A. They have not understood that they should disconnect a part of A - that we call part C - and then drop this part on A.
They do a Bazant!! Bazant says that a part C of WTC 1 dropped on the lower part A and - simsalabim - C one-way crushed down A. However, the Bazant part C is not the real upper part of WTC 1. It is a superstrong monster that Bazant has invented ... probably for money.

[Anti-sophist]

So we have the following elements; 4 steel rods with holes, 10 (or 11) bricks, and 40 toothpicks. There are total 80 (or 84) glued connections.

70% of the connections must fail, i.e. 56 or so.

Have a try! Purpose is to see if part C can one-way crush down part A. Maybe only one connection (of eight) will fail at first impact, then top brick of part A displaces at one corner, part C will be pushed to that side and maybe a few more connections fail. But not 56!

So to start with, ensure that all eight top connections steel rod/toothpick/brick fails similtaneously. If only four connections fail - 50% - you are off to a bad start.

Maybe with luck, you may break 40 connections in part A, but any time you break one connection there is another with no load acting on it. Difficult to break that one.

I have a feeling a lot of toothpicks will remain attached to rods or bricks after your attempt.


Ok, I think I understand now. You consider the "toothpicks" to be a component, when they are just part of the connection mechanism. Toothpicks are no different than a screw, nail, or rivet, in this scenario. I've used them simply to use a "connection" component of the same order of magnitude strength as is required, instead of something like pure glue which is 1000s of time stronger than is accurate, relative to scale.

The toothpick breaks before the glue because its weaker than the glue. You dodge the issue completely by making the toothpick a "component" instead of a failed connection.

Your goal is "break" the adhesives.. and you are hiding behind the fact that at these scales, adhesives are infinitely stronger than the force that can be generated. In other words, you've changed the game from anything to have anything to do with 9/11 and more it's a game of finding an adhesive that is "just" strong enough to hold something up. This is an easy problem for me to dodge, but let me start with another question.

If I built the structure above, and dropped the top brick, and every single toothpick in the structure shattered... leaving us with

* 4 rods with half-toothpicks stuck out of them...
* 10 bricks with half-toothpicks stuck out of them...

...all strewn out on the floor... You wouldn't consider this a "collapse" of the building valid of winning your challenge? You don't think this demonstrates fairly conclusively that a less than 10% of the mass, dropped from a modest height, can destroy an entire structure? Really?

Second question, here's a simple modification. Instead of toothpicks and glue, I use a tiny bit of clay. It will harden and be extremely brittle, but it will connect the bricks to the steel rods. When I drop the top brick, it will shatter the clay connections and it will progress to the floor, shattering all of the connections. Will this result in a successful experiment? Will this satisify the challenge?


Produce a structure that self-destructs by dropping a piece of it on it.


My structure does this. Despite the fact that my structure is lying on the floor completely and utterly demolished with no "floor" connected to any "column", you say it's not "destroyed". Your definition of "destroyed" needs work, I think.

[Mr.Herbert]

I have a feeling that your warm buttocks will not get damaged by a thick prick.


Is this a typo? Either way......



:dl:

[Heiwa]

... let me start with another question.

AA. If I built the structure above, and dropped the top brick, and every single toothpick in the structure shattered... leaving us with

* 4 rods with half-toothpicks stuck out of them...
* 10 bricks with half-toothpicks stuck out of them...

...all strewn out on the floor... You wouldn't consider this a "collapse" of the building valid of winning your challenge? You don't think this demonstrates fairly conclusively that a less than 10% of the mass, dropped from a modest height, can destroy an entire structure? Really?

BB. Second question, here's a simple modification. Instead of toothpicks and glue, I use a tiny bit of clay. It will harden and be extremely brittle, but it will connect the bricks to the steel rods. When I drop the top brick, it will shatter the clay connections and it will progress to the floor, shattering all of the connections. Will this result in a successful experiment? Will this satisify the challenge?



CC. My structure does this. Despite the fact that my structure is lying on the floor completely and utterly demolished with no "floor" connected to any "column", you say it's not "destroyed". Your definition of "destroyed" needs work, I think.

AA. The idea is to disconnect 1/10th (part C) of the structure and drop it on the other 9/10th (part A). If your 1/10th part C is just one brick, the other 9/10th part A are 9 bricks stacked on top of each other and evidently one brick cannot one-way crush down the nine.

If you attach the bricks to steel rods you have to ensure that also the steel rods are parts of both C and A.

BB. Fine - use clay to connect the bricks and the steel rods. And do the lateral load check, etc. Your clay/rod/brick design looks like a house of cards to me and is not a real structure.

CC. I think you should re-read post #1 to get an idea what the Challenge is all about.

[alienentity]

For sure I have $1M <snip>


Documentation please...... still waiting Heiwa.

You claim to have the $1M (USD or Euros?). Is this a con game or for real?

You surely must have the money in trust, or should be able to get your bank or lawyer verify that the funds are in place.

[Heiwa]

Here are some extracts from the BLGB paper to assist designers of a Heiwa Challenge structure:

Merely to get convinced of the inevitability of gravity driven progressive collapse, further analysis is, for a structural engineer, superfluous. Further analysis is nevertheless needed to dispel false myths, and also to acquire full understanding that would allow assessing the danger of progressive collapse in other situations.

The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up (Fig. 2 bottom), each of which is governed by a different differential equation (Bazant and Verdure 2007, pp. 312-313). During the crush-down, the falling upper part of tower (C in Fig. 2 bottom), having a compacted layer of debris at its bottom (zone B), is crushing the lower part (zone A) with negligible damage to itself. During the crush-up, the moving upper part C of tower is being crushed at bottom by the compacted debris B resting on the ground.
…

It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downwards and upwards. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story only by about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot occur simultaneously is almost exact.
---

Fig. 2 is below:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Bazantnew.JPG

So you see that you have to ensure that the crush-up front does not destroy upper part C structure at impact. So part C structure must be strong!

OK, part A structure is even stronger, as it carried part C before, and part C carried nothing, so you have to consider that.

Then you have to ensure that the crush-down front displaces uniformly down through part A structure and produces rubble (part B).

How that is done is The Heiwa Challenge!

Even if part C structure is only damaged 1%, you have to ensure that it is uniform! If not part C may slide off and there is no one-way crush down of part A structure.

Evidently you have to ensure that part A does not arrest part C. That's part of the Challenge.

Of course, The Heiwa Challenge is a superfluous excersize according Bazant but have a try anyway. Good luck!

[BasqueArch]

From The Heiwa Challenge
see post #1 above.

Btw i'll pay you $1m if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!


HEIWA CONFESSES TO BENTHAM OPEN JOURNALIST NO MONEY TO PAY HEIWA CHALLENGE WINNERS.
CHALLENGE TRUST MILLIONS LOST TO MADOFF

[NoZed Avenger]

For sure I have $1M but this thread is not about money; it is a challenge!

It is supposedly a challenge where you say "i'll pay you $1m" for meeting the conditions.

(1) Do you offer to pay someone who meets the criteria of the first post $1 million in US dollars?

(2) How soon after a successful demonstration will you pay?

(3) In what form will the funds be transferred?

(4) Will you agree to put the money into escrow so that a third party can administer the funds?

(5) Will you agree to a third party arbitrator or judge to decide whether the challenge has been met?

(6) If not, do you agree to make the determination yourself in good faith, using the terms in your first post in this thread in their commonly-understood meanings in everyday English?

(7) In the event of a claimed breach, will you accept the home district and state of the challenger (U.S. District Court) as proper venue and jurisdiction for the filing of a lawsuit and agree to appear if necessary?

(8) Will you make that agreement in writing, using your real name?

[Heiwa]

It is supposedly a challenge where you say "i'll pay you $1m" for meeting the conditions.



Did I? Where? The Heiwa Challenge is a no money/just honour challenge. Just design and build a structure where C, when dropped on A, one-way crushes down A, etc, etc.

In another thread I offered $1M to selected anonumous persons to prove this theoretically as encouragement to move forward. None of these lucky persons produced any theories at all!

One person 'Alpha Bravo' actually produced an interesting paper, C dropping on A in 1-D, where both C and A were n and 10 n material points respectively connected by 'potentials' (elastic springs); the C chain with n material pointes was 'free' and the A chain with 10 n material points was connected to rigid ground at one end. At contact C/A at various energies both C and A deform elastically and, as A is fixed at one end, A may deform locally more than C in the time following contact. Alpha Bravo then suggested that a 'potential' in A may fail before any 'potential' in C. If that means that a one-way crush down of A follows is not yet decided.

You see there are 11 n material points and 'potentials' and if one 'potential' fails anywhere ... the material points above just slides off and falls to ground ... in 2-D! No one way crush down of A - just C falling to ground.

So in 2-D a one-way crush down is not possible. We are now working on a 3-D model where a one-way crush down is really impossible.

Any comments are always welcome.

[triforcharity]

Something I just thought about Heiwa.

How can you explain the South Tower?? It had about 1/3rd of the total building fall. So, does that mean that if we use 1/3rd of the buidlings mass, than it counts as a one way crush down???

Im just curious. Would you agree that if we use 1/3 instead of 1/10th, (which, BTW, is actually WRONG considering the impact zone started at the 93rd floor) then it COULD happen, right??

Oh, one last thing. Why in all of your models and rantings, do you use 1/10?? If that alone is fundamentally wrong, why do you continue using it???

[Heiwa]

Something I just thought about Heiwa.

How can you explain the South Tower?? It had about 1/3rd of the total building fall. So, does that mean that if we use 1/3rd of the buidlings mass, than it counts as a one way crush down???

Im just curious. Would you agree that if we use 1/3 instead of 1/10th, (which, BTW, is actually WRONG considering the impact zone started at the 93rd floor) then it COULD happen, right??

Oh, one last thing. Why in all of your models and rantings, do you use 1/10?? If that alone is fundamentally wrong, why do you continue using it???

The Challenge uses 1/10th quite arbitrarily to get the discussion started (as Bazant uses it in his reports). You can use 1/3rd, if you like! It doesn't really matter. A smaller piece of any structure dropped on a bigger piece of similar structure cannot one-way crush down the bigger piece.

[triforcharity]

Ok, thanks. I was just thinking about that today. Maybe I'll have to build something, I got some vacation coming up.....

[GlennB]

Ok, thanks. I was just thinking about that today. Maybe I'll have to build something, I got some vacation coming up.....

triforcharity .... it seems Heiwa is suggesting 49% falling onto 51% will always leave the odd 2% standing. He also has stated that it doesn't matter whether the 49% falls from one storey or 2 miles.

Be warned :D Model at your peril! Please follow all health+safety guidelines. Glue goalposts firmly in place at the outset.

[Oscar]

Part A (Heiwa's brain) is crushed down by Part C (about 5 million posts explaining to him why his argument is that of a yoghurt pot with learning problems)

Who would have guessed that a yoghurt pot was so resilient to reason? Why, everyone. He is, after all, made of plastic. (Supposed decomposition rate for Heiwa's empty carton : over 100 years. Supposed irritation rate for average debunker telling him to **** off back to nursery school: 15 minutes.)

[NoZed Avenger]

Did I? Where?

That would be in this thread, post 34.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4563492&postcount=34
---- Post 34 ----
BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that.

----------------

The Heiwa Challenge is a no money/just honour challenge.

I think this post from you proves it is neither.

[Heiwa]

That would be in this thread, post 34.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4563492&postcount=34


----------------



I think this post from you proves it is neither.

Oh, it was that Japanese poster that needed some extra encouragement. Haven't heard from him since. Loss of face?

[alienentity]

Oh, it was that Japanese poster that needed some extra encouragement. Haven't heard from him since. Loss of face?

Heiwa' 1,000,000ドルを持つsの要求はおそらく偽である。 たぶん彼は欺瞞である。 なんと悪い人か。

[Heiwa]

Heiwa' 1,000,000ドルを持つsの要求はおそらく偽である。 たぶん彼は欺瞞である。 なんと悪い人か。

Arigato. But US$? What's wrong with 1930's Chinese ones?

[Dave Rogers]

Arigato. But US$? What's wrong with 1930's Chinese ones?

They're not commonly represented by the symbol $, so they're clearly not what you were offering.

Dave

[boloboffin]

Arigato. But US$? What's wrong with 1930's Chinese ones?

Yes, as a matter of fact, your several discussions here would be quickly submitted as evidence of your promise to pay $1 million U.S., including the rather detailed challenge work-through with Myriad's proposal. You are on the hook for $1 million U.S., and as has been pointed out, courts will make you pay.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Oh, it was that Japanese poster that needed some extra encouragement. Haven't heard from him since. Loss of face?
This is all you've got?
Me?:D
I asked for proof for your challenge on paper and proof of your Million Dollars just like what JREF has done with the paranormal challenge.
you're a fraud.
Several Architects here have proved your lunacy wrong.
Pure and simple.

[Heiwa]

This is all you've got?
Me?:D
I asked for proof for your challenge on paper and proof of your Million Dollars just like what JREF has done with the paranormal challenge.
you're a fraud.
Several Architects here have proved your lunacy wrong.
Pure and simple.

The Heiwa Challenge is quite difficult to say the least; design a structure where a part C of it can destroy part A when dropped on A by gravity. Nobody seems to be close and may therefore get mad. But do not blame me. According Bazant and Seffen it is possible (C one-way crushing A). So you have to study the Bazant and Seffen papers (use Google) and then go about adapting your designs accordingly. Seffen suggest that the design should be like a 'party balloon' (!!) as according to Seffen a party balloon structure part C apparently one-way crushes down part A. Bazant suggests that part C will not be damaged at all but, due to a natural phenomenon not really explained as it is superfluous, C will start to compress A into rubble - part B - that in turn totally destroys A.
So you only have to adapt your structural designs to follow the theorries of Bazant and Seffen.

[KJC]

The Heiwa Challenge is quite difficult to say the least; design a structure where a part C of it can destroy part A when dropped on A by gravity. Nobody seems to be close and may therefore get mad. But do not blame me. According Bazant and Seffen it is possible (C one-way crushing A). So you have to study the Bazant and Seffen papers (use Google) and then go about adapting your designs accordingly. Seffen suggest that the design should be like a 'party balloon' (!!) as according to Seffen a party balloon structure part C apparently one-way crushes down part A. Bazant suggests that part C will not be damaged at all but, due to a natural phenomenon not really explained as it is superfluous, C will start to compress A into rubble - part B - that in turn totally destroys A.
So you only have to adapt your structural designs to follow the theorries of Bazant and Seffen.

Didn't you see a video clip in another thread were in a demolition, one floor was instantly removed with cables (no explosives used), and Part A and Part C were both destroyed in a one-way top to bottom collapse.

The floors were a wider surface area too compared to the buildings height.

[Heiwa]

Didn't you see a video clip in another thread were in a demolition, one floor was instantly removed with cables (no explosives used), and Part A and Part C were both destroyed in a one-way top to bottom collapse.

The floors were a wider surface area too compared to the buildings height.

You mean this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Anyway, the Challenge is to design a structure, any structure, where by first removing and then dropping part C of it on the remainder, part A, C crushes A. You have to describe the structure, do the test and describe the result, i.e. how C manages to destroy A.

[Jonnyclueless]

And any structure includes pizza boxes right?

[KJC]

You mean this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Anyway, the Challenge is to design a structure, any structure, where by first removing and then dropping part C of it on the remainder, part A, C crushes A. You have to describe the structure, do the test and describe the result, i.e. how C manages to destroy A.

No, not that video.

This one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hicj2MPHc80

[Heiwa]

No, not that video.

This one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hicj2MPHc80

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.

[beachnut]

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.
You can't do engineering and present your calculations to support your failed ideas. If you are the rule the best thing the French can do is talk a big talk and fail to produce the million dollars when their challenge is a big BS lie formed with fantasy and failed engineering.

What happen to the money? Why have you failed to present a comprehensive engineering analysis of your ideas? Are all French liars about money issues, apologist for terrorists and unable to present a rational engineering argument that does not include pizza boxes and kids jumping on beds?

NO

You are the exception; I worked with French Officers in NATO and other French groups in the Balkans and your lack of knowledge on engineering is not indicative of the expertise of the French I worked with which was outstanding and rational. Your posts are more like bar banter after a few too many.

[KJC]

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.

Did you notice the one-way crush down?

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.


By standing in front of them and taunting Germans?

[releaseeabode]

Typically JREF thread.

1770 posts the majority of which are irrelevant or personal attacks.

Keep going Heiwa.

Another 45 posts added in three weeks and still nothing but obfuscation, irrelevance and personal attacks coming from the JREF debunkers.

There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge. Once you have overcome your ego and accepted this then you can regain face by pointing out that the simplifications do not represent the complexity of 911.

Instead we get all this ******** defending the indefensible. Your ego will only allow you to accept complete crushing of Heiwa because he contradicts the groupthink. it really is sad to see educated people twisted in knots by their ego.

[UNLoVedRebel]

There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge.
:train
It seems Prof. Bazant assumes that WTC1 can be modeled as 97 lemons on top of each other. You compress one lemon with an upper part of 13 lemons and then they compress the second lemon, and the first and second lemon (and the 13 top lemons) then compress the third lemon, etc, etc, until there is just lemon juice.

[Dave Rogers]

There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge. Once you have overcome your ego and accepted this then you can regain face by pointing out that the simplifications do not represent the complexity of 911.

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave

[Heiwa]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave

So far nobody has been able to design a structure of any type, size and scale where the upper part C dropping on lower part A destroys A without destroying C before. So far the result is thus in conformity with the Björkman axiom of structures.

But The Heiwa Challenge is still open for any contender. See post #1 for details.

[FineWine]

So far nobody has been able to design a structure of any type, size and scale where the upper part C dropping on lower part A destroys A without destroying C before. So far the result is thus in conformity with the Björkman axiom of structures.

But The Heiwa Challenge is still open for any contender. See post #1 for details.


On 9/11/01, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS HIT THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND REPEATED THE PROCESS UNTIL THE BUILDING WAS GONE. THERE IS NO "PART A."

[Heiwa]

On 9/11/01, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS HIT THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND REPEATED THE PROCESS UNTIL THE BUILDING WAS GONE. THERE IS NO "PART A."

Part A is the 90% structural assembly below part C (e.g. 97 floors interconnected by columns). Part C is the 10% structural assembly above part A (e.g. 13 floors).

There are no collapsing floors anywhere, only locally failed structural elements. According Bazant as adopted by NIST, part C displaces down a short distance and contacts part A.

What happens then is the TOPIC to be demonstrated in a model. According Bazant/NIST C one-way crushes A. Your task is to design a structure that behaves like that.

[FineWine]

Part A is the 90% structural assembly below part C (e.g. 97 floors interconnected by columns). Part C is the 10% structural assembly above part A (e.g. 13 floors).

There are no collapsing floors anywhere, only locally failed structural elements. According Bazant as adopted by NIST, part C displaces down a short distance and contacts part A.

What happens then is the TOPIC to be demonstrated in a model. According Bazant/NIST C one-way crushes A. Your task is to design a structure that behaves like that.


Stop these stupid lies. You have been exposed. The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.

Nobody can be as obtuse as you appear.

[twinstead]

The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.


This should have been the second post in this thread, and the thread should have been a two-poster. Just saying.

When even I get things, there NO excuse for somebody like Heiwa to not get it.

[Heiwa]

Stop these stupid lies. You have been exposed. The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.

Nobody can be as obtuse as you appear.

Please, stop your nonsense. This thread is about designing a structure where top part C (C = 1/10 A) crushes lower part A. You can use, e.g. the papers of Bazant or the NIST reports as guidelines.

NIST suggests, e.g. that C can apply so, too much potential energy when dropped than A can absorb = A collapses.

Well - try to find a structure that behaves like that! Ask NIST for advice!

What kind of magic structure A can be crushed down by a piece C of A itself, when C is dropped from a small distance on A?

Do you think this happens?

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

I cannot see C there! C seems to have disappeared!

And all these damaged structural parts being thrown out like a fountain? Do you really think C (where is it?) can produce that by a small drop?

I doubt it! Anyway, your job is to produce a structure A that behaves like that when a small part C is dropped on it.

Good luck!

[240-185]

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.
Your few phrases written in a horrible French shows that you're blatantly lying about your nationality. Three french words can sum up your lies: "Arrêtez vos conneries".

Other lie you keep repeating: no, the part A wasn't intact.
Other lie you keep repeating: no, The rubble doesn't form one entity.
Other lie you keep repeating: no, part C isn't the tenth of part A.

[FineWine]

Please, stop your nonsense. This thread is about designing a structure where top part C (C = 1/10 A) crushes lower part A. You can use, e.g. the papers of Bazant or the NIST reports as guidelines.

NIST suggests, e.g. that C can apply so, too much potential energy when dropped than A can absorb = A collapses.

Well - try to find a structure that behaves like that! Ask NIST for advice!

What kind of magic structure A can be crushed down by a piece C of A itself, when C is dropped from a small distance on A?

Do you think this happens?

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

I cannot see C there! C seems to have disappeared!

And all these damaged structural parts being thrown out like a fountain? Do you really think C (where is it?) can produce that by a small drop?

I doubt it! Anyway, your job is to produce a structure A that behaves like that when a small part C is dropped on it.

Good luck!


You keep babbling your refuted nonsense, but you are trapped by your dishonesty and incompetence. NIST says nothing about your mythical part A because there is no part A, you fraud. The collapsing floors didn't disappear. They kept adding the mass of each successive floor they crushed. You are clueless about the contents of the NIST Report.

PART C, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS, IS THE BIG PART; THE SINGLE FLOORS THEY HIT IN SUCCESSION ARE THE SMALL PART.

[Heiwa]

You keep babbling your refuted nonsense, but you are trapped by your dishonesty and incompetence. NIST says nothing about your mythical part A because there is no part A, you fraud. The collapsing floors didn't disappear. They kept adding the mass of each successive floor they crushed. You are clueless about the contents of the NIST Report.

PART C, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS, IS THE BIG PART; THE SINGLE FLOORS THEY HIT IN SUCCESSION ARE THE SMALL PART.

OK, OK! Design a structure that behaves like that and win The Heiwa Challenge!

It is difficult, though, as no structure A can be crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on A.

But maybe you can arrange some 'collapsing floors' hitting other floors one after the other. Don't forget the columns!

[BigAl]

OK, OK! Design a structure that behaves like that and win The Heiwa Challenge!


Why not deal with the WTC towers as they were on 9/11 and the fire, lack of firefighting, the structural damage and the 150 tons of overload that caused them to collapse

[Heiwa]

Why not deal with the WTC towers as they were on 9/11 and the fire, lack of firefighting, the structural damage and the 150 tons of overload that caused them to collapse

Any structural design is welcome in The Heiwa Challenge, incl. the one of, e.g. WTC 1.
Evidently a dynamic load is applied when you drop part C on part A and let's call it an overload. This overload will normally produce local failures of both parts C and A ... and not collapse of A.
The Challenge is in fact to find a structure that behaves unnormally, i.e. C makes A collapse. No such structure exists to my knowledge.

[releaseeabode]

Any structural design is welcome in The Heiwa Challenge, incl. the one of, e.g. WTC 1.
Evidently a dynamic load is applied when you drop part C on part A and let's call it an overload. This overload will normally produce local failures of both parts C and A ... and not collapse of A.
The Challenge is in fact to find a structure that behaves unnormally, i.e. C makes A collapse. No such structure exists to my knowledge.

Aside from all the bitching, moaning and obfuscation regarding the $1m dollars reward (even my dog would have understood it not to be literal but, it is not in the JREF mindset to attack the proposition when you can have a dig elsewhere), I'd have thought that proving Newton's Third Law wrong would have been reward enough for the finely honed minds of the JREF.

[releaseeabode]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave

I clearly was paying attention because, in reply you repeated back to me almost exactly what I was saying!!! Were you paying attention is the more relevant question I think. Comprehension difficulties, just enjoy talking over people or could not bear to converse in a friendly and lively way with someone you don't wholly agree with? I know which one I think is right.

I scanned THIS THREAD ONLY, and as far as I could see Heiwa has yet to link THIS CHALLENGE THREAD directly to 911. The question is, how dedicated to the truth are you? Can you be honest and truthful, even with someone you don't agree with, it appears not.

The only intellectually honest thing to do is to accept Newton's Third Law and concede Heiwa's very simplistic challenge and then debunk the analogy. It really is painful watching the ego overpowering educated minds like it does on the JREF.

[dtugg]

Please explain how beating Heiwa's retarded challenge would disprove Newtons Third Law. This should be good.

[Heiwa]

Please explain how beating Heiwa's retarded challenge would disprove Newtons Third Law. This should be good.

Newton's third law: All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force.

It means that when part C contacts part A and applies a force FC on A, part A applies force FA on C and FC has equal magnitude but opposite direction than FA.

Now to win The Heiwa Challenge you have to design a structure where force FC one-way crushes A without force FA applied on C preventing C from doing that.

As C and A have similar structures, except that A = 10 C and that A carried C statically before the drop, it would appear that when C applies FC on A in order to one-way crush A, A applies FA on C with effects that must be considered.

Bazant & Co of ill-fame make it simple. They assume that C is rigid and that FA cannot deform or damage C. But if you assume or design your Heiwa Challenge structure that C is rigid, you also have to assume that A is rigid and the result will be that no one-way crush down takes place.

No, you have to design a non-rigid structure and let the two non-rigid parts C and A come into contact. Have a go at it! Size and scale doesn't matter!

[Grizzly Bear]

The only intellectually honest thing to do is to accept Newton's Third Law and concede Heiwa's very simplistic challenge and then debunk the analogy. It really is painful watching the ego overpowering educated minds like it does on the JREF.
Heiwa's "simplistic model" is fatally flawed. He claims that the mass gets shredded to tiny pieces and the floors "hinge" downwards in a series of local failures. All the while assuming that the columns will not only contain the debris through friction, but claiming that the columns would be capable of standing despite incredibly large unbraced lengths and unusual load paths. You may have a high tolerance for incompetence but I don't, and your lack of expertise in the subject compound the problem for you and is no excuse.

Newton's third law is already accounted for and satisfied... Heiwa and yourself by extension don't apply it correctly. And I dare say Heiwa is totally unqualified to even be a practicing engineer if he think lemons are a model for built structures

[releaseeabode]

Heiwa's "simplistic model" is fatally flawed. He claims that the mass gets shredded to tiny pieces and the floors "hinge" downwards in a series of local failures. All the while assuming that the columns will not only contain the debris through friction, but claiming that the columns would be capable of standing despite incredibly large unbraced lengths and unusual load paths. You may have a high tolerance for incompetence but I don't, and your lack of expertise in the subject compound the problem for you and is no excuse.

Newton's third law is already accounted for and satisfied... Heiwa and yourself by extension don't apply it correctly. And I dare say Heiwa is totally unqualified to even be a practicing engineer if he think lemons are a model for built structures

Strangely, I don't see any of these claims in the Heiwa challenge?

Heiwa's model reduces the problem down to a single fundamental law, the fact that you can't comprehend that is not mine or Heiwa's fault. Whatever I disagree with about his other work on 911, he is right in this challenge. No amount of personal attacks on either Heiwa or myself or obfuscation or talking past the point will change that.

[Grizzly Bear]

Strangely, I don't see any of these claims in the Heiwa challenge?
Ask him for his website. I'm sure he would absolutely love another excuse to plug it.

Heiwa's model reduces the problem down to a single fundamental law, the fact that you can't comprehend that is not mine or Heiwa's fault.
I can't comprehend it? Oh I'm well aware of what he wants to claim. He sets an absolute law that ignores every principal of design. His malpractice is inexcusable, and his graphical models reaffirm it.

Whatever I disagree with about his other work on 911, he is right in this challenge.
Then instead of a hit and run cheering Heiwa on, why don't you add something substantive to corroborate Heiwa's argument? Under what architectural principal is his claim valid?

No amount of personal attacks on either Heiwa or myself or obfuscation or talking past the point will change that.
I can't speak for everyone, but my argument has nothing to do with personally assassinating Ander's character. He's demonstrably incompetent or intentionally lying, and his work proves it. I don't need to insult him to characterize his credibility. You and him can whine about Newton's third law being "violated" but it never was.

[twinstead]

Heiwa's challenge is a carefully-crafted intellectual exorcise and has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC collapses, yet he appears to be using it as some kind of evidence that the collapses couldn't happen like most experts suggest. This thread, and his challenge, is not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

[Heiwa]

Ask him for his website. I'm sure he would absolutely love another excuse to plug it.




http://heiwaco.tripod.com

If you find any incorrect information there just send pm.

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa's challenge is a carefully-crafted intellectual exorcise and has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC collapses, yet he appears to be using it as some kind of evidence that the collapses couldn't happen like most experts suggest. This thread, and his challenge, is not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

The crux of heiwa's problem is that he treats the collapse as if both sections are monolithic entities, which is an incredibly huge deviation form how the towers were actually built. The towers consisted of many many pieces working in unison as a system. If the individual pieces fail, or a critical part of that system is compromised, then it cannot hold together.

[FineWine]

Aside from all the bitching, moaning and obfuscation regarding the $1m dollars reward (even my dog would have understood it not to be literal but, it is not in the JREF mindset to attack the proposition when you can have a dig elsewhere), I'd have thought that proving Newton's Third Law wrong would have been reward enough for the finely honed minds of the JREF.


You don't think very well. There was nothing figurative about Heiwa's bigus challenge. (Wait--did I really just tell a "truther" that he doesn't think very well?) Heiwa meant his dishonest challenge to be taken literally. It turned out, after several people won, that he was betting with money he didn't have.

After eight years, "truthers" are still clueless about Newton's laws.

[FineWine]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com

If you find any incorrect information there just send pm.


Ah, so that's the mistake being made the posters who have found a mountain of incorrect information there. They made their findings public. I get it.

[twinstead]

Does Heiwa know that the PM function probably has a size limit? I doubt it could handle ALL the incorrect information. ;)

[A W Smith]

Newton's third law: All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force.

It means that when part C contacts part A and applies a force FC on A, part A applies force FA on C and FC has equal magnitude but opposite direction than FA.

!

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

2955284277102420540&

[Heiwa]

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

2955284277102420540&

Do I? In The Heiwa Challenge the only force allowed is gravity. Pls re-read post #1.

[Dave Rogers]

I clearly was paying attention because, in reply you repeated back to me almost exactly what I was saying!!!

No, I didn't. You're asking that we concede Heiwa's challenge. However, Heiwa's challenge claims that it is impossible to build a structure, INCLUDING THE WTC TOWERS, of which the top 10% can crush down the remainder. Since that is demonstrably untrue, there's no need to concede.

[quotwe]I scanned THIS THREAD ONLY, and as far as I could see Heiwa has yet to link THIS CHALLENGE THREAD directly to 911. [/quote]

Other than posting it in a forum specifically dedicated to discussion of alternative theories surrounding 9/11. The implication is obvious. And you can't take one of Heiwa's lies out of context and pretend it's unrelated to all his others.

Dave

[Pantaz]

releaseeabode,
Please read the thread, "Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140866)".

[releaseeabode]

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

2955284277102420540&

A less honorable person than me would have taken this little gem to the Stundie nominations. Lucky I have a little more intellectual honesty than most here.

[Heiwa]

releaseeabode,
Please read the thread, "Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140866)".

Good thread - but Myriad's structure failed The Heiwa Challenge!

[BigAl]

Do I? In The Heiwa Challenge the only force allowed is gravity. Pls re-read post #1.

But on 9/11 we had fire, floor overload due to the unplanned 100+ tons of aircraft, structural damage, and no firefighting.

[twinstead]

Heiwa do you think we are claiming that gravity alone made the towers collapse? If you allow gravity as the only force, then your challenge is in no way, shape, or form similar to what happened to cause the WTC collapses and should be moved to another subforum.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa do you think we are claiming that gravity alone made the towers collapse? If you allow gravity as the only force, then your challenge is in no way, shape, or form similar to what happened to cause the WTC collapses and should be moved to another subforum.

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

[FineWine]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?


Upper-part C fell down, AS YOU KNOW, on ONE floor, the floor immediately below. The process repeated until the building was gone.

[Justin39640]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

yes cause they all thought the buildings could fall prior to 911 without being hit or on fire first
will you stop lying already
or at least try to operate in reality

[twinstead]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

But, the plane impacts and fires are what allowed the collapse initiation. Gravity just took control from there. Besides, as you have been told a THOUSAND times, there are only TWO parts, the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation, and the individual floor just below it. There is no monolithic "lower part A". It's just a collection of floors.

For the THOUSANDTH time. Even I get this, and you're supposed to be an engineer. Everybody else gets it. Why don't you? What makes you so much smarter than all the other engineers?

[Dave Rogers]

Lucky I have a little more intellectual honesty than most here.

Would you care to demonstrate that intellectual honesty by adding some content to this forum, rather than just cheerleading for Heiwa?

Dave

[twinstead]

Would you care to demonstrate that intellectual honesty by adding some content to this forum, rather than just cheerleading for Heiwa?


That's bill smith's job anyway. releaseeabode appears to be some kind of usurper.

[Heiwa]

But, the plane impacts and fires are what allowed the collapse initiation. Gravity just took control from there. Besides, as you have been told a THOUSAND times, there are only TWO parts, the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation, and the individual floor just below it. There is no monolithic "lower part A". It's just a collection of floors.

For the THOUSANDTH time. Even I get this, and you're supposed to be an engineer. Everybody else gets it. Why don't you? What makes you so much smarter than all the other engineers?

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

[FineWine]

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

Yes, the mass above is a collection of floors. THEY ARE ALL COLLAPSING. THEIR MASSES ARE COMBINED WHEN THEY HIT ONE FLOOR, A SINGLE FLOOR NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF THIRTEEN FLOORS.

No, you will never get it.

[twinstead]

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

You are wrong. In fact, why do you get to claim the upper part is just an assembly of elements, but we can't claim the LOWER part is just an assembly of elements?


Yes, the mass above is a collection of floors. THEY ARE ALL COLLAPSING. THEIR MASSES ARE COMBINED WHEN THEY HIT ONE FLOOR, A SINGLE FLOOR NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF THIRTEEN FLOORS. All I can do is repeat what FineWine typed. In fact, everybody copy this into their clipboard and simply paste it in response to every post Heiwa makes on the subject.

[Gamolon]

Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

Are you are saying that in the world of structural engineering, there is no such thing as a "rigid body" be it in real life OR when doing calculations?

If you AREN'T saying that there is no such thing, please provide an example of either a real life example or when/how a "rigid body" should be used in calculations.

You are claiming that Bazant is applying the term "rigid body" in error. So please explain how one should use/apply the term "rigid body" in a structural sense.

I'm all ears.

I know most of you understand the term "rigid body", but I want Heiwa's explanation for it.

[Gamolon]

These guys use the term rigid body in this article:
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication3/FEM_DEM_CSE09.htm

In this model, every floor is a rigid body without rotation displacement and the adjacent stories are connected with an axial spring and a shear spring.I suppose they are wrong also?

I must be confused Heiwa. I see the term "rigid body" used all the time when people are talking about structural analysis, but I fail to see you explain how and when the term should be used. You say Bazant is wrong for using it to describe the upper part of the WTC tower.

How should the term be used in a structural sense? What structural designs can the term be used to describe when performing calculations?

[Heiwa]

AA. Are you are saying that in the world of structural engineering, there is no such thing as a "rigid body" be it in real life OR when doing calculations?

BB. If you AREN'T saying that there is no such thing, please provide an example of either a real life example or when/how a "rigid body" should be used in calculations.

CC. You are claiming that Bazant is applying the term "rigid body" in error. So please explain how one should use/apply the term "rigid body" in a structural sense.

I'm all ears.

I know most of you understand the term "rigid body", but I want Heiwa's explanation for it.

AA. In structural analysis/design/calculations no element is rigid, i.e. all elements can deform, when a force is applied. The whole purpose of structural analysis is to calculate these deformations (and associated stresses).

BB. Therefore I never use rigid elements in structural analysis! Each element has its material properties, like e.g. steel. Rigid steel does not exist!

CC. In Bazant's simple 1-D model of one line (C - the 'WTC 1 upper block') colliding with another line (A - the 'WTC 1 weak lower flexible block') he assumes that line C is rigid and cannot deform. Therefore C deforms A in a collision but A cannot deform C; A becomes a 'rubble' line B that is A compressed 4 times!! Complete and utter nonsense. Why not do a proper 3-D analysis using correct sub-elements? It is not difficult!

In real structural analysis there is no need to assume that parts or elements are 'rigid'! Just give them the proper material properties.

It seems Bazant has designed a bridge when he was young and I assume that no part of that bridge was rigid.

In very simple beam static analysis done long-hand, where you are not really interested in local deformations, but only where forces and moments are going, to get a feel for the structure for detailed design later, you can assume that the complete 'beam' is rigid. With a PC, you evidently give the beam its proper dimensions and material non-rigid properties from start so that it can deform.

Happy?

[Heiwa]

These guys use the term rigid body in this article:
http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication3/FEM_DEM_CSE09.htm

I suppose they are wrong also?

I must be confused Heiwa. I see the term "rigid body" used all the time when people are talking about structural analysis, but I fail to see you explain how and when the term should be used. You say Bazant is wrong for using it to describe the upper part of the WTC tower.

How should the term be used in a structural sense? What structural designs can the term be used to describe when performing calculations?

Well, if you put in 'rigid body' mass elements in a structure and connect them with various springs (non-rigid elements) that can break and then drop one of these 'rigid body' mass elements, like these Chinese do, on another 'rigid body' mass element in the structure, then evidently only the springs will deform (and maybe break).

Look at the figures in the paper. The 'rigid body' mass elements are not damaged - they just pile up on ground - undamaged! This has nothing to do with reality.

[tsig]

<snip>This has nothing to do with reality.

True

[Gamolon]

AA. In structural analysis/design/calculations no element is rigid, i.e....

Then can you please tell me why I am finding references to "rigid bodies" from engineers? If no element can be considered "rigid" in your eyes, then why do engineers use them when performing calculations and consider certain sturctures as being rigid?

For example, from this site:
http://www.woodheadpublishing.com/en/book.aspx?bookID=1538
- Free vibration of rigid bodies without damping- Generalized SDOF system: rigid bodies- Program 14.4: MATLAB program to find the natural frequency of beams or rigid framesHere is a quite from this site which explicitly says "every floor is a rigid body":http://www.luxinzheng.net/publication3/FEM_DEM_CSE09.htmIn this model, every floor is a rigid body without rotation displacement and the adjacent stories are connected with an axial spring and a shear springSo please explain. How can you say that rigid bodies do not exist yet I can find MANY references to them when dealing with structural calculations?

BB. Therefore I never use rigid elements in structural analysis! Each element has its material properties, like e.g. steel. Rigid steel does not exist! Again. How is it that YOU say rigid steel does not exist, yet I find references about rigid bodies all over the place?

Are you, a NAVAL ARCHITECT, trying to tell me that STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS are completely wrong because YOU say rigid bodies don't exist per your definition and that they shouldn't be used in calculations which is why YOU don't use them?

[twinstead]

Hey. If Heiwa says rigid bodies don't exist, it doesn't make a difference HOW many engineers mention them; since he's smarter than all the other engineers on Earth, we can safely assume that rigid bodies do not exist.

Get with the program people!

[Newtons Bit]

Err, rigid bodies DONT exist. They're an approximation that makes math a whole heck of alot easier in engineering analysis.

Before modern Finite Element Analysis and hi-end computers it was absolutely necessary to assume certain elements of structures as rigid.

[Grizzly Bear]

Hey. If Heiwa says rigid bodies don't exist, it doesn't make a difference HOW many engineers mention them; since he's smarter than all the other engineers on Earth, we can safely assume that rigid bodies do not exist.

Get with the program people!

What I find ironic about Heiwa's approach is that he uses precedents [wrongly] to state that a particular failure mechanism is impossible but then states as fact that progressive collapse is impossible under any circumstances without looking back at any precedents.

Da twoof works in many fascinating paradoxes.

[twinstead]

Err, rigid bodies DONT exist. They're an approximation that makes math a whole heck of alot easier in engineering analysis.

Before modern Finite Element Analysis and hi-end computers it was absolutely necessary to assume certain elements of structures as rigid.

Oh, sure. Bring expertise into the discussion. I HATE when you do that ;)

So what the hell is Heiwa talking about anyway?

[Gamolon]

Err, rigid bodies DONT exist. They're an approximation that makes math a whole heck of alot easier in engineering analysis.

Before modern Finite Element Analysis and hi-end computers it was absolutely necessary to assume certain elements of structures as rigid.

I understand that.

My whole point is that Heiwa is saying that a "rigid body" element (whatever it is being used to represent in a calculation) has no place in structural calculations. Which is complete and utter crap based on the fact that I have found references to "rigid bodies" in all sorts of structural engineering discussions and calculations. Here is a quote from Heiwa from another thread:

In structural analysis there are no rigid elements

I would like him to explain how he can make this kind of statement when structural engineers are quoted as referencing them. Obviously he has no clue, being only a naval architect, and has not discussed any of this with any structural engineer at all. The proof is right there in front of him and everywhere else.

Rigid bodies ARE used when doing structural calculations and he is completely off his rocker to say otherwise as the proof is in my post above showing REFERENCES to rigid bodies.

What I want to know is if structural engineers do use the "rigid body" element to perform calculations, how are they determined? For example, in my post above, there is mention of a "floor" being considered a rigid body. What is the criteria used, if any, that will define when one "element" (such as the floor mentioned above) can be considered a rigid body and another element (Bazant's upper tower part) cannot? Is there any?

[Newtons Bit]

Oh, sure. Bring expertise into the discussion. I HATE when you do that ;)

So what the hell is Heiwa talking about anyway?

He has this fantasy that rigid objects automagically destroy any non-rigid object they touch. It's quite ludicrous.

He later one changed his opinion such that if the floors weren't rigid, then the building would no longer self collapse. I assume this has to do with his rubbish theory on friction stopping the collapse.

[Heiwa]

I understand that.

My whole point is that Heiwa is saying that a "rigid body" element (whatever it is being used to represent in a calculation) has no place in structural calculations. Which is complete and utter crap based on the fact that I have found references to "rigid bodies" in all sorts of structural engineering discussions and calculations. Here is a quote from Heiwa from another thread:



I would like him to explain how he can make this kind of statement when structural engineers are quoted as referencing them. Obviously he has no clue, being only a naval architect, and has not discussed any of this with any structural engineer at all. The proof is right there in front of him and everywhere else.

Rigid bodies ARE used when doing structural calculations and he is completely off his rocker to say otherwise as the proof is in my post above showing REFERENCES to rigid bodies.

What I want to know is if structural engineers do use the "rigid body" element to perform calculations, how are they determined? For example, in my post above, there is mention of a "floor" being considered a rigid body. What is the criteria used, if any, that will define when one "element" (such as the floor mentioned above) can be considered a rigid body and another element (Bazant's upper tower part) cannot? Is there any?

Thanks for your kind words about naval architects. That some young 'scientists' still use 'rigid bodies' in their calculations of whatever is just lack of proper education. A rigid body or element does not exist!

You wonder if a "floor" can be considered rigid. Are you sitting on one or not? If yes, look down! Does it look rigid? Tell me how thick it is, etc, etc, and I will tell you it is not rigid at all. But maybe you can enlighten me and all those naval architects you refer to.

But that was off topic! In this thread you shall design a structure where a small part can one-way crush the remainder by gravity only! You are only allowed to drop this part on the other part and you must demonstrate the famous 911 POUFF!!!! Upper part one-way crushes lower part!

[nicepants]

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you were to place the "mass above" onto a large scale it would register the weight of the entire mass.

ETA: It doesn't really make any difference though. 100 1g masses traveling at 10ft/sec have the same energy as one 100g mass traveling the same speed and both weigh the same.

Breaking a large mass into smaller pieces doesn't change its weight.


If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

Won't C also damage A? Suppose the bottom floor of C is crushed and teh top floor of A is crushed. Now the mass that is falling is even larger as it continues to fall.

Heiwa, if you're not a troll and you truly don't understand this simple high-school physics, perhaps you should take a stroll over to your nearest university, stop at the physics department and have a discussion with a qualified physics professor who can explain this to you in detail.

[FineWine]

Thanks for your kind words about naval architects. That some young 'scientists' still use 'rigid bodies' in their calculations of whatever is just lack of proper education. A rigid body or element does not exist!

You wonder if a "floor" can be considered rigid. Are you sitting on one or not? If yes, look down! Does it look rigid? Tell me how thick it is, etc, etc, and I will tell you it is not rigid at all. But maybe you can enlighten me and all those naval architects you refer to.

But that was off topic! In this thread you shall design a structure where a small part can one-way crush the remainder by gravity only! You are only allowed to drop this part on the other part and you must demonstrate the famous 911 POUFF!!!! Upper part one-way crushes lower part!


Okay, Heiwa, you've been asked this question many times and you've always babbled incoherent gibberish. You're sitting in a chair on the 97th floor. Floors 98-110 collapse and fall on top of your floor. What magic protects you from being crushed?

[BigAl]

But that was off topic! In this thread you shall design a structure where a small part can one-way crush the remainder by gravity only! You are only allowed to drop this part on the other part and you must demonstrate the famous 911 POUFF!!!! Upper part one-way crushes lower part!

Can I hammer it to cause structural damage, add weight that exceeds local loading limits and set it afire and let it burn to cause more damage before I drop part A on it?

[Heiwa]

If you were to place the "mass above" onto a large scale it would register the weight of the entire mass.

ETA: It doesn't really make any difference though. 100 1g masses traveling at 10ft/sec have the same energy as one 100g mass traveling the same speed and both weigh the same.

Breaking a large mass into smaller pieces doesn't change its weight.



Mass is always mass. But 100 small masses m dropped one after the other on the floor, ping, ping ...., is different from dropping one big, solid M = 100 m on the floor, BANG.

What do you want to say? This thread is about something else! See post #1.

[Gamolon]

That some young 'scientists' still use 'rigid bodies' in their calculations of whatever is just lack of proper education.

So you're saying that any structural engineer who uses "rigid bodies" in a structural calculation is wrong and that they should never be used?

[Heiwa]

Can I hammer it to cause structural damage, add weight that exceeds local loading limits and set it afire and let it burn to cause more damage before I drop part A on it?

See post #1. Just design/build a structure of any type, size and scale, then disconnect the upper 1/10 part (C) of the structure, lift it a little and drop it on the 9/10 structure below (part A).

Now GRAVITY is supposed to assist you to win The Heiwa Challenge! If C one-way crushes A due to GRAVITY, you are a WINNER. So far - 1800+ posts here - nobody has managed, incl. NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ... but they cannot show it in a simple test!
I asked GWB to have a try and you know what happened?

Curious?

GWB suggested that .... ha, ha, ha ... GWB said .... ha, ha, ha ... lol, lol ... . Sorry, I am laughing so I can't ...

[Heiwa]

So you're saying that any structural engineer who uses "rigid bodies" in a structural calculation is wrong and that they should never be used?

Yes! How could you miss that. I have said it seeal times. But, sorry, this GWB ... he said ... unbelievable .... sorry. I have to lay down and rest !!!

But, pls, continue ask off topic questions.

[BigAl]

See post #1. Just design/build a structure of any type, size and scale, then disconnect the upper 1/10 part (C) of the structure, lift it a little and drop it on the 9/10 structure below (part A).

Now GRAVITY is supposed to assist you to win The Heiwa Challenge! If C one-way crushes A due to GRAVITY, you are a WINNER. So far - 1800+ posts here - nobody has managed, incl. NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ... but they cannot show it in a simple test!


Then you are dealing with some hypothetical structure that bears no resemblance to the WTC towers and what happened to them on 9/11. Because of that, I find the HEIWA Challenge(tm) exceedingly uninteresting.

[Gamolon]

Yes! How could you miss that. I have said it seeal times. But, sorry, this GWB ... he said ... unbelievable .... sorry. I have to lay down and rest !!!

But, pls, continue ask off topic questions.

It has everything to do with your "topic".

I'm just making absolutely sure that I understand you because you have a habit of twisting words.

I'm trying to understand why you are the only one out of anyone in this thread or anyone outside this thread that I have found who says that "rigid bodies" are not to be used in calculations.

It comes down to the simple fact that you are a naval architect and NOT a structural engineer so you really don't comprehend the use of "rigid bodies". I have an email from Bazant that even states the same conclusion.

Welcome (finally) to ignore.

[Newtons Bit]

It has everything to do with your "topic".

I'm just making absolutely sure that I understand you because you have a habit of twisting words.

I'm trying to understand why you are the only one out of anyone in this thread or anyone outside this thread that I have found who says that "rigid bodies" are not to be used in calculations.

It comes down to the simple fact that you are a naval architect and NOT a structural engineer so you really don't comprehend the use of "rigid bodies". I have an email from Bazant that even states the same conclusion.

Welcome (finally) to ignore.

The International Building Code 2006 allows engineers to use rigid bodies in specific applications if certain basic assumptions are made.

There are some types of analysis that CANNOT be done by hand without rigid elements.

[nicepants]

Mass is always mass. But 100 small masses m dropped one after the other on the floor, ping, ping ...., is different from dropping one big, solid M = 100 m on the floor, BANG.


If the maximum weight that the floor can hold is m=90, it doesn't matter whether the masses are dropped in small increments or all at once.

[FineWine]

See post #1. Just design/build a structure of any type, size and scale, then disconnect the upper 1/10 part (C) of the structure, lift it a little and drop it on the 9/10 structure below (part A).

Now GRAVITY is supposed to assist you to win The Heiwa Challenge! If C one-way crushes A due to GRAVITY, you are a WINNER. So far - 1800+ posts here - nobody has managed, incl. NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ... but they cannot show it in a simple test!
I asked GWB to have a try and you know what happened?

Curious?

GWB suggested that .... ha, ha, ha ... GWB said .... ha, ha, ha ... lol, lol ... . Sorry, I am laughing so I can't ...



"NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ..." but they and all the rest of the world's structural engineers are wrong. I, Heiwa, alone understand this phenomenon.

Hmmmm.

Can you say, "pathology"?

[twinstead]

"NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ..." but they and all the rest of the world's structural engineers are wrong. I, Heiwa, alone understand this phenomenon.

Hmmmm.

Can you say, "pathology"?

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.

[FineWine]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.




Pathology provides the only lens through which Heiwa's ravings can be viewed. Do you realize that in all the time he's been posting here, he has never taken a single backward step? He runs away when he's getting beaten to a pulp, but he returns spouting the same nonsense. He has never conceded the tiniest point. He accepts no corrections. He is repeatedly challenged to show calculations supporting his mad assertions, but he arrogantly dismisses such requests as unworthy of him. He is above the engineering community, he is above math, he is above science. There are places for such types.

[BigAl]

Mass is always mass. But 100 small masses m dropped one after the other on the floor, ping, ping ...., is different from dropping one big, solid M = 100 m on the floor, BANG.

What do you want to say? This thread is about something else! See post #1.

Wasn't the floor loading spec for WTC 30 pounds/sq ft? When the debris of the upper part settled down on the lower part there is no way it's not going to exceed the floor limits. The collected mass is going to proceed to collapse the floor and the next floor, and so on.

30 pounds over the whole floor is about 600 tons. That's at least an order of magnitude less than the mass up the upper part of WTC, so even without factoring in momentum, a complete collapse is a done deal.

This doesn't include the 100+ tons of airplane concentrated on some part of the floors it crashed into, the structural damage it caused and the resulting fire.

I am not a structural engineer, or engineer of any type. I welcome comments from Heiwa and the real engineers about how this is a flawed view of the WTC collapse.

[Newtons Bit]

Pathology provides the only lens through which Heiwa's ravings can be viewed. Do you realize that in all the time he's been posting here, he has never taken a single backward step? He runs away when he's getting beaten to a pulp, but he returns spouting the same nonsense. He has never conceded the tiniest point. He accepts no corrections. He is repeatedly challenged to show calculations supporting his mad assertions, but he arrogantly dismisses such requests as unworthy of him. He is above the engineering community, he is above math, he is above science. There are places for such types.

He accepts corrections in the sense that he has updated his "paper" based on what people have said, but then claims that he never made a change.

I wonder what fun we could have using archive.org and his website. Assuming it was archived in any event...

[FineWine]

He accepts corrections in the sense that he has updated his "paper" based on what people have said, but then claims that he never made a change.

I wonder what fun we could have using archive.org and his website. Assuming it was archived in any event...


How can he "update" his paper to accommodate criticisms that destroy his lunatic thesis root-and-branch?

[bill smith]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.
We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'the Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say nothing at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official version of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Le's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.


How many thousands of engineers are involved with the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations, the independent work by NIST critics such as Frank Greening and Gregory Urich? The perps, the nineteen hijackers, are dead. Only an agenda-driven megalomaniac devoid of critical thinking skills such as Heiwa could dream that the total absence of voiced dissent in the engineering community does not reflect the absence of unvoiced dissent.

[twinstead]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

BS. I'm sick and tired of the old "because they don't say anything, you can't assume they support the official story". That is insulting to them, and to MY intelligence. Show me a "Geologists for A Round Earth", or "Historians In Support of the Holocaust", or "Astronomers Against the Moon Hoax" group.

How many experts have to tell you you're wrong before you believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Yea, you want ALL of them. And even then it won't be enough. I would bet money that if every single expert from around the world literally sent you a certified letter telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that they support the "official story", your spiel wouldn't change one iota.

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.


On those extremely rare occasions when a lying fraud crawls out from under his bed to confront a real engineer, he gets the living hell beat out of him. Just out of curiosity, how does your insane movement's unbroken string of crushing defeats and painful humiliations "alert" anybody sane? To the scientists and engineers of the world, there is no controversy.

[bill smith]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.
We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say nothing at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

[FineWine]

BS. I'm sick and tired of the old "because they don't say anything, you can't assume they support the official story". That is insulting to them, and to MY intelligence. Show me a "Geologists for A Round Earth", or "Historians In Support of the Holocaust", or "Astronomers Against the Moon Hoax" group.

How many experts have to tell you you're wrong before you believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Yea, you want ALL of them. And even then it won't be enough. I would bet money that if every single expert from around the world literally sent you a certified letter telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that they support the "official story", your spiel wouldn't change one iota.


You will receive the proof of your assertion when the real engineers at the ASCE journal rip Heiwa's idiocy to shreds. He will rave about religious fundamentalists and the NWO and Bill, of course, will chirp his agreement.

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Le's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.


You posted this idiocy twice. I suppose I should destroy it twice:

How many thousands of engineers are involved with the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations, the independent work by NIST critics such as Frank Greening and Gregory Urich? The perps, the nineteen hijackers, are dead. Only an agenda-driven megalomaniac devoid of critical thinking skills such as Heiwa could dream that the total absence of voiced dissent in the engineering community does not reflect the absence of unvoiced dissent.

[Heiwa]

The International Building Code 2006 allows engineers to use rigid bodies in specific applications if certain basic assumptions are made.

There are some types of analysis that CANNOT be done by hand without rigid elements.

If you are not interested in the deformation of an element you simply put it at 0. It simplifies long hand calculations. But in order to enter The Heiwa Challenge I strongly recommend that you use elements that deform in your design! Otherwise it will not break at all!

[Heiwa]

If the maximum weight that the floor can hold is m=90, it doesn't matter whether the masses are dropped in small increments or all at once.

Doesn't it? Take a floor that is supported by four columns in the corners! It looks like a kitchen table. It can support a certain dynamic load, DL, applied on the floor, i.e. the table top.

Say that you apply 2 DL suddenly - BANG - and tell me what happens!

Say that you apply 0.02 DL one after the other - ping, ping ... etc. - and what happens then?

Assume that one column fails before the other three. Does it affect the process?

Details like these are important to understand when designing a structure of The Heiwa Challenge!

[Dave Rogers]

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

I think this is an excellent idea, bill. I suggest you e-mail Heiwa's paper on the WTC collapses to every structural and civil engineer you can possibly track down, accompanied by a demand that they take notice of this scandalous coverup and act to expose it at once. That should do an excellent job of mobilising support for one side of the argument, though possibly not the side you were hoping to aid.

Dave

[bill smith]

I think this is an excellent idea, bill. I suggest you e-mail Heiwa's paper on the WTC collapses to every structural and civil engineer you can possibly track down, accompanied by a demand that they take notice of this scandalous coverup and act to expose it at once. That should do an excellent job of mobilising support for one side of the argument, though possibly not the side you were hoping to aid.

Dave

Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?

[Dave Rogers]

Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?

Just add your qualifications, and that should do fine.

Dave

[bill smith]

Just add your qualifications, and that should do fine.

Dave
bill smith, concerned citizen.

[Dave Rogers]

bill smith, concerned citizen.

Brilliant choice! There's no other phrase that says "deranged, ignorant nutbar who wants to bore you rigid with something utterly unfounded that will make no sense to anyone with a vestige of knowledge relevant to the subject" better than the simple byline "concerned citizen".

Good luck with your mass e-mail campaign. Those always work well.

Dave

[BigAl]

Doesn't it? Take a floor that is supported by four columns in the corners! It looks like a kitchen table. It can support a certain dynamic load, DL, applied on the floor, i.e. the table top.

Say that you apply 2 DL suddenly - BANG - and tell me what happens!



I recall that the floor loading spec for WTC was 30 pounds/sq ft. At 40k sq ft/floor, that comes to about 600 tons, total, an order of magnitude less than what the upper floors weighed on 9/11.

It seems to me that the moment the upper part came down, even without dynamic load, the lower floor was doomed to collapse. The process would repeat for the whole tower.

Heiwa?

(Comments by real enigeers are welcome, also. )

[Heiwa]

It seems to me that the moment the upper part came down, even without dynamic load, the lower floor was doomed to collapse. The process would repeat for the whole tower.

Heiwa?

(Comments by real enigeers are welcome, also. )

Sorry, you have not understood. When the upper part came down, IT was doomed to collapse. You see, the upper part, IT, cannot one-way crush down the bigger part below.
If that were the case, dropping anything would destroy everything!! You and ME! So, luckily, small parts cannot destroy much and not BIG parts below.

Happy?

[BigAl]

Sorry, you have not understood. When the upper part came down, IT was doomed to collapse. You see, the upper part, IT, cannot one-way crush down the bigger part below.
If that were the case, dropping anything would destroy everything!! You and ME! So, luckily, small parts cannot destroy much and not BIG parts below.

Happy?

If a floor gets overloaded by much more than an order of magnitude across most of it's area, does it not collapse?

[Newtons Bit]

How can he "update" his paper to accommodate criticisms that destroy his lunatic thesis root-and-branch?

He would more or less shift gears.

[FineWine]

Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?


Dear Aggressive Know-Nothing:

1. I say that the impacts of fully-fueled jet airliners broke perimeter and core columns in each of the twin towers, causing extensive fires. Those fires weakened structural steel, as shown by the inward bowing of external columns observable on all videos. The floor trusses eventually failed, and the the impact floors, along with the floors above them, gave way. Once these global collapses were initiated, nothing could possibly arrest them.

2. I, joined by every sane person in the world, say that 100 tons of aluminum moving at roughly 500 mph will easily break any steel column used in construction.


My additions:

You have humiliated yourself by fleeing from the obvious refutation of Heiwa's idiocy, but your goose has been cooked. The falling floors will always be the BIG PART. The single floors they crush in succession will always be the SMALL PART. All your ridiculous lies, all your squirming and tap dancing, all your craven avoidance of this FACT has only served to highlight the untenability of your mad position.

You are still trying to peddle the deranged nonsense invented by the no-planers. You are still swallowing the absurd crapola peddled by the lunatics Morgan Reynolds and Jim Fetzer, that softer substances can't damage harder substances.

THEY ARE WRONG, BILL. NOTHING WILL EVER CHANGE THAT FACT.

[FineWine]

Sorry, you have not understood. When the upper part came down, IT was doomed to collapse. You see, the upper part, IT, cannot one-way crush down the bigger part below.
If that were the case, dropping anything would destroy everything!! You and ME! So, luckily, small parts cannot destroy much and not BIG parts below.

Happy?

You have been caught lying again. The collapsing floors, as you know, are the BIG PART; the single floors they crush in succession are the SMALL PART.

You are trapped--hopelessly refuted. You think that by repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over, you can salvage your absurd fantasy. Watch me make you run away again:

You are in a chair on the 97th floor. The thirteen floors above have collapsed and are heading your way. What magic saves you from being crushed? Their COMBINED mass is about to fall on top of you, Heiwa. No, the lower floor of that mass will not gently kiss your floor, while the upper floors float harmlessly in midair. Your floor was not built to absorb the impact of thirteen floors. It really wasn't, Heiwa. WHAT WILL STOP THOSE FALLING FLOORS FROM CRUSHING THE FLOOR YOU ARE ON?

[FineWine]

He would more or less shift gears.


But his core position is what Mackey would term an irreducible delusion. Whatever modifications he might make to blow smoke, he must always maintain that the combined mass of thirteen collapsing floors won't crush the single floor they fall onto. Stripped of his obfuscating verbiage, he is revealed to be adopting the no-planer position: they say that the plane hits, not specific external columns, but the whole building; Heiwa says that the collapsing part C hits, not the floor immediately below it, but, through some form of magic, the whole building. His paper is built around an insane assumption. His contention that dropping the top third of the building from two miles up can't do much damage is not something that can be tweaked to make it sound less mad.

[nicepants]

Sorry, you have not understood. When the upper part came down, IT was doomed to collapse. You see, the upper part, IT, cannot one-way crush down the bigger part below.
If that were the case, dropping anything would destroy everything!! You and ME! So, luckily, small parts cannot destroy much and not BIG parts below.



Can a "big part" destroy a "small part"?

[Gamolon]

Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

It wasn't crushed down flat. If that were the case, then why was debris spread far outside the actual footprint of the towers? The upper part of the collapsing tower, gaining the mass of each floor it met as it went down, ripped the connections, columns, floors, etc apart. That is why you see perimeter columns falling AWAY from the tower proper in videos.

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?

Misleading. You must state that you think a JET cannot penetrate a wall of 14"x14" (comprised of 3/8" thick steel plate) perimeter columns spaced at 3'-4" on center and braced by 4" thick concrete floors behind them every 12' feet. A plane is not just 4mm thick of aluminum. I like how you have to try and minimize the actual objects to make your claim believable.

Not very truthful are you?

[bill smith]

It wasn't crushed down flat. If that were the case, then why was debris spread far outside the actual footprint of the towers? The upper part of the collapsing tower, gaining the mass of each floor it met as it went down, ripped the connections, columns, floors, etc apart. That is why you see perimeter columns falling AWAY from the tower proper in videos.



Misleading. You must state that you think a JET cannot penetrate a wall of 14"x14" (comprised of 3/8" thick steel plate) perimeter columns spaced at 3'-4" on center and braced by 4" thick concrete floors behind them every 12' feet. A plane is not just 4mm thick of aluminum. I like how you have to try and minimize the actual objects to make your claim believable.

Not very truthful are you?

This brainstorming thing is really productive sometimes.

[FineWine]

This brainstorming thing is really productive sometimes.


You wouldn't be familiar with the results of brainstorming or any other mental activity, Bill. Back to business. You claimed that you were going to watch Mackey's lecture explaining the physics of 9/11. As usual, you lied. You couldn't have bothered to watch, or you--even you!--would be unable to continue braying the no-planer idiocy about soft and hard substances. What do you suppose Mackey got wrong in his explanation of how the plane penetrated the building?

What's that, Bill? I can't hear you. Oh, you say you have to run?

Bye, Bill.

[FineWine]

Can a "big part" destroy a "small part"?


As the "big part" will always be the collapsing floors and the "small part" will always be the single floors they crush in succession, I have a hunch he'll ignore your question. This sustained beating has rendered him incapable of doing anything except mindlessly chanting his mad mantra. He has been exposed as totally as any fraud has ever been, and his lack of integrity prevents him from taking a backward step. Frankly, the spectacle is highly enjoyable.

[Gamolon]

This brainstorming thing is really productive sometimes.

It is!

You should try it sometime.

[Heiwa]

You have been caught lying again. The collapsing floors, as you know, are the BIG PART; the single floors they crush in succession are the SMALL PART.

You are trapped--hopelessly refuted. You think that by repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over, you can salvage your absurd fantasy. Watch me make you run away again:

You are in a chair on the 97th floor. The thirteen floors above have collapsed and are heading your way. What magic saves you from being crushed? Their COMBINED mass is about to fall on top of you, Heiwa. No, the lower floor of that mass will not gently kiss your floor, while the upper floors float harmlessly in midair. Your floor was not built to absorb the impact of thirteen floors. It really wasn't, Heiwa. WHAT WILL STOP THOSE FALLING FLOORS FROM CRUSHING THE FLOOR YOU ARE ON?

This is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1! No lies. You are supposed to design a structure, e.g. with 110 floors, and then drop a part of it, say 13 floors (part C), on the remainder 97 floors (part A)! Clear.

You are not supposed to drop 13 floors on 1 floor! You are supposed to drop 13 floors (C) on all 97 floors (A).

And the 13 floors (part C) have not collapsed prior drop/impact. They are supposed to one-way crush down 97 floors (A) below. That's the Challenge!

You are not supposed to locate yourself between C and A at contact, where the action starts, e.g. that A damages C at impact. Pls, read post #1 about safety! You are supposed to stay on ground and report the result!

You see, A is fixed to ground. Quite solid, actually. You don't believe that little C, dropping from the sky a few metres, can destroy A? What about the ground?

The good news are that so far in The Heiwa Challenge all parts C produced have been destroyed by part A and ground in all attempts.

Pls produce a structure that self-destructs. Not words in cyber space!

[BigAl]

This is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1! No lies. You are supposed to design a structure, e.g. with 110 floors, and then drop a part of it, say 13 floors (part C), on the remainder 97 floors (part A)! Clear.

You are not supposed to drop 13 floors on 1 floor! You are supposed to drop 13 floors (C) on all 97 floors (A).

And the 13 floors (part C) have not collapsed prior drop/impact. They are supposed to one-way crush down 97 floors (A) below. That's the Challenge!


Which explains why the Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with the WTC towers and what happened to them on 9/11.

[Gamolon]

Which explains why the Heiwa Challenge as nothing to do with the WTC towers and what happened to them on 9/11.

Hmmmm...

I designed the following "structure" and somebody said it didn't fit the challenge.

I wonder why.

:D

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a separate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

Presto!

I beat the challenge!

[bill smith]

It is!

You should try it sometime.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4996986#post4996986

[Gamolon]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4996986#post4996986

So how do you go from this:
a wall of 14"x14" (comprised of 3/8" thick steel plate) perimeter box-columns spaced at 3'-4" on center and lying braced against 4" thick reinforced concrete floors at every 12 feet. While these may have been only 14'' wide they were also 14'' DEEP and lying braced against the reinforced concrete floors at 12 foot intervals. Ansolutely EXCELLENT shock absorbers as you can imagine. In crushing they should have stopped the plane dead on the outside og the building. Maybe the engines and landing gear would have penetrated but that is it.

Then the plane- 150 spread-out tons of of aluminium sheet as thin as 1mm in the fuselage and possiby 4mm in the wings. Spread out over a width of 125 feet and a length of 155feet. The only hard points were the two six-ton engines, the aluminium wing spars and the llanding gear. The fuselage had a diameter of 13 feet or one foot larger than the space between the floors.

To sending this to structural engineers:
Dear Engineer/Architect.

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?

Like I said, in order to try and prove your argument, you have to minimize everything in order to get people to agree with you.

Very sad.

[bill smith]

So how do you go from this:


To sending this to structural engineers:


Like I said, in order to try and prove your argument, you have to minimize everything in order to get people to agree with you.

Very sad.
I go into more detail on the link Igave you. Here it is again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4997111#post4997111

[nicepants]

Hmmmm...

I designed the following "structure" and somebody said it didn't fit the challenge.

I wonder why.

:D

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a separate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

Presto!

I beat the challenge!

Sounds good, but my guess is that it will be rejected because it's not 97 + 13 "floors" (or some other equally absurd reason that Heiwa will use to reject any model that doesn't behave how he claims it should)

[Heiwa]

Hmmmm...

I designed the following "structure" and somebody said it didn't fit the challenge.

I wonder why.

:D

How about this model.

Let's take a 25lb weight used for weight lifting. The round weights with a hole in the middle that can be slipped onto a weight lifting bar. Lets get 6, 1" diameter wooden dowels and pound them into the ground around the perimeter of the weight mentioned above. Let's take a single 1" diameter wooden dowel and pound it into the ground in the center of the ring we just created.

Now let's slip one of the 25lb weights mentioned onto the center wooden dowel down to about an inch from the ground. We'll put one thumbtack (the kind with the plastic head on them, not the flat heads) in each of the perimeter wooden dowels right below the weight and put two thumbtacks, opposite one another on the center wooden dowel.

We'll build our tower up 40 feet high with a "floor" weight every foot.

We'll then created a separate section the same way, but only 1/10th the size, which would be 4 weights (or 100lbs). We will then position the 1/10th section above the 40 foot tower we created using a dowel to center it above.

We then drop the 1/10th section down the centering dowel from a height of 10 feet above.

Presto!

I beat the challenge!

It looks promising on paper! So you have 4 off 25lb weights on a lifting bar that makes 100lb (4 x25=100). And what is the weight of the bar? 10 lb. OK, that's heavy! I can just lift that with two arms. Just!

What shall I do with these 110lb? Aha, position it 10 feet above a 40 feet tower of similar weights on a lifting bar - total 1100 lb! OK, OK, with a ladder I will manage. And then?

Drop it ... down the centering dowel??? 10 feel below! You are joking! Drop a small bar with weights on a another bar with more weights. Two bars shall contact each other?? Like hitting a heavy nail (10 units) with another nail (1 unit).

And then? Presto????

Sorry - nothing will break here! All weights will be undamaged and so will the lifting bars/nails, if you manage to hit one with the other. Not even the wooden dowels are damaged!

You failed! Try again!

PS. 50 kgs dropped from 3.3 m will just produce rougly 16 000 J. Cannot do much harm to 500 kgs of solid weights/bars/wooden dowels.

[Newtons Bit]

And the oblivious Heiwa once again fails to see that the connections are critical.

Your model satisifies his ridiculous challenge just fine Gamolon.

[Gamolon]

Hmmmmm... Let's see. Here is a quote of Heiwa's conditions:
The Heiwa Challenge


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

Conditions:

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

So let's see if my "structure" meets all the requirements set forth by Heiwa himself in his original post.


1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!Yup. My structure has a certain cross area and height and is fixed in the ground. My structure is an assembly of various elements of ANY type. It is ANY size.

2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.Yup. Matches that condition.

3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc. Yup. Matches that.

4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.Yup. Matches that.

5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.No problem there.

6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.Ok. I speak out loud and say "Part C is in my hands and part A is the rest that is still standing". Got it.

7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part AYup. No problem.

8. Now drop part C on part A and crush part A (if you can! That's the test).No problem. Part C obliterates part A and everything comes apart in pieces.

10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on Ok. Done. The structure was obliterated.

Now what? Which condition of the ten conditions that Heiwa set forth did I not meet?

:D

[Gamolon]

I go into more detail on the link Igave you. Here it is again.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4997111#post4997111

So why did you post this then?
Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?

[Gamolon]

Sounds good, but my guess is that it will be rejected because it's not 97 + 13 "floors" (or some other equally absurd reason that Heiwa will use to reject any model that doesn't behave how he claims it should)

Well that can't happen. Heiwa needs to point out which of the 10 conditions set forth by him in the original post that my structure does not meet and why.

In condition 1 he clearly states "The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!" I need to know how my structure does not meet the ANY size or comprised of elements of ANY type.

[nicepants]

It looks promising on paper! So you have 4 off 25lb weights on a lifting bar that makes 100lb (4 x25=100).

What shall I do with these 110lb? Aha, position it 10 feet above a 40 feet tower of similar weights on a lifting bar

<snip>

You failed! Try again!



Gamolon's model did not include any lifting bars. The failure you've declared, therefore, does not apply to his model, but to a strawman you've created.

[FineWine]

This is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1! No lies. You are supposed to design a structure, e.g. with 110 floors, and then drop a part of it, say 13 floors (part C), on the remainder 97 floors (part A)! Clear.

You are not supposed to drop 13 floors on 1 floor! You are supposed to drop 13 floors (C) on all 97 floors (A).


And the 13 floors (part C) have not collapsed prior drop/impact. They are supposed to one-way crush down 97 floors (A) below. That's the Challenge!

You are not supposed to locate yourself between C and A at contact, where the action starts, e.g. that A damages C at impact. Pls, read post #1 about safety! You are supposed to stay on ground and report the result!

You see, A is fixed to ground. Quite solid, actually. You don't believe that little C, dropping from the sky a few metres, can destroy A? What about the ground?

The good news are that so far in The Heiwa Challenge all parts C produced have been destroyed by part A and ground in all attempts.

Pls produce a structure that self-destructs. Not words in cyber space!


Stop the nonsense! The "Heiwa Challenge" has nothing to do with the events of 9/11. It doesn't belong in this forum.

Answer my questions or go away. You've played this tired tune far too long. Everyone is sick of hearing it.

Look at the part of your post I bolded. Thirteen floors DID drop on one floor. How the hell do thirteen floors hit ninety-seven floors all at once??? Do you have any idea of what you're saying?

[Gamolon]

It looks promising on paper! So you have 4 off 25lb weights on a lifting bar that makes 100lb (4 x25=100). And what is the weight of the bar? 10 lb. OK, that's heavy! I can just lift that with two arms. Just!

What shall I do with these 110lb? Aha, position it 10 feet above a 40 feet tower of similar weights on a lifting bar - total 1100 lb! OK, OK, with a ladder I will manage. And then?

Drop it ... down the centering dowel??? 10 feel below! You are joking! Drop a small bar with weights on a another bar with more weights. Two bars shall contact each other?? Like hitting a heavy nail (10 units) with another nail (1 unit).

And then? Presto????

Sorry - nothing will break here! All weights will be undamaged and so will the lifting bars/nails, if you manage to hit one with the other. Not even the wooden dowels are damaged!

You failed! Try again!

PS. 50 kgs dropped from 3.3 m will just produce rougly 16 000 J. Cannot do much harm to 500 kgs of solid weights/bars/wooden dowels.

Sorry, but your 10 conditions say nothing about this. The correct condition set forth by you for success is the following:
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

You say nothing about "damage" to the floors. You simply say that >70% of the individual elements are disconnected from each other. The floor "weights" become disconnected from each other, the thumbtack supports are all broken from the "weight" floors (that means 8 tacks per "weight" floor times 40 floors which equals 320 actual support elements that become disconnected from the floors). This looks like WAY more than 70% of the elements becoming disconnected from each other.

So far, I have met your challenge according to the conditions you set forth.

Show me exactly which of the 10 conditions my structure does not meet.

[Gamolon]

Gamolon's model did not include any lifting bars. The failure you've declared, therefore, does not apply to his model, but to a strawman you've created.

Thanks nicepants. Heiwa needs to read and comprehend a little better.

;)

[Gamolon]

It looks promising on paper! So you have 4 off 25lb weights on a lifting bar that makes 100lb (4 x25=100). And what is the weight of the bar? 10 lb. OK, that's heavy! I can just lift that with two arms. Just!

What shall I do with these 110lb? Aha, position it 10 feet above a 40 feet tower of similar weights on a lifting bar - total 1100 lb! OK, OK, with a ladder I will manage. And then?

Drop it ... down the centering dowel??? 10 feel below! You are joking! Drop a small bar with weights on a another bar with more weights. Two bars shall contact each other?? Like hitting a heavy nail (10 units) with another nail (1 unit).

And then? Presto????

Sorry - nothing will break here! All weights will be undamaged and so will the lifting bars/nails, if you manage to hit one with the other. Not even the wooden dowels are damaged!

You failed! Try again!

PS. 50 kgs dropped from 3.3 m will just produce rougly 16 000 J. Cannot do much harm to 500 kgs of solid weights/bars/wooden dowels.

First of all, as has been told you, there is no "lifting bar" in the center. It's a wooden dowel.

Second, when the upper part is dropped on the lower part the "thumbtack" supports will break or bend down releasing the weights down the center dowel breaking all the lower weight floors from their "thumbtack" supports as they all crash down.

Like I said, according to your 10 conditions, you need to tell me which condition my structure specificllay does NOT meet or I have beaten your challenge.

Good Luck!!!!

[Gamolon]

This is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1! No lies. You are supposed to design a structure, e.g. with 110 floors, and then drop a part of it, say 13 floors (part C), on the remainder 97 floors (part A)! Clear.

Wrong!

Per condition 1 of your original post, there is no mention of how many floors ANYWHERE. Here is your condition:
1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!



Here's another condition you try and change:
And the 13 floors (part C) have not collapsed prior drop/impact. They are supposed to one-way crush down 97 floors (A) below. That's the Challenge!

Wrong again! You can't even remember your own condition you set for winning the challenge. Here is your condition, written by you, for winning:
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A. >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected. Easy.

[SteveAustin]

<insulting rant snipped>

My additions:

You have humiliated yourself by fleeing from the obvious refutation of Heiwa's idiocy, but your goose has been cooked. The falling floors will always be the BIG PART. The single floors they crush in succession will always be the SMALL PART. All your ridiculous lies, all your squirming and tap dancing, all your craven avoidance of this FACT has only served to highlight the untenability of your mad position.

So what you are saying is that the upper section is not made up of individual floors just like the bottom section? That when the top section falls it suddenly becomes one indestructible block and instead of having it's own floors destroyed upwards one at a time as it falls and destroys the bottom section one floor at a time, it remains intact until it hits the ground and then it loses it's indestructibility and get destroyed?

You see, it's the part where what happens to the bottom section happens to the top section equally and at the same time that is missing from your theory, and if you say that there is a layer of rubble that protects the upper section from damage from each and every impact onto every floor, well that rubble would have the exact same protection on the lower floors as it would on the upper floors.

No, the theory JREF "debunkers" are pushing is one that does not follow the laws of physics.

Every impact of the top section onto the lower section (in the Official Theory) would cause equal damage to the top section as it would to the bottom section one floor at a time. So if the top section falls and destroys one floor because it affects the lower section one floor at a time and not the entire lower section then the top section gets destroyed one floor at a time as well at the same rate as the lower section does, which means that according to the Official Conspiracy Theory there should be about 80 floors 50 floors still standing

<snipped further insulting rant>

[SteveAustin]

You have been caught lying again. The collapsing floors, as you know, are the BIG PART; the single floors they crush in succession are the SMALL PART.

You are trapped--hopelessly refuted. You think that by repeating the same discredited nonsense over and over, you can salvage your absurd fantasy. Watch me make you run away again:

You keep repeating this ridiculous fantasy.

You keep saying that 2 identical blocks of differing sizes are to be treated differently. One is fragile and must be treated one floor at a time but the other is indestructible and is to be treated as ONE block.

This is fraudulent, and any engineer or other professional who peddles this nonsense should lose their license to practice, heck should lose their diplomas.

Maybe you need a refresher, here is a webpage you might be able to understand...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

[twinstead]

Every impact of the top section onto the lower section (in the Official Theory) would cause equal damage to the top section as it would to the bottom section one floor at a time. So if the top section falls and destroys one floor because it affects the lower section one floor at a time and not the entire lower section then the top section gets destroyed one floor at a time as well at the same rate as the lower section does, which means that according to the Official Conspiracy Theory there should be about 80 floors 50 floors still standing


Pardon me if I ask for a second opinion on this, after all, you're just some dude on an internet forum, right? So, what do I do if I take this to some of my engineer friends and they say you don't know what you're talking about? Do I accuse them of being government shills? How many experts need to tell me that you don't know what you're talking about before I should believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Give me a number.


You do realize it's not just JREF who disagree with you, right?

[SteveAustin]

Pardon me if I ask for a second opinion on this, after all, you're just some dude on an internet forum, right? So, what do I do if I take this to some of my engineer friends and they say you don't know what you're talking about? Do I accuse them of being government shills? How many experts need to tell me that you don't know what you're talking about before I should believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Give me a number.


You do realize it's not just JREF who disagree with you, right?

Did you have a rebuttal in there somewhere? A counter argument of some sort? Or were you just going to go with the Smoke And Mirrors?

[dtugg]

Hey Agent Steve! Keep up the great work!

[SteveAustin]

Hey Agent Steve! Keep up the great work!

excellent counter argument there dtugg, I see you are up to your usual standards!!

[twinstead]

Did you have a rebuttal in there somewhere? A counter argument of some sort? Or were you just going to go with the Smoke And Mirrors?

I don't need a counter or rebuttal. You disagree with the commonly-accepted narrative of the collapses? Prove it. This ball is in your court. I'm just telling you how a layman like myself views the situation. It appears to us that you think you're either smarter than all the contributors to the NIST, Purdue, and others, or they are "in on it". I'll let the others here who are more qualified than me provide rebuttals.

I'm just here to point out your obvious arrogance.

[SteveAustin]

I don't need a counter or rebuttal. You disagree with the commonly-accepted narrative of the collapses? Prove it. This ball is in your court. I'm just telling you how a layman like myself views the situation. It appears to us that you think you're either smarter than all the contributors to the NIST, Purdue, and others, or they are "in on it". I'll let the others here who are more qualified than me provide rebuttals.

I'm just here to point out your obvious arrogance.

I did prove it, it's called Newton's Third Law of Motion.

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

[dtugg]

excellent counter argument there dtugg, I see you are up to your usual standards!!

A counter argument to what? The really stupid stuff that you said in order to discredit twoofers? Are you mad at me for exposing you? Don't worry, people probably just think that I'm messing with you.

[dtugg]

I did prove it, it's called Newton's Third Law of Motion.

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

Oh, this is just wonderful work. By misrepresenting Newton's Laws you are making it seem as though twoofers don't understand physics at all! Keep it up!

[twinstead]

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

And, I've been told by people whom I trust and know are experts that you are misrepresenting Newton's law. So, whom do I believe?

[Heiwa]

Gamolon's model did not include any lifting bars. The failure you've declared, therefore, does not apply to his model, but to a strawman you've created.

OK, steel lifting bars are replaced by wooden dittos! All weights were thus secured to the wooden bars/poles, some way or another, and then upper wooden bar/pole with four weights were dropped on lower wooden bar/pole from 10 feet.

At impact upper wooden pole (C) contacts lower wooden pole (A). A is 40 feet high and secured to ground. A is like a flag pole! 40 feet. With one weight every feet!

It seems upper pole C will bounce off lower pole A!

Please, you cannot crush down a 40 feet flag pole by dropping another little - 4 feet - pole on it. Come on. Be serious!

[nicepants]

OK, steel lifting bars are replaced by wooden dittos! All weights were thus secured to the wooden bars/poles, some way or another, and then upper wooden bar/pole with four weights were dropped on lower wooden bar/pole from 10 feet.

It seems upper pole C will bounce off lower pole A!<snip>

Golomon's model does not include an upper & a lower pole. Once again, the failure you've declared does not apply to golomon's model, but to a strawman you've created.

[Heiwa]

Golomon's model does not include an upper & a lower pole. Once again, the failure you've declared does not apply to golomon's model, but to a strawman you've created.

??? What does keep the 40 A and 4 C weights apart 1 foot? Are the 40 A weights suspended in air 40 feet high? And the 4 C weights? How can you lift them while they are 1 feet apart?

[tfk]

You keep repeating this ridiculous fantasy.

You keep saying that 2 identical blocks of differing sizes are to be treated differently. One is fragile and must be treated one floor at a time but the other is indestructible and is to be treated as ONE block.

This is fraudulent, and any engineer or other professional who peddles this nonsense should lose their license to practice, heck should lose their diplomas.

Maybe you need a refresher, here is a webpage you might be able to understand...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

I am an engineer. What do you do, Steve?

I've taught this stuff (Engineering Dynamics) to college-level engineering students.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The fact is that YOU (& bill, & probably a few others) are incapable of understanding what we've explained.

The comments that you've made make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you have zero concept of what Newton's 3rd law is or how to apply it.

Nobody decides "a priori" to consider the upper block to be indestructible. The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs??

Put your arrogance away, Steve. You don't have the chops to determine what is, and is not, "fraudulent" in this discussion.

Tom

[twinstead]

Now see, Steve. What exactly am I to make of tfk's post? It makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. Why should I believe you instead of tfk and others? What makes you smarter?

[FineWine]

You keep repeating this ridiculous fantasy.


As a peddler of absurd rubbish that can't possibly be true, you certainly know something about ridiculous fantasies.



You keep saying that 2 identical blocks of differing sizes are to be treated differently. One is fragile and must be treated one floor at a time but the other is indestructible and is to be treated as ONE block.


These are very stupid lies. There are no blocks, identical or otherwise. The impact floors collapsed after the floor trusses failed, taking along with them the floors above. The falling mass hit exactly ONE floor, the floor directly below, crushed it and added its mass. The process repeated until the building was gone.

Stop trotting out Heiwa's insane crapola about "indestructible" blocks. There isn't a human alive who holds that idiotic strawman position. As usual, you are fooling nobody.



This is fraudulent, and any engineer or other professional who peddles this nonsense should lose their license to practice, heck should lose their diplomas.

Maybe you need a refresher, here is a webpage you might be able to understand...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm


You know less about physics and engineering than you do about formal rhetoric. We're talking less than zero.

[bill smith]

I am an engineer. What do you do, Steve?

I've taught this stuff (Engineering Dynamics) to college-level engineering students.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The fact is that YOU (& bill, & probably a few others) are incapable of understanding what we've explained.

The comments that you've made make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you have zero concept of what Newton's 3rd law is or how to apply it.

Nobody decides "a priori" to consider the upper block to be indestructible. The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs??

Put your arrogance away, Steve. You don't have the chops to determine what is, and is not, "fraudulent" in this discussion.

Tom

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.

[beachnut]

...

No, the theory JREF "debunkers" are pushing is one that does not follow the laws of physics.

...
The Heiwa challenge does not need science it is pure talk and has your vast knowledge of physics, engineering and math fooled.

WTC towers fell after impacts and fire with gravity. The jet fuel alone had the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT in both jets, and the office fires had more heat than that. So you are saying over 1200 TONS of TNT heat energy could not weaken the steel in the WTC but some mythically placed explosives that make no noise, no blast effects, leave no trace of blast effects were used but were never found.

Your delusion defies the law of physics and you can't do anything but make up lies like this post and whine about your failed attempt at false flag vandalism.

I know Heiwa has nothing to present due to the lack of calculations on his engineering proposal; there is no substance but you believe there is but you can't present the calculation to prove your point. You have nothing but talk and that is the best part you are the real deal false flag engineering nothing to save Heiwa from fraud.

You could produce the pages of calculations to go with your theory but I bet you forgot to attend engineering school and get your masters degree in engineering. When can we expect you to earn a degree and wake up to the fact you support delusions with talk? In the 7 years you have wasted spewing delusions on 911 you could have had a PhD in structural engineering.


When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.
LOL

You have not studied your physics lesson yet! So sad to see pure ignorance on engineering being expressed as if it was more than delusional failure at understanding something as simple and complex as gravity and energy. Your post is graded zero in physics and engineering.


... Heiwa proved wrong twice with the WTC towers falling by gravity on September 11, 2001 when 19 terrorist murdered fellow humans in NYC, DC, and a lonely field in Pennsylvania. 19 terrorists did it on purpose and never heard of Gandhi and Heiwa is doing it due to ignorance and never uses physics or produces calculations to go with his delusion.

Such a poor attempt at apologizing for terrorists who murdered people on September 11, 2001. When is Heiwa being published? Why can't he publish his calculations to prove his theory?

[Newtons Bit]

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs?

This is a good analogy. To further explain how it applies to reality, legs = columns, ribs = floors.

[nicepants]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

When the collapse reached the 10th floor, how many tenths of the structure were crushing it?

[FineWine]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.



You've been caught lying again. Thirteen floors crushed one floor, and added its mass. Then fourteen floors crushed one, and added its mass. You know the drill, Bill.

It's over.

[bill smith]

This is a good analogy. To further explain how it applies to reality, legs = columns, ribs = floors.
Yes, and as Steven Jones says ''at night when you drop yoour trousers your legs are still there '

[twinstead]

Yea, because the master of analogies thinks trousers on legs is what happened at the WTC. LOL

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, and as Steven Jones says ''at night when you drop yoour trousers your legs are still there '

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

Given that Jones' pants should be on fire.

[twinstead]

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

Given that Jones' pants should be on fire.

Oh, I get it. Very nice

[bill smith]

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

Given that Jones' pants should be on fire.lol

[nicepants]

Bill -

Given your statement below:
When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

I'm interested in your answer to the following:

When the collapse reached the 10th floor, how many tenths of the structure were crushing it?

[A W Smith]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.


Here's one


eqygUApfnZg

[SteveAustin]

I am an engineer. What do you do, Steve?

I've taught this stuff (Engineering Dynamics) to college-level engineering students.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The fact is that YOU (& bill, & probably a few others) are incapable of understanding what we've explained.

The comments that you've made make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you have zero concept of what Newton's 3rd law is or how to apply it.

Nobody decides "a priori" to consider the upper block to be indestructible. The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs??

Put your arrogance away, Steve. You don't have the chops to determine what is, and is not, "fraudulent" in this discussion.

Tom

Or you could instead take 2 cinder blocks and place one on the ground and lift the other one up say about 15 feet and drop it on the other one. What happens? The block you dropped gets smashed and takes more damage than the block that was lying on the ground.

So now can anyone tell me why the soft mushy human bodies would react differently than the cinder blocks? That's how the JREF cult dishonesty works. Say something that seems to make sense unless you actually think about it and hope no one will think about it.

[funk de fino]

Or you could instead take 2 cinder blocks and place one on the ground and lift the other one up say about 15 feet and drop it on the other one. What happens? The block you dropped gets smashed and takes more damage than the block that was lying on the ground.

So now can anyone tell me why the soft mushy human bodies would react differently than the cinder blocks? That's how the JREF cult dishonesty works. Say something that seems to make sense unless you actually think about it and hope no one will think about it.

Cluelessness and arrogance. A nice combination. Your mother would be proud.

[Newtons Bit]

Or you could instead take 2 cinder blocks and place one on the ground and lift the other one up say about 15 feet and drop it on the other one. What happens? The block you dropped gets smashed and takes more damage than the block that was lying on the ground.

So now can anyone tell me why the soft mushy human bodies would react differently than the cinder blocks? That's how the JREF cult dishonesty works. Say something that seems to make sense unless you actually think about it and hope no one will think about it.

When I bought my house there were some 12" CMU blocks up on my 1-story roof. I threw them off because I didn't like the extra weight on my flat-roof.

Most of them broken when they hit the grass in the backyard. CMU is stronger than grass and unconsolidated soil. I think someone planted thermite in my CMU blocks.

I threw one off and it hit an unbroken CMU block on the grass. The one that I threw didn't break and the one on the ground did. OMG WTF!@!!1eleventy.

[SteveAustin]

You've been caught lying again. Thirteen floors crushed one floor, and added its mass. Then fourteen floors crushed one, and added its mass. You know the drill, Bill.

It's over.

You seem to be saying here that the top section is still one intact piece, unbroken, maybe, just maybe a little damaged! If this is so please provide your evidence that this is what happens!

Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that as the top section breaks apart the pieces continue to fall down through the path of greatest resistance instead of bouncing out the sides?

[funk de fino]

You seem to be saying here that the top section is still one intact piece, unbroken, maybe, just maybe a little damaged! If this is so please provide your evidence that this is what happens!

Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that as the top section breaks apart the pieces continue to fall down through the path of greatest resistance instead of bouncing out the sides?

Watch HD footage of the tower collapses, not the junk youtube truther nonsense. You can see the top section falling into the lower section while still pretty much intact.

What makes things bounce sideways?

[nicepants]

You seem to be saying here that the top section is still one intact piece, unbroken, maybe, just maybe a little damaged! If this is so please provide your evidence that this is what happens!

Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that as the top section breaks apart the pieces continue to fall down through the path of greatest resistance instead of bouncing out the sides?

How are you determining which "path" has the least resistance? And in what units are you measuring it?

[BigAl]

You seem to be saying here that the top section is still one intact piece, unbroken, maybe, just maybe a little damaged! If this is so please provide your evidence that this is what happens!

Whatever you think those words mean, this 2 minute video shows what did happen. Deal with it. It's a close-up of the collapse zone showing the beams of the lower part bending as the top falls. The original audio is there and no demolition explosions can be heard.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

[FineWine]

Or you could instead take 2 cinder blocks and place one on the ground and lift the other one up say about 15 feet and drop it on the other one. What happens? The block you dropped gets smashed and takes more damage than the block that was lying on the ground.

So now can anyone tell me why the soft mushy human bodies would react differently than the cinder blocks? That's how the JREF cult dishonesty works. Say something that seems to make sense unless you actually think about it and hope no one will think about it.


Heiwa believes that if you lift the top third of a skyscraper two miles into space and drop it onto the rest of the building, a "new equilibrium" results. There is no significant damage. Now, his contention is utterly mad. I will not insult you by asking if you agree with him.

The mindless cult you serve ignores real science, as it must to preserve its absurd fantasies. It must give you pause, however, to reflect on the total lack of support your insane movement has received from scientists and engineers in nations unfriendly to the U.S. Tell us why absolutely no one in the world's scientific and engineering communities can find the "errors" in the NIST reports that are so obvious to agenda-driven, low-IQ, adolescent know-nothings.

[FineWine]

You seem to be saying here that the top section is still one intact piece, unbroken, maybe, just maybe a little damaged! If this is so please provide your evidence that this is what happens!

Is this what you are saying? Or are you saying that as the top section breaks apart the pieces continue to fall down through the path of greatest resistance instead of bouncing out the sides?



As soon as you start writing that "down" is the path of "greatest" resistance, you should stop and think a bit. There is a clue that you're overlooking. Yes, as the original thirteen collapsing floors fall on top of the floor directly below, small amounts of debris escape. The mass of those thirteen floors, for the most part, falls onto that floor below, crushing it and adding its mass.

[Grizzly Bear]

Let's just say if collapses were purely dependent upon arbitrary proportions or fractions (choose your favorite word) of the entire building falling on itself, then clearly all of the hype that goes into building codes about designing for unanticipated loading, and eccentric loading has been for nothing all this time. I suggest steveaustin, bill smith, et al stop their silly games and take action to question code enforcement why these are crucial considerations for design and take appropriate action if they are irrelevant. Because by claiming they know factually that x percentage of building cannot progress the entire height to the ground, they're also suggesting that all variations of eccentric loading are irrelevant to a building's structural integrity.

I await the results of their inquiry.

[SteveAustin]

Heiwa believes that if you lift the top third of a skyscraper two miles into space and drop it onto the rest of the building, a "new equilibrium" results. There is no significant damage. Now, his contention is utterly mad. I will not insult you by asking if you agree with him.

LOL, more dishonesty from the JREF cult. Heiwa never said that, the JREF cult (which includes you) decided to interpret it that way because it's fits your agenda.

What he said was that no matter from what height, that top section could not crush down the bottom section, and he's right.

Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom section sure enough but not before the top section itself gets vaporized. Same thing with your 2 mile scenario. What Heiwa said to that was that the top section would be itself destroyed before the bottom section was completely destroyed, but it would be destroyed if dropped from a high enough height.

Again the top section gets destroyed first and no further "crush down" occurs. The rest of the building would be destroyed not because of any crush down but because of the sheer force of the impact from a 2 mile height.

This was obvious to anyone with even a shred of honesty.

The mindless cult you serve ignores real science, as it must to preserve its absurd fantasies. It must give you pause, however, to reflect on the total lack of support your insane movement has received from scientists and engineers in nations unfriendly to the U.S. Tell us why absolutely no one in the world's scientific and engineering communities can find the "errors" in the NIST reports that are so obvious to agenda-driven, low-IQ, adolescent know-nothings.

Are you calling me a low-IQ, adolescent know-nothing? That is a personal attack on a member of JREF. I'm not surprised as I see this in every other post by the JREF cult members.

It also fits with someone who knows he does not have truth on his side.

Here try to wrap your head around these 2 documents (I know, I know, I'm really asking a lot from you here, but at least try)

Faulty Towers of Belief: Part I. Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/FaultyTowersofBeliefPart_I.pdf)

and

Faulty Towers of Belief: Part II. Rebuilding the Road to Freedom of Reason (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/ManwellFaultyTowersofBeliefPartII.pdf)

Try reading those 2 and you might start to understand why some people buy into the fairy tale that is the "Official Conspiracy Theory", why others will not bother to even look at the evidence, and why some people are extremely angry and vocal toward people who do not buy into the Official fairy tale.

You paid shills need to come forward now and dismiss these 2 papers quickly before the cult followers start reading them.

[SteveAustin]

How are you determining which "path" has the least resistance? And in what units are you measuring it?

ROFL, that is a very dishonest question. The reason it is dishonest is because you are asking this question to cover the truth of the facts.

The path of least resistance is to fall off the building, fall away and to the sides.

The path of greatest resistance is to fall straight down through those many many thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

Tell me, does the top section remain intact through the entire explosive collapse to the ground? Or does it break up into many many smaller pieces that could then easily tumble away over the side through the path of least resistance?

[Newtons Bit]

LOL, more dishonesty from the JREF cult. Heiwa never said that, the JREF cult (which includes you) decided to interpret it that way because it's fits your agenda.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3825166&postcount=166


What he said was that no matter from what height, that top section could not crush down the bottom section, and he's right.

So if the upper block is "dropped" from a distance of 100,000 miles and is travelling at a velocity of 10,000mph when it impacts, it won't destroy the lower block?!?

[DC]

airresistance would rip it appart at that speed and it would not hit the lower block

[Heiwa]

I am an engineer.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??


Tom

Yes, Tom, it is clear that pieces do not fall upwards, etc, etc, but forces are a different matter.

Take yourself. Say you have a mass m. Your mass is subject to the gravity force and the result is that you/m is pulled towards planet Earth with its mass. You should be happy for that! Otherwise you would just fly away and bye, bye.

Actually you/m also pull the planet Earth towards you due to your gravity force. Yes, you are attractive. Imagine that. You pulling the Earth!

Now, when you and planet Earth meet due to this mutual attraction, an equilibrium develops. You with your m, lets call it part C, apply a force F on the Earth, let's call it part A, and ... yes, planet Earth apply a force -F on you. I am happy to say that you, part C, will not yet one-way crush down part A.

But we can try! Thus you/m/part C climb a ladder and JUMP! You will then experience a moment of free fall and then you will impact part A. For a short while you/part C will apply a BIG IMPACT FORCE FBIG on part A, and part A will, likewise apply force -FBIG on you. After a short moment FBIG and -FBIG disappear and you are back to status quo; you apply F on planet Earth that applies -F on you

Now, a test! You are an engineer. Where did forces FBIG and -FBIG end up after your jump?

If you know the answer to that question, you will soon be able to find out the solution of The Heiwa Challenge.

[SteveAustin]

LOL, more dishonesty from the JREF cult. Heiwa never said that, the JREF cult (which includes you) decided to interpret it that way because it's fits your agenda.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3825166&postcount=166

What he said was that no matter from what height, that top section could not crush down the bottom section, and he's right.

So if the upper block is "dropped" from a distance of 100,000 miles and is travelling at a velocity of 10,000mph when it impacts, it won't destroy the lower block?!?

LOL, you are quote mining so that you can misrepresent what I said, just like you did with Heiwa on this particular topic..

Had you quoted the very next paragraph of mine you will see that your attempt to misrepresent what I said falls apart completely, here...

Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom section sure enough but not before the top section itself gets vaporized. Same thing with your 2 mile scenario. What Heiwa said to that was that the top section would be itself destroyed before the bottom section was completely destroyed, but it would be destroyed if dropped from a high enough height.

Again the top section gets destroyed first and no further "crush down" occurs. The rest of the building would be destroyed not because of any crush down but because of the sheer force of the impact from a 2 mile height.

This was obvious to anyone with even a shred of honesty.

This is perfect proof of the dishonesty of the JREF cult!

[newton3376]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

You aren't qualified to make this assessment.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.

Nope....

You aren't qualified Bill.

[Newtons Bit]

LOL, you are quote mining so that you can misrepresent what I said, just like you did with Heiwa on this particular topic..

Had you quoted the very next paragraph of mine you will see that your attempt to misrepresent what I said falls apart completely, here...



This is perfect proof of the dishonesty of the JREF cult!

So your entire argument is based upon your own definition of "crush down"?

Swell.

[DavidJames]

You aren't qualified to make this assessment.



Nope....

You aren't qualified Bill.Of course you are correct. After seeing his troubles in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150536&page=3) thread, I may need to reassess my opinion of him. Breach of Rule 12 content removed.

[SteveAustin]

So your entire argument is based upon your own definition of "crush down"?

Swell.

What's your definition of "crush down". My definition fits with the standard definition;

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crush

crush
2 entries found.

1crush (verb)

2crush (noun)

Main Entry: 1crush
Pronunciation: \ˈkrəsh\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English crusshen, from Anglo-French croissir, croistre, of Germanic origin; akin to Middle Low German krossen to crush
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 a : to squeeze or force by pressure so as to alter or destroy structure <crush grapes> b : to squeeze together into a mass
3 : to reduce to particles by pounding or grinding <crush rock>
4 a : to suppress or overwhelm as if by pressure or weight b : to oppress or burden grievously <crushed by debt> c : to subdue completely


So again, what's your definition of "crush down"?

[SteveAustin]

You aren't qualified to make this assessment.



Nope....

You aren't qualified Bill.

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.

The events of 9/11, even the science behind 9/11 is not really very complicated, but by constantly saying that it is and that you need to be qualified you keep certain people from using their own commen sense and their own critical thinking.

An offshoot of this, and it usually goes hand in hand with labeling something too scientific for the laymen is to make explanations really really complicated so as to obfuscate the entire topic and make it look like it truly is too complicated, but when broken down and studied it turns out it really is simple.

You do not need any speciality in any field to undersand that 9/11 was an inside job, but it helps the agenda of the deniers to pretend that you do.

Anyone that tells you that you are not smart enough or qualified enough to be able to figure these things out on your own is trying to hide something from you.

It's the classic "I am smarter than you are so I am an 'expert' and you need to listen to me, listen to what I say because I know and you cannnot possibly know"

[newton3376]

Of course you are correct. After seeing his troubles in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150536&page=3) thread, I may need to reassess my opinion of him. I had viewed him as a troll but I'm now wondering if there isn't a deeper learning disability going on.

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

[Grizzly Bear]

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.
There was no claim made on this basis. The concept is simple; if you spout idiotic nonsense that is incompatible with what is known in the subject you're discussing then you're not qualified to comment on it. No fallacy was committed.

This has nothing to do with smarts, but everything to do with incompetents spouting off there ignorance in a subject for which they've done no personal study or any professional experience with. You are a textbook example

[SteveAustin]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

Another one trying to tell everyone to shut up and listen to your betters. "We know the truth of these matters, they are simply too complicated for you little brains. So shut up and listen!!"

ROFL, I am not some mindless zombies who is stuck in front of the TV 6 hours a day!

I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"

[Heiwa]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

This popular thread is not about shut up and listen but to be creative and design a structure that can one-way crush itself as outlined in post #1. So far nobody as managed it. I know why, of course. Please, speak up and explain why it is so and I will listen.

[bill smith]

I think some of it is just plain stubbornness...but who knows?

Now, I'm no structural or mechanical engineer either, but I am vastly more qualified than the average truther to understand the math and physics when a structural or mechanical engineer is talking....

The several we have here have done an excellent job in dealing with these issues and doing it in a way that is easlily understood by non experts. But they have all but been ignored by the more stubborn truthers.

If someone (and this has happened several times) told me I was wrong about some system or circuit I was working on and they didn't have a background in the topic I would tell them to get lost.

Heck, even when they have a background they are often missing some detail....

I have had people insist that they were correct about something I was testing and only after several hours of me explaining in detail what I was doing for the last few weeks or months did they say "Oh.....nevermind then."

This is why truthers should shut up and listen. As non experts and outsiders in the areas of structural and mechanical engineering they are missing the details.

Pretend that the following is NOT a model of the WTC but just a contraption of spaghetti. If an engineer told you that picking up the top 10% of this model and dropping it a short distance into the other 90% would result in the whole thing being crushed down onto the floor- would you believe him ?

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.''

[nicepants]

ROFL, that is a very dishonest question. The reason it is dishonest is because you are asking this question to cover the truth of the facts.

There was nothing dishonest about my question. It doesn't "cover the truth" about anything.

How did you determine which "path" has the least resistance?

The path of least resistance is to fall off the building, fall away and to the sides.

The path of greatest resistance is to fall straight down through those many many thousands of tons of steel and concrete.

Resistance to what?
In what units is this resistance measured?


Tell me, does the top section remain intact through the entire explosive collapse to the ground? Or does it break up into many many smaller pieces that could then easily tumble away over the side through the path of least resistance?

Due to your qualifying statement (which I have italicized) your question is a false dichotomy.

[beachnut]

...
I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"
I agree you are not a zombie, you are a delusion repeater with the false flag vandalism as your original thought on an area related to 911.

Oh YES! JREF makes calculus much more complicated than it really is.
JREF makes physics much more complicated than it is!
JREF makes nonlinear differential equations much more difficult than they really are.
JREF makes stochastic estimation and control much more complicated than it really is.
And JREF makes structural engineering much more complicated than it is.

But you BillSmith and Heiwa just use delusional talk to simplify physics and structural engineering to "whatever you say is true", as you make up delusions based on your failed moronic opinions instead of real engineering. You can't show your work because you have not done the work.

Your posts are so anti-intellectual you are the perfect cheerleader for Heiwa's no calculation axiom; Heiwa used the "if I say it is so it is so" method of proof - Fetzer's Delusional proof method.

[bill smith]

A 'false dichotomy' ? Hmmm.....are you sure it's not a 'logical fallacy' or 'an appeal to this. that or the other ' ? One of those debunker soundbites anyway ?

[newton3376]

That's another one of the fallacies that keeps getting promoted here at JREF.

It's not a fallacy at all....

The fallacy of the need to have specific degrees to be able to understand 9/11.

A few points...

Degrees do not always imply the ability to understand something, but they are usually a good indicator of at least a basic understanding of principles (like math and physics for example).

I have worked with and currently work with other engineers and scientists that have everything from a Bachelors degree to 2 or more PhDs.... I have met some individuals with Bachelors degrees who were smarter than the guys with the PhDs...maybe not more knowledgable, but smarter in terms of raw intelligence.

So are degrees everything? No, of course not...

BUT

Having a degree does imply a certain level of competence in a particular subject, and usually the more advanced degrees require more time, experience, and knowledge...

....but a degree is just the beginning....

Then there is EXPERIENCE. Experience working on various projects in the real world, which is an education in and of itself. The degree prepares you for the real education of actually working in the engineering or science fields in real life....

The combination of education and experience is what makes up someones background in the subject.

Of course, since you don't have either you find what I am saying to be either fallicious or offensive.....:oldroll: no surprise there.

The events of 9/11, even the science behind 9/11 is not really very complicated, but by constantly saying that it is and that you need to be qualified you keep certain people from using their own commen sense and their own critical thinking.

The events of 9/11 were very complicated on several levels....

Unqualified people always cry and complain about "common sense" while not using it themselves. It's deliciously ironic.

9/11 involves the engineering community, the intelligence community, the military, the defense department, the defense contractors, first responders, etc....and the vast majority of experts and people working in these fields are not truthers.

Truthers try to simplify 9/11 by using models of the WTC made out of fruit and legos.....the fact that you can't see why this is a problem tells me you are unqualified to even have an opinon.

You know who usually whines about a lack of education and experience? Those who haven't bothered to spend the time getting either.

An offshoot of this, and it usually goes hand in hand with labeling something too scientific for the laymen is to make explanations really really complicated so as to obfuscate the entire topic and make it look like it truly is too complicated, but when broken down and studied it turns out it really is simple.

From my experience (theres that word again;)) topics in engineering and science are rarely "simple". There are levels and layers to understanding something, so there is certainly a level or layer that is "simple" or has a simplistic explanation or analogy....but the devil is in the details.

And the details is usually where the actual math, physics, and engineering can be found.....this is where people who are unqualified and don't understand the math, physics, or engineering start to cry and complain...

"It's too hard!!!" "You're making it too complicated!!!"

Sorry if you don't get it...that's life. Deal with it and stop complaining. It isn't my fault you didn't get a degree in engineering or read enough math and physics on your own to "get it"...

It also isn't my fault that you have zero years of engineering experience.

You do not need any speciality in any field to undersand that 9/11 was an inside job, but it helps the agenda of the deniers to pretend that you do.

Sorry, you don't have the education or experience in the relevant areas to determine whether or not 9/11 was an inside job.

Maybe you should just listen to the experts instead of your own uninformed and uneducated ideas.....

Anyone that tells you that you are not smart enough or qualified enough to be able to figure these things out on your own is trying to hide something from you.

As painful as it might be to admit....it is a fact of life that some people are simply smarter or better in specific areas than other people.

And sometimes someone is just plain smarter overall than someone else. Some people are more intelligent than others....:con2: Sorry if that bothers you, but it's life.

So yes, some people are not smart enough or qualified enough to figure these things out on there own....if you don't like that, it's not my problem. It's the way reality is. Deal with it.

It's the classic "I am smarter than you are so I am an 'expert' and you need to listen to me, listen to what I say because I know and you cannnot possibly know"

The experts are smarter than you because they have both the education and experience in the relevant areas. You don't.

I'm sorry if this is some kind of a personal issue with you....go get a degree and start getting some relevant experience if it bothers you so much.

But until you do....

You aren't qualified.

[newton3376]

Another one trying to tell everyone to shut up and listen to your betters. "We know the truth of these matters, they are simply too complicated for you little brains. So shut up and listen!!"

Not everyone....

You? Yes. Everyone? No.

ROFL, I am not some mindless zombies who is stuck in front of the TV 6 hours a day!

You are an investigoogler.

I understand that JREF purposely makes things far more complicated than they really are in order to obfuscate the issue and make the lazy and non-critical thinkers simply go along with so-called "experts"

You aren't qualified to make such a judgement.

[newton3376]

This popular thread is not about shut up and listen but to be creative and design a structure that can one-way crush itself as outlined in post #1. So far nobody as managed it. I know why, of course. Please, speak up and explain why it is so and I will listen.

Your nonsense has already been answered but you apparently lack the ability to understand despite your supposed degree....

Your world is lemons and cardboard....leave the structural engineering questions to the structural engineers.

[newton3376]

Pretend that the following is NOT a model of the WTC but just a contraption of spaghetti. If an engineer told you that picking up the top 10% of this model and dropping it a short distance into the other 90% would result in the whole thing being crushed down onto the floor- would you believe him ?

'' Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the column bases in a solid surface. Allow to dry.''

Bill....

If an engineer told me to model a building collapse with spaghetti, lemons, or any other fruit, appetizer, dessert, or entre I would tell him to stop playing with his food.

And I would tell him he was a moron

[twinstead]

Personally, I think SteveAustin, Heiwa, Bill smith, and others are obfuscating the issue by claiming that anybody with a computer and access to YouTube and google is as qualified as any expert to decide if the collapses were CD, that this is all about "common sense".

As if somehow I, as a layman, am supposed to believe them when they tell me the collapses were impossible the way they are described by the NIST, Purdue, etc and ignore any experts who disagree.

Hmmmm. Well, truthers, you want to dazzle this layman? Get the ASCE to endorse your cause. Find some REAL experts to claim that the collapses were impossible. You can claim till the cows come home that it's so obvious that anybody can see it, but regardless of your disdain for experts, until some pretty important ones get on your side I could care less about your delightful little movement.

Your whining about "experts" is all an attempt at covering up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.

[Heiwa]

Personally, I think SteveAustin, Heiwa, Bill smith, and others are obfuscating the issue by claiming that anybody with a computer and access to YouTube and google is as qualified as any expert to decide if the collapses were CD, that this is all about "common sense".

As if somehow I, as a layman, am supposed to believe them when they tell me the collapses were impossible the way they are described by the NIST, Purdue, etc and ignore any experts who disagree.

Hmmmm. Well, truthers, you want to dazzle this layman? Get the ASCE to endorse your cause. Find some REAL experts to claim that the collapses were impossible. You can claim till the cows come home that it's so obvious that anybody can see it, but regardless of your disdain for experts, until some pretty important ones get on your side I could care less about your delightful little movement.

Your whining about "experts" is all an attempt at covering up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.

The Heiwa Challenge is open to any ASCE member/expert and NIST/Purdue employé. ASCE/NIST have no info about structures that self-destruct when a part of a structure drops on the remainder of the structure. Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures? Any such structure will win The Heiwa Challenge!

[Grizzly Bear]

Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures?
Measures to protect the buildings are usually already in place to prevent it. They can't do anything about it when the collapse has already started.

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge is open to any ASCE member/expert and NIST/Purdue employé. ASCE/NIST have no info about structures that self-destruct when a part of a structure drops on the remainder of the structure. Isn't it time to provide info of such dangerous structures? Any such structure will win The Heiwa Challenge!
The one million dollars you lied about? Called fraud, you are a perfect fit with Gage's failed group.