The Heiwa Challenge

[twinstead]

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!

That would be nice if your challenge had anything to do with the WTC collapses. But, alas, I could care less about it. You don't even know that your part A doesn't exist, and the mass of the building above the collapse initiation, driven by gravity, only needs to collapse the smaller single floor beneath it--there is, therefore NO smaller part crushing down a larger part. It's crushing down a smaller part, one at a time. How good can your challenge be if you can't even get that point?

So, my point stands. Convince the ASCE that the collapses of the WTC are impossible as described by NIST, Purdue, etc. Until then, you're just some guy on the internet who thinks he's smarter than everybody else, just like SteveAustin, Bill smith, and others.

[BigAl]

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!

Do you claim or deny that The Heiwa Challenge is supposed to model the WTC towers and why they collapsed on 9/11?

[Heiwa]

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.

You sure? Pls expand on it and include your findings in your design of a Heiwa Challenge structure. FYI, drop part C on part A to start the one-way crush down! The drop is easy! But then? What is supposed to collapse? Part A? Prove it!

[BigAl]

You sure? Pls expand on it and include your findings in your design of a Heiwa Challenge structure. FYI, drop part C on part A to start the one-way crush down! The drop is easy! But then? What is supposed to collapse? Part A? Prove it!

So the Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with WTC and why the twwers collapsed.

[twinstead]

So the Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with WTC and why the twwers collapsed.

Nope. It's a silly little mind game to prevent him from dealing with the fact he's totally wrong about the WTC collapses.

[Heiwa]

So the Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with WTC and why the twwers collapsed.

Pls read post #1. How is your design getting along

[BigAl]

Pls read post #1. How is your design getting along

I'm not interested in models of anything but the WTC tower collapse. That would feature structural damage, protracted fire, and massive overload of each floor, one floor at a time.

[Heiwa]

I'm not interested in models of anything but the WTC tower collapse. That would feature structural damage, protracted fire, and massive overload of each floor, one floor at a time.

Well, this popular thread is about designing a structure that features structural damage when you apply energy on it by dropping a part on it and associated local overload on the elements, one at a time of course.

An element can be a floor, etc, etc. Purpose is to get an understanding of the WTC tower destructions.

Thanks for your interest and comments. Pls focus on the design and try to recreate, e.g. a WTC tower collapse.

[A W Smith]

You sure? Pls expand on it and include your findings in your design of a Heiwa Challenge structure. FYI, drop part C on part A to start the one-way crush down! The drop is easy! But then? What is supposed to collapse? Part A? Prove it!
My findings can be found within post 1963 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4999749&postcount=1963)

Part "C' the antenna array. drops on part "'A" the tower support element and destroys the TV tower completely. To the point of falling steel embedding itself so deep into the earth that it cannot be extracted and is simply cut off 2 feet below the surface and abandoned during the clean up.

eqygUApfnZg

[tfk]

SA,

Nice job ignoring everything that I wrote.


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.

.
On what basis do you make this assertion that the falling one gets damaged than the stationary one.?
.

So now can anyone tell me why the soft mushy human bodies would react differently than the cinder blocks?

.
Cinder blocks are brittle aggregates.
Humans are composites of soft (muscle & fat), intermediate (tendons & ligaments, i.e., collagen) and hard (bone) structures.
.

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.

.
Wrong, Steve. If you want to discuss what is really happening, feel free to respond to this post, in which I presented a general approximation to what must have happened.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4743226#post4743226

The short version of why the collision preferentially destroyed the lower portion rather than the upper block is:

1. By the time the upper block hits any floor, over 2/3rds of that floors supports have been destroyed. The remaining 1/3rd is massively damaged.

2. as soon as debris is knocked free from the structure, it begins to fall. When the upper block collides with the debris layer, the relative velocity is the falling block velocity minus the falling debris velocity. When the debris layer collides with the lower block, the relative velocity was the speed of the falling upper block. The collisions with the lower block are more energetic and more severe than the collisions with the upper block.

3. the initial failure turns one entire floor (the 98th in the case of WTC1) into debris. Plus 2/3rds of the 99th & 97th. Plus 1/3rd of the 100th & 96th. The 99th & 100th floor debris falls WITH the upper block. The 98th, 97th & 96th floor debris falls AWAY FROM the stationary remaining structure. The initial collision is the 99th floor, plus the weights of the the 3 to 6 floors above (transmitted thru the columns) landing on the 1/3rd remaining 97th floor.

4. the debris impacts into, and provides support for, the upper structure. This happens over the course of about 3 to 6 stories of fall. After debris fully impacts the upper block, then you really do have the entire upper block (13 stories plus X floors of debris) impacting each top floor. When these impacts occur, each top floor is already 2/3rds destroyed.

5. the debris builds up underneath the upper block, and protects it from the collisions, which happen at the BOTTOM of the debris layer, while the upper block rides down on the TOP of the debris layer.

These are the reasons that upper block is protected from destruction, while the lower section is not.

I'll wait to see if you have a cogent reply. Or if you just wave your hands and ignore all of this.

Tom

[Heiwa]

My findings can be found within post 1963 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4999749&postcount=1963)

Part "C' the antenna array. drops on part "'A" the tower support element and destroys the TV tower completely. To the point of falling steel embedding itself so deep into the earth that it cannot be extracted and is simply cut off 2 feet below the surface and abandoned during the clean up.

eqygUApfnZg

It looks like the part C drops first beside part A and hits ground. When part A is destroyed is not clear. So no one-way crush down of part A by part C as I am concerned.

[A W Smith]

It looks like the part C drops first beside part A and hits ground. When part A is destroyed is not clear. So no one-way crush down of part A by part C as I am concerned.


The antenna array falls and cuts one guy cable almost a quarter mile high up as it drops. The tower of steel which of course is stronger at the bottom than at the top and can clearly support its own weight {bill smith axiom} even with scores of cables pulling down on it. inexplicably buckles and collapses into itself.

[beachnut]

...
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.

Paid shills? Another lie.

Dismiss the papers? Gee whiz the dolt paper is not about evidence of 911 it is evidence about people with failed ideas which he projects on to other people who don't believe the way he believes; just like you do. The author thinks the evidence supporting 19 terrorist crashed 4 planes is fake. He thinks his delusions based on his moronic opinions and faulty belief system are correct and transfers his failure to comprehend due to his physiological barriers to evidence to those who think his delusions on 911 are wrong.
Heiwa uses the same faulty logic for his failed conclusions.



LOL, ...

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.

... Heiwa is not right he is delusional on 911. No one has come forward to support the failed ideas of Heiwa. Instead of earning a Pulitzer Prize for the biggest story in history we have failed engineering on display.

Is "Yogi" Berra your logic mentor?
[/quote]… Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom …[/quote] You say the top part would vaporize the bottom part? But it would not before vaporizing itself first, so then it can’t vaporize the bottom part, but you said it would be vaporized by the top. WHAT!!!!!??????

You come with opinions when you need physics and engineering. This is not an opinion debate it is physics and engineering. Go to a physics teacher, go to an engineering school and learn. You don’t need to be an engineer to understand 911 you need logic, knowledge and sound judgment.

Heiwa is wrong. Heiwa’s delusion includes explosives or thermite to destroy the WTC. He ignores the kinetic energy from gravity alone exceeded 130 TONS of TNT per tower. This is why the towers were destroyed after they began to fall. Does Heiwa tell you the energy of each tower collapsing exceeded 130 TONS of TNT; like a building being bombed with 2000 pound bombs 130 times! Wake up to the energy and the too complex thing call math and physics!

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of the jet fuel in each jet exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy!?

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of each fire in the WTC exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy?

The initial impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic the energy events and you fail to understand how they damaged the WTC, destroyed fire proofing and rendered the fire systems useless. You apologize for murders by adopting the lies of Heiwa without evidence and offer zero calculations to go with your wild speculation in support of the top moronic conclusion on 911 pushed by the fraud and zero engineering efforts of Heiwa.

You fell for the fraud of Heiwa WHY? Is it due to massive ignorance on engineering, math and physics? Why do you blame JREF for making it too hard to understand? You are whining because engineering is too hard and you blame JREF. Why do you offer no engineering concepts on this issue? Heiwa makes up lies about engineering and you accept them without hesitation. Can’t you do the calculations to check the lies? Why do you fail to see Heiwa did zero calculations to manufacture the lies out of thin air?

[bill smith]

Paid shills? Another lie.

Dismiss the papers? Gee whiz the dolt paper is not about evidence of 911 it is evidence about people with failed ideas which he projects on to other people who don't believe the way he believes; just like you do. The author thinks the evidence supporting 19 terrorist crashed 4 planes is fake. He thinks his delusions based on his moronic opinions and faulty belief system are correct and transfers his failure to comprehend due to his physiological barriers to evidence to those who think his delusions on 911 are wrong.
Heiwa uses the same faulty logic for his failed conclusions.



Heiwa is not right he is delusional on 911. No one has come forward to support the failed ideas of Heiwa. Instead of earning a Pulitzer Prize for the biggest story in history we have failed engineering on display.

Is "Yogi" Berra your logic mentor?
… Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom …[/quote] You say the top part would vaporize the bottom part? But it would not before vaporizing itself first, so then it can’t vaporize the bottom part, but you said it would be vaporized by the top. WHAT!!!!!??????

You come with opinions when you need physics and engineering. This is not an opinion debate it is physics and engineering. Go to a physics teacher, go to an engineering school and learn. You don’t need to be an engineer to understand 911 you need logic, knowledge and sound judgment.

Heiwa is wrong. Heiwa’s delusion includes explosives or thermite to destroy the WTC. He ignores the kinetic energy from gravity alone exceeded 130 TONS of TNT per tower. This is why the towers were destroyed after they began to fall. Does Heiwa tell you the energy of each tower collapsing exceeded 130 TONS of TNT; like a building being bombed with 2000 pound bombs 130 times! Wake up to the energy and the too complex thing call math and physics!

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of the jet fuel in each jet exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy!?

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of each fire in the WTC exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy?

The initial impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic the energy events and you fail to understand how they damaged the WTC, destroyed fire proofing and rendered the fire systems useless. You apologize for murders by adopting the lies of Heiwa without evidence and offer zero calculations to go with your wild speculation in support of the top moronic conclusion on 911 pushed by the fraud and zero engineering efforts of Heiwa.

You fell for the fraud of Heiwa WHY? Is it due to massive ignorance on engineering, math and physics? Why do you blame JREF for making it too hard to understand? You are whining because engineering is too hard and you blame JREF. Why do you offer no engineering concepts on this issue? Heiwa makes up lies about engineering and you accept them without hesitation. Can’t you do the calculations to check the lies? Why do you fail to see Heiwa did zero calculations to manufacture the lies out of thin air? [/QUOTE]

What do you think would happen ifhe 10% was stationary two miles up in the sky and the bottom 90% took off like a rocket and smashed into it at say 800 mph ?

Which would survive ? How different are the physics ?

[bill smith]

Paid shills? Another lie.

Dismiss the papers? Gee whiz the dolt paper is not about evidence of 911 it is evidence about people with failed ideas which he projects on to other people who don't believe the way he believes; just like you do. The author thinks the evidence supporting 19 terrorist crashed 4 planes is fake. He thinks his delusions based on his moronic opinions and faulty belief system are correct and transfers his failure to comprehend due to his physiological barriers to evidence to those who think his delusions on 911 are wrong.
Heiwa uses the same faulty logic for his failed conclusions.



Heiwa is not right he is delusional on 911. No one has come forward to support the failed ideas of Heiwa. Instead of earning a Pulitzer Prize for the biggest story in history we have failed engineering on display.

Is "Yogi" Berra your logic mentor?
… Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom …[/quote] You say the top part would vaporize the bottom part? But it would not before vaporizing itself first, so then it can’t vaporize the bottom part, but you said it would be vaporized by the top. WHAT!!!!!??????

You come with opinions when you need physics and engineering. This is not an opinion debate it is physics and engineering. Go to a physics teacher, go to an engineering school and learn. You don’t need to be an engineer to understand 911 you need logic, knowledge and sound judgment.

Heiwa is wrong. Heiwa’s delusion includes explosives or thermite to destroy the WTC. He ignores the kinetic energy from gravity alone exceeded 130 TONS of TNT per tower. This is why the towers were destroyed after they began to fall. Does Heiwa tell you the energy of each tower collapsing exceeded 130 TONS of TNT; like a building being bombed with 2000 pound bombs 130 times! Wake up to the energy and the too complex thing call math and physics!

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of the jet fuel in each jet exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy!?

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of each fire in the WTC exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy?

The initial impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic the energy events and you fail to understand how they damaged the WTC, destroyed fire proofing and rendered the fire systems useless. You apologize for murders by adopting the lies of Heiwa without evidence and offer zero calculations to go with your wild speculation in support of the top moronic conclusion on 911 pushed by the fraud and zero engineering efforts of Heiwa.

You fell for the fraud of Heiwa WHY? Is it due to massive ignorance on engineering, math and physics? Why do you blame JREF for making it too hard to understand? You are whining because engineering is too hard and you blame JREF. Why do you offer no engineering concepts on this issue? Heiwa makes up lies about engineering and you accept them without hesitation. Can’t you do the calculations to check the lies? Why do you fail to see Heiwa did zero calculations to manufacture the lies out of thin air? [/QUOTE]

Deleted sorry Beachnut

[bill smith]

… Take that top section high enough and give it enough speed and it will vaporize the bottom … You say the top part would vaporize the bottom part? But it would not before vaporizing itself first, so then it can’t vaporize the bottom part, but you said it would be vaporized by the top. WHAT!!!!!?????? [/FONT][/COLOR]

You come with opinions when you need physics and engineering. This is not an opinion debate it is physics and engineering. Go to a physics teacher, go to an engineering school and learn. You don’t need to be an engineer to understand 911 you need logic, knowledge and sound judgment.

Heiwa is wrong. Heiwa’s delusion includes explosives or thermite to destroy the WTC. He ignores the kinetic energy from gravity alone exceeded 130 TONS of TNT per tower. This is why the towers were destroyed after they began to fall. Does Heiwa tell you the energy of each tower collapsing exceeded 130 TONS of TNT; like a building being bombed with 2000 pound bombs 130 times! Wake up to the energy and the too complex thing call math and physics!

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of the jet fuel in each jet exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy!?

Why do you need TNT or thermite when the heat energy of each fire in the WTC exceeded 300 TONS of TNT heat energy?

The initial impacts were 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT kinetic the energy events and you fail to understand how they damaged the WTC, destroyed fire proofing and rendered the fire systems useless. You apologize for murders by adopting the lies of Heiwa without evidence and offer zero calculations to go with your wild speculation in support of the top moronic conclusion on 911 pushed by the fraud and zero engineering efforts of Heiwa.

You fell for the fraud of Heiwa WHY? Is it due to massive ignorance on engineering, math and physics? Why do you blame JREF for making it too hard to understand? You are whining because engineering is too hard and you blame JREF. Why do you offer no engineering concepts on this issue? Heiwa makes up lies about engineering and you accept them without hesitation. Can’t you do the calculations to check the lies? Why do you fail to see Heiwa did zero calculations to manufacture the lies out of thin air? [/QUOTE]

What do you think would happen if the 10% was stationary two miles up in the sky and the bottom 90% took off like a rocket and smashed into it at say 800 mph ?

Which would survive ? How different are the physics ?[/QUOTE]

Hmmm? something funny going on.

[bill smith]

What do you think would happen if the 10% was stationary two miles up in the sky and the bottom 90% took off like a rocket and smashed into it at say 800 mph ?

Which would survive ? How different are the physics ?

[dtugg]

It looks like no-planer-bs is having severe problems today.

[bill smith]

It looks like no-planer-bs is having severe problems today.

Yeah...I don't know what was going on there.

[dtugg]

Yeah...I don't know what was going on there.

It's probably a conspiracy against you.

[Heiwa]

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. Reason is that it is impossible to design a structure A, where a part C of A, when dropped on A, one-way crushes A. Thanks to all participants that tried to prove the impossible.

The knowledge gained can be applied to WTC 1 on 9/11:

At the moment of contact of the WTC 1 upper part C and lower structure, part A, a certain momentum (mass times velocity), energy (momentum times velocity divided by 2) and forces (energy divided by displacement) are involved. Local failures occur in all structural elements involved due to the forces applied, energy is absorbed and consumed, friction forces between failed elements in contact develop, forces and loads are re-distributed, momentums are reduced as outer forces are applied on the parts and the destruction is always arrested after a while.

It is not a static or dynamic solid mechanics problem! It is a structural damage analysis matter!

The upper part C of WTC 1 can only apply forces on the lower structure, part A, that the upper part C can itself withstand in the first place. As the upper part C and the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1 have identical structures, the upper part C cannot destroy the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1. Part C will destroy itself first.

I have of course described it in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm , which many contenders of The Heiwa Challenge missed.

Anyway - see you in other threads and thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge!

[UNLoVedRebel]

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it.
So I bought all those lemons for nothing?

[dtugg]

This is hilarious! Someone beats Heiwa's retarded challenge so he terminates it!

[twinstead]

Heiwa, your challenge, like your movement, gets "terminated" every time I turn off my computer.

As an aside, you would be treated much better here if you weren't accusing innocent people of mass murder. You'll get no sympathy from me.

[SteveAustin]

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"

It's not a fallacy at all....



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 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.



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.



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.....



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.



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.

Q.E.D.

[SteveAustin]

Not everyone....

You? Yes. Everyone? No..

Please post your evidence to support your claim!

You are an investigoogler..

Please post your evidence to support your claim!

You aren't qualified to make such a judgement.

Please post your evidence to support your claim!

[SteveAustin]

Your whining about "experts" is all an attempt at covering up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.

LOL, it's all you JREF cult members that keep whining about "experts", I have just pointed out the obvious that you do not need to be an "expert" to figure 9/11 was an inside job!

I'm not surprised you see us as whining about "experts" when it is actually you who is doing the whining, you JREF cult members do this sort of thing all the time.

"you need to be an "expert" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"you don't have the required "expertise" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"do you have any degrees in the required fields" WHAAAAA!

On and on and on.

[A W Smith]

Where's my million?

The antenna array falls and cuts one guy cable almost a quarter mile high up as it drops. The tower of steel which of course is stronger at the bottom than at the top and can clearly support its own weight {bill smith axiom} even with scores of cables pulling down on it. inexplicably buckles and collapses into itself.


The Heiwa Challenge is terminated.
As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. Reason is that it is possible to design a structure A, where a part C of A, when dropped on A, one-way crushes A. Thanks to all participants that that proved it possible.

The knowledge gained can be applied to WTC 1 on 9/11:


It is not a static or dynamic solid mechanics problem! It is a structural damage analysis matter!

Anyway - see you in other threads and thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge!

[Justin39640]

LOL, it's all you JREF cult members that keep whining about "experts", I have just pointed out the obvious that you do not need to be an "expert" to figure 9/11 was an inside job!

I'm not surprised you see us as whining about "experts" when it is actually you who is doing the whining, you JREF cult members do this sort of thing all the time.

"you need to be an "expert" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"you don't have the required "expertise" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"do you have any degrees in the required fields" WHAAAAA!

On and on and on.

all you need is a youtube account and a big mouth apparently lol

[SteveAustin]

It's probably a conspiracy against you.

Seems like you are wearing your tin foil hat today!! If you stand out in the sun too long wearing that it will fry your brain!

[Trifikas]

I can beat Heiwa's challenge in 4 words:

A House of Cards.

[beachnut]

Hmmm? something funny going on. You can't figure out physics and engineering. Take a physics class, ask a physics teacher and learn why Heiwa is a fraud.


As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. Reason is that it is impossible to design a structure A, where a part C of A, when dropped on A, one-way crushes A. Thanks to all participants that tried to prove the impossible.

The knowledge gained can be applied to WTC 1 on 9/11:

You failed on 911 when the towers collapsed due to gravity. You can't do basic physics or grasp gravity and you totally ignore the 130 TONS of TNT kinetic energy released by the falling towers. You don't understand structural engineering applied practically to large buildings and you failed.

You have not done the work to prove your challenge you have made a foolish statements like your 2 mile high drop. The fact is you lost your challenge on 911 and now you are in denial with your delusions replacing reality.

The only impossible thing to design is your understanding 911. The funniest thing about you is your web site where your failure is on display for everyone to see your faulty logic and moronic conclusion.



Here is the poppycock of your scientific paper! Pure political junk!
Dangerous Sect at Work
In the struggle against great, organized, sectarian forces of intolerance and insane self-assertion it is important that scientific reports, papers and analysis of damaged and destroyed steel structures are done by honest people using correct thinking, right feeling and proper estimating of facts. Confused thinking, bad passions, dishonesty, corrupt manners, erroneous assumptions and haste do not contribute to a better understanding of the world around us. They are only normal parts of dangerous sects that threathen us. Your support for you ideas is spewing nut case rant attacking real engineers who did the work you can't do. You use political rant to back up your failed engineering. This is the best you can do. Fail

Your work only proves you are a failed engineer, paranoid with delusional opinions based on hearsay and failed physics making up moronic conclusions on 911.

[twinstead]

LOL, it's all you JREF cult members that keep whining about "experts", I have just pointed out the obvious that you do not need to be an "expert" to figure 9/11 was an inside job!

I'm not surprised you see us as whining about "experts" when it is actually you who is doing the whining, you JREF cult members do this sort of thing all the time.

"you need to be an "expert" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"you don't have the required "expertise" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"do you have any degrees in the required fields" WHAAAAA!

On and on and on.

Again. You minimize the need for experts to rationalize the curious lack of expert support for your cause. It's obvious. You can post the crap above all you want. Hell, if my plumber started trying to diagnose my heart condition I'd be asking him for his credentials too.

So, keep up the arrogant chatter. It's entertaining.

[beachnut]

LOL, it's all you JREF cult members ...

... you JREF cult members do this sort of thing all the time.

"you need to be an "expert" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"you don't have the required "expertise" to understand this" WHAAAA!

"do you have any degrees in the required fields" WHAAAAA!

On and on and on.
JREF Cult members use rational thought and engineering skills to understand the WTC collapse? What does your movement use? Hearsay, lies, false information, failed physics, delusions, and pure political bias to form moronic conclusions. I think the JREF cult has you beat and you are the one whining about your inability to present engineering work to support the failed ideas of Heiwa you blindly support like a cult member in a religious order of ignorance on 911. Your 911 CT cult failed and as of yet you have not figured out that simple fact but you leave a trail of evidence in this post as you clearly attack others instead of presenting support of your delusions.

You don't have to be an expert to figure this out! Oops, there goes your fist whining point down the tubes.
You don't need any special expertise to understand 911! Oops there goes your failed idea number two.
You don't need degrees in the required fields to understand Heiwa is full of doltish ideas and failed in his challenge. Did you fail at whining and to support Heiwa?

"you need to be an "expert" to understand this" WHAAAA!

The fact is if you were an expert you would have a better chance of not being wrong about 911 like you insist on being. So why complain about not being an expert; in your case there is a good chance being an expert would not overwhelm your desire to express complete ignorance and make up lies about 911 anyway.


"you don't have the required "expertise" to understand this" WHAAAA!
Having the required expertise in your case may not be enough to overcome your insistence on remaining ignorant about 911. So you can't use this as your cult identifying talking point. Many people grasp reality and don't need the required expertise to understand 911. Not sure what you point is. I don't think having the required expertise in your case makes a difference.


"do you have any degrees in the required fields" WHAAAAA!
This is ironic; not a single person in your moronic conclusion cult, including Heiwa, has the right degree and experience to design a 110 story high-rise building. You have failed to save Heiwa from failure! You have only made an attack on those who oppose your failed support of Heiwa. And you have done it poorly.

[newton3376]

Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!


Do a search on every post made on this forum by "SteveAustin" and you will have your proof....

[newton3376]

Q.E.D.

Agreed....

You aren't qualified

I'm glad you finally admitted it.....

[nicepants]

SteveAustin-

Since you've refused to answer my questions here I've started a new thread in which you can explain your "path of most resistance" claim. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150925)

[SteveAustin]

SteveAustin-

Since you've refused to answer my questions here I've started a new thread in which you can explain your "path of most resistance" claim. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150925)

Bring that over to ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=8#comment s

carlito needs your help badly. So far he has not discussed/debated anything but has consistently run and hid from every little question put to him.

He has refused to answer any and all questions and has simply resorted to the JREF tried and true tactic of insult, smear and unsourced claims.

Maybe someone else here will have a better time of it there? Somehow I doubt it, but you never know

;)

[dtugg]

And here we go again. Agent Steve trying to make twoofers look pathetic by begging people to follow him around the Internet to the comments section of some months old blog post.

[A W Smith]

Bring that over to ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=8#comment s

carlito needs your help badly. So far he has not discussed/debated anything but has consistently run and hid from every little question put to him.

He has refused to answer any and all questions and has simply resorted to the JREF tried and true tactic of insult, smear and unsourced claims.

Maybe someone else here will have a better time of it there? Somehow I doubt it, but you never know

;)

why would we bother to post on a comment string of a blog? Instead of a forum specific to discussing critical thinking, science and the paranormal? Are your arguments not up to snuff here Steve-0? Have you nothing, zero, nada, "0" to support your arguments but a cheer leading squad on a remote obscure blog comment string? A comment string where you protested that you yourself were admonished by the moderators? May I remind you steve-0, you came HERE to spout your ignorance.

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
You aren't qualified to make such a judgement.
Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!Every time you post your words support newton3376's claim. Your arguments are unsupported by evidence and display lack of basic education in the areas in question.

Edit: I will gladly withdraw my comment if you can show evidence you have the qualifications.

[nicepants]

carlito needs your help badly. So far he has not discussed/debated anything but has consistently run and hid from every little question put to him.

He has refused to answer any and all questions and has simply resorted to insult, smear and unsourced claims.


Pot? Kettle?

This website is much better suited for in-depth debate than the comments section of a months-old blog entry.

Back to my questions which you've yet to respond to:
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?

[releaseeabode]

........5. the debris builds up underneath the upper block, and protects it from the collisions, which happen at the BOTTOM of the debris layer, while the upper block rides down on the TOP of the debris layer.......

Can I name this one?

I want to call it "Surfing Collapse".

Block C literally surfed over Block A on the crest of a wave of debris.

[releaseeabode]

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. Reason is that it is impossible to design a structure A, where a part C of A, when dropped on A, one-way crushes A. Thanks to all participants that tried to prove the impossible.

The knowledge gained can be applied to WTC 1 on 9/11:

At the moment of contact of the WTC 1 upper part C and lower structure, part A, a certain momentum (mass times velocity), energy (momentum times velocity divided by 2) and forces (energy divided by displacement) are involved. Local failures occur in all structural elements involved due to the forces applied, energy is absorbed and consumed, friction forces between failed elements in contact develop, forces and loads are re-distributed, momentums are reduced as outer forces are applied on the parts and the destruction is always arrested after a while.

It is not a static or dynamic solid mechanics problem! It is a structural damage analysis matter!

The upper part C of WTC 1 can only apply forces on the lower structure, part A, that the upper part C can itself withstand in the first place. As the upper part C and the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1 have identical structures, the upper part C cannot destroy the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1. Part C will destroy itself first.

I have of course described it in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm , which many contenders of The Heiwa Challenge missed.

Anyway - see you in other threads and thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge!

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :)

Evidence? Lemons?

[funk de fino]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :)

You have found your vocation in life. Cheerleading for the losing side.

[beachnut]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :) He lost on 911 before he had his first delusion on 911.
You share Heiwa's delusions on 911 and can't provide the calculations to support your position. What is new? Zero evidence, no calculations, the delusion maker and delusion believer declare victory based on their opinions and lies. True to the truth movement; spreading false information.

[twinstead]

Truthers, convince SOMEBODY, ANYBODY who can actually DO something about it; some MSM News, law enforcement agency, respected scientific organization, government official. Whatever. Allow some reporter the chance to get a Pulitzer Prize for breaking this news story of the century. Now THAT would be a victory.

Spouting off on an internet forum? Not so much.

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :)

Depends on what your definition of success is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150847)...

[releaseeabode]

Depends on what your definition of success is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150847)...

Yeah, read the report. Quote...

"This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward."

The removal of the floor resulted in an upward reaction in which the floors above failed first and then collapsed through the floors beneath. That is not an intact C crushing through A. It is certainly not a one way crush down.

The second obvious point is that the C portion is not detached from the structure.

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise then we can only assume that the shoddy building practices were uniform through the whole building. Being equally flawed throughout, I can accept that the structure meets the homogenity requirements for Heiwa's model.

One bizarre thing I was always taught was too read the specification as my starting point.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Hi Janusaur!

[MIKILLINI]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread :)

Nope. No he hasn't. Now if you accept a flawed challenge as a victory, then go ahead and celebrate. OTOH if you are going to deal with reality and understand dynamic loads, in addition to an understanding of Newton's law, go back to school.

[releaseeabode]

Nope. No he hasn't. Now if you accept a flawed challenge as a victory, then go ahead and celebrate. OTOH if you are going to deal with reality and understand dynamic loads, in addition to an understanding of Newton's law, go back to school.

What is the flaw in the challenge?

[MIKILLINI]

What is the flaw in the challenge?

The collapse of WTC's 1 & 2 disprove Heiwas axiom.

As well as here, Bailey's crossroads:
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

[releaseeabode]

The collapse of WTC's 1 & 2 disprove Heiwas axiom.

I thought we were talking about Heiwa's challenge?

which one, the axiom or the challenge?

[releaseeabode]

Regarding Bailey's Crossroads which is again a flawed example, why?

Based upon the evidence I have been directed towards, it doesn't take much skeptical analysis to observe from the photographs that the area that collapsed between zones 3 and 4 in Photograph 5-5 was an edge of a partially constructed floor space. Photograph 5-6b, gives the impression that a huge chunk of the building collapsed but in fact, the edge of some freshly poured floors collapsed and the external walls nearby came down possibly because the wall supports were undermined and because the tower crane damaged the structure while falling. You can see the collapsed tower crane in the photograph 5-6a.

The example almost certainly fails on...

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.

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah, read the report. Quote...

"This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward."

"The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

BTW it should be noted that heiwa explicitely believes that all forms of progressive collapse are impossible.


The removal of the floor resulted in an upward reaction in which the floors above failed first and then collapsed through the floors beneath. That is not an intact C crushing through A. It is certainly not a one way crush down.
Nobody gives a rat's ass whether you think it was an intact structure or not. This ************ claim was made by Heiwa because he can't properly read or distinguish between a simplified model and reality. This BTW already crashes his entire challenge premise

The Ronan Plaza should have clued you in on that one, that the mass -- the weight, including the dynamic load created by the top floors -- was responsible for initiating the second phase collapse. And this same thing was relevant to the WTC collapse, only instead of a single corner it was the entire floor plan. The intact qualification is not only a red herring, it's a stupid one, and completely irrelevant as the Ronan Plaza case demonstrates.

The second obvious point is that the C portion is not detached from the structure.
That's irrelevant is it not? Heiwa's claim is that under no circumstances can anything like Ronan Point happen.

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

Most buildings generally aren't designed to have.... well... anything explode inside of them. It's fairly obvious that accidental loading of any kind is going to result in unanticipated damage.


The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.
The collapse wasn't a consequence of "bad design" or errors in structural analysis. If structural analysis is thought of as a process of predicting the behavior of structures, the Ronan Point incident is a modeling failure. Progressive collapse is rare to begin with and it wasn't well understood back in the 1960's. This doesn't make the Ronan Point Plaza "badly built."

A book I have puts it this way: The fundamental lesson for structural analysis is that if you justify the analysis model on the basis of a code of practice, then you must be sure that the system you are designing is within the scope of the code.

[releaseeabode]

"The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

BTW it should be noted that heiwa explicitely believes that all forms of progressive collapse are impossible.



Nobody gives a rat's ass whether you think it was an intact structure or not. This ************ claim was made by Heiwa because he can't properly read or distinguish between a simplified model and reality. This BTW already crashes his entire challenge premise

The Ronan Plaza should have clued you in on that one, that the mass -- the weight, including the dynamic load created by the top floors -- was responsible for initiating the second phase collapse. And this same thing was relevant to the WTC collapse, only instead of a single corner it was the entire floor plan. The intact qualification is not only a red herring, it's a stupid one, and completely irrelevant as the Ronan Plaza case demonstrates.


That's irrelevant is it not? Heiwa's claim is that under no circumstances can anything like Ronan Point happen.



Most buildings generally aren't designed to have.... well... anything explode inside of them. It's fairly obvious that accidental loading of any kind is going to result in unanticipated damage.


The collapse wasn't a consequence of "bad design" or errors in structural analysis. If structural analysis is thought of as a process of predicting the behavior of structures, the Ronan Point incident is a modeling failure. Progressive collapse is rare to begin with and it wasn't well understood back in the 1960's. This doesn't make the Ronan Point Plaza "badly built."

A book I have puts it this way: The fundamental lesson for structural analysis is that if you justify the analysis model on the basis of a code of practice, then you must be sure that the system you are designing is within the scope of the code.

First off, READ THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES VERY SLOWLY "THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE HEIWA CHALLENGE AND THE STRUCTURE FAILS HIS PARAMETERS. NOT YOUR PARAMETERS OR ANYONE ELSE'S PARAMETERS".

Secondly, if you READ THE ACTUAL REPORT it says....

"A shocked Webb commented, “I knew we were going to find bad workmanship – what surprised me was the sheer scale of it. Not a single joint was correct. Fixing straps were unattached: leveling nuts were not wound down, causing a significant loading to be transmitted via the bolts: panels were placed on bolts instead of mortar. But the biggest shock of all was the crucial H-2 load-bearing joints between floor and wall panels. Some of the joints had less than fifty percent of the mortar specified.” (Wearne, 2000)."

I didn't say the design was flawed or didn't meet current regulations.

You clearly do not read, comprehend or look for yourself when responding to posts so welcome to my ignore list.

[Grizzly Bear]

This thread is about the Heiwa challenge and the structure fails HIS parameters NOT YOURS or ANYONE elses.
I haven't invented any parameters -- Heiwas' premise is fundamentally flawed... it's impossible to successfully meet the requirements of a flawed premise. Heiwa doesn't even know HOW the Ronan Plaza collapsed, so it amuses me how you can so carelessly overlook that idiocy.

I didn't say the design was flawed or didn't meet current regulations.

....
The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.




You clearly do not read, comprehend or look for yourself when responding to posts so welcome to my ignore list.

Good Bye :D

[MIKILLINI]

:rolleyes:
Perhaps releaseeabode will put everyone on ignore. Even then he will still lose arguments with himself.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa doesn't even know HOW the Ronan Plaza collapsed, so it amuses me how you can so carelessly overlook that idiocy.



....






Good Bye :D

??? Ronan Plaza collapse? Someone lit a match, there was an explosion, probably a shock wave in the structure, and some local failures in the corner of the structure. Ronan Plaza does not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge, which is ended anyway. Nobody managed to find a structure where the big part is destroyed when dropping a small part on it.

[releaseeabode]

??? Ronan Plaza collapse? Someone lit a match, there was an explosion, probably a shock wave in the structure, and some local failures in the corner of the structure. Ronan Plaza does not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge, which is ended anyway. Nobody managed to find a structure where the big part is destroyed when dropping a small part on it.

Closed but not forgotten.

This thread reminds me of politicians who, when faced with a question they don't like and don't want to answer, just go ahead and answer a different question in the hope that by the time they have finished you will have forgotten what the original question was.

Ronan's and Bailey's Crossroads both ask questions but, the answers to neither of them offers an answer to your Challenge.

[UNLoVedRebel]

This reminds me of a poster, The LoneBoduean who had a grudge against the JREF forums and was hapless in addressing the posters arguments.

[releaseeabode]

??? Ronan Plaza collapse? Someone lit a match, there was an explosion, probably a shock wave in the structure, and some local failures in the corner of the structure. Ronan Plaza does not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge, which is ended anyway. Nobody managed to find a structure where the big part is destroyed when dropping a small part on it.

Simpler than that, the structure was incompetently built and by evidence of the fact that a domestic gas explosion ripped it down, the structure was not capable of supporting itself after a minor lateral impact (breaking one of the rules of the Heiwa challenge).

I have fallen in love with the Ignore function. The sensation is similar to what you feel when you close a double glazed door to cut out the noise from a bunch of unruly kids.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Simpler than that, the structure was incompetently built and by evidence of the fact that a domestic gas explosion ripped it down, the structure was not capable of supporting itself after a minor lateral impact (breaking one of the rules of the Heiwa challenge).

I have fallen in love with the Ignore function. The sensation is similar to what you feel when you close a double glazed door to cut out the noise from a bunch of unruly kids.

Heiwa did not operationally define "minor lateral impact" which means the rule and challenge is worthless.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa did not operationally define "minor lateral impact" which means the rule and challenge is worthless.

Didn't I? The energy applied in the lateral impact would deflect the structure elastically sideways without causing any failures. Anyway, The Challenge is closed. But do not whine! I will soon start another one!

[JohnG]

I have fallen in love with the Ignore function.


Evidently. You're starting to remind me of the creepy kid Billy Mumy played in that Twilight Zone episode. Just think; a few thousand more clicks of the mouse and all you'll have left to converse with here are the people who unconditionally agree with everything you say. All two of them.

Personally I think the Ignore function is sort of childish and counterproductive. Doesn't it make a thread hard to follow when you don't know half of what is being said? Surely even people you object to are capable of the odd useful insight or pearl of wisdom?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Didn't I? The energy applied in the lateral impact would deflect the structure elastically sideways without causing any failures. Anyway, The Challenge is closed. But do not whine! I will soon start another one!

Exactly! Evidently you did not quantify the deflection or the energy. Evidently you did not explain this which evidently means the Heiwa challenge is evidently worthless!

[Heiwa]

Evidently. You're starting to remind me of the creepy kid Billy Mumy played in that Twilight Zone episode. Just think; a few thousand more clicks of the mouse and all you'll have left to converse with here are the people who unconditionally agree with everything you say. All two of them.

Personally I think the Ignore function is sort of childish and counterproductive. Doesn't it make a thread hard to follow when you don't know half of what is being said? Surely even people you object to are capable of the odd useful insight or pearl of wisdom?

I use the ignore function when someone has posted a certain number of off-topic posts and/or plainly insulting posts. It makes the thread much easier to follow. BTW - Challenge is closed! Nobody managed to produce a self-destructing structure. Hopefully you learnt something from it?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Nobody managed to produce a self-destructing structure. Hopefully you learnt something from it?
I sure did. Anyone who compares a skyscraper to lemons is ******* crazy.

[Heiwa]

Exactly! Evidently you did not quantify the deflection or the energy. Evidently you did not explain this which evidently means the Heiwa challenge is evidently worthless!

From post #1, point 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.

I would say that flying a plane into the structure close to top just causing local failures is 'a small lateral impact'. So WTC 1 and 2 passed that condition. Anyway, this Challenge is closed as nobody, incl. GWB, Condi, FEMA, NIST, ASCE, NASA, Purdue, Bazant, Seffen and Mackey (+ everybody else) didn't manage to propose a suitable structure as per post #1. It really is a pity as it would have removed the OCT from the agenda.

[UNLoVedRebel]

From post #1, point 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.

I would say that flying a plane into the structure close to top just causing local failures is 'a small lateral impact'. So WTC 1 and 2 passed that condition. Anyway, this Challenge is closed as nobody, incl. GWB, Condi, FEMA, NIST, ASCE, NASA, Purdue, Bazant, Seffen and Mackey (+ everybody else) didn't manage to propose a suitable structure as per post #1. It really is a pity as it would have removed the OCT from the agenda.
You would say? That's it. No criteria defined? No threshold given? That's about as unscientific as playing with lemons, Andres. Evidently, the Heiwa challenge is worthless.

[JohnG]

I use the ignore function when someone has posted a certain number of off-topic posts and/or plainly insulting posts. It makes the thread much easier to follow. BTW - Challenge is closed! Nobody managed to produce a self-destructing structure. Hopefully you learnt something from it?


Oh, I've learned plenty:

Scale matters

Velocity matters

Mass matters

And maybe most importantly:
You can't cobble together any old random collection of objects to construct a scale model of a skyscraper collapse while at the same time ignoring scale demonstrations that actually are useful (e.g., domino effect or house of cards) in helping to understand how such a collapse could have occurred.

[EnJaySee]

I use the ignore function when someone has posted a certain number of off-topic posts and/or plainly insulting posts. It makes the thread much easier to follow. BTW - Challenge is closed! Nobody managed to produce a self-destructing structure. Hopefully you learnt something from it?

Since structural engineering isn't my profession, I actually learned a lot about dynamic loads, newton's third law, conservation of momentum among other things that I would've learned in high school physics if I wasn't so busy screwing around when I was a teenager.

But what I really find fascinating is the psychology behind the various people who post in this forum. Some almost always post intelligent and insightfully. Some are just looking to pick a fight or are trolling. Some refuse to budge from their stance despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and some are just insane. It's the ones who refuse to budge despite being proven wrong that keeps me coming back. It's like when you see something disgusting and you can't look away.

Anyway, back to the Challenge. I learned that if you build a pyramid of lemons, lift the top three and drop it, the pyramid will collapse (yes, I actually did this. We have a lemon tree in the backyard). But then again, I already knew that was going to happen. I was really bored that day.

I also learned that some people who should know better will continue to believe whatever the hell they want to believe regardless of proven mathematics and therefore I am more intelligent than they are.

[Heiwa]

Since structural engineering isn't my profession, I actually learned a lot about dynamic loads, newton's third law, conservation of momentum among other things that I would've learned in high school physics if I wasn't so busy screwing around when I was a teenager.

But what I really find fascinating is the psychology behind the various people who post in this forum. Some almost always post intelligent and insightfully. Some are just looking to pick a fight or are trolling. Some refuse to budge from their stance despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and some are just insane. It's the ones who refuse to budge despite being proven wrong that keeps me coming back. It's like when you see something disgusting and you can't look away.

Anyway, back to the Challenge. I learned that if you build a pyramid of lemons, lift the top three and drop it, the pyramid will collapse (yes, I actually did this. We have a lemon tree in the backyard). But then again, I already knew that was going to happen. I was really bored that day.

I also learned that some people who should know better will continue to believe whatever the hell they want to believe regardless of proven mathematics and therefore I am more intelligent than they are.

You managed to one-way crush down a pyramide of lemons by dropping a top three (four, five?) on it. Fantastic. Sorry, the Challenge is closed but tell me - how many lemons were below the top?

[Grizzly Bear]

The collapse wasn't a consequence of "bad design" or errors in structural analysis. If structural analysis is thought of as a process of predicting the behavior of structures, the Ronan Point incident is a modeling failure. Progressive collapse is rare to begin with and it wasn't well understood back in the 1960's. This doesn't make the Ronan Point Plaza "badly built."

A book I have puts it this way: The fundamental lesson for structural analysis is that if you justify the analysis model on the basis of a code of practice, then you must be sure that the system you are designing is within the scope of the code.

Since release has half the subforum participants on insta-ignore, I doubt he'll have the opportunity to have a look. I often paraphrase my responses from books pertinent to what I'm discussing, and in this case I took a direct quote from it as well:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MwAuK6uv11kC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Did+ronan+point+comply+with+building+codes+in+1 960%27s%3F&source=bl&ots=MozumBlBjB&sig=OGMaJQc9NheiFRxCoBJQ5hYSSwk&hl=en&ei=NCeOSuzyJ5GHmQf-8vWgDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

For anyone interested...

[EnJaySee]

You managed to one-way crush down a pyramide of lemons by dropping a top three (four, five?) on it. Fantastic. Sorry, the Challenge is closed but tell me - how many lemons were below the top?

I don't really care about the Challenge. However, for some reason I keep thinking up hypothetical situations where you're correct. Such as my suggestion in another thread to remove gravity. Or even reduce gravity. I wonder what force gravity would have to be for you to be correct?

This is just the way I think.

[Justin39640]

hmm my model crushed down :(
i want my million
but it looks like about 200 people beat me to it
still a good payday when you split it up
thanks H man

Lhf6mfnZyME

[Edx]

hmm my model crushed down :(
i want my million
but it looks like about 200 people beat me to it
still a good payday when you split it up
thanks H man

Lhf6mfnZyME

I take it the structure stays up with the piece you removed stil intact?

[beachnut]

... BTW - Challenge is closed! ... LOL - you were proved wrong on 911 before you made up your delusional physics to make up your moronic axiom. I thought your delusions were being published; what happen?

[twinstead]

LOL - you were proved wrong on 911 before you made up your delusional physics to make up your moronic axiom. I thought your delusions were being published; what happen?

Yea, what's up with your paper you submitted anyway, Heiwa? Heard anything?

[Justin39640]

I take it the structure stays up with the piece you removed stil intact?

absolutely

actually sometimes i would remove a little and i would only collapse locally or not at all
but there is a point where the results are catastrophic and it always came straight down

that model is about 2100 pieces if IIRC
i took out about 20 - 30 pieces

there another collapse where i took out the bottom of a smaller model that kinda fell down and to the side
bGWoCcQJSNQ(wow someone reported the audio i used)

(ouch, 20-7 yanks mid of the 9th sorry tri)

[releaseeabode]

Evidently. You're starting to remind me of the creepy kid Billy Mumy played in that Twilight Zone episode. Just think; a few thousand more clicks of the mouse and all you'll have left to converse with here are the people who unconditionally agree with everything you say. All two of them.

Personally I think the Ignore function is sort of childish and counterproductive. Doesn't it make a thread hard to follow when you don't know half of what is being said? Surely even people you object to are capable of the odd useful insight or pearl of wisdom?

If that is the sum total of what you want to say then you are evidently a very dull person, welcome to my ignore list.

[releaseeabode]

absolutely

actually sometimes i would remove a little and i would only collapse locally or not at all
but there is a point where the results are catastrophic and it always came straight down

that model is about 2100 pieces if IIRC
i took out about 20 - 30 pieces

there another collapse where i took out the bottom of a smaller model that kinda fell down and to the side
bGWoCcQJSNQ(wow someone reported the audio i used)

(ouch, 20-7 yanks mid of the 9th sorry tri)

All you have to do is read the specification. Your scenario does not meet the Heiwa challenge conditions but, interestingly it does show what Heiwa predicts.

You undermined it at approximately 20 floors down and the structure CRUSHED UP as well as crushing down destroying 10 floors and leaving 2 floors intact.

Extrapolating your data to the Heiwa specification, would predict that with 20 floors falling into 180 (1/9th C) the collapse would be arrested at the 170th floor.

I'm sure your resident experts will be able to point out the other obvious problems with your model.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm sure your resident experts will be able to point out the other obvious problems with your model.
It's obvious what was wrong with that model. He didn't use lemons.

[JohnG]

If that is the sum total of what you want to say then you are evidently a very dull person, welcome to my ignore list.


Jedi mind trick

[tsig]

All you have to do is read the specification. Your scenario does not meet the Heiwa challenge conditions but, interestingly it does show what Heiwa predicts.

You undermined it at approximately 20 floors down and the structure CRUSHED UP as well as crushing down destroying 10 floors and leaving 2 floors intact.

Extrapolating your data to the Heiwa specification, would predict that with 20 floors falling into 180 (1/9th C) the collapse would be arrested at the 170th floor.

I'm sure your resident experts will be able to point out the other obvious problems with your model.

Heiwa uses pizza boxes Gage uses cardboard boxes I sense a convergence in the force.

[Justin39640]

All you have to do is read the specification. Your scenario does not meet the Heiwa challenge conditions but, interestingly it does show what Heiwa predicts.
(snip)



based on what ive seen out there
my model is leaps and bounds above what truthers built
check out these laughable models
IAk1V5lQFZI (and he seriously thought he made a scientific model)

yes my models have many flaws but it wasnt a scientific model
it was just to show how big things collapse (straight down)
it crushed down half of the remaining structure

and according to heiwa NONE of the floors below collapse should fail
even in the south tower as he says a crush down is impossible in ANY structure (this is a 911 forum not an insane engineer's game forum. ill put that out there before you say "this is about the N tower!1!!!11!!1")

[JohnG]

based on what ive seen out there
my model is leaps and bounds above what truthers built
check out these laughable models
IAk1V5lQFZI (and he seriously thought he made a scientific model)

yes my models have many flaws but it wasnt a scientific model
it was just to show how big things collapse (straight down)
it crushed down half of the remaining structure

and according to heiwa NONE of the floors below collapse should fail
even in the south tower as he says a crush down is impossible in ANY structure (this is a 911 forum not an insane engineer's game forum. ill put that out there before you say "this is about the N tower!1!!!11!!1")


I just commented on the video there. My comment is currently "pending approval", but I somehow doubt it will ever see the light of day.

[Pantaz]

For those who may have missed it, Heiwa's "challenge" was responded to, in depth, in the thread, "Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140866)"

[Justin39640]

I just commented on the video there. My comment is currently "pending approval", but I somehow doubt it will ever see the light of day.

that guy got all angry at me for the comments i left on his video
check out the comment he left on my homepage lol

More and more people are learning the truth about 9/11. I personally get people everyday who thank me for my model. In town I meet people all the time who have finally broken free from the ************ Jew Mass Media.

Good luck spreading your lies and disinformation its not working anymore.
interesting how it always comes back to that no matter the subject (sigh)

[releaseeabode]

based on what ive seen out there
my model is leaps and bounds above what truthers built
check out these laughable models
IAk1V5lQFZI (and he seriously thought he made a scientific model)

yes my models have many flaws but it wasnt a scientific model
it was just to show how big things collapse (straight down)
it crushed down half of the remaining structure

and according to heiwa NONE of the floors below collapse should fail
even in the south tower as he says a crush down is impossible in ANY structure (this is a 911 forum not an insane engineer's game forum. ill put that out there before you say "this is about the N tower!1!!!11!!1")

I don't think Heiwa has ever said that none of the floors below should have collapsed? If he has then he is clearly wrong. Also, I think you'll find that he is saying crush down is not possible without crush up.

I like your model by the way. Not sure what you mean by "(this is a 911 forum not an insane engineer's game forum. ill put that out there before you say "this is about the N tower!1!!!11!!1")". Can you elaborate?

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think Heiwa has ever said that none of the floors below should have collapsed? If he has then he is clearly wrong. Also, I think you'll find that he is saying crush down is not possible without crush up.

If that were what he was saying, then none of it would lead to the conclusion that the WTC collapses could not have happened. Heiwa has always claimed that, irrespective of the collapse mode, the strength of the structure as built and the level of collapse initiation, the collapse must have arrested, because he believes crush-down to be impossible. That comes under your definition of "clearly wrong".

Dave

[Heiwa]

If that were what he was saying, then none of it would lead to the conclusion that the WTC collapses could not have happened. Heiwa has always claimed that, irrespective of the collapse mode, the strength of the structure as built and the level of collapse initiation, the collapse must have arrested, because he believes crush-down to be impossible. That comes under your definition of "clearly wrong".

Dave

It seems you haven't studied http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm ?

I like the picture that explains it, when gravity is ignored:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/Mac5h.jpg

It is like a ship collision! Little part C propelled by a FORCE impacts part A and the FORCE is also applied to part A. But part A also applies a REACTION FORCE on part C ... that will be deformed. And if C damages A, A will for sure damage C. This typical process supports my famous axiom!!

[TruthersLie]

OH Heiwa...

I understand why you don't understand the collapse of the towers now..
you are looking at them in the WRONG WAY. Rotate the picture 90 degrees counterclockwise.

It will help a lot.

[twinstead]

Nope. He gets to ignore gravity if he keeps them like that.

[Heiwa]

OH Heiwa...

I understand why you don't understand the collapse of the towers now..
you are looking at them in the WRONG WAY. Rotate the picture 90 degrees counterclockwise.

It will help a lot.

Of course - then you do not have to apply a force on part C as gravity takes care of that. Here, you have to apply the force yourself on part C ... and think for yourself at the same time.

Actually - if you really apply a force on part C, it will accelerate for ever ... until another force acts on part C. Imagine that! Little Joe applies a force on something like part C and it accelerates for ever ... unless!

Now, apply your thinking instead. It may help. You may learn something!

[twinstead]

Now, apply your thinking instead. It may help. You may learn something!

Oh the delicious irony of that statement just made my day!

[beachnut]

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. ...
A lie just like the million dollars and your moronic axiom. Did you decide this after you woke up from passing out and forgot you terminated the challenge?

You terminated your delusional challenge after 7 years, 11 months, and 12 days of super stupid axioms and dirt dumb engineering where gravity is ignored.

So is your delusional challenged proved wrong on 911 terminated or are you still on your quest to be the most delusional engineer on earth?

[MIKILLINI]

Of course - then you do not have to apply a force on part C as gravity takes care of that. Here, you have to apply the force yourself on part C ... and think for yourself at the same time.

Actually - if you really apply a force on part C, it will accelerate for ever ... until another force acts on part C. Imagine that! Little Joe applies a force on something like part C and it accelerates for ever ... unless!

Now, apply your thinking instead. It may help. You may learn something!

Is this supposed to make sense?

[Heiwa]

A lie just like the million dollars and your moronic axiom. Did you decide this after you woke up from passing out and forgot you terminated the challenge?

You terminated your delusional challenge after 7 years, 11 months, and 12 days of super stupid axioms and dirt dumb engineering where gravity is ignored.

So is your delusional challenged proved wrong on 911 terminated or are you still on your quest to be the most delusional engineer on earth?

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

[MIKILLINI]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

Actually, you're not. The challenge was flawed from the begining and you know it.

[tsig]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!

So you owe yourself one million dollars. You'll never collect 'cause the better is a welsher.

[beachnut]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But nobody managed to apply the NIST government theory into practice!

Or apply the Bazant & Co theory. Upper part C applies a shock load without breaking itself and PLAFSH - lower part A is compressed into compacted rubble (part B(azant))! If you can do that in the real world - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

But it seems the Bazant & Co theory cannot be used in the real world. It was rubble from the start.

The only positive result of The Heiwa Challenge is my now famous axiom! So in a way I am the winner of The Heiwa Challenge!
You post the delusion as if it had merit. Your idea was proved wrong by Robertson. Robertson built the WTC towers you have built a moronic delusion; you lost and you ...
As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. ... because it is a delusion.

To prove you don't have a delusion you have to take the Beachy Challenge and get the endorsement of 7 University Engineering Departments or your Challenge is a super moronic delusions. Go! I will give you a week to post the first endorsement and have it published in the news. The University Engineering programs must be accredited. Go!

Take some action. Are you going to fail the Beachy Challenge? Yes, too bad I can't win the Randi Challenge, but it is common knowledge and not predicting the future when it comes to your failure; a sure thing.

[Heiwa]

The challenge was flawed from the begining and you know it.

Not really. Here we are >2100 posts later and no winner, except me, and plenty whiners. Many thanks to JREF hosting the challenge.

[releaseeabode]

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF - you are THE WINNER of The Heiwa Challenge!

Not to mention the efficiency of the process for conversion of that kinetic energy into useful work or the power output.

[Carlos]

Gravity ignored? It was the only force allowed in The Heiwa Challenge - see post #1. And nobody managed to design a structure, lower part A of which could be destroyed by the upper part C being dropped by ... gravity.

According NIST it is simple! Just arrange the structure so that kinetic energy applied by upper part C exceeds the strain energy that the lower structure A can absorb and POUFF -

Kinetic energy depends on two variables.

[Minadin]

Not to mention the efficiency of the process for conversion of that kinetic energy into useful work or the power output.

:talk005: Word Salad

That was actually slightly less comprehendable than most of Heiwa's posts.

[MIKILLINI]

Not really. Here we are >2100 posts later and no winner, except me, and plenty whiners. Many thanks to JREF hosting the challenge.

There's no whiners here, heiwa. They know your challenge had fundamental flaws and have pointed out those flaws. You can pat yourself on the back for winning the flawed challenge thread though.

[releaseeabode]

:talk005: Word Salad

That was actually slightly less comprehendable than most of Heiwa's posts.

So why not request an elaboration from me instead of just responding with irrelevance?

I don't deal with irrelevance, welcome to my ignore list.

[Dave Rogers]

It seems you haven't studied http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm ?

I've had a quick look. I see that you're assuming that, when the top section hits the bottom section, no energy is transferred to the lower structure if the supports of the upper structure are the first to break, therefore in effect you're ignoring the kinetic energy of the upper structure. Since it's the kinetic energy of the upper structure that causes the collapse, it's hardly surprising that you conclude collapse doesn't propagate. Unfortunately, in real life, the kinetic energy of the upper structure has to go somewhere, and the lower structure is the only place for it to go.

I like the picture that explains it, when gravity is ignored:

There's a tiny little error you've made in there. Can you spot it?

Dave

[Heiwa]

I've had a quick look.
I see that you're assuming that, when the top section hits the bottom section, no energy is transferred to the lower structure if the supports of the upper structure are the first to break, therefore in effect you're ignoring the kinetic energy of the upper structure. Since it's the kinetic energy of the upper structure that causes the collapse, it's hardly surprising that you conclude collapse doesn't propagate. Unfortunately, in real life, the kinetic energy of the upper structure has to go somewhere, and the lower structure is the only place for it to go.



There's a tiny little error you've made in there. Can you spot it?

Dave

Thanks for looking at my paper. Evidently, when upper, moving part C contacts non-moving, fixed to ground part A, the kinetic energy of C is applied by both C, A and ground. No other energy is applied to the system C/A/ground.

So what does this energy do? Where does it go? Collapse A? Sorry! You have not read my paper to the end.

Evidently the energy deforms C, A and ground (the system). Where else can it go? What else can it do?

That the energy is only destroying part A is OCT nonsense.

Have you ever heard of a bounce? An upper part C bouncing on a lower part A connected to ground! It happens when C, A and ground just deform at impact. The energy applied results in a bounce of part C!

Have you ever heard of local failures in a collision C/A? It happens, when there is no bounce. The energy applied results in local failures in both C and A (ground just shaking).

In no case can C one way crush down A, when C and A have similar structures. C is too weak to apply its energy on A. C is destroyed before A.

[Dave Rogers]

In no case can C one way crush down A, when C and A have similar structures. C is too weak to apply its energy on A. C is destroyed before A.

And this is a prime example of scientific illiteracy. C cannot be destroyed. It can be broken into an arbitrarily large number of pieces, but those pieces still exist, still have mass, and still have momentum. That momentum can only be absorbed by A or the ground, and the ground can only absorb momentum from debris that falls outside the lower structure. Therefore, the lower block has to absorb the majority of the momentum of the upper block, however badly the upper block is damaged. And that absorption of momentum is by exerting an upward force on C; and that upward force is greater than the ultimate strength of A. So A collapses.

Dave

[Carlos]

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.


Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

[Dave Rogers]

Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

I don't know, but it doesn't refer to reality.

Dave

[Heiwa]

Therefore, the lower block has to absorb the majority of the momentum of the upper block, however badly the upper block is damaged.

And that absorption of momentum is by exerting an upward force on C; and that upward force is greater than the ultimate strength of A. So A collapses.

Dave

So lower part A has to absorb the majority of the momentum of upper part C?

What does it mean? We know the mass mC and velocity vC of upper part C and its momentum just prior impact.

We also know the mass mA of the lower part A and the mass mG of the G(round).

As the latter is very great it is safe to say that the velocity of lower part A after impact is 0!

What else can we say? That upper part C gets badly damaged? Yes, I agree with that. Thanks.

You are right that part A, when C impacts A, apply a force F on C, and that C is badly damaged.

Note, that A applies this force F on C, when A has velocity 0. This force F cannot damage A.

Evidently part C applies a force -F on part A, but, as we know that part A is bigger and stronger than part C, it will be less damaged than part C. Nothing will collapse when C impacts A. Either C bounces on A or there are local damages to C and A at interface C/A.

Therefore part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

Pls, do not use the word block when referring to C and A.

[willhaven]

1) You can't ignore gravity.
2) As C collapses into A, bits of A are essentially converted into bits of C.
3) Gravity pulls both A and C toward the ground. A is not as strong as the ground.

Imagine taking C straight up in the air a half mile, a mile, whatever arbitrary distance you think is "really really far." Drop C straight down on a windless day and have it impact A dead center. Would C bounce off of A or would it crush right through it?

The WTC towers weren't stacks of building blocks. You can't remove the top of the tower and have the same structural rigidity that you did before.

[Heiwa]

Doesn't it refers to crush down the whole structure below at the same time?

According NIST, famous US expert authority, global collapse of a structure ensues, when you apply energy to the structure, which exceeds the capacity of the structure to absorb it as strain. The energy is apparently applied by an outside moving body (an upper part?) that cannot be destroyed. The time for the global collapse is the time it takes to apply the energy to all parts of the structure. Clear? If you don't understand and try to question NIST, NIST will not reply and clarify this strange process.

According Bazant & Co, famous US expert on creep, crush down of a structure occurs, when you drop something on it (an upper part?) and when the structure suffers local failures and elements of the structure are compacted and compressed. This phenomenon is then repeated until there are no more elements to compact and compress of the poor structure; the structure then concists of a big Box of rubble, part B(azant).

Then, a miracle happens!! The big Bazant Box of rubble applies a force on the upper part and POUFF - it is destroyed. Result is a heap of rubble - the Bazant Box decides to collapse! It is a very funny theory, it really gives you the creep.

Thanks for joining the discussion. The Heiwa Challenge is closed, though!

[Dave Rogers]

As the latter is very great it is safe to say that the velocity of lower part A after impact is 0!

Wrong. The lower part A, after the impact, is no longer the lower part A; it's partly A, and partly B, the intermediate layer of rubble, which does not have zero velocity.

Evidently part C applies a force -F on part A, but, as we know that part A is bigger and stronger than part C, it will be less damaged than part C.

Except that we know that part A was damaged prior to the collapse, as the collapses both initiated above the aircraft damage zones. So we don't actually know that A was stronger. Plus, we don't know that the smaller (if it is smaller) amount of damage inflicted on A is too small to propagate collapse.

Nothing will collapse when C impacts A. Either C bounces on A or there are local damages to C and A at interface C/A.

Sufficient local damage to A will cause collapse. Since you have no idea how much local damage will be caused to A, you can't claim to know that nothing will collapse.

Dave

[Carlos]

According NIST, famous US expert authority, global collapse of a structure ensues, when you apply energy to the structure, which exceeds the capacity of the structure to absorb it as strain. The energy is apparently applied by an outside moving body (an upper part?) that cannot be destroyed. The time for the global collapse is the time it takes to apply the energy to all parts of the structure. Clear? If you don't understand and try to question NIST, NIST will not reply and clarify this strange process.

According Bazant & Co, famous US expert on creep, crush down of a structure occurs, when you drop something on it (an upper part?) and when the structure suffers local failures and elements of the structure are compacted and compressed. This phenomenon is then repeated until there are no more elements to compact and compress of the poor structure; the structure then concists of a big Box of rubble, part B(azant).

Then, a miracle happens!! The big Bazant Box of rubble applies a force on the upper part and POUFF - it is destroyed. Result is a heap of rubble - the Bazant Box decides to collapse! It is a very funny theory, it really gives you the creep.

Thanks for joining the discussion. The Heiwa Challenge is closed, though!


Thanks Heiwa, but I was talking about the Björkman's axiom.

If the weight of 98th to 110th floor were able to crush down the 97th floor columns, why weren't the 97th to 110th floor able to crush down the 96th floor?

Is it because the bottom floors cross section was greater than the upper floors cross section?

[releaseeabode]

Thanks Heiwa, but I was talking about the Björkman's axiom.

If the weight of 98th to 110th floor were able to crush down the 97th floor columns, why weren't the 97th to 110th floor able to crush down the 96th floor?

Is it because the bottom floors cross section was greater than the upper floors cross section?

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?

[Dave Rogers]

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?

Even if it is, that reaction force is insufficient to decelerate the 98th floor to a standstill as well as to collapse its supports and those of the 97th floor. The collapse then continues for another floor, but with the upper block initially in motion rather than stationary; the result is that the energy balance is even more in favour of collapse at the next impact. Therefore, if the 97th floor collapses, the 96th is more, not less, likely to collapse. This has all been worked out many times over.

Dave

[Tony Szamboti]

Even if it is, that reaction force is insufficient to decelerate the 98th floor to a standstill as well as to collapse its supports and those of the 97th floor. The collapse then continues for another floor, but with the upper block initially in motion rather than stationary; the result is that the energy balance is even more in favour of collapse at the next impact. Therefore, if the 97th floor collapses, the 96th is more, not less, likely to collapse. This has all been worked out many times over.

Dave

On what basis do you make the claim that the reaction force would not be sufficient to collapse the supports of the 98th floor if the force it is reacting to caused the collapse of those of the 97th?

[Dave Rogers]

On what basis do you make the claim that the reaction force would not be sufficient to collapse the supports of the 98th floor if the force it is reacting to caused the collapse of those of the 97th?

If I'd made that claim, it would have no basis. Re-read the post.

Dave

[Carlos]

On what basis do you make the claim that the reaction force would not be sufficient to collapse the supports of the 98th floor if the force it is reacting to caused the collapse of those of the 97th?


He said the reaction force wouldn't be sufficient to desacelerate the 98th floor, not to destroy it.

[releaseeabode]

He said the reaction force wouldn't be sufficient to desacelerate the 98th floor, not to destroy it.

It's a simple question Carlos...

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?

[Carlos]

It's a simple question Carlos...

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?


both was crushed and destroyed

[Justin39640]

both was crushed and destroyed

and then fell
rubble has mass releaseeabode
that mass crushed the floor below
then the combined mass crushed the floor below that etc etc etc

[releaseeabode]

and then fell
rubble has mass releaseeabode
that mass crushed the floor below
then the combined mass crushed the floor below that etc etc etc

So, you're saying that FEMA was right and it was pancake collapse?

[Minadin]

Not initially. Do you understand anything?

[UNLoVedRebel]

So, you're saying that FEMA was right and it was pancake collapse?

So, you're saying that you like to make strawman arguments?

[Dave Rogers]

So, you're saying that FEMA was right and it was pancake collapse?

I'm going to assume, just this once, that you're not being wilfully dishonest, and point out that FEMA's theory was that the collapse was initiated by pancaking as the floor trusses disconnected at one end and the floors fell on to the next one down. This was superseded by NIST's conclusion that the collapse was initiated by perimeter column bowing due to pull-in forces from sagging floor joists, the distinction being that FEMA's mechanism required the connections between floor and perimeter columns to have failed whereas NIST's was based on their having remained intact up to the moment of collapse initiation. Once collapse had initiated, there is no other rational interpretation than that the falling upper mass destroyed the lower structure in a crush-down process, and this is commonly (though perhaps rather loosely) described as pancaking. Therefore, using the word "pancake" to describe the collapse, rather than collapse initiation, does not disagree with either FEMA or NIST.

That's your free strike. Next time you bring this one up, I'll know you're being deliberately dishonest.

Dave

[Heiwa]

I'm going to assume, just this once, that you're not being wilfully dishonest, and point out that FEMA's theory was that the collapse was initiated by pancaking as the floor trusses disconnected at one end and the floors fell on to the next one down. This was superseded by NIST's conclusion that the collapse was initiated by perimeter column bowing due to pull-in forces from sagging floor joists, the distinction being that FEMA's mechanism required the connections between floor and perimeter columns to have failed whereas NIST's was based on their having remained intact up to the moment of collapse initiation. Once collapse had initiated, there is no other rational interpretation than that the falling upper mass destroyed the lower structure in a crush-down process, and this is commonly (though perhaps rather loosely) described as pancaking. Therefore, using the word "pancake" to describe the collapse, rather than collapse initiation, does not disagree with either FEMA or NIST.

That's your free strike. Next time you bring this one up, I'll know you're being deliberately dishonest.

Dave

I remind you that The Heiwa Challenge is closed and that nobody managed to design a structure, top of which dropped on remainder, crushes it.

FEMA suggests that it suffices to disconnect some top horizontal elements (floors) of the structure and that they drop on other horizontal elements (floors) below that are automatically disconnected from whatever supports they have and ... voilà ... crush down of everything.

NIST proposes that you first sag some top horizontal elements (floors) by fire, so that they pull in the outer walls and that then top elements drop on lower elements that are automatically disconnected from whatever support and ... voilà ... crush down of complete structure below.

Mackey suggests you simply drop top mass M on the first little mass m (of 90 below = the structure) and that ping, ping, ping .... ping (90 times) M crushes 90 m.

I wonder why nobody has managed to repeat or reproduce above magic destruction methods of a structure to win The Heiwa Challenge?

It sounds so easy. So I re-open The Heiwa Challenge again! Conditions are as per post #1.

Just design a simple structure - it need not be the size of WTC 1 - that is crushed down when dropping a little part on it.

[Carlos]

Just design a simple structure - it need not be the size of WTC 1 - that is crushed down when dropping a little part on it.


Are you sure the effects caused by the kinetic energy are the same in both structures? (the real structure and the model)

[twinstead]

I'm going out on a limb here, heiwa, but I suspect not many folks here give a crap about the Heiwa Challenge any more. Your delightful little challenge has nothing to do with the WTC collapses. It's just a silly little intellectual exorcise you've come up with the keep from having to deal with expert disagreement with your 9/11 theories.

[releaseeabode]

Are you sure the effects caused by the kinetic energy are the same in both structures? (the real structure and the model)

The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.

Why don't you assume that you are free to build a structure where kinetic energy is more favourable for you, I think that might be the smart thing to do.

[Carlos]

The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.

Why don't you assume that you are free to build a structure where kinetic energy is more favourable for you, I think that might be the smart thing to do.

LOL

[Dave Rogers]

The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.

In that case, the challenge has been met several times. However, Heiwa's response is invariably to propose a modification to the structure that will prevent collapse, point out that his modified structure won't collapse, then claim that, because of that, the original structure hasn't met the challenge. Scroll back over the thread and take a look.

Dave

[Carlos]

So Heiwa, what's your point?

The falling upper floors of a structure cannot destroy the floors below due to gravity?

[Heiwa]

I'm going out on a limb here, heiwa, but I suspect not many folks here give a crap about the Heiwa Challenge any more. Your delightful little challenge has nothing to do with the WTC collapses. It's just a silly little intellectual exorcise you've come up with the keep from having to deal with expert disagreement with your 9/11 theories.

You are right - The Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with the WTC destructions!

In The Heiwa Challenge 70% of the elements must be disconnected from one another and the final result should be as per Bazant; a heap of rubble. No big scrap assemblies of elements are permitted after 'crush down' as seen at WTC:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=63&MMN_position=148:148

The WTC rubble is quite clearly not produced by a crush down of a top part.

[Carlos]

The WTC rubble is quite clearly not produced by a crush down of a top part.

Are you saying gravity cannot produce rubble?

[Heiwa]

So Heiwa, what's your point?

The falling upper floors of a structure cannot destroy the floors below due to gravity?

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity. The upper part is simply too light and too weak! Gravity is also too weak. It can accelerate the upper part but the lower part should easily stop it at contact. The lower part is too strong.

It means, i.a. as you suggest, that upper floors - free (?) sub-elements of the upper assembly - cannot destroy the floors of the lower assembly or the walls keeping the floors in position for that matter. Only local failures will be produced that absorbs all energy applied.

[Carlos]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

[twinstead]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

This has been explained to him a thousand times. He can't, or won't, get it.

[Dave Rogers]

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity.

This is contradicted by actual calculations of the energies involved, which give a comfortable excess of kinetic energy of the upper part over the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. Heiwa has to take an unrealistically high estimate of the fracture energy and to handwave away half the kinetic energy to get any other result.

Dave

[releaseeabode]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

I think we all get the "pancake theory" Carlos.

The real problem that the "pancake theorists" have is that there should have been crush up. Bazant really tries hard to reconcile this by creating an element B made up from fragmented masses that mysteriously compact and then accrete even more mass, all acting around a theoretical centroid! This makes B perfectly efficient for transferring energy or momentum.

He also knows that attributing any significant impact from C on B would result in crush up of C. The way around this is to attach C to B to calculate the momentum and energy and to detach it when calculating crush up. B is either attached to C or it is not.

That aside, Bazant's model has as much to do with the WTC as Heiwa's!!!

[Heiwa]

This is contradicted by actual calculations of the energies involved, which give a comfortable excess of kinetic energy of the upper part over the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. Heiwa has to take an unrealistically high estimate of the fracture energy and to handwave away half the kinetic energy to get any other result.

Dave

You're sure? Then design a structure where the kinetic energy of the upper part, when dropped, exceeds the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. It should be easy! But no crush down of lower part will take place.

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact! It means that the fracture energy required NOT to collapse the upper part must be pretty great, BUT, I am glad to advice; it is smaller than the lower part's.

As I explain in my papers; play basket! Fool around with the ball! Dribble. And note that the ball bounces. It is fun! The ball doesn't one way crush the stadium! Why does the ball bounce (and not crush down the stadium)? Because every time it impacts anything, it - the ball - absorbs energy that makes it bounce.

It is only if you assume, like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Mackey & Co, that the basket ball is rigid that it immediatly punches a hole in the stadium, etc. No bounce. No game. NWO!

[tuc0]

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact!

And that's exactly why your popular challenge failed with post #1.

[twinstead]

You're sure? Then design a structure where the kinetic energy of the upper part, when dropped, exceeds the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. It should be easy! But no crush down of lower part will take place.

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact! It means that the fracture energy required NOT to collapse the upper part must be pretty great, BUT, I am glad to advice; it is smaller than the lower part's.

As I explain in my papers; play basket! Fool around with the ball! Dribble. And note that the ball bounces. It is fun! The ball doesn't one way crush the stadium! Why does the ball bounce (and not crush down the stadium)? Because every time it impacts anything, it - the ball - absorbs energy that makes it bounce.

It is only if you assume, like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Mackey & Co, that the basket ball is rigid that it immediatly punches a hole in the stadium, etc. No bounce. No game. NWO!

You're kidding, right?

[EnJaySee]

You're kidding, right?

I think in his mind, the only way he'll admit that there were no planted explosives in the WTC buildings is if a basketball really does crush down a stadium.

He'd be right if the WTC buildings were single solid structures though.

Heiwa, you so crazy!

[willhaven]

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity. The upper part is simply too light and too weak! Gravity is also too weak. It can accelerate the upper part but the lower part should easily stop it at contact. The lower part is too strong.

It means, i.a. as you suggest, that upper floors - free (?) sub-elements of the upper assembly - cannot destroy the floors of the lower assembly or the walls keeping the floors in position for that matter. Only local failures will be produced that absorbs all energy applied.The WTC towers weren't some giant immovable structure. They were mostly empty space tied together structurally to withstand common forces that would be applied to them. You also have to keep in mind that a key structural element, the hat truss, was disconnected from the structure when the top came crashing down.

It's been said that they were "airliner proof" but that was: 1) theoretical and 2) was initially judged with smaller aircraft traveling at runway approach speeds without full fuel loads.

It's estimated that the towers were 500,000 tons each. The planes struck between the 93rd-99th floors and the 77th-85th floors out of 110.

I know the following is simplistic, but if you do the math and arrive at 4545.454545 tons/floor, you've got somewhere between 49,995-81,810 tons for component C of one building and between 113,625-149,985 tons for component C of the other.

Can a 4 inch slab of concrete supported by lightweight/long steel trusses (short ones were ~30ft and the long ones were ~60ft) support that much of a dynamic load? Apparently not. The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming.

[Carlos]

I think we all get the "pancake theory" Carlos.

The real problem that the "pancake theorists" have is that there should have been crush up. Bazant really tries hard to reconcile this by creating an element B made up from fragmented masses that mysteriously compact and then accrete even more mass, all acting around a theoretical centroid! This makes B perfectly efficient for transferring energy or momentum.

But why couldn't the rubble mass crush the lower floors?

[Heiwa]

The WTC towers weren't some giant immovable structure. They were mostly empty space tied together structurally to withstand common forces that would be applied to them. You also have to keep in mind that a key structural element, the hat truss, was disconnected from the structure when the top came crashing down.

It's been said that they were "airliner proof" but that was: 1) theoretical and 2) was initially judged with smaller aircraft traveling at runway approach speeds without full fuel loads.

It's estimated that the towers were 500,000 tons each. The planes struck between the 93rd-99th floors and the 77th-85th floors out of 110.

I know the following is simplistic, but if you do the math and arrive at 4545.454545 tons/floor, you've got somewhere between 49,995-81,810 tons for component C of one building and between 113,625-149,985 tons for component C of the other.

Can a 4 inch slab of concrete supported by lightweight/long steel trusses (short ones were ~30ft and the long ones were ~60ft) support that much of a dynamic load? Apparently not. The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming.

Re last question: it is not a matter if one element in the interface crush zone upper/lower parts can support a dynamic load or not! If it can - case 1 -the upper part bounces. If it can't - case 2 - some element may break.

In case 1 the lower part evidently applies a force on the upper part and the result is a BOUNCE. Upper part flies up like my grand children jumping in my bed (the start of my involvement in this matter).

In case 2 the lower part also applies a force on the upper part and the result is that one element breaks.

In both cases the lower part applies a force on the upper part, when the latter is coming crushing down. You follow?

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.

I know of course that it is impossible but the NWO suggests differently and I had expected a lot of NWO architects to prove me wrong ... but so far without any success. As expected.

But you can have a try. Don't talk - produce a real structure that proves me wrong!

[Carlos]

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.


Was the WTC upper part intact?

[willhaven]

Re last question: it is not a matter if one element in the interface crush zone upper/lower parts can support a dynamic load or not! If it can - case 1 -the upper part bounces. If it can't - case 2 - some element may break.

In case 1 the lower part evidently applies a force on the upper part and the result is a BOUNCE. Upper part flies up like my grand children jumping in my bed (the start of my involvement in this matter).

In case 2 the lower part also applies a force on the upper part and the result is that one element breaks.

In both cases the lower part applies a force on the upper part, when the latter is coming crushing down. You follow?

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.

I know of course that it is impossible but the NWO suggests differently and I had expected a lot of NWO architects to prove me wrong ... but so far without any success. As expected.

But you can have a try. Don't talk - produce a real structure that proves me wrong!The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

[releaseeabode]

But why couldn't the rubble mass crush the lower floors?

I'm sure a mass of rubble can destroy floors beneath it.

[Carlos]

I'm sure a mass of rubble can destroy floors beneath it.

So what could destroy the floors above it?

[releaseeabode]

The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

Only "probably right"?

Actually no, it's up to NIST who have the vast majority of the evidence available to provide a plausible collapse progression story. I don't really care if it involves controlled demolition, Thermite, lasers, Higg's Bosun or Santa Claus.

Bazant has speculated as well, do you know why? It is because he doesn't know for sure either!!! NIST certainly don't know and pulled back from saying so while observing that dust clouds obscured the video evidence.

Bazant has simplified the problem to the point that his models are as meaningful to the WTC collapse as Heiwa's challenge model is. Rather than admit that the ensuing chaos in a novel structure like the WTC just cannot be modelled reliably he has skewed the data to support what he thinks he observed.

[twinstead]

This is skeptic fundamentalism and what really narks me is that most of the morons on this forum who support the OCT don't even understand what they are supporting and yet feel a sense of elevated superiority over "Truthers" while basking in their ignorance[chillmode]

Ooooookay. Well, then most of the morons on this forum who support 9/11 "truth" don't understand the "OCT" either. Your delightful temper tantrum aside, many people on this forum who support the "OCT" DO indeed know exactly what they are supporting.

It's not the generally-accepted narrative of that day for nothing. Do you think GWB just came out for a news conference and told the world's experts the "official story" and they just nodded and said, "Hmmm. sounds good to me"?

[Heiwa]

The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

The WTC Towers prove The Heiwa Challenge wrong? A structure simply collapses, when you drop a little piece of same structure on it?

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to see, if and how it is possible. I invite everyone to design a structure that can be destroyed by dropping a piece of it on it. In my opinion, based on long experience of structural design and structural damage analysis, it is NOT possible.

I have made that conclusion an axiom:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

I invite you to find anyone that can prove this axiom wrong.

Thanks for your post.

[Carlos]

The lower part was crushed and destroyed floor by floor.

[GlennB]

It is only if you assume, like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Mackey & Co, that the basket ball is rigid that it immediatly punches a hole in the stadium, etc. No bounce. No game. NWO!

You're kidding, right?

I believe Heiwa's understanding of the word "rigid" is different from the meaning of the same word in engineering

[willhaven]

The WTC Towers prove The Heiwa Challenge wrong? A structure simply collapses, when you drop a little piece of same structure on it?It sure appeared to in the WTC when it collapsed nearly 8 years ago. And it does match all of your criteria unless you want to omit things like fire and gravity from the equation. But at that point we might as well remove steel and concrete from the equation as well.

Oh. Given my other half-assed calculations above. The percentages would be C=22.72%-29.99% and C=9.99%-16.36%. Apparently the WTC towers do not qualify for the Heiwa challenge since their C's have too much mass. :(

[Grizzly Bear]

Bazant has simplified the problem to the point that his models are as meaningful to the WTC collapse as Heiwa's challenge model is. Rather than admit that the ensuing chaos in a novel structure like the WTC just cannot be modelled reliably he has skewed the data to support what he thinks he observed.

Just curious... have Heiwa or this guy ever read Bazant's paper? Moreover, did they ever understand that the purpose of the model was not to represent the actual collapse, but instead to show that the collapse would have continued even with the best case scenario for collapse arrest?

Just a question; Why should skeptics -- that is -- your peers take Heiwa's analysis seriously when:

A) You can't even read another engineers representation model correctly
B) Cannot even distinguish between whether they're using a simplified model to bias against collapse or trying to directly model a complex event which was NOT biased at all.
C) Can't qualify to speak on a simple precedent (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150847) (Heiwa seems deafetly quiet on this one).

Why are we to take you all seriously when your claims are based on blatant misrepresentation of a paper you did not read or understand?

Why are we to take you all seriously when your claims are based on claims with which you all have made without any prior study in the relevant fields?

[Heiwa]

It sure appeared to in the WTC when it collapsed nearly 8 years ago. And it does match all of your criteria unless you want to omit things like fire and gravity from the equation. But at that point we might as well remove steel and concrete from the equation as well.

Oh. Given my other half-assed calculations above. The percentages would be C=22.72%-29.99% and C=9.99%-16.36%. Apparently the WTC towers do not qualify for the Heiwa challenge since their C's have too much mass. :(

We all agree that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911. Question is if it were the tops crushing the lower parts by gravity. It does not appear so in the videos in my opinion! So the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm if any structure behaves like that. Can a little top part crush down the complete, bigger, lower part by gravity alone? Just a little drop!

So far nobody has been able to present a suitable structure. Pls do not propose the WTC structures as your proposed candidates for obvious reasons. They are already destroyed.

[Grizzly Bear]

Does Ronan Point count? ;)

[Heiwa]

Does Ronan Point count? ;)

Alleged explosion at the top producing local failures at the corner of the structure?! Does not comply with The Heiwa Challenge requirements.

[Dave Rogers]

Bazant really tries hard to reconcile this by creating an element B made up from fragmented masses that mysteriously compact and then accrete even more mass, all acting around a theoretical centroid! This makes B perfectly efficient for transferring energy or momentum.

Given that debris must be created at the crushing front, this debris must either stay at the crushing front or go somewhere else. Bazant's assumption, a thoroughly reasonable one, is that most of it remains at the crushing front, and then falls due to gravity. If you dispute the existence of this debris layer, where exactly are you suggesting that the fragmented material at the crushing front goes to?

Once the existence of the debris is accepted, the rest follows from simple physics. If its acceptance is denied, physics has already been abandoned. You seem to be taking the latter position. Welcome to the middle ages.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Does Ronan Point count? ;)

Nothing counts, Grizzly Bear. Heiwa has the power of clairvoyance, and from a single photograph of a collapsed building he can divine properties of the original structure that invalidate the example. That's what he did with Bailey's Crossing.

Dave

[A W Smith]

We all agree that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911. Question is if it were the tops crushing the lower parts by gravity. It does not appear so in the videos in my opinion! So the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm if any structure behaves like that. Can a little top part crush down the complete, bigger, lower part by gravity alone? Just a little drop!

So far nobody has been able to present a suitable structure. Pls do not propose the WTC structures as your proposed candidates for obvious reasons. They are already destroyed.

Carlos has your models in the "more structures for Heiwa" thread


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5050058&postcount=34

[Heiwa]

Carlos has your models in the "more structures for Heiwa" thread


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5050058&postcount=34

He has? It seems to be about controlled demolition. The Heiwa Challenge is not really about controlled demolition. Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone. No hydraulic jacks, etc. Just gravity. And a suitable STRUCTURE of course.

NIST has developed US standards and technology for such a STRUCTURE!! The structure must lack capability to absorb strain energy so that the kinetic energy applied by the dropping top is bigger than that capacity. You follow? Result is POUFF!

Bazant has developed a theory how it works. Little top part C drops on big lower part A and transforms A into part B(azant) = rubble. Same result! POUFF. Or BOUFF.

So let's have FUN. Design a STRUCTURE that goes POUFF! See post #1 for details.

[carlitos]

Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone. We get to set the middle part (top of A, bottom of C) one fire for an hour or so first. You forgot that part.

[Newtons Bit]

Nothing counts, Grizzly Bear. Heiwa has the power of clairvoyance, and from a single photograph of a collapsed building he can divine properties of the original structure that invalidate the example. That's what he did with Bailey's Crossing.

Dave

And, unfortunately for Heiwa, Bailey's Crossing perfectly fits his challenge.

This thing was resolved a long, long time ago. We need to let this thread die. Don't engage Heiwa. Just post what building failures have already met his "challenge".

[Heiwa]

And, unfortunately for Heiwa, Bailey's Crossing perfectly fits his challenge.

This thing was resolved a long, long time ago. We need to let this thread die. Don't engage Heiwa. Just post what building failures have already met his "challenge".

No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!

[Newtons Bit]

No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!

No.

[Justin39640]

He has? It seems to be about controlled demolition. The Heiwa Challenge is not really about controlled demolition. Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone. No hydraulic jacks, etc. Just gravity. And a suitable STRUCTURE of course.

NIST has developed US standards and technology for such a STRUCTURE!! The structure must lack capability to absorb strain energy so that the kinetic energy applied by the dropping top is bigger than that capacity. You follow? Result is POUFF!

Bazant has developed a theory how it works. Little top part C drops on big lower part A and transforms A into part B(azant) = rubble. Same result! POUFF. Or BOUFF.

So let's have FUN. Design a STRUCTURE that goes POUFF! See post #1 for details.

actually
those the only thing they did to collapse the building was use jacks to shift the support
the mass of the upper part plus gravity did the rest

didnt you watch the 1 where the top part shifted and fell, destroying the lower part?

this is as close as a full scale (1/1 not your 1/300 water box stupidity) demonstration of the Heiwa challenge as anyone could ever hope to get

you have failed sir

ETA: this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU7eUny_5U

[A W Smith]

actually
those the only thing they did to collapse the building was use jacks to shift the support
the mass of the upper part plus gravity did the rest

didnt you watch the 1 where the top part shifted and fell, destroying the lower part?

this is as close as a full scale (1/1 not your 1/300 water box stupidity) demonstration of the Heiwa challenge as anyone could ever hope to get

you have failed sir

ETA: this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU7eUny_5U

Upper part drops onto lower part
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydralicdemolition.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydcd2.jpg

[TruthersLie]

No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!

sure thing.
here you go

fJLm5-be4LM

count the floors above the collapse initiation. count the floors below the collapse initiation.

the small part A crushes down the LARGER part C.

Thank you.

I expect my check for $1,000,000 soon. Pm me and I'll send you my routing numbers.

[TruthersLie]

No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

in your DESIGN, drop and submit.



ROFLMAO!!!!!!

hahahahahaha.

Oh poor heiwa... we have now shown a crushdown with the smaller part A crushing the LARGER part c from REAL LIFE.

and you try to handwave it away, because they have to be "YOUR" design.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

[Justin39640]

although i think the recent videos finds above pretty much end the debate once and for all

CiIuC1otNCk

(darn, before i meant to link the one TL just linked)

[Heiwa]

Upper part drops onto lower part
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydralicdemolition.jpg

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydcd2.jpg

Nice pictures. Now design/build a similar structure and participate in The Heiwa Challenge. The real thing only counts!

[Heiwa]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

hahahahahaha.

Oh poor heiwa... we have now shown a crushdown with the smaller part A crushing the LARGER part c from REAL LIFE.

and you try to handwave it away, because they have to be "YOUR" design.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

You have shown a crushdown from REAL LIFE? Controlled demolitions of various types do not qualify ... just a simple drop of upper part on lower part is sufficient (and details of the structure, of course).

[TruthersLie]

You have shown a crushdown from REAL LIFE? Controlled demolitions of various types do not qualify ... just a simple drop of upper part on lower part is sufficient (and details of the structure, of course).

PMSLMAO.

Did you not just see 6 different videos showing a crushdown? Yes or no heiwa.

Controlled demoltions? They pushed out one floor, with hydraulic jacks. That is it...

that is "dropping of upper part on the lower part."

but handwave, and shift shift shift.

I thought you were an ENGINEER? Now we know for a fact that you are a dishonest, intellectual midget.

now run and hide heiwa. Run away from simple questions. Run, RUN.

[Heiwa]

PMSLMAO.

Did you not just see 6 different videos showing a crushdown? Yes or no heiwa.

Controlled demoltions? They pushed out one floor, with hydraulic jacks. That is it...

that is "dropping of upper part on the lower part."

but handwave, and shift shift shift.

I thought you were an ENGINEER? Now we know for a fact that you are a dishonest, intellectual midget.

now run and hide heiwa. Run away from simple questions. Run, RUN.

You only show videos of controlled demolitions and similar. There the structure, mostly concrete, has been weakened and prepared to be destroyed, explosives and/or external force/energy are applied to start destruction, etc, etc, and such structures do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge. See post #1 for details.

But I repeat:

The structure must be same top/bottom and bottom must carry top prior challenge test. Top is abt. 1/10 bottom!

Describe the elements and their connections (and, why not, describe the intact relevant load paths, and, why not, the expected path(s) of failures at drop/gravity energy applied and the expected result; elements and connections broken).

Then just drop top on bottom (and compare with calculations)!

PS - You'll find that top cannot apply, by gravity, the energy required to destroy the bottom.

[TruthersLie]

You only show videos of controlled demolitions and similar. There the structure, mostly concrete, has been weakened and prepared to be destroyed, explosives and/or external force/energy are applied to start destruction, etc, etc, and such structures do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge. See post #1 for details.

But I repeat:

The structure must be same top/bottom and bottom must carry top prior challenge test. Top is abt. 1/10 bottom!

Describe the elements and their connections (and, why not, describe the intact relevant load paths, and, why not, the expected path(s) of failures at drop/gravity energy applied and the expected result; elements and connections broken).

Then just drop top on bottom (and compare with calculations)!

PS - You'll find that top cannot apply, by gravity, the energy required to destroy the bottom.

We have found that like with RONIN point you are talking out of your rear.

They did NOT weaken the lower floors. They only weakened 2 floors which is where the hydraulics were used.

And weren't you the one saying NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS VERY THREAD that 49% wouldn't crush down 51%.

handwave handwave handwave.
Thank you intellectual midget.

Your claims have been completely destroyed and you run and hide from it. Hahahahahaha.

We have found that THE TOP WHEN DROPPED ON THE BOTTOM destroys it down.

amazing that isn't it?

Are you like other twoofs who ignore the strutrual differences between the towers and other structures ALL the time... except when shown that a CRUSH DOWN/CRUSH UP is not only possible, but USED REPEATEDLY, then the structural differences are noticable and can't be compared.

Oh Anders... that is just tooooooo funny.

next time do your homework.

[Heiwa]

We have found that ...

We have found that THE TOP WHEN DROPPED ON THE BOTTOM destroys it down.

amazing that isn't it?



Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

[BigAl]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Troll much?

[TruthersLie]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Hahahahahaha.

I love it when flounder are talking about foundering...

We have presented you with 6 REAL structures, which met ALL of your requirements, that have then "dropped" the top part (which was LESS than 50%) and it crushed down.

Come on twoof... do some RESEARCH into that method of demolitions. YOu are the one who is dodging and handwaving.

Poor widdle anders...

I'll take that $million... oh wait, you LIED about that too.

ROFLMAO.

go back to ships

[twinstead]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Wow. I had hoped for a more, uh, shall we say....rational response to the collapses in question. What the hell is this? We aren't telling you that it's our opinion there's examples out there that definitively prove your "axiom" wrong, we have given you actual videos of them.

I found those videos interesting. I learned something in the last few days. Why can't you?

[EnJaySee]

I'd like to propose The REAL HEIWA CHALLENGE

Nothing too complex. Just get him to admit his views on building collapse are incorrect and therefore his Axiom is flawed.

[Heiwa]

I'd like to propose The REAL HEIWA CHALLENGE

Nothing too complex. Just get him to admit his views on building collapse are incorrect and therefore his Axiom is flawed.

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

[Justin39640]

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

heiwa
i would hate to point this out
but er..
you said under no circumstances is that possible

the french must not have read your paper....

[TruthersLie]

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

hahahahaha.

Great...
the french have won it.

3 of those 6 videos have the smaller part of an isotropic 3-d structure, which when dropped on the greater part of the same structure caused a one way crush down of the greater part.

Nice attempt at the dodge
"dropped by gravity" (laughing dogs.gif)

[Justin39640]

i think this is appropriate
FWBUl7oT9sA

[Heiwa]

hahahahaha.

Great...
the french have won it.

3 of those 6 videos have the smaller part of an isotropic 3-d structure, which when dropped on the greater part of the same structure caused a one way crush down of the greater part.

Nice attempt at the dodge
"dropped by gravity" (laughing dogs.gif)

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

[stateofgrace]

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

WRONG troll. Here is the challenge

The Heiwa Challenge


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

Conditions:

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

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

I guess when you lie so often it is hard to keep track of them, right troll ?

[TruthersLie]

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

hahahahaha.

You have stated REPEATEDLY that it is NOT POSSIBLE for a smaller part A to crush down a LARGER part C.

You have acted like a troll. An ignorant troll.

so we have provided you with REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of a smaller part A crushing DOWN a larger part C.

Do you admit that they have?

Yes or no.

gravity driven collapse. No explosives. NO weakening of support structures on lower levels.

All 6 of the examples provided to you EXIST in the real world. Thank you very much... The heiwa challenge has been answered and the structures are REAL and then did crush down. Amazing isn't it?

But you will handwave, and try to dodge around. But it is over Heiwa. You should just admit that you have been exposed to crushdown from a smaller part to the larger part.

You were going on about how 49% couldn't crushdown the 51%. Do the videos show that you are full of crap? Yes they do.

ROFLMAO.
(yes, I am laughing at YOU.)

[Justin39640]

good thing these are all new videos or we would be debating
"PORTA-POWER IS AN INSIDE JOB!!!"

[Architect]

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call you on that one. Evidence, please.

We are, after all, talking about the man hiding from the Ronan Point thread where he's been unable to substantiate his own structural analysis.

[twinstead]

Well, Heiwa has a reputation, all right, but I don't think it's the one bill is talking about.

[CHF]

So who collects the prize, Heiwa?

Us or the French?

[willhaven]

We all agree that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911. Question is if it were the tops crushing the lower parts by gravity. It does not appear so in the videos in my opinion! So the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm if any structure behaves like that. Can a little top part crush down the complete, bigger, lower part by gravity alone? Just a little drop!

So far nobody has been able to present a suitable structure. Pls do not propose the WTC structures as your proposed candidates for obvious reasons. They are already destroyed.Why not? What does it look like to you?

To me, the WTC tower collapses definitely look like the top crushed the bottom.

The WTC towers themselves seem to qualify for the Heiwa Challenge, aside from the small theoretical weight discrepancies I pointed out above.

There are many different angles from many different cameras taken by different people, so it obviously happened as people picture it. No foul play. Why would the WTC towers not qualify for the Heiwa Challenge?

[Heiwa]

hahahahaha.

so we have provided you with REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of a smaller part A crushing DOWN a larger part C.

Do you admit that they have?

Yes or no.



No. None comply with the conditions of post #1, which see.

[Heiwa]

Why would the WTC towers not qualify for the Heiwa Challenge?

See conditions in post #1. Or read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Re WTC towers a proper forensic analysis of the rubble is still lacking. Big pieces of the original structure, e.g. external perimeter wall columns/spandrels panel assemblies, were not crushed-down at all. They are sometimes 10 floors high and 1/3 of the original wall wide and can be seen being pushed out sideways during the destruction, i.e. cut both at top and bottom. Some hit ground like spears and can be seen sticking up afterwards.

Same for the core columns; you can see in the rubble that they have been cut by heat and that they have not been ripped apart by overload/gravity forces. Actually, the only way to destroy the core structure steel columns is to cut them at regular intervals (controlled demolition style). Nothing can drop on the core causing any damage there!

And one result of cutting internal core columns and regular intervals is that external perimeter column panels pop out ... as seen on all videos.

So. Sorry. The WTC Towers do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge.

[JohnG]

The WTC Towers do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge.


Can you remind me of what the Heiwa Challenge is meant to prove then in regards to the 9/11 attacks on the WTC?

[Newtons Bit]

No. None comply with the conditions of post #1, which see.

You LOSE. Good day, sir!

[twinstead]

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


Heiwa, can you help me out and specify which one of these that the examples given to you recently don't comply with? It would really help this non-engineer. Thanks.

[Grizzly Bear]

VDW0ZnZxjn4
fixed

[Heiwa]

Can you remind me of what the Heiwa Challenge is meant to prove then in regards to the 9/11 attacks on the WTC?

See post #1.

Or, you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.

Thanks for letting me remind you what The Heiwa Challenge is really about.

[BigAl]

See post #1.

Or, you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.


Yet the towers collapsed and you are a no-claimer as to why reality doesn't match your fiction.

[willhaven]

See conditions in post #1. Or read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Re WTC towers a proper forensic analysis of the rubble is still lacking. Big pieces of the original structure, e.g. external perimeter wall columns/spandrels panel assemblies, were not crushed-down at all. They are sometimes 10 floors high and 1/3 of the original wall wide and can be seen being pushed out sideways during the destruction, i.e. cut both at top and bottom. Some hit ground like spears and can be seen sticking up afterwards.

Same for the core columns; you can see in the rubble that they have been cut by heat and that they have not been ripped apart by overload/gravity forces. Actually, the only way to destroy the core structure steel columns is to cut them at regular intervals (controlled demolition style). Nothing can drop on the core causing any damage there!

And one result of cutting internal core columns and regular intervals is that external perimeter column panels pop out ... as seen on all videos.

So. Sorry. The WTC Towers do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge.Nothing can crush straight down. Even stomping on a beer can causes the sides to move inward or outward to some degree. The fact that the side cladding fell outward isn't evidence of controlled demolition.

Also, the cuts you saw on the supports were made as the debris was being removed from the site. Some of the pieces were so large that they had to be cut up before removal. Cutting them at an angle with a torch allows you to make them fall in a predictable and safe way. I've still never seen any images proven to be taken before debris removal that show these cuts.

The problem with the Heiwa Challenge is that you immediately assume that what really happened could not have happened and you attempt to remove important elements of what happened that day in order to lend some credence to a controlled demolition theory. A theory which has zero actual evidence to support it.

If I built a 1:10 scale WTC. If I painstakingly reconstruct it to scale, cut out the plane impact area, set fire to the structure and it collapses exactly like the WTC, you'll say that it doesn't qualify for the Heiwa Challenge because there was a fire and because the side cladding fell outward.

But at the WTC there was a fire and the cladding did fall outward. Omitting those two things from the equation makes the Heiwa Challenge irrelevant in regards to proving or disproving WTC collapse theories.

I maintain that the Heiwa Challenge is either inherently flawed, or that the WTC towers should qualify. Part C of both towers obviously crushed Part A. In 100% of perfect examples, we have almost 100% crush-down observed. :)

[Mancman]

Hey Heiwa, question. Here we have a building in which the walls have been pulled out, allowing a small top section to begin falling.

Please give your prediction for what will happen to both the upper and lower sections. The building is approximately 14 floors high.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2nhe33s.jpg

[willhaven]

there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.Of course they wouldn't suddenly and spontaneously collapse. If you work an airliner traveling about 600mph slamming into the building and partially severing important structural elements and also work a raging fire into the equation, a crush-down seems to happen 100% of the time in these cases. :)

[stateofgrace]

See post #1.

Or, you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.

Thanks for letting me remind you what The Heiwa Challengeis really about.

And here it is.

When all else fails, when you have been exposed as a complete fraud over and over again, when you are unable to answer your critics, when you unable to back up a single claim you have made, when your bogus challenge is completely destroyed. Simply forget all engineering principles, forget physics and let the mask slip, for lucking behind the mask is the agenda driven nobody who throws a hissy fit because rather than fall for his drivel members here demand he substantiate his claims. To date you have failed and you will continue to fail because this is all you have, your anger and agenda, directed at those that simply destroy you.

You have nothing.

[TruthersLie]

See post #1.

Or, you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.

Thanks for letting me remind you what The Heiwa Challenge is really about.

I'm sorry...

but since you have redefined the challenge so many times, i thought you stated rather emphatically that 49% couldn't crush down 51%.

I'd swear you said it, but I don't feel like going through your idiocy for the 50 pages of this thread.

Now you are shift shift shifting to the 15% can't crush down 85%? ReallY?

ROFLMAO.

And the complicit in mass murder... damn that is rather weak isn't it.

But hey, if you have proof of those mass murders, that makes you an accomplice because you haven't taken it to the proper authorities...

are you feeling :boxedin:?

[alienentity]

Why don't we discuss Top Down Collapse here? Or maybe, since we're really talking about gravity-driven (no explosives), top down collapse, it's better to do a thread with that title.
I'm going to do just that.

Gravity doesn't care if a building starts to collapse from fire, earthquake, explosives, hydraulics or cables. Collapse can be initiated thru many mechanisms.

We should kill these Red Herrings. I prefer Salmon anyway. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=152382

[JohnG]

See post #1.

Or, you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.

Thanks for letting me remind you what The Heiwa Challenge is really about.


Sorry, maybe I'm just slow on the uptake (wouldn't be the first time), but if not even the WTC towers themselves are eligible for the Heiwa Challenge, what has the Heiwa Challenge have to do with the 9/11 attacks on said towers? Why does this thread appear in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories sub forum and not, say the Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology forum?

[Architect]

Lads, we're talking about the man who got caught talking bollocks about Ronan Point - a nice progressive collapse - and is avoiding the thread about it like a plague. He's just a troll.

[Horatius]

Okay, guys, now this really is sad. Faced with overwhelming evidence in the form the recent videos of these French crush-down demolitions, Heiwa has simple retreated into fantasy land. He's either just trolling, or has finally reached "Realistice" levels of insanity.

If these incredibly obvious, real-world examples cannot convince him that the WTC collapses were physically possible, nothing we can ever say will ever convince him. I'm putting him on ignore. If anyone else ever comes around citing his "axiom" as some sort of proof, all we need do is link him to AE's new thread. Anyone who cannot see the evidence for themselves will not see anything else.


And to Heiwa: You really need to get help. I hope that some day, you wake up far enough to realize that yourself, and actually go and get that help.

[Heiwa]

AA. Nothing can crush straight down. Even stomping on a beer can causes the sides to move inward or outward to some degree. The fact that the side cladding fell outward isn't evidence of controlled demolition.

BB. Also, the cuts you saw on the supports were made as the debris was being removed from the site. Some of the pieces were so large that they had to be cut up before removal. Cutting them at an angle with a torch allows you to make them fall in a predictable and safe way. I've still never seen any images proven to be taken before debris removal that show these cuts.

CC. The problem with the Heiwa Challenge is that you immediately assume that what really happened could not have happened and you attempt to remove important elements of what happened that day in order to lend some credence to a controlled demolition theory. A theory which has zero actual evidence to support it.

DD. If I built a 1:10 scale WTC. If I painstakingly reconstruct it to scale, cut out the plane impact area, set fire to the structure and it collapses exactly like the WTC, you'll say that it doesn't qualify for the Heiwa Challenge because there was a fire and because the side cladding fell outward.

EE. But at the WTC there was a fire and the cladding did fall outward. Omitting those two things from the equation makes the Heiwa Challenge irrelevant in regards to proving or disproving WTC collapse theories.

FF. I maintain that the Heiwa Challenge is either inherently flawed, or that the WTC towers should qualify. Part C of both towers obviously crushed Part A. In 100% of perfect examples, we have almost 100% crush-down observed. :)

Thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge! When will you enter your structure?

AA. According FEMA, NIST, Bazant and Mackey (??) crushing is straight down. That big, heavy, perimeter wall panels/spandrels assemblies were pushed out from a 95% air structure is 100% evidence of controlled demolition.

BB. No, all cuts of core columns seen in the rubble is prior clean up. I wonder how FEMA/FBI/NIST missed that!

CC. As have said many times. A structure cannot be crushed down by dropping a piece on it = The Björkman Axiom. Google for more details.

DD. If? If? You can do what you like!

EE. I do not understand! Fire, cladding fell outward??? Equation? Pls, clarify.

FF. The Heiwa Challenge is clear and simple. The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1. In my view part C of both towers are destroyed long before the parts A are destroyed. You can see it on all videos. I know Bazant has another opinion; C crushing down A producing part B(azant) before B crushes up C.

What's your opinion about B(azant)? What part does it/he plays in this mass murder? And yourself? What is your agenda?

[Heiwa]

Of course they wouldn't suddenly and spontaneously collapse. If you work an airliner traveling about 600mph slamming into the building and partially severing important structural elements and also work a raging fire into the equation, a crush-down seems to happen 100% of the time in these cases. :)

As I say:

... you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

[CHF]

Several structures have been entered. Your refusal to admit you're a fool is no one's problem but your own.

[Heiwa]

Several structures have been entered. Your refusal to admit you're a fool is no one's problem but your own.

?? Every structure must have a designer and comply with post #1. No such structure will be refused. No fool or foolish design will be refused. NIST is invited to show their standard design! Mackey also! You too! Be a winner!

[stateofgrace]

Nevermind.

[Justin39640]

wow
some would call that getting totally PWNED
he even broke down into spamming close to a dozen times
isnt that a rule 6 violation?

ETA:WL1lfSzgcAw

[Locknar]

I have moved a number of posts to AAH; please keep the conversation civil and polite, attack the argument not the arguer, and on topic....all without flooding the Forum with repetitive posts.

[willhaven]

Thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge! When will you enter your structure?WTC towers 1 and 2 are my structure. Do they qualify or not?


AA. According FEMA, NIST, Bazant and Mackey (??) crushing is straight down. That big, heavy, perimeter wall panels/spandrels assemblies were pushed out from a 95% air structure is 100% evidence of controlled demolition.If we see panels being thrown hundreds of feet, "straight down" is obviously meant as a general expectation and not a literal observation. If you're wanting to split hairs and say that cladding falling outward means the building is not falling "straight down," then your challenge is flawed. Your challenge should represent a general picture of the WTC collapse, including outer cladding falling well away from the structure. The structure did not topple, it crushed itself downward and some elements fell hundreds of feet away from the footprint.

BB. No, all cuts of core columns seen in the rubble is prior clean up. I wonder how FEMA/FBI/NIST missed that!Not true. :)

You have any images of cut beams from before the cleanup? I don't believe they exist. In the one image that gets thrown around all the time, I distinctly remember a cleanup crew member in the rubble as well.


CC. As have said many times. A structure cannot be crushed down by dropping a piece on it = The Björkman Axiom. Google for more details.And the videos in the other threads about the French collapses using hydraulics and gravity to crush buildings?


EE. I do not understand! Fire, cladding fell outward??? Equation? Pls, clarify.You're saying that none of the building can fall outward. The WTC had parts of the structure fall outward. If the challenge is to replicate the WTC without using controlled demolition, both fire and parts falling well out of the footprint of the building should be additions to the challenge.


FF. The Heiwa Challenge is clear and simple. The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1. In my view part C of both towers are destroyed long before the parts A are destroyed. You can see it on all videos. I know Bazant has another opinion; C crushing down A producing part B(azant) before B crushes up C. The challenge is clear and simple, but it is not representative of the WTC towers, therefore it is an irrelevant comparison and insufficient to prove or disprove any WTC collapse/demolition theory.

What's your opinion about B(azant)? What part does it/he plays in this mass murder? And yourself? What is your agenda?My agenda is simply to dispel myths and misconceptions. To think critically.

So, knowing what you know about WTC 1 and 2, do they qualify for the Heiwa Challenge or not?

[Heiwa]

WTC towers 1 and 2 are my structure. Do they qualify or not?


If we see panels being thrown hundreds of feet, "straight down" is obviously meant as a general expectation and not a literal observation. If you're wanting to split hairs and say that cladding falling outward means the building is not falling "straight down," then your challenge is flawed. Your challenge should represent a general picture of the WTC collapse, including outer cladding falling well away from the structure. The structure did not topple, it crushed itself downward and some elements fell hundreds of feet away from the footprint.

Not true. :)

You have any images of cut beams from before the cleanup? I don't believe they exist. In the one image that gets thrown around all the time, I distinctly remember a cleanup crew member in the rubble as well.


And the videos in the other threads about the French collapses using hydraulics and gravity to crush buildings?


You're saying that none of the building can fall outward. The WTC had parts of the structure fall outward. If the challenge is to replicate the WTC without using controlled demolition, both fire and parts falling well out of the footprint of the building should be additions to the challenge.


The challenge is clear and simple, but it is not representative of the WTC towers, therefore it is an irrelevant comparison and insufficient to prove or disprove any WTC collapse/demolition theory.

My agenda is simply to dispel myths and misconceptions. To think critically.

So, knowing what you know about WTC 1 and 2, do they qualify for the Heiwa Challenge or not?

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test? Design your own structure and let it selfdestruct by dropping the top on it. If you can. It is evidently impossible, but you can always try. It will help you think critically.

[Dog Town]

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test?

Scale will forever escape you, huh?

[A W Smith]

Scale will forever escape you, huh?


No he understands scaling perfectly well after I educated him on it some time ago via MIT professor Walter Lewin's lecture

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

So what he is doing now is trying to use the effects of scaling to debunk the towers collapse. He knows if we scale down a model. It cannot possibly perform on the scale of a life size skyscraper. Which is exactly why he is handwaving off all those french hydralic demolitions which destroy his argument. And insisting that we build a small scale model. So it is not a challenge at all if you understand scaling. which Heiwa hopes we don't. Because scaling debunks his challenge.

[Heiwa]

No he understands scaling perfectly well after I educated him on it some time ago via MIT professor Walter Lewin's lecture

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

So what he is doing now is trying to use the effects of scaling to debunk the towers collapse. He knows if we scale down a model. It cannot possibly perform on the scale of a life size skyscraper. Which is exactly why he is handwaving off all those french hydralic demolitions which destroy his argument. And insisting that we build a small scale model. So it is not a challenge at all if you understand scaling. which Heiwa hopes we don't. Because scaling debunks his challenge.

Hm, a Heiwa Challenge structure design evidently is always full scale. But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big. Dropping the top of it will just result in a bounce or local failures. Never a one-way crush down of lower part.

Pls, try to design a structure that self-destructs. Don't just chatter like ... you know! Use your brains! Design/build a structure! Follow the NIST advice and Bazant's theory and see how it POUFF destroys itself when top is dropped. Isn't it amazing?

[MIKILLINI]

Scale will forever escape you, huh?

Scaling down is what makes his challenge flawed.

ETA: AW beat me to it.

[willhaven]

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test? Design your own structure and let it selfdestruct by dropping the top on it. If you can. It is evidently impossible, but you can always try. It will help you think critically.Why would I bother rebuilding it? The WTC towers themselves were the right size and scale. The WTC towers as they stood in 2001 were the right weight and of roughly uniform density. Roughly 1/10 of one of the building top collapsed down into the rest of it and crushed it completely.

So I win right? The WTC towers 1 and 2 are the perfect example to win the Heiwa Challenge! 1:1 scale. Same materials. Same location. Same stresses applied. It's perfect!

If you want to see how it was built and see how it collapsed, I can provide you with lots of information on how it was done. Let me know.

[A W Smith]

But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big.

Yes. Yes it does. And you know that. I have called you out Anders.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

Galileo Galilei asked himself the question: Why are mammals as large as they are and not much larger? He had a very clever reasoning which I've never seen in print.
But it comes down to the fact that he argued that if the mammal becomes too massive that the bones will break and he thought that that was a limiting factor.
Even though I've never seen his reasoning in print I will try to reconstruct it what could have gone through his head.
Here is a mammal.
And this is one of the four legs of the mammal.
And this mammal has a size S.
And what I mean by that is a mouse is yay big and a cat is yay big.
That's what I mean by size--
very crudely defined.
The mass of the mammal is M and this mammal has a thigh bone which we call the femur, which is here.
And the femur of course carries the body, to a large extent.
And let's assume that the femur has a length l and has a thickness d.
Here is a femur.
This is what a femur approximately looks like.
So this will be the length of the femur...
and this will be the thickness, d and this will be the cross-sectional area A.
I'm now going to take you through what we call in physics a scaling argument.
I would argue that the length of the femur must be proportional to the size of the animal.
That's completely plausible.
If an animal is four times larger than another you would need four times longer legs.
And that's all this is saying.
It's very reasonable.
It is also very reasonable that the mass of an animal is proportional to the third power of the size because that's related to its volume.
And so if it's related to the third power of the size it must also be proportional to the third power of the length of the femur because of this relationship.
Okay, that's one.
Now comes the argument.
Pressure on the femur is proportional to the weight of the animal divided by the cross-section A of the femur.
That's what pressure is.
And that is the mass of the animal that's proportional to the mass of the animal divided by d squared because we want the area here, it's proportional to d squared.
Now follow me closely.
If the pressure is higher than a certain level the bones will break.
Therefore, for an animal not to break its bones when the mass goes up by a certain factor let's say a factor of four in order for the bones not to break d squared must also go up by a factor of four.
That's a key argument in the scaling here.
You really have to think that through carefully.
Therefore, I would argue that the mass must be proportional to d squared.
This is the breaking argument.
Now compare these two.
The mass is proportional to the length of the femur to the power three and to the thickness of the femur to the power two.
Therefore, the thickness of the femur to the power two must be proportional to the length l and therefore the thickness of the femur must be proportional to l to the power three-halfs.
A very interesting result.
What is this result telling you? It tells you that if I have two animals and one is ten times larger than the other then S is ten times larger that the lengths of the legs are ten times larger but that the thickness of the femur is 30 times larger because it is l to the power three halves.
If I were to compare a mouse with an elephant an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size so the length of the femur of the elephant would be a hundred times larger than that of a mouse but the thickness of the femur would have to be 1,000 times larger.
And that may have convinced Galileo Galilei that that's the reason why the largest animals are as large as they are.
Because clearly, if you increase the mass there comes a time that the thickness of the bones is the same as the length of the bones.
You're all made of bones and that is biologically not feasible.
And so there is a limit somewhere set by this scaling law.
Well, I wanted to bring this to a test.
After all I brought my grandmother's statement to a test so why not bring Galileo Galilei's statement to a test? And so I went to Harvard where they have a beautiful collection of femurs and I asked them for the femur of a raccoon and a horse.
A raccoon is this big a horse is about four times bigger so the length of the femur of a horse must be about four times the length of the raccoon.
Close.
So I was not surprised.
Then I measured the thickness, and I said to myself, "Aha!" If the length is four times higher then the thickness has to be eight times higher if this holds.
And what I'm going to plot for you you will see that shortly is d divided by l, versus l and that, of course, must be proportional to l to the power one-half.
I bring one l here.
So, if I compare the horse and I compare the raccoon I would argue that the thickness divided by the length of the femur for the horse must be the square root of four, twice as much as that of the raccoon.
And so I was very anxious to plot that, and I did that and I'll show you the result.
Here is my first result.
So we see there, d over l.
I explained to you why I prefer that.
And here you see the length.
You see here the raccoon and you see the horse.
And if you look carefully, then the d over l for the horse is only about one and a half times larger than the raccoon.
Well, I wasn't too disappointed.
One and a half is not two, but it is in the right direction.
The horse clearly has a larger value for d over l than the raccoon.
I realized I needed more data, so I went back to Harvard.
I said, "Look, I need a smaller animal, an opossum maybe maybe a rat, maybe a mouse," and they said, "okay." They gave me three more bones.
They gave me an antelope which is actually a little larger than a raccoon and they gave me an opossum and they gave me a mouse.
Here is the bone of the antelope.
Here is the one of the raccoon.
Here is the one of the opossum.
And now you won't believe this.
This is so wonderful, so romantic.
There is the mouse.
( students laugh ) Isn't that beautiful? Teeny, weeny little mouse? That's only a teeny, weeny little femur.
And there it is.
And I made the plot.
I was very curious what that plot would look like.
And...
here it is.
Whew! I was shocked.
I was really shocked.
Because look--
the horse is 50 times larger in size than the mouse.
The difference in d over l is only a factor of two.
And I expected something more like a factor of seven.
And so, in d over l, where I expect a factor of seven I only see a factor of two.
So I said to myself, "Oh, my goodness. Why didn't I ask them for an elephant?" The real clincher would be the elephant because if that goes way off scale maybe we can still rescue the statement by Galileo Galilei and so I went back and they said "Okay, we'll give you the femur of an elephant."
They also gave me one of a moose, believe it or not.
I think they wanted to get rid of me by that time to be frank with you.
And here is the femur of an elephant.
And I measured it.
The length and the thickness.
And it is very heavy.
It weighs a ton.
I plotted it, I was full of expectation.
I couldn't sleep all night.
And there's the elephant.
There is no evidence whatsoever that d over l is really larger for the elephant than for the mouse.
These vertical bars indicate my uncertainty in measurements of thickness and the horizontal scale, which is a logarithmic scale...
the uncertainty of the length measurements is in the thickness of the red pen so there's no need for me to indicate that any further.
And here you have your measurements in case you want to check them.
And look again at the mouse and look at the elephant.
The mouse has indeed only one centimeter length of the femur and the elephant is, indeed, hundred times longer.
So the first scaling argument that S is proportional to l that is certainly what you would expect because an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size.
But when you go to d over l, you see it's all over.
The d over l for the mouse is really not all that different from the elephant and you would have expected that number to be with the square root of 100 so you expect it to be ten times larger instead of about the same.
PmJV8CHIqFc

[Heiwa]

So I win right? The WTC towers 1 and 2 are the perfect example to win the Heiwa Challenge! 1:1 scale. Same materials. Same location. Same stresses applied. It's perfect!

If you want to see how it was built and see how it collapsed, I can provide you with lots of information on how it was done. Let me know.

No, you do not win! You have to design/build your own structure, etc, etc. You can of course copy WTC 1 or 2 and I look forward to that, i.e. how your structure is designed/built and how you think it will fail, when top is dropped. The path of failures is evidently of interest, to be verified at the real test. Good luck! We are really moving forward here.

[releaseeabode]

Hm, a Heiwa Challenge structure design evidently is always full scale. But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big. Dropping the top of it will just result in a bounce or local failures. Never a one-way crush down of lower part.

Pls, try to design a structure that self-destructs. Don't just chatter like ... you know! Use your brains! Design/build a structure! Follow the NIST advice and Bazant's theory and see how it POUFF destroys itself when top is dropped. Isn't it amazing?

If I was going to design/build a structure for the challenge and I thought scale would work to my advantage in any way then, I would design that into it! Especially as your challenge states that it can be any size.

Constantly whining about it would just be bringing it to the attention of the rest of the class and giving away an edge. My suggestion to the other contributors is that if you think scaling gives you an edge then keep quiet about it and use it to win the challenge.

[UNLoVedRebel]

. My suggestion to the other contributors is that if you think scaling gives you an edge then keep quiet about it and use it to win the challenge.

Already done (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140866), so stop with the lame cyber lectures.

[TruthersLie]

No, you do not win! You have to design/build your own structure, etc, etc. You can of course copy WTC 1 or 2 and I look forward to that, i.e. how your structure is designed/built and how you think it will fail, when top is dropped. The path of failures is evidently of interest, to be verified at the real test. Good luck! We are really moving forward here.

hahahahaha.

stop whining you intellectual midget.

You have stated repeatedly that 49% cannot crushdown 51%. Isn't that correct?

Have you modified your axiom (snicker), or do you still stand by that completely BS claim?

We have provided 7 examples of a crushdown, and in 2 of them we have 3 floors crushing down over 10 floors.

are you really that much of an intellectual coward that you cannot admit that a crushdown/crush up doesn't happen?

[Heiwa]

hahahahaha.

stop whining you intellectual midget.

You have stated repeatedly that 49% cannot crushdown 51%. Isn't that correct?

Have you modified your axiom (snicker), or do you still stand by that completely BS claim?

We have provided 7 examples of a crushdown, and in 2 of them we have 3 floors crushing down over 10 floors.

are you really that much of an intellectual coward that you cannot admit that a crushdown/crush up doesn't happen?

What I state is:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

A.k.a. Björkman's Axiom.

The examples you show of various controlled demolitions confirm this axiom, e.g. you first destroy a large part of the greater, lower structural part A (that is also weakened in different ways) and allow the upper part C, which is quite big or bigger than the lower part A, to drop into the local rubble, whereby both parts suffer further failures with ground assisting, etc, etc. Thus you have to destroy the lower part A first to destroy the structure.

However, WTC 1 is another matter. The upper part C is very small compared with the lower part A. The alleged drop height of C is also very small, so energy applied is small. And that energy cannot drive any 'one-way' crush of the lower structural part. Part C should just land on part A causing some local failures to C and A.

Thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge. I look forward of your structural design that does not follow my Axiom!

[TruthersLie]

Are you dense?
were you dropped on your head?

IN ALL of the examples provided to you a
SMALLER PART OF the structure is dropped on the larger part of the structure.

And then GRAVITY (by itself) causes the crushdown.

None of the lower parts in ANY of the examples provided to you have been weakened.

Pleae provide a single citation or source to show the lower structures have been weakened. You dont' have any.

How do you destroy a LARGE part of the greater? They have removed a floor or TWO. That isn't destroying a Large part.

ROFLMAO.

So again and again. Weren't you saying that 49% cannot crush down 51%? Yes or no coward.

We have shown you that 33% can crushdown 67%... isn't that amazing?

[Architect]

Yoo hoo, Heiwa....Ronan Point! On you go, we're waiting!!!!

[releaseeabode]

Yoo hoo, Heiwa....Ronan Point! On you go, we're waiting!!!!

I thought there was already a thread addressing Ronan Point?

[Heiwa]

We have shown you that 33% can crushdown 67%... isn't that amazing?

Yes, amazing ... and impossible. And that's what The Heiwa Challenge is all about. See post #1. Do not spam this thread with irrelevant videos of controlled demolitions of all kinds using explosives, etc.

The Heiwa Challenge is much simpler - just drop the top C of your structure and show that it can one-way crush bottom A.

If your structure has external, vertical elements, ensure that they are crushed down (deformed, ripped apart, pushed down, etc) and not blown out sideways in big assemblies, etc, etc.

Keep track of the connections of the elements and establish where you want the failures due to gravity forces to occur in your structure; in the connections or in the elements themselves, i.e. what is strongest; the connection or the element?

Be guided by the NIST standard; kinetic energy (due gravity acting on upper part C) is to be applied so that it exceeds the capability of the structure, i.e. its elements and connections of part A, to absorb it as strain.

Be warned by the Bazant theory; "When the upper floor crashes into the lower one, with a layer of rubble between them, the initial height h of the story is reduced ... . After that, the load can increase without bounds."

So be careful! It seems by dropping C on A the load can increase without bounds according Bazant! It sounds NWO to me. In my universe the load will be reduced pretty quickly and soon arrested.

[Oscar]

Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.

[releaseeabode]

Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.

Are you completely unable to contribute without insult or irrelevance.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Oscar]

Who rattled your cage? I only suggested an independent adjudicator as it's obvious that Heiwa can't do it.

[TokenMac]

Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.


What engineer could that the Heiwa Challenge seriously and also be impartial?

[Architect]

I thought there was already a thread addressing Ronan Point?

Exactly! It was created in response to some completely erroneous claims by Heiwa concerning said collapse, and now he's avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure there's a good reason; well, beyond simply not wanting to admit that he was wrong, of course.

[releaseeabode]

Exactly! It was created in response to some completely erroneous claims by Heiwa concerning said collapse, and now he's avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure there's a good reason; well, beyond simply not wanting to admit that he was wrong, of course.

And it is off topic in here.

You guys can't have your cake and eat it.

[stateofgrace]

Are you completely unable to contribute without insult or irrelevance.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Really ?

So on your planet comments like this are not insulting and are relevant right?


Anybody suggesting something else is complicity to mass murder.


I would be honoured to be added to your list.