The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

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

[240-185]

And you think we should bother to prove you're a fallacious engineer?

[A W Smith]

Odd that none of his previous modeling examples, lemons, sponges, pizza boxes, met any of those conditions.


Björkman claims that no planes hit the Twin Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2812102&postcount=369) or the Pentagon (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2841126&postcount=603) or crashed near Shanksville, which makes him a rarity even among the most delusional "truthers": a quadruple no-planer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2855198&postcount=686).
Björkman claims that all evidence of the aircraft impacts is fake and all witness accounts are invalid (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790443&postcount=184). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790551&postcount=188). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2790578&postcount=192). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2810500&postcount=345). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2862138&postcount=748). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2859665&postcount=731). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2860029&postcount=736). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3826994&postcount=182).
Björkman claims that if 30 stories of one of the Twin Towers was dropped on the lower 80 stories from a height of two miles, it would bounce off without damaging the lower portion (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3825166&postcount=166). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4496396&postcount=1926).
Björkman says a Tower wouldn't be destroyed if a 60-million-pound block of ice was dropped on it, (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4316711&postcount=40) then denies making that claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4451427&postcount=73).
Björkman claims that all photo and video evidence showing severe fires and structural failure in the WTC buildings is fake (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291419&postcount=227). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3291508&postcount=232). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3293085&postcount=2). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3294816&postcount=33). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296094&postcount=86). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296247&postcount=96).
Björkman claims that WTC 7 was demolished by a vacuum (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4280881&postcount=94).
Björkman believes that the authors of the NIST WTC reports don't exist (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4247678&postcount=22).
Björkman believes that steel structures are indestructible (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58), even by nuclear weapons (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4315786&postcount=16). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4436803&postcount=58). And again (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408851&postcount=21). However, Björkman also believes that 16,500-22,000 lbs of high explosives may have been used to demolish each Twin Tower...with no detectable detonations (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3450180&postcount=242).
Björkman is an engineer who believes that weight = mass. No, really. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4280640#post4280640)
Björkman believes his house would survive an asteroid impact (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3827588&postcount=3).
Björkman again attempts to revise the laws of physics (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3284995&postcount=73).
Björkman says a bathroom scale will register the same weight whether you stand on it or jump on it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127318).
Björkman says the Twin Tower fires were "minor office fires." (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3295295&postcount=50)
Björkman makes the egregiously false claim that the FDNY said it could handle the fires in the Towers (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3296220&postcount=95).
Björkman believes that columns become stronger when their supports are removed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4150032&postcount=184).
Björkman believes that the structures of the Twin Towers were comparable to cheese (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3829279&postcount=4), pizza boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4176763#post4176763), match boxes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4211688#post4211688), rubber balls (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4135933&postcount=153), sponges (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4408013&postcount=17), a bicycle running into a wall, a child jumping on a bed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3310807&postcount=234), a tower of sushi (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4495024&postcount=192), and a tower of lemons (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/HeiwaLemon.jpg).

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa: The chief structural engineer of WTC, Leslie Robertson, doesnt agree with you. What do you think of him? Is the thousands of engineers agree with the NIST report just completly wrong?

And how come you still cant find a single engineer agreeing with you?

[Mr.Herbert]

Z7S3O7XowJw

Notice after the subject starts to lean, it does not "topple over the side?"

What do i win?

[UNLoVedRebel]

QEhNLzN_q5k&feature=channel_page

[Bobert]

Heiwa,
Do you have any good Sushi restaurants you could recommend?
Thanks for your assistance!

[tsig]

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

Where's the million dollars? There was supposed to be a million dollars.

[Jackanory]

Heiwa - Just watch videos of the attacks on 911. Two rather large towers in America collapsed from the top down, no demolitions - just structural damage, weight and gravity.


I also bought 5 eggs. I placed 4 in an upright tube. I hard boiled the fifth and dropped it from 2 miles. Guess what:jaw-dropp

[Shadowdweller]

And you think we should bother to prove you're a fallacious engineer?
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!

Forget fallacious engineer. This guy doesn't even grasp high-school level physics.

[stateofgrace]

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!



Since your assumption is completely wrong and in no represents what happened to WTC 1 and 2. Why would anybody bother taking up this challenge?

DUHHHH.

[Quad4_72]

Heiwa this is just silly. Please stop with your nonsense.

[TheDaver]

Good to know we can still count on Heiwa for a good laugh once in a while. :D

[RedIbis]

I think this is an interesting challenge. I don't get too involved in the physics discussions because I don't have that background, but I get Heiwa's basic premise, and I've been wondering if a similar example can be produced.

If I could ask a layman's question: Doesn't the 1/10th piece crashing through the other 9/10ths presuppose that the upper block had to simultaneously and instantaneously be separated from the lower structure?

Has NIST or anyone else ever tried to explain how this global separation occurred?

[Sunstealer]

Heiwa - you've made a mistake. There isn't any damage to the structure. Which part of the structure is the damaged part in? If there is a damaged part then why is it classed as part of A or C and not seperate?

[Bobert]

Heiwa,
I just visited a local Sushi establishment and attempted your experiment.
Needless to say the owner was not all too happy and kicked me out!
I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD OF YOURSELF!!!!

[HeyLeroy]

What do I win? (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

[Homeland Insurgency]

What do I win? (http://wtc.nist.gov/)

That's not been proven. That's why you are here.

[dtugg]

That's not been proven. That's why you are here.

Sure it has. But there are plenty of idiots that ignore it because it destroys their fantasy.

[funk de fino]

I think this is an interesting challenge. I don't get too involved in the physics discussions because I don't have that background, but I get Heiwa's basic premise, and I've been wondering if a similar example can be produced.

If I could ask a layman's question: Doesn't the 1/10th piece crashing through the other 9/10ths presuppose that the upper block had to simultaneously and instantaneously be separated from the lower structure?

Has NIST or anyone else ever tried to explain how this global separation occurred?

Try reading it.

[AJM8125]

Try reading it.
:D

[Heiwa]

So far 20 replies and none close to manage the challenge. So it seems crushing a structure with a piece of it, is not possible. NIST is therefore wrong!

[funk de fino]

So far 20 replies and none close to manage the challenge. So it seems crushing a structure with a piece of it, is not possible. NIST is therefore wrong!

Everyone is fed up with your pathetic trolling, silly games and lies. You're a no planer, and as such are not worth the time.

[UNLoVedRebel]

So far 20 replies and none close to manage the challenge. So it seems crushing a structure with a piece of it, is not possible. NIST is therefore wrong!

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4561435#post4561435

[Heiwa]

Everyone is fed up with your pathetic trolling, silly games and lies. You're a no planer, and as such are not worth the time.

Silly excuses! Come on, you are challenged :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Silly excuses! Come on, you are challenged :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4561435#post4561435 :)

[tsig]

So far 20 replies and none close to manage the challenge. So it seems crushing a structure with a piece of it, is not possible. NIST is therefore wrong!

I wasn't aware that the JREF Forum carried such scientific weight. :rolleyes:

[240-185]

Silly excuses! Come on, you are challenged :)

I have a rule for myself: I don't debate with people who deny it is bright day at noon. What you think about 9/11 is as outrageous as Holocaust denying (1).

It's odd that if we refuse to do your nonsense, you consider that we failed. It reminds me a conspiracist's dogma you seem to agree with: "If A can't prove B is wrong, this proves implicitely that A is wrong". Which is an incorrect claim.

As Shadowdweller pointed, you haven't any clue about scale effect. As you don't understand the most basic things of Physics, why should we answer your challenge?




(1) Godwin!

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

The Heiwa Challenge
Where is it?

[bill smith]

I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of jref members, vested interests and concerned citizens yhat are no doubt reading this page accept Heiwa's challenge within, say 20 days that Heiwa can be said to have successfully debunked he government story and that another and independent 9/11 enquiry is urgently and immediately called for.

[RedIbis]

Try reading it.

I've been through quite a lot of it. Please point me to specifically where the complete separation is explained.

[twinstead]

I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of jref members, vested interests and concerned citizens yhat are no doubt reading this page accept Heiwa's challenge within, say 20 days that Heiwa can be said to have successfully debunked he government story and that another and independent 9/11 enquiry is urgently and immediately called for.

Why yes. Of course it does, bill. Of course it does. Frankly, the only thing the thousands of JREF members, vested interests and concerned citizens reading this page are thinking is that there's special place reserved in the Pantheon of Stupid for no planers.

[funk de fino]

I've been through quite a lot of it. Please point me to specifically where the complete separation is explained.

Not until you have read it all.

Its quite a simple concept really. Watch the videos, you see it happening.

[Heiwa]

Where is it?

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

[bill smith]

Why yes. Of course it does, bill. Of course it does. Frankly, the only thing the thousands of JREF members, vested interests and concerned citizens reading this page are thinking is that there's special place reserved in the Pantheon of Stupid for no planers.

Well they have 20 days to prove it. Can't say fairer than that.

[dtugg]

I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of jref members, vested interests and concerned citizens yhat are no doubt reading this page accept Heiwa's challenge within, say 20 days that Heiwa can be said to have successfuly debunked he government story and that another and independent 9/11 enquiry is urgently and immediately called for.

Or that nobody feels that they need to go out of their way to do a Heiwa challenge. He is a known liar and is responsible for some of the stupidest crap I have ever heard. Literally, ever. Even if the challenge was satisfied he would pretend like it didn't happen.

The Heiwa Challenge is completely stupid and meaningless anyway. One would need to make sure the structure is properly scaled in regards to strength for the results to mean anything. Heiwa, who is supposedly an engineer does not understand this. Building a model of a structure as large as the towers that are scaled properly to strength would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Nobody is going to attempt to do it to satisfy some loon.

[dtugg]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

Prove you have a million dollars. I think you are a liar and don't have the money at all.

[RedIbis]

Not until you have read it all.

Its quite a simple concept really. Watch the videos, you see it happening.

You don't have any idea where it's discussed, or if it's discussed at all, do you?

[tsig]

Well they have 20 days to prove it. Can't say fairer than that.

How about this timeline Bill. Prove that there is a million dollars within 24 hours or the mods will be notified that you and Heiwa are running a scam on the members and should be banned.

[bill smith]

Or that nobody feels that they need to go out of their way to do a Heiwa challenge. He is a known liar and is responsible for some of the stupidest crap I have ever heard. Literally, ever. Even if the challenge was satisfied he would pretend like it didn't happen.

The Heiwa Challenge is completely stupid and meaningless anyway. One would need to make sure the structure is properly scaled in regards to strength for the results to mean anything. Heiwa, who is supposedly an engineer does not understand this. Building a model of a structure as large as the towers that are scaled properly to strength would be extremely difficult if not impossible. Nobody is going to attempt to do it to satisfy some loon.

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis. He is therefore very well placed to make this Challenge. Furthermore he is offering an extremely attractive incentive for somebody to help the government out by proving him wrong. We are talking a not-so-small fortune here Dtugg. If nobody will accept the Challenge under conditions like these we abslutely know with 100% certainty that nobody can do it.Therefore the official account is not true and a new and independent 9/11 enquiry is an urgent neccessity. An immediate neccessity.

[GlennB]

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 -

My bolding.

No. No such assumption has been made about "a" structure. This "challenge" is based on false premises. It is, in a word, stoopid.

[240-185]

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis.
I didn't know him before having heard of his pizza box emperiment. First lie.

He is therefore very well placed to make this Challenge.
He doesn't know the scale effect. Second lie.

Furthermore he is offering an extremely attractive incentive for somebody to help the government out by proving him wrong.
Some people who are very qualified proved him he was wrong. He ignored their objections. Third lie.

If nobody will accept the Challenge under conditions like these we abslutely know with 100% certainty that nobody can do it.
Binary reasoning. Do you also imply that "if A can't prove B is wrong, therefore it shows implicitly that A is wrong"?

Therefore the official account is not true and a new and independent 9/11 enquiry is an urgent neccessity. An immediate neccessity.
Binary reasoning, and who to lead the new investigation?
BTW, I have enough elements to evaluate you with my crackpot index. I expect an high score. UPDATE: you got a score of 195. Congratration, no-planer!


P3eXA5uf9Z8

Where's my million?

[dtugg]

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis. He is therefore very well placed to make this Challenge. Furthermore he is offering an extremely attractive incentive for somebody to help the government out by proving him wrong. We are talking a not-so-small fortune here Dtugg. If nobody will accept the Challenge under conditions like these we abslutely know with 100% certainty that nobody can do it.Therefore the official account is not true and a new and independent 9/11 enquiry is an urgent neccessity. An immediate neccessity.

Heiwa does not have an international reputation in the field of structural analysis nor does he have a million dollars. He is a liar.

[twinstead]

bill. A little hint. This forum isn't the real world. This isn't the place you would try to get a New Investigationtm started.

[RedIbis]

P3eXA5uf9Z8

Where's my million?

You really think that's an example of what he was asking for?

[funk de fino]

You don't have any idea where it's discussed, or if it's discussed at all, do you?

You haven't read it have you? Do so, and come back and I will discuss it. asking others to do your own work for you is very rude.

I know what NIST say about the collapse initiation. I know what NIST say about the reason the collapse could not halt and propogated into a full collapse.

You could try and watch the videos, you see it happening. It a simple concept, even for you.

[Earthborn]

What do I win? (http://wtc.nist.gov/)Perhaps you have missed Heiwa's condition number 2. Sky scrapers never have a uniform density, they're built much stronger at the bottom than at the top, otherwise they would collapse. By making uniform density a condition for his challenge, he demands that the model is quite unlike the World Trade Center buildings. He has also made it much easier to win.

I've seen in a documentary that structural engineers sometimes use dry spaghetti to model some structural designs. I think someone who has some dry spaghetti and some glue can easily win this challenge.

[Heiwa]

Perhaps you have missed Heiwa's condition number 2. Sky scrapers never have a uniform density, they're built much stronger at the bottom than at the top, otherwise they would collapse. By making uniform density a condition for his challenge, he demands that the model is quite unlike the World Trade Center buildings. He has also made it much easier to win.

I've seen in a documentary that structural engineers sometimes use dry spaghetti to model some structural designs. I think someone who has some dry spaghetti and some glue can easily win this challenge.

Thus condition 3 is added to help you. Any structure you can develop will be considered. I am curious about the spaghetti and glue one! Spaghetti al denti + pesto of different types is one of my favourites ... for lunch or dinner. + some glasses of chianto classico.

[Heiwa]

You really think that's an example of what he was asking for?

Thanks !The video clearly confirms the NIST's and Bazant's theorems. Part C must really be solid to crush part A. But in reality top WTC 1 was less solid than the part below. I wonder why NIST and Bazant do not understand that?

[bill smith]

Thus condition 3 is added to help you. Any structure you can develop will be considered. I am curious about the spaghetti and glue one! Spaghetti al denti + pesto of different types is one of my favourites ... for lunch or dinner. + some glasses of chianto classico.
such a model could look something like this maybe;-

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60& of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%. Then go and get a takeaway because you will not tbe having spaghetti for dinner. lol

[doobiedoright]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!



Please prove you have the funds available before anything can get started!

[Heiwa]

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis. He is therefore very well placed to make this Challenge. Furthermore he is offering an extremely attractive incentive for somebody to help the government out by proving him wrong. We are talking a not-so-small fortune here Dtugg. If nobody will accept the Challenge under conditions like these we abslutely know with 100% certainty that nobody can do it.Therefore the official account is not true and a new and independent 9/11 enquiry is an urgent neccessity. An immediate neccessity.

Thanks! When I presented my findings about ship/tanker collisions to the United Nations IMO in 1990-1994, they were were very happy. They didn't know that both ships were damaged! They thought the stricken ship/tanker was always sliced from bilge to main deck, oil polluting, &c., similar to WTC 1. Later, when my ideas and design were adopted 1997, the US delegation objected but in vain http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ce_imo.htm . The US opposition was not directed from DC but SF (!) where Condolizza Rice then was active in various oily positions. I always wonder why? OK, in 1994 something else happened http://heiwaco.tripod.com/disasterinvestigation.htm

[applecorped]

The Heiwa Challenge




Is this like The Biggest Loser?

[twinstead]

such a model could look something like this maybe;-

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60& of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%. Then go and get a takeaway because you will not tbe having spaghetti for dinner. lol

This is a joke, right?

[1337m4n]

Heiwa has an international reputation

wat?

[1337m4n]

Please prove you have the funds available before anything can get started!

I agree. Heiwa, please provide a photograph of yourself holding $1 million.

[applecorped]

He would collapse under the weight. :rolleyes:

[tsig]

He would collapse under the weight. :rolleyes:

"According to the U.S. Treasury, "In $100 bills, the weight of $1
million is about 22 pounds." [that's 10 kg.]" (google answers)

[JohnG]

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60& of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%. Then go and get a takeaway because you will not tbe having spaghetti for dinner. lol


Maybe people here would take you and Heiwa a little more seriously if all your experiments didn't sound like a Blue Peter demonstration?

[applecorped]

"According to the U.S. Treasury, "In $100 bills, the weight of $1
million is about 22 pounds." [that's 10 kg.]" (google answers)

How about pennies?

[tsig]

How about pennies?

"$1 MILLION, NOW THAT'S A TON OF MONEY!
So how much does one million dollars weigh? Picture a pyramid of
100 Asian elephants. Their combined weight would be equal to the weight of
$1 million worth of pennies (250 metric tons). One million dollars worth of
nickels would equal to a herd of 40 elephants (or 100 metric tons) and
strangely enough, the weight of $1 million dollars in either dimes or quarters
is equivalent to nine elephants (22.68 metric tons).
There is no small change when talking about one million dollars. One
million dollars is equivalent to a stack of dimes one and a half times taller
than Mount Everest (8.4 miles to be exact), a column of pennies 96.3 miles
high, a 24.2 mile nickel tower or quarters at a slightly more manageable
4.3 miles." (Blockbuster $1 million challenge)

[applecorped]

Nicely done.

Thanks! :)

[GlennB]

My bolding.

No. No such assumption has been made about "a" structure. This "challenge" is based on false premises. It is, in a word, stoopid.

Calling Heiwa's bluff. Do you have a million to spare, Anders? If so - why do you live in a "dormitory suburb" of Monaco rather than Monaco itself?

Why do I find it strange that the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" should be located in a small apartment block in a sidestreet of Beausoleil?

Why do I find it strange that when Googling "European Agency for Safety at Sea" the results are almost entirely self-referential Heiwaco guff?

How many employees does the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" actually have, Heiwa? Are you funded by the EU? Work directly for them? What actual work do you do? Can you point us to any verifiable external links detailing any of your work? If I contact the EU will they know of your <cough> organisation?

Well, look here - Safety at sea: The European Maritime Safety Agency settles in Lisbon

here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1192&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

having previously been based in Brussels.

[Lennart Hyland]

Calling Heiwa's bluff. Do you have a million to spare, Anders? If so - why do you live in a "dormitory suburb" of Monaco rather than Monaco itself?

Why do I find it strange that the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" should be located in a small apartment block in a sidestreet of Beausoleil?

Why do I find it strange that when Googling "European Agency for Safety at Sea" the results are almost entirely self-referential Heiwaco guff?

How many employees does the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" actually have, Heiwa? Are you funded by the EU? Work directly for them? What actual work do you do? Can you point us to any verifiable external links detailing any of your work? If I contact the EU will they know of your <cough> organisation?

Well, look here - Safety at sea: The European Maritime Safety Agency settles in Lisbon

here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1192&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

having previously been based in Brussels.

This is getting very interesting. Keep digging man!

[twinstead]

The plot coagulates

[tsig]

Calling Heiwa's bluff. Do you have a million to spare, Anders? If so - why do you live in a "dormitory suburb" of Monaco rather than Monaco itself?

Why do I find it strange that the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" should be located in a small apartment block in a sidestreet of Beausoleil?

Why do I find it strange that when Googling "European Agency for Safety at Sea" the results are almost entirely self-referential Heiwaco guff?

How many employees does the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" actually have, Heiwa? Are you funded by the EU? Work directly for them? What actual work do you do? Can you point us to any verifiable external links detailing any of your work? If I contact the EU will they know of your <cough> organisation?

Well, look here - Safety at sea: The European Maritime Safety Agency settles in Lisbon

here (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/06/1192&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

having previously been based in Brussels.

"Heiwa Co

European Agency for Safety at Sea" (From heiwaco homepage)

Heiwa and the Agency seem to be one and the same.

How deep does the deception go?

[bill smith]

This is getting very interesting. Keep digging man!

GLENN B PRIVATE DETECTIVE
Business was slow...slower than a fat tortoise on crutches. The phone hadn't rung for so long I thought it must be out of order. The competition was good.,very good. Who WAS this 'google' guy anyway?

[GlennB]

This is getting very interesting. Keep digging man!

Well, I dropped an email to the EU asking about this so-called "agency". Will be back with an answer after I've taken the case to the European Court .... gimme a couple of years to see it through.

Seriously - months ago I put Heiwa's town and street into Google and quickly came up with an actual photo of his apartment block on the website of an accommodation agency, the block where he supposedly runs his high-fallutin' organisation. It's just a normal residential setup of 2+3 bed apartments.

[240-185]

Calling Heiwa's bluff. Do you have a million to spare, Anders? If so - why do you live in a "dormitory suburb" of Monaco rather than Monaco itself?

It's not even Monaco, it's a French city stuck to Monaco, so he must pay a lot of fiscal taxes...

[Tweeter]

I didnt think anyone would take the challenge.
Run debunker, run.http://www.unn13.com/images/forrest.jpg

[dtugg]

I didnt think anyone would take the challenge.
Run debunker, run.http://www.unn13.com/images/forrest.jpg

Wow, you really got us there, champ. Now go run back under your bridge.

[RedIbis]

It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.

[dtugg]

It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.

It appears that nobody wants to waste their time attempting to prove something to someone that uses pizza boxes and sponges as his models for the WTC.

[bill smith]

I didnt think anyone would take the challenge.
Run debunker, run.http://www.unn13.com/images/forrest.jpg
When Hillary was considering running in New York, her supporters had bumper stickers saying 'Run Hillary,run'. The Republicans used to put them on their front bumpers.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I didnt think anyone would take the challenge.
Run debunker, run.
It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4561435#post4561435

[Sunstealer]

I did find a link a day or so ago about the sinking of the Estonia and Heiwa, but forgot to bookmark it. This one has exactly the same text.

While both the JAIC and GGOE make plausible arguments for a sequence of events that protect their interests, another technically sound document has been produced by an outside party and is worthy of mention. Anders Bjorkman is a Swedish naval architect based in France. His company is named Heiwa and he is part owner of several vessels similar to M/S ESTONIA that operate in the Middle East. His initial interest in the disaster was based on concern for the safety and stability of his own vessels. He conducted stabilization tests that convinced him the vessel could not have sunk that quickly if the bow visor had been torn off and water flooded the car deck. He contacted the International Chamber of Shipping and was rebuffed. He met Borje Stenstrom at an IMO meeting and shared his findings. Stenstrom stated that Bjorkman “didn’t know or understand what was going on.”14 So Bjorkman wrote a book in English titled Lies and Truth About the M/V Estonia Accident, which came out in January 1998 and received some good reviews. Bjorkman then wrote an expanded Swedish version of the book titled Katastrofutredning.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:kSRAfe-akqYJ:depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/MS_Estonia_sundholm.doc+heiwa+co+european+agency+f or+safety+at+sea+-9/11+-wtc&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

[1337m4n]

It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.

Sand (http://cache.virtualtourist.com/87553-A_sand_tower-Zeebrugge.jpg) will do it.


Pay up, Heiwa. I could really use the money for my "Warhammer 40,000" collection.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I did find a link a day or so ago about the sinking of the Estonia and Heiwa, but forgot to bookmark it. This one has exactly the same text.
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:kSRAfe-akqYJ:depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/MS_Estonia_sundholm.doc+heiwa+co+european+agency+f or+safety+at+sea+-9/11+-wtc&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!
Anybody heard if Heiwa has produced a challenge yet?
Can't find it anywhere!!!

[GlennB]

I did find a link a day or so ago about the sinking of the Estonia and Heiwa, but forgot to bookmark it. This one has exactly the same text.

This bit made me laugh :

(Bjorkman) contacted the International Chamber of Shipping and was rebuffed. He met Borje Stenstrom at an IMO meeting and shared his findings. Stenstrom stated that Bjorkman “didn’t know or understand what was going on.”

[tfk]

How about pennies?
Here's an idea. 1/2 of one of those 5 stacks is $1 mil.

http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/nine.asp

or here for 100,000,000 pennies:
http://www.kokogiak.com/megapenny/eight.asp

[stateofgrace]

It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.

Because this did not happen on Sept 11th to either of the WTC's. It is wilfully ignore to even suggest it did or that anybody thinks it did.

PS Red, Google WTC core, they survived the collapse, they did not get crushed, therefore 1/10th of the building DID NOT crush the other 9/10ths.

[Heiwa]

Sand (http://cache.virtualtourist.com/87553-A_sand_tower-Zeebrugge.jpg) will do it.


Pay up, Heiwa. I could really use the money for my "Warhammer 40,000" collection.

Pls, see Condition #4 in post #1. You can do better!?

[Heiwa]

This bit made me laugh :

(Bjorkman) contacted the International Chamber of Shipping and was rebuffed. He met Borje Stenstrom at an IMO meeting and shared his findings. Stenstrom stated that Bjorkman “didn’t know or understand what was going on.”

OT, of course. Yes, poor Börje Stenström. Never proved me wrong. And he died suddenly during the accident investigation, poor man. Too much inside info?

Re ICS they never rebuffed me! Why should they? I was a member of the ICS delegation to IMO! They just said ... wait and see. Case is still going on! Visit my web site for more info. Nothing to laugh about.

[chillzero]

Folks, you are straying from the topic. Please keep posts on topic, and civil - stop the bickering.

As to the money, the mod team's remit is the forum, not investigating claims outside the forum. It is up to Heiwa to prove he has the million he is offering, or up to you to challenge / disprove that he has it. We can't help you (not as moderators, although I concede mods are often asked to act as impartial parties to verify personal information that is not to be posted on the web).

Please keep the thread on topic, and if you think the challenge is nonsense, let the thread die rather than go off topic or bicker over it. Thanks.

[ihaunter]

Pls, see Condition #4 in post #1. You can do better!?

Unfortunately, #4 is rather vague and open to interpretation. How much of a lateral impact must it survive? Considering your previously stated belief that scale doesn't matter, I suspect this would be the undoing of most proposed models.
As well, I can think of a number of connecting methods that could be described as working due to friction. Nails, for just one example. These could be valid for the purpose of modeling, but could be argued against for the challenge.
I have an idea for a model that would likely demonstrate what you are trying to disprove, but would likely be disqualified because of the above "outs" that you have.

If I simply wanted to win your supposed million dollars, I would make a model that used primed mousetraps as structural elements. Use enough other elements so that even if you count the parts of the mousetrap as separate elements, we could still reach 70%, and it could satisfy every single one of your conditions. Sure, you could claim that this supports the need for CD, (it doesn't actually) but it would prove that you lied about giving $1 million to anyone who answers your challenge.

Your challenge was a hastily conceived and poorly designed.

[twinstead]

Come on everybody there's a brand new dance now..
Come on baby, do the Heiwa Challenge.

I know that you will like it if you give it a chance now...
Come on baby, do the Heiwa Challenge.

[Heiwa]

Unfortunately, #4 is rather vague and open to interpretation. How much of a lateral impact must it survive? Considering your previously stated belief that scale doesn't matter, I suspect this would be the undoing of most proposed models.
As well, I can think of a number of connecting methods that could be described as working due to friction. Nails, for just one example. These could be valid for the purpose of modeling, but could be argued against for the challenge.
I have an idea for a model that would likely demonstrate what you are trying to disprove, but would likely be disqualified because of the above "outs" that you have.

If I simply wanted to win your supposed million dollars, I would make a model that used primed mousetraps as structural elements. Use enough other elements so that even if you count the parts of the mousetrap as separate elements, we could still reach 70%, and it could satisfy every single one of your conditions. Sure, you could claim that this supports the need for CD, (it doesn't actually) but it would prove that you lied about giving $1 million to anyone who answers your challenge.

Your challenge was a hastily conceived and poorly designed.

?? Lateral impact? It is up to you! If A can carry C, I assume C will not blow away, if you hit from the side a little. OK - C will not fall off A, if hit from the side. In any scale! Anyway - later you must disconnect C from A and drop C on A.

Connections? No friction is quite clear. The connection must break! Failure of structure! Not just slide off

Good luck with your structure. Mouse traps? As elements. OK - just connect them without friction.

And then drop your mousetrap structure part C on A. If 70% of the connections between mousetraps in A are gone you have your prize.

Heiwa

PS - Do you really suggest that structures consist of mouse trap elements????

[Heiwa]

Come on everybody there's a brand new dance now..
Come on baby, do the Heiwa Challenge.

I know that you will like it if you give it a chance now...
Come on baby, do the Heiwa Challenge.

Second verse:

Someone takes drugs to remember,
Someone takes drugs to forget,
Welcome to the White House, what a nice place …
Plenty of space!
And when you get in, you’ll never get out.

[Lennart Hyland]

Because this did not happen on Sept 11th to either of the WTC's. It is wilfully ignore to even suggest it did or that anybody thinks it did.

PS Red, Google WTC core, they survived the collapse, they did not get crushed, therefore 1/10th of the building DID NOT crush the other 9/10ths.

Ahem Heiwa?

[phunk]

Condition #4 rules out the actual towers, they had many connections that relied solely on friction (anything bolted and not welded).

[ihaunter]

PS - Do you really suggest that structures consist of mouse trap elements????

I don't see any requirement in the challenge for this structure to match anything previously built. Missed the point I was trying to make as well. One could make a structure that, unlike real buildings, is designed to fail. Such a model would do nothing to prove or disprove your claims, unless you claim that a structure cannot be designed to fail, but could satisfy every condition of your challenge. That is why I said that your challenge was poorly designed.

[ihaunter]

Condition #4 rules out the actual towers, they had many connections that relied solely on friction (anything bolted and not welded).

I was thinking along the same lines when I asked him about friction above. He avoided giving a direct answer to my question. He really didn't think this whole challenge thing through.

[GlennB]

PS Red, Google WTC core, they survived the collapse, they did not get crushed, therefore 1/10th of the building DID NOT crush the other 9/10ths.

Yeah. No engineer me, but it seems that calculating the total SE of all the columns below the collapse zone is totally bogus as a way of measuring its resistance to catastrophic damage. Once the horizontal support had gone, then the bolts and welds would be subject to relatively minor lateral forces perfectly capable of breaking them. As opposed to stressing the columns from above - in the vertical plane, that is - beyond their elastic limit.

Plus, of course, as the 10% began to damage the 90% then the 10% became 11%+12% while the 90% became 89%+88% - and so on. Requiring 10% to do all the damage is similarly bogus. Gravity in a building collapse has a cumulative and progressive effect that is not mimicked in a ship collision.

Again - I'm no engineer. Just fond of nailing, bolting and cementing things together :)

[Jackanory]

Yeah. No engineer me, but it seems that calculating the total SE of all the columns below the collapse zone is totally bogus as a way of measuring its resistance to catastrophic damage. Once the horizontal support had gone, then the bolts and welds would be subject to relatively minor lateral forces perfectly capable of breaking them. As opposed to stressing the columns from above - in the vertical plane, that is - beyond their elastic limit.

Plus, of course, as the 10% began to damage the 90% then the 10% became 11%+12% while the 90% became 89%+88% - and so on. Requiring 10% to do all the damage is similarly bogus. Gravity in a building collapse has a cumulative and progressive effect that is not mimicked in a ship collision.

Again - I'm no engineer. Just fond of nailing, bolting and cementing things together :)

Why does Hiewa continue to argue the "10% cant demolish 90%" when we all know it was floor by floor by floor - which were only 4" thick! A bit like his skull!

[bill smith]

Yeah. No engineer me, but it seems that calculating the total SE of all the columns below the collapse zone is totally bogus as a way of measuring its resistance to catastrophic damage. Once the horizontal support had gone, then the bolts and welds would be subject to relatively minor lateral forces perfectly capable of breaking them. As opposed to stressing the columns from above - in the vertical plane, that is - beyond their elastic limit.

Plus, of course, as the 10% began to damage the 90% then the 10% became 11%+12% while the 90% became 89%+88% - and so on. Requiring 10% to do all the damage is similarly bogus. Gravity in a building collapse has a cumulative and progressive effect that is not mimicked in a ship collision.

Again - I'm no engineer. Just fond of nailing, bolting and cementing things together :)

Glenn have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.

[stateofgrace]

Glenn have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60& of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.

But the upper 1/10th of WTC 1 did not crush the lower 9/10ths did it Bill?

So when somebody says this................


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!


They are talking nonsense.

[beachnut]

Glenn have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
John Lear knows he has aliens on the DSOTM. You forgot to defend your last post on Lear and here you are with zero engineering skills and no real science kibitzing on some real science question to support Heiwa’s delusions on 911.

So you agree with Heiwa and now you essentially said dropping 10 percent of the WTC on the rest of the WTC from 50 feet high, and you are trying to say the WTC would not collapse? Did you do the energy involved? Did you do the momentum? I can, and I find your model is crap.

[bill smith]

If RM shows up somebody could ask him what visual differences we would see if scaling was needed to make this this model truly representative. I have to hit the sack. Night-night.

[stateofgrace]

If RM shows up somebody could ask him what visual differences we would see if scaling was needed to make this this model truly representative. I have to hit the sack. Night-night.

Maybe you can explain why the core were seen after the collapse? How could that be if it is assumed the upper 1/10th crushed the lower 9/10ths ?

Why was the core not crushed?

A truly representative model is one that is not based on the assumption that everybody thinks that 1/10th of WTC 1 crushed the other 9/10ths when there is clear photographic evidence that this did not happen.

A truly representative model is one that does not start out with a false assumption.

[1337m4n]

Has anyone noticed that bill smith's mannerisms are nearly identical to Heiwa's?

[nicepants]

A truly representative model is one that does not start out with a false assumption.

A truly representative model wouldn't do what truthers want it to do, hence the need for a false assumption to lead to a false conclusion. (Actually, the false assumption was created AFTER the creation of the false conclusion, but you get the idea)

[Horatius]

Glenn have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it




You do realize that a drop of 6'' or 9'' will not accelerate the upper mass to the same velocity as a drop of 6' or 9', right? And you do realize that the kinetic energy of the moving mass increases as the square of the velocity, right?

Oh, right, no, you don't realize any of that.


Now, go do a bit of reading, and begin to realize these things, and then hopefully you'll understand yet another reason why a scale model is unlikely to produce any useful information.

[beachnut]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!
911 the WTC towers. Pleased send it now.

[bill smith]

A truly representative model is one that does not start out with a false assumption.

Suppoose you were to just make this model with no preconceived notions. What would you expect to see happen when the upper 10% is dropped 9'' onto the lower 90%. Please describe the process you are seeing in your mind.

[bill smith]

Has anyone noticed that bill smith's mannerisms are nearly identical to Heiwa's?

Now you are flattering me outrageously.

[stateofgrace]

Suppoose you were to just make this model with no preconceived notions. What would you expect to see happen when the upper 10% is dropped 9'' onto the lower 90%. Please describe the process you are seeing in your mind.

No preconceived notion? Like this preconceived notion?


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!



Why would anybody bother to model anything on a false preconceived notion like that? The upper 1/9th DID NOT crush the lower 9/10ths, yet your hero is asking everybody to build models that do precisely that.

Why should I waste my time with such nonsense?

[bill smith]

No preconceived notion? Like this preconceived notion?



Why would anybody bother to model anything on a false preconceived notion like that? The upper 1/9th DID NOT crush the lower 9/10ths, yet your hero is asking everybody to build models that do precisely that.

Why should I waste my time with such nonsense?


Perhaps somebody else would like to answer the question I asked of you seeing that you are evidently reluctant to comment directly yourself.

[stateofgrace]

Perhaps somebody else would like to answer the question I asked of you seeing that you ar evidently reluctant to comment yourself.

Do you not understand Bill?

You hero has maintained it is not possible for 1/10th of the building to crush the lower 9/10th , the events of Sept 11th prove he is correct, the core did not get crushed. I am agreeing with him.

1/10th of the building did not crush the other 9/10th, so why have you get a problem with this?

[bill smith]

Do you not understand Bill?

You hero has maintained it is not possible for 1/10th of the building to crush the lower 9/10th , the events of Sept 11th prove he is correct, the core did not get crushed. I am agreeing with him.

1/10th of the building did not crush the other 9/10th, so why have you get a problem with this?

We are debunking NIST and Bazant here. If you insist that the core incident invalidates Heiwa's Challenge you are also invalidating NIST and Bazant upon which Heiwa's Challenge is premised. Does that not mean that another and independent analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers is an urgent and immediate neccessity ?

[stateofgrace]

We are debunking NIST and Bazant here. If you insist that the core incident invalidates Heiwa's Challenge you are also invalidating NIST and Bazant upon which Heiwa's Challenge is premised. Does that not mean that another and independent analysis of the collapse of the Twin Towers is an urgent and immediate neccessity ?

This as nothing to do with NIST or Bazant this as to do with a specific model that was requested in this thread. If you wish to discuss NIST, Bazant or another reinvestigation start another thread.

So,why have you suddenly got a problem with 1/10th of the building not crushing the lower 9/10ths?

[Redtail]

I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of jref members, vested interests and concerned citizens yhat are no doubt reading this page accept Heiwa's challenge within, say 20 days that Heiwa can be said to have successfully debunked he government story and that another and independent 9/11 enquiry is urgently and immediately called for.


Ok. If that's the case I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of truthers has presented the "debunked government story" to the people and cause a huge outcry (400-500,000 Americans) to demand an independent inquiry within 2 months then the CTs have been successfuly debunked.

[bill smith]

Ok. If that's the case I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of truthers has presented the "debunked government story" to the people and cause a huge outcry (400-500,000 Americans) to demand an independent inquiry within 2 months then the CTs have been successfuly debunked.

If the mainstream media will open up the channels of communiction for the Truth Movement to directly address the American Nation for a period of say, one straight month.I would be strongly tempted to take that Challenge. We would require say 100 hours of primetime broadcast to make our presentations. This would be a small price to pay to resolve the 9/11 question forever one way or the other.

[beachnut]

The Heiwa Challenge


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

Conditions:

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

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa
Are you saying the WTC remains qualify as being crushed?

If the remains, the results of the gravity collapse of the WTC qualify, then you can pay me now because the WTC collapsed due to gravity after it was on fire. There were no explosives, no thermite, no NWO super beam weapon, just gravity.

Tell me why the WTC towers are not proof? In details what made the towers fail if it was not impact and fire? You can’t do it and your failed web site is proof your of your delusions and lack of engineering knowledge.

Otherwise you have no point and the posts are not on topic for 911 CTs.

[Redtail]

If the mainstream media will open up the channels of communiction for the Truth Movement to directly address the American Nation for a period of say, one straight month.I would be strongly tempted to take that Challenge. We would require say 100 hours of primetime broadcast to make our presentations. This would be a small price to pay to resolve the 9/11 question forever one way or the other.

Or you could get say 300-400 a day to carry out public protests/marches for a week at say Ground Zero or The Mall in DC. That would get the MSM's attention. The worked missed by the truthers would be a small price to pay to resolve the 9/11 question... Don't you think?

[beachnut]

If the mainstream media will open up the channels of communiction for the Truth Movement to directly address the American Nation for a period of say, one straight month.I would be strongly tempted to take that Challenge. We would require say 100 hours of primetime broadcast to make our presentations. This would be a small price to pay to resolve the 9/11 question forever one way or the other.
The nut cases ideas cannot be stopped with reality. Just as you move from one fantasy to another proving 911Truth cult members continue to spring up until they gain knowledge and finally become rational again. When will you prove the latter; it may not happen for all.

Heiwa has no money to offer up, he has not made this offer in reality, it is a fake offer and he is the judge, he also believes in no planes like you do. What next?

Why would the media want to make fun of 911Truth by letting them expose their ignorance?

[Heiwa]

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

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

Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

[beachnut]

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

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

Why is that?

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

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

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

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

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

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!
911 proves you wrong. You will not give me the money; your failure is clear.

ARE you saying the WTC towers falling do not prove you wrong?

You are saying the WTC ruble pile does not count as a gravity collapse? Hello? Are you a fraud?

[Redtail]

snip...
The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

Can you not prove yourself right?

[Heiwa]

Can you not prove yourself right?

Of course I am right. It is up to you to prove anything else! In a friendly and lively way, of course. :)

[applecorped]

Then up or shut up already. :rolleyes:

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Of course I am right. It is up to you to prove anything else! In a friendly and lively way, of course. :)




Alright COWARD!
PRODUCE PROOF OF SUCH MONEY AS STATED HERE! (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4520651&postcount=113)
and you will get mi apologies and we go from there....

[doobiedoright]

It is best to remember the old story....a fool and his money (if it was real) are soon parted!

[RedIbis]

Because this did not happen on Sept 11th to either of the WTC's. It is wilfully ignore to even suggest it did or that anybody thinks it did.

PS Red, Google WTC core, they survived the collapse, they did not get crushed, therefore 1/10th of the building DID NOT crush the other 9/10ths.

The core of the N. Tower did not survive anything. A small part of it, the spire, stood a few seconds after the collapse, then it collapsed.

[GlennB]

The core of the N. Tower did not survive anything. A small part of it, the spire, stood a few seconds after the collapse, then it collapsed.

A good deal of both cores survived until the lack of lateral support - plus general damage - caused them to collapse somewhat after the global collapse of the walls and floors. Can get you timings if you like, or you could get your finger out and find them yourself.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc2corestanding.jpg

[stateofgrace]

The core of the N. Tower did not survive anything. A small part of it, the spire, stood a few seconds after the collapse, then it collapsed.

Fair enough Red; since you are such a stickler for correct wording please allow me to use the correct wording.

Parts of both cores survived the collapse,uncrushed for a few seconds and in the case of WTC 1 the 1/10th of the building that fell did not crush the other 9/10ths. Do you,therefore,agree that when you said this


It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths


It is equally applicable to the collapse of the towers?

Maybe you should apply your stringent criteria for correct wording to this challenge.

[RedIbis]

A good deal of both cores survived until the lack of lateral support - plus general damage - caused them to collapse somewhat after the global collapse of the walls and floors. Can get you timings if you like, or you could get your finger out and find them yourself.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc1peelingcore.jpg

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc2corestanding.jpg

I already have, which is why I used the words, " a few seconds after".

[DavidJames]

Maybe you should apply your stringent criteria for correct wording to this challenge.You're asking for intellectual honesty from a CTist, good luck with that. :)

[GlennB]

I already have, which is why I used the words, " a few seconds after".

In my view "a few" - discussing this subject - should mean 2,3,4 or thereabouts. What was the actual timing of the spire collapse relative to the global collapse wave reaching the ground.?

In any event, both remaining core structures (see photos above) were clearly not "crushed down" by a falling section C. They fell apart through lack of lateral support and lateral debris impact.

What Heiwa fails to understand is that Bazant (or any other engineer/analyst) had to adopt some kind of model, and adopted one that was most favourable to collapse arrest. Total "crush down". Reality was more complex. In a horrible way, more elegant. But slower.

[Heiwa]

What Heiwa fails to understand is that Bazant (or any other engineer/analyst) had to adopt some kind of model, and adopted one that was most favourable to collapse arrest. Total "crush down". Reality was more complex. In a horrible way, more elegant. But slower.

But the Heiwa Challenge is about to produce a real, 3-D model, where part C crushes part A, &c. No 1-D solid mechanics 'theories' with point masses, point rubbles and broken spaghetti columns, pls.

[Redtail]

Of course I am right. It is up to you to prove anything else! In a friendly and lively way, of course. :)

No, it's not. It is up to you to prove that you are right since you are making the claim that NIST, Bazant, et al... are wrong.

[bill smith]

In my view "a few" - discussing this subject - should mean 2,3,4 or thereabouts. What was the actual timing of the spire collapse relative to the global collapse wave reaching the ground.?

In any event, both remaining core structures (see photos above) were clearly not "crushed down" by a falling section C. They fell apart through lack of lateral support and lateral debris impact.

What Heiwa fails to understand is that Bazant (or any other engineer/analyst) had to adopt some kind of model, and adopted one that was most favourable to collapse arrest. Total "crush down". Reality was more complex. In a horrible way, more elegant. But slower.

Glenn are you saying that Bazant and NIST were wrong in the light of this new core infprmation ? If they were a new enuiry into the collapses is obviously needed. Do you agree ?

[GlennB]

Glenn are you saying that Bazant and NIST were wrong in the light of this new core infprmation ? If they were a new enuiry into the collapses is obviously needed. Do you agree ?

Dear lord .. no I'm not saying they are wrong. Read my post. I'm saying they took a conservative view of the collapse mechanism, but that reality was even more damaging than that.

And the "core information" is far from new. Or are you just having one of your little jokes?

[GlennB]

No, it's not. It is up to you to prove that you are right since you are making the claim that NIST, Bazant, et al... are wrong.

Correct. The scientific method at least requires that his/their theory is superior (but don't hold your breath, Redtail, as this will require some maths that so far have not been forthcoming).

[Heiwa]

No, it's not. It is up to you to prove that you are right since you are making the claim that NIST, Bazant, et al... are wrong.

?????? This is a friendly and lively discussion. Evidently I put forward my ideas. If anybody does not like them, focus on the ideas! The music! :)

[bill smith]

Dear lord .. no I'm not saying they are wrong. Read my post. I'm saying they took a conservative view of the collapse mechanism, but that reality was even more damaging than that.

And the "core information" is far from new. Or are you just having one of your little jokes?

Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?

[GlennB]

Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?

1. NIST didn't analyse the collapse dynamic. They analysed up to collapse initiation.

2. Bazant (and others) didn't need to and didn't set out to. As it happens it works in favour of their explanation, in that the energy requirement for felling those last-standing sections is much less than the model they used. Whereas it works totally against any CD theory which requires top-down demolition. Explosions in the basements, and all that jibberish.

[Heiwa]

1. NIST didn't analyse the collapse dynamic. They analysed up to collapse initiation.

2. Bazant (and others) didn't need to and didn't set out to. As it happens it works in favour of their explanation, in that the energy requirement for felling those last-standing sections is much less than the model they used. Whereas it works totally against any CD theory which requires top-down demolition. Explosions in the basements, and all that jibberish.

Whatever - http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/0SC9GtqMkOAX6V1l

You wonder what other nut cases than NIST and Bazant are around. :)

[UNLoVedRebel]

Whatever - http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/0SC9GtqMkOAX6V1l

You wonder what other nut cases than NIST and Bazant are around. :)

Tell Gage I said I think he looks cute in that dress. :wackygrin:

[bill smith]

Whatever - http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/0SC9GtqMkOAX6V1l

You wonder what other nut cases than NIST and Bazant are around. :)

Great...has Sir Richard seen it ?

[stateofgrace]

Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?

Do you ? Or your hero ?

How do they sit with this statement ?


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 -



Is your hero's assumption wrong ?

[Myriad]

Sizzler and I discussed a similar "challenge" in some detail in a previous thread. (I'll try to find a link.)

Based on some of the results of that discussion, I will take this challenge under the following additional conditions.

1. A prize of a minimum of $100,000 is offered, with the funds held in escrow by a third party to be mutually agreed upon. The existence of the funds will be verified and the terms of the challenge will be formally enumerated in a legally binding contract.

Just to be clear, Heiwa has offered a challenge and not a wager, so I am not offering to stake any money on my own. The risk I take is that if I fail to meet the challenge's terms, my expenses in the project, which will very likely include materials, leasing of land and facilities, permit fees, legal representation, materials, recording instruments, and of course my own time and labor, will go uncompensated.

2. There are no restrictions in the ratio of the area of the structure to the height of the structure. (There are none in the challenge as offered, so this should not be a problem.) Specifically, there is no stipulation that the ratio of height to horizontal cross section area, or the shape of the horizontal cross section, will be similar between the model and the actual wtc towers.

3. The upper "10%" portion of the structure may be detached, lifted, and dropped from a distance of up to (but no more than) three meters above the lower portion, regardless of the scale of the model. This represents the same distance as is hypothesized in models of the tower collapses resulting from the failure of one floor, meaning that the ratio of potential energy released by the initial drop to the mass of the structures will be comparable between the real tower collapse scenario and the model test. (Obviously, this ratio must be comparable for the test to be reasonably fair and meaningful.)

4. At my discretion, a freestanding fixed rigid pole or a fixed taut vertical cable may be placed inside the model's frame. The size or mass of the vertical member will not be considered as part of the size or mass of the model. The vertical member will not be attached to the model and will not constrain the vertical movement of any part of the model, but will act to prevent sideways toppling. This will likely be necessary because moment of inertia scales as the fifth power of linear scale while the torque experienced by the parts in a collapse scales as only the fourth power. Thus even though in a structure the size of the wtc towers, the moment of inertia was apparently sufficient to prevent the upper or lower masses from rotating sufficiently as to topple, this would not necessarily be true of any smaller model. The vertical pole or wire compensates for this unavoidable scaling issue. As Heiwa's hypothesis for the impossibility of collapse does not depend on the occurrence of toppling, but rather on the resistance and friction created by the lower structure, this condition should not be a problem.

If you're interested, Heiwa, please PM me with contact information for your legal representative so we can begin the process of setting out specific contract terms.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Mr.Herbert]

Tell Gage I said I think he looks cute in that dress. :wackygrin:
You should see him with a camel toe!

http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/fmrlUApLYBTeeUvR

[bill smith]

Tell Gage I said I think he looks cute in that dress. :wackygrin:

If I say 'Clever Dick' do you think I am referring to Richard Gage or Myriad's signature ?

[Redtail]

?????? This is a friendly and lively discussion. Evidently I put forward my ideas. If anybody does not like them, focus on the ideas! The music! :)

That made no sense whatsoever.

[tsig]

That made no sense whatsoever.

I think it is music only he can hear. I'm guessing it's the heavenly choir chanting "You are right"

[Earthborn]

But the Heiwa Challenge is about to produce a real, 3-D model, where part C crushes part A, &c. No 1-D solid mechanics 'theories' with point masses, point rubbles and broken spaghetti columns, pls.So now all of a sudden spaghetti isn't good enough any more? That sucks, I just started preliminary testing. It seems like you are constantly changing the conditions of your challenge.

Maybe people here would take you and Heiwa a little more seriously if all your experiments didn't sound like a Blue Peter demonstration?In the interest of (inter)national security during this time of war, it has to be asked: why do you hate Blue Peter? :)

[Heiwa]

So now all of a sudden spaghetti isn't good enough any more? That sucks, I just started preliminary testing. It seems like you are constantly changing the conditions of your challenge.

In the interest of (inter)national security during this time of war, it has to be asked: why do you hate Blue Peter? :)

Structure should be 3-D and there spaghetti elements can be used. No change. 1-D structures should be avoided - no space in them!

[funk de fino]

Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?

NIST did not analyze the collapse progression in the initial report.

They explain it in their December 2007 FAQ's for dummies. It concurs with the cores remaining standing. I thought you would know that before shooting your mouth off.

Have you read the NIST report fully? Or even the FAQ's?

[bill smith]

Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------

For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)

[Heiwa]

For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)

Good point. And video loaded quickly. So upper part C missed 250 m of lower part A core when part C passed by. Bye, Bye Bazant.

[e^n]

Good point. And video loaded quickly. So upper part C missed 250 m of lower part A core when part C passed by. Bye, Bye Bazant.

Why would this result in dismissing Bazant? We have been aware of this effect for a long time, and it is clear evidence that the floor trusses and general flooring area were much weaker than the core columns / core framing.

How can requiring less energy per floor negatively affect a theory that explicitly uses the maximum energy per floor in their calculations?

[bill smith]

Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------

For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)

Assuming hat everybody ccepts the argument in post #150 you have to ask yurself the following:-

If the rigid block 'C' could not crush down the still-standing core section we see in the video how the heck did it crush down the core columns higher up before block 'C' thad gathered appreciable mass and momentum ?

The downwards force was even across the building so if the core section we see standing did not fall like the rest what was different about it ? Could it be that whatever explosive/incendiary that may haave brought the rest down did not ectivate on cue ?

If the still-standing columns were 800-900 feet tall, and the width of the building was only 208' how come we did not see the calumns falling out sideways when they DID fall ? It would be ridiculous to assume that columns that are still standing one moment disconnect themselves at the joints the next in a sequence that never allows a long length to fall sideways out of the footprint and into camera view. Who can think of a natural mechanism for that ?.

[GlennB]

If the still-standing columns were 800-900 feet tall, and the width of the building was only 208' how come we did not see the calumns falling out sideways when they DID fall ?

Because the columns were not that tall. They were composite, and welded in sections equivalent (if I recall correctly) to three storeys height.

[Heiwa]

Why would this result in dismissing Bazant? We have been aware of this effect for a long time, and it is clear evidence that the floor trusses and general flooring area were much weaker than the core columns / core framing.

How can requiring less energy per floor negatively affect a theory that explicitly uses the maximum energy per floor in their calculations?

You must study the Bazant, Greening, Benson theorem of one-way crushing - first down, then up! Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for a summary. It is a Greek letter lambda - the compaction ratio - that is responsible. Very funny! No space for any core remaining with lambda at work!

[bill smith]

Because the columns were not that tall. They were composite, and welded in sections equivalent (if I recall correctly) to three storeys height.

Glenn describe if you don't mind how you see the 800-900 foot section disassembling so that the whole thing never falls sideways.Obviously if it had begun at the bottom the whole structure woud have gone sideways. On the other hand I can't see how sisassembly could begin at the top and progress downwards.

[GlennB]

Glenn describe if you don't mind how you see the 800-900 foot section disassembling so that the whole thing never falls sideways.Obviously if it had begun at the bottom the whole structure woud have gone sideways. On the other hand I can't see how sisassembly could begin at the top and progress downwards.

Consider "the spire". As it begins to fall sideways the welds are subjected to lateral forces they were not designed to cope with. The spire falls downwards and slightly sideways as the welds give way.

If collapse had begun at the bottom the welds would have broken in a similar way. The towers would not have toppled like a tree, Bill. A tree consists of millions of fibres tightly bonded together, giving it monumental lateral strength to cope with high winds and its own weight when growing skewed. A building is a composite structure that - hopefully - does well under normal, predictable lateral wind loads while it remains substantially intact. A building is not comparable to a tree.

[Mince]

Heiwa;

Why, do you think, are 99%* of the world's engineers not in the truth movement?




*Yes, I'm estimating, of course, but you know I'm close.

[stateofgrace]

Assuming hat everybody ccepts the argument in post #150 you have to ask yurself the following:-

If the rigid block 'C' could not crush down the still-standing core section we see in the video how the heck did it crush down the core columns higher up before block 'C' thad gathered appreciable mass and momentum ?

The downwards force was even across the building so if the core section we see standing did not fall like the rest what was different about it ? Could it be that whatever explosive/incendiary that may haave brought the rest down did not ectivate on cue ?

If the still-standing columns were 800-900 feet tall, and the width of the building was only 208' how come we did not see the calumns falling out sideways when they DID fall ? It would be ridiculous to assume that columns that are still standing one moment disconnect themselves at the joints the next in a sequence that never allows a long length to fall sideways out of the footprint and into camera view. Who can think of a natural mechanism for that ?.

So let me get this straight.

You thought it was dodgy because 1/10 th of the building crushed the lower 9/10ths of the building.

And now you think it is dodgy because 1/10th of the building did not crush the lower 9/10ths of the building.

Got to love truther logic.

[Myriad]

Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------



Here's a mental model for you to consider: Crash a 2" long model car into another 2" model car at 1 mile per hour. Observe the results.

The results will prove one of two things:

1. That a real 200" car crashing into another 200" car at 100 miles per hour would suffer little or no damage.

2. That real things do not behave the same as scale models.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide which.

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: It's late afternoon in most of Europe, and I have not yet been contacted by Heiwa or his attorney about the challenge contract. Perhaps the prize money is currently tied up in securities and he's waiting until the funds can be moved.

Meanwhile, my plans for the model (should the contract be completed) are coming along. Although it's not one of Heiwa's requirements, I'm planning a structure that can bear my weight; that is, prior to the test, I'll be able to climb up it and stand on top of it. Those who can do actual engineering calculations instead of pretending to do them will understand that this ultimately means I'll have to build relatively tall, on the order of ten meters, to get a complete progressive collapse.

The biggest problem is getting a town permit and/or a landlord's permission to construct (and then destructively test) such a structure anywhere, indoors or out, even on my own property. That probably will not be possible. So I'm working out prefab construction methods that will let me put it up and then do the test all in the same day. That's probably preferable for site-safety reasons anyhow. Then the problem becomes hoisting all the dead weight (ten tons or so total) quickly enough. Solutions are available but they will incur expenses, which is why I'm glad Heiwa has offered a million dollars and should have no problem entering into a contractual obligation for a mere tenth that amount.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa;

Why, do you think, are 99%* of the world's engineers not in the truth movement?




*Yes, I'm estimating, of course, but you know I'm close.

They have not yet read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm !

[dtugg]

They have not yet read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm !

Speaking of papers, have you heard from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics yet? Remember, you told me that there is a 100% chance that they are going to publish the paper that you submitted to them. Just wondering how that's going...

Oh and it looks like Myriad is willing to take the challenge so long as you prove you have the money and draw up a legally binding contract. You aren't going to back out now, are you? After all you are correct, 10% of a structure cannot destroy 90% of it. Right? And you do have the money. Right? If so, when can we expect to see this happen?

[GlennB]

PS: It's late afternoon in most of Europe, and I have not yet been contacted by Heiwa or his attorney about the challenge contract. Perhaps the prize money is currently tied up in securities and he's waiting until the funds can be moved.

I'm disappointed. I would have thought that the "European Agency for Safety at Sea" would have internet banking and funds transfer facilities. The mere lack of response to your proposal is shoddy, to say the least.

[beachnut]

Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it

Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.

Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------

For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY

(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)
You have no clue what the purpose of a model is since you show things you would expect to see different from your model. Your post confirm Bazant's model. His model does not explain the core remaining; that is explained by the structural makeup of the Towers. Gee, Bazant is not surprised a portion of the core column is standing for seconds, that is due to the unique design of the WTC and you gloat as you make stupid posts and receive praise from Heiwa who makes up his lies and fools you into boarding his fantasyland train of failed physics and dirt dumb engineering.

Heiwa has great model of lemons, and kids jumping on beds to pizza boxes. Heiwa draws his failed conclusion on 911 from his failed models.

A mathematical model of the tower’s collapse has a purpose, you look at the work done on 911 and have no clue what the purpose of different models were, and you make up your own failed ideas not based on engineering. Keep on receiving praise from Heiwa, either you will teach him, or yourself, or you both continue to diverge into pure stupid as you are doing now.

[Disbelief]

I think it's fair to say that if nobody of all the thousands of jref members, vested interests and concerned citizens yhat are no doubt reading this page accept Heiwa's challenge within, say 20 days that Heiwa can be said to have successfully debunked he government story and that another and independent 9/11 enquiry is urgently and immediately called for.

So, the challenge has now been accepted. If Heiwa can't prove that he has the money to cover the challenge, say in 20 days, that means that Heiwa has been successfully debunked and can stop touting his "theory."

[Dave Rogers]

Based on some of the results of that discussion, I will take this challenge under the following additional conditions.

1. A prize of a minimum of $100,000 is offered, with the funds held in escrow by a third party to be mutually agreed upon.

I have a feeling that this 10% of the challenge fund is about to destroy both itself and the remaining 90%, in clear violation of Bjorkman's Axiom.

Dave

[bill smith]

I have a feeling that this 10% of the challenge fund is about to destroy both itself and the remaining 90%, in clear violation of Bjorkman's Axiom.

Dave

B R E A K I N G B A Z A N T
This is getting more and more televisual by the minute. Who will be the first to contact the networks and independent media operators ? Everybody loves a Challenge with a million-dollar payoff especally when it involves making and breakng, both of structures and people. Very educational for the general public too in terms of understanding the collapses on 9/11. It looks like a win-win situation all round.

[dtugg]

B R E A K I N G B A Z A N T
This is getting more and more televisual by the minute. Who will be the irst to contact the networks and independent media operators ? Everybody loves a Challenge with a million-dollar payoff especally when it involves making and breakng, both of dtructures and people. Very educational for the general public too in terms of understanding the collapses on 9/11. It looks like a win-win situation all round.

You see, stuff like this is why I am not sure if you are serious or not. Nothing is ever going to happen of this. You know why? Because your hero, Anders Bjorkman is a liar. He has no million dollars. He is not going to follow through with this. When he doesn't, are you going to see him for the fraudulent liar that he is?

[bill smith]

You have no clue what the purpose of a model is since you show things you would expect to see different from your model. Your post confirm Bazant's model. His model does not explain the core remaining; that is explained by the structural makeup of the Towers. Gee, Bazant is not surprised a portion of the core column is standing for seconds, that is due to the unique design of the WTC and you gloat as you make stupid posts and receive praise from Heiwa who makes up his lies and fools you into boarding his fantasyland train of failed physics and dirt dumb engineering.

Heiwa has great model of lemons, and kids jumping on beds to pizza boxes. Heiwa draws his failed conclusion on 911 from his failed models.

A mathematical model of the tower’s collapse has a purpose, you look at the work done on 911 and have no clue what the purpose of different models were, and you make up your own failed ideas not based on engineering. Keep on receiving praise from Heiwa, either you will teach him, or yourself, or you both continue to diverge into pure stupid as you are doing now.

Beachnut from what I hear on the Pilot's forum you are actually a Pilot though no longer an active one. So you know what you are talking about. It's just a pity that you don't seem to understand that most Truthers are acting from their absolute conviction that 9/11 was an inside job. So maybe you should take a different approach than the continual insults . It gets really quite boring.

[Heiwa]

Speaking of papers, have you heard from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics yet?

No! I made the submission on 3 March 2009. Haven't heard from ASCE or its Journal of Engineering Mechanics since.
In the meantime I have improved my website - link above.

[bill smith]

No! I made the submission on 3 March 2009. Haven't heard from ASCE or its Journal of Engineering Mechanics since.
In the meantime I have improved my website - link above.

You know what I think the Journal for Engineering Mechanics should do ? I think they should print your srticle and underneath they should write a oiece on why they did not want to publish it. That would educate the public in why a technical piece does not always pass peer review. They could show examples.

[Heiwa]

You know what I think the Journal for Engineering Mechanics should do ? I think they should print your srticle and underneath they should write a oiece on why they did not want to publish it. That would educate the public in why a technical piece does not always pass peer review. They could show examples.

We'll see. Editor Corotis seems OK. I have not only sent the paper but also a Copyright Transfer Agreement, &c to ASCE. It seems they are peer reviewing. I haven't got a clue how ASCE works. It seems Bazant opus I 2001 was not peer reviewed at all ... according Corotis. It was just published. In the meantime my web site is quite popular.

[beachnut]

Beachnut from what I hear on the Pilot's forum you are actually a Pilot though no longer an active one. So you know what you are talking about. It's just a pity that you don't seem to understand that most Truthers are acting from their absolute conviction that 9/11 was an inside job. So maybe you should take a different approach than the continual insults . It gets really quite boring.

Your posts of lies, hearsay and fantasy are an insult to those who died on 911 due to the fact your delusions are not supported by facts and evidence.
You like the cult chant "inside job". You repeat the failed cult ideas and fail to present evidence to justify your lies, hearsay, and fantasy.

Sorry, my pilot license is good for life; your lack of knowledge is massive on 911 and FAA topics.

You absolute conviction of an inside job verifies your lack of knowledge and shallow research? You believe 911 was an “inside job” based on hearsay lies and fantasy; not very intellectual. You insult yourself by repeating the lies Balsamo makes up for you to repeat for him. He implies lies you repeat them for Balsamo. You are a good cult member.

Balsamo is not an airline pilot, he lacks the qualifications; he sells implication of lies and his “offer of no theories” on 911 for 16 bucks on DVD.

What would Balsamo do on Heiwa’s challenge; he can’t do math or physics so he is predestined to fail.

Heiwa challenge is proven wrong with physics. Poor Heiwa all I can say is:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/shipskyscraper.jpg
...

[bill smith]

We'll see. Editor Corotis seems OK. I have not only sent the paper but also a Copyright Transfer Agreement, &c to ASCE. It seems they are peer reviewing. I haven't got a clue how ASCE works. It seems Bazant opus I 2001 was not peer reviewed at all ... according Corotis. It was just published. In the meantime my web site is quite popular.

How does peer review normlly work ? I always imagine that they send a copy of the article to ten or so highly respected engineers for a motivated oinion and then somebody collates the opinions into a pass or fail.

[bill smith]

Your posts of lies, hearsay and fantasy are an insult to those who died on 911 due to the fact your delusions are not supported by facts and evidence.
You like the cult chant "inside job". You repeat the failed cult ideas and fail to present evidence to justify your lies, hearsay, and fantasy.

Sorry, my pilot license is good for life; you lack of knowledge is massive on 911 and FAA topics.

You absolute conviction of an inside job verifies your lack of knowledge and shallow research? You believe 911 was an “inside job” based on hearsay lies and fantasy; not very intellectual. You insult yourself by repeating the lies Balsamo makes up for you to repeat for him. He implies lies you repeat them for Balsamo. You are a good cult member.

Balsamo is not an airline pilot, he lacks the qualifications; he sells implication of lies and his “offer of no theories” on 911 for 16 bucks on DVD.

What would Balsamo do on Heiwa’s challenge; he can’t do math or physics so he is predestined to fail.

Heiwa challenge is proven wrong with physics. Poor Heiwa all I can say is:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/shipskyscraper.jpg
...

Well Beachnut, all I can say is 'knock yourself out'.

[Myriad]

B R E A K I N G B A Z A N T
This is getting more and more televisual by the minute. Who will be the first to contact the networks and independent media operators ? Everybody loves a Challenge with a million-dollar payoff especally when it involves making and breakng, both of structures and people. Very educational for the general public too in terms of understanding the collapses on 9/11. It looks like a win-win situation all round.


Are you hinting that you are willing to underwrite the challenge for the full million dollars, should Heiwa for some reason opt not to put up the funds? If you do, then you may contact whatever media you wish, under the stipulation that any media representatives present at the test site must obey all safety rules I deem necessary. (Great, now I'll have to hire security too... but if the prize is a million I suppose I can afford that.)

Also, whoever puts up the money naturally gets to name the challenge, so if you decide "The Bill Smith Challenge" (or perhaps "The BS Challenge" for short) has a nicer ring to it, go for it!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

Are you hinting that you are willing to underwrite the challenge for the full million dollars, should Heiwa for some reason opt not to put up the funds? If you do, then you may contact whatever media you wish, under the stipulation that any media representatives present at the test site must obey all safety rules I deem necessary. (Great, now I'll have to hire security too... but if the prize is a million I suppose I can afford that.)

Also, whoever puts up the money naturally gets to name the challenge, so if you decide "The Bill Smith /Challenge" (or perhaps "The BS Challenge" for short) has a hangs nicer ring to it, go for it!

Respectfully,
Myriad

If I was to put up the million I would prefer if Heiwa'a opponent was a known 9/11 personality...perhaps lsomebody ike Ray Mackey Msc. I can see the advertising now.

NASA SCIENTIST ACCEPTS MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CHALLENGE

MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CLASH OF THE TITANS


SATURDAY NIGHT PRIMETIME 9/11 EXTRAVAGANZA

[beachnut]

Well Beachnut, all I can say is 'knock yourself out'.

Your hollow posts sound good. But you and Heiwa are a perfect pair to defend this vaporous million dollar challenge, I suggest you get the help of the math impaired p4t experts to help with the DVD release of more stupid ideas you and Heiwa can manufacture and make some money off of other knowledge challenged chumps by selling them DVDs.

7 plus years of failure is not a good goal; but you have achieved it easily like Heiwa, Balsamo and other 911Truth frauds.


If you understood physics you would not defend Heiwa, Lear or the lies of Balsamo and you would laugh at Heiwa’s challenge. Why and what motivates you to gravitate to nut case ideas on 911?

[dtugg]

If I was to put up the million I would prefer if Heiwa'a opponent was a known 9/11 ersonality...perhaps lsomebody ike Ray Mackey Msc. I can see the advertising now.

NASA SCIENTIST ACCEPTS MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CHALLENGE

MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CLASH OF THE TITANS


SATURDAY NIGHT PRIMETIME 9/11 EXTRAVAGANZA

I wish you or Heiwa had a million dollars to put up. It would be hilarious to watch Mackey or somebody else take it from you. It would definitely make my week:

NASA SCIENTIST TAKES MILLION DOLLARS FROM INTERNET KOOK!

[stateofgrace]

If I was to put up the million I would prefer if Heiwa'a opponent was a known 9/11 personality...perhaps lsomebody ike Ray Mackey Msc. I can see the advertising now.

NASA SCIENTIST ACCEPTS MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CHALLENGE

MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CLASH OF THE TITANS


SATURDAY NIGHT PRIMETIME 9/11 EXTRAVAGANZA

* snigger*

So,back on planet earth,as your hero agreed to put up the money yet ?

[Myriad]

If I was to put up the million I would prefer if Heiwa'a opponent was a known 9/11 personality...perhaps lsomebody ike Ray Mackey Msc. I can see the advertising now.

NASA SCIENTIST ACCEPTS MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CHALLENGE

MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CLASH OF THE TITANS


SATURDAY NIGHT PRIMETIME 9/11 EXTRAVAGANZA


"Opponent?" Heiwa has not requested a duel or a Scrabble game, but a demonstration of a physical phenomenon. One that is, in fact, readily demonstrable given sufficient resources to conduct the demonstration. Who conducts the demonstration is irrelevant to the point, which is whether or not the phenomenon occurs. Personalities have nothing to do with it.

And even if they did, who are these "Titans" of whom you speak? R. Mackey is no celebrity (but something more valuable, in my opinion; a capable and reputable engineer), and there is ample cause for reasonable doubt whether Heiwa is even that.

However, I take it that you will not, after all, be helping to make the challenge happen. That's very disappointing. I guess it all depends on Heiwa then. I shall have to (literally) scale down my expectations accordingly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[bill smith]

"Opponent?" Heiwa has not requested a duel or a Scrabble game, but a demonstration of a physical phenomenon. One that is, in fact, readily demonstrable given sufficient resources to conduct the demonstration. Who conducts the demonstration is irrelevant to the point, which is whether or not the phenomenon occurs. Personalities have nothing to do with it.

And even if they did, who are these "Titans" of whom you speak? R. Mackey is no celebrity (but something more valuable, in my opinion; a capable and reputable engineer), and there is ample cause for reasonable doubt whether Heiwa is even that.

However, I take it that you will not, after all, be helping to make the challenge happen. That's very disappointing. I guess it all depends on Heiwa then. I shall have to (literally) scale down my expectations accordingly.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Publicity would be the name of the game if it was me. Ray Mackey would become a rocket scientist (which he probably is anyway) and Heiwa would become a super-genius engineer who has advised the UN and stuff like that (which he has). I would make them larger than life as in the best traditions of television. I would play it s a fight to the death of the official story and the Truth via the model argument. and I would have he most watched hour of television in history. And I would educate an audience of hundreds of millions if not billions worldwide in the process.

[dtugg]

Publicity would be the name of the game if it was me. Ray Mackey would become a rocket scientist (which he probably is anyway) and Heiwa would become a super-genius engineer who has advised the UN and stuff like that (which he has). I would make them larger than life as in the beat traditions of television. I would play it s a fight to the death of the official story and the Truth via the model argument. and I would have he most watched hour of television in history. And I would educate an audience of hundreds of millions if not billions worldwide in the process.

I've read this about five times and I am still laughing at loud (at you, not with you, bill)! Especially the bolded. Thank you bill smith, the no planer. You are one funny dude! Keep 'em coming!

[bill smith]

I've read this about five times and I am still laughing at loud (at you, not with you, bill)! Especially the bolded. Thank you bill smith, the no planer. You are one funny dude! Keep 'em coming!

Praise the Lord.lol

[tsig]

Publicity would be the name of the game if it was me. Ray Mackey would become a rocket scientist (which he probably is anyway) and Heiwa would become a super-genius engineer who has advised the UN and stuff like that (which he has). I would make them larger than life as in the best traditions of television. I would play it s a fight to the death of the official story and the Truth via the model argument. and I would have he most watched hour of television in history. And I would educate an audience of hundreds of millions if not billions worldwide in the process.

So you wouldn't mind a little lying to help things along. Humm...

I thought heiwa was a super-genius engineer. What happened?

[bill smith]

So you wouldn't mind a little lying to help things along. Humm...

I thought heiwa was a super-genius engineer. What happened?

Nah....not lying....just the standard journalistic licence. And don't forget that in the real world Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

[dtugg]

Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

Heiwa has no "magnificent international reputation."

[tsig]

Nah....not lying....just the standard journalistic licence. And don't forget that in the real world Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

Does your "real world" overlap reality anywhere?

I don't know of any engineers that have a " magnificent international reputation".

[Architect]

Ove Arup himself. Past tense, of course.

[GlennB]

Nah....not lying....just the standard journalistic licence. And don't forget that in the real world Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

Bill is joshing again , and with more than a hint of megalomania about him (again). Sometimes he seems to be listening, sometimes he winds people up relentlessly. It's a dubious trait, and one often exhibited by the insecure.
Dear bill .. what are your true beliefs on the whole 9/11 subject? That's an honest question.

[Newtons Bit]

Nah....not lying....just the standard journalistic licence. And don't forget that in the real world Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

Heiwa works on ships. He hasn't done any engineering since college.

There's more than a few of us here who are actual engineers.

[stateofgrace]

Nah....not lying....just the standard journalistic licence. And don't forget that in the real world Heiwa is an engineer with a magnificent international reputation.

Bill, you forgot this ----> :rolleyes: , at the end of your post.

[Sunstealer]

A
Also, whoever puts up the money naturally gets to name the challenge, so if you decide "The Bill Smith Challenge" (or perhaps "The BS Challenge" for short) has a nicer ring to it, go for it!I've wondered about Bill Smith and the BS moniker. The thing is I can't really tell if he's a troll or a real truther - it's Poe's Law striking again.

[Woody-]

......Delurk

They have not yet read my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

I was bored tonight so I decided to look at it. I am not an engineer but it only took me a few paragraphs to see where you actually disprove yourself.

From your paper.

Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed and contacts something else below, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.


The key phrase is "if the floor is not strong enough... a hole is formed in it and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed"

That is exactly what happened on 9/11, the "rubble" (your term) dropped through the floor of the wtc and continued "at a reduced speed" and contacted the floor below. But the "rubble" had another 3.7 meters to accelerate before it hit the next floor so it had even more energy than the first event. ie the first 3.7 meter drop started from zero velocity and the next one started at some velocity greater than zero, "a reduced speed" If the first floor the "rubble" contacted didn't stop it then no other floor would since it is only gaining in speed and energy.

......Relurk

[MIKILLINI]

If I was to put up the million I would prefer if Heiwa'a opponent was a known 9/11 personality...perhaps lsomebody ike Ray Mackey Msc. I can see the advertising now.

NASA SCIENTIST ACCEPTS MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CHALLENGE

MILLION-DOLLAR 9/11 CLASH OF THE TITANS


SATURDAY NIGHT PRIMETIME 9/11 EXTRAVAGANZA

If? What do you surmise Bill? IF you were quite sure of your conspiracist friend Heiwa, wouldn't you agree Myriads structure requirements are acceptable? or would you rather stick to the pasta model?

[tsig]

......Delurk



I was bored tonight so I decided to look at it. I am not an engineer but it only took me a few paragraphs to see where you actually disprove yourself.

From your paper.




The key phrase is "if the floor is not strong enough... a hole is formed in it and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed"

That is exactly what happened on 9/11, the "rubble" (your term) dropped through the floor of the wtc and continued "at a reduced speed" and contacted the floor below. But the "rubble" had another 3.7 meters to accelerate before it hit the next floor so it had even more energy than the first event. ie the first 3.7 meter drop started from zero velocity and the next one started at some velocity greater than zero, "a reduced speed" If the first floor the "rubble" contacted didn't stop it then no other floor would since it is only gaining in speed and energy.

......Relurk

Plus the steel ball was much less than 10% of the weight of the floor. You have won one million!!

[Redtail]

Publicity would be the name of the game if it was me. Ray Mackey would become a rocket scientist (which he probably is anyway) and Heiwa would become a super-genius engineer who has advised the UN and stuff like that (which he has). I would make them larger than life as in the best traditions of television. I would play it s a fight to the death of the official story and the Truth via the model argument. and I would have he most watched hour of television in history. And I would educate an audience of hundreds of millions if not billions worldwide in the process.

http://www.wile-coyote.com/WileE.jpg


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12044467af2cd27d18.gif (javascript:void(0))

[Heiwa]

From your paper. ...




The key phrase is "if the floor is not strong enough... a hole is formed in it and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed"

That is exactly what happened on 9/11, the "rubble" (your term) dropped through the floor of the wtc and continued "at a reduced speed" and contacted the floor below. But the "rubble" had another 3.7 meters to accelerate before it hit the next floor so it had even more energy than the first event. ie the first 3.7 meter drop started from zero velocity and the next one started at some velocity greater than zero, "a reduced speed" If the first floor the "rubble" contacted didn't stop it then no other floor would since it is only gaining in speed and energy.



Thanks for reading my paper. The rubble - term introduced by Bazant - is part B in his theorem - and it consists of compressed, damaged, loose elements of part A only according Bazant and of parts A and C according to me. If you study my paper carefully you will see that all energy applied at contact will be absorbed by this rubble very quickly = destruction is arrested. If not, part C will be destroyed before part A and then destruction is arrested. C can never destroy A because they have same structure initially and a small part C of structure cannot destroy the remaining bigger part A by C being dropped on A.

Note that steel sphere C has not same structure as floor A in my paper. It was just an example to get you started. If C has same structure than A no hole is formed in A unless there is also a hole formed in C.

[chran]

So far 20 replies and none close to manage the challenge. So it seems crushing a structure with a piece of it, is not possible. NIST is therefore wrong!

Heiwa, I have contacted the Nobel Committe in Stockholm to inform them of this, and they assured me that they will be contacting you shortly to award you the Nobel Prize!

Please wait by the phone.

[NobbyNobbs]

5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.


This condition is self-contradictory. If it was attached, and is then disconnected, it is by definition damaged.


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

I wholeheartedly agree.

It's not a very good reputation, though.



See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!


Nobby's Counter-Challenge

I will donate US$10 (sorry, really can't afford more) to the charity of the winner's choice for the first person to prove that Heiwa has US$1M to spend on his challenge.

If within 20 days there is no winner, I will donate it to the charity of my choice. Namely, the ALS Association.

Feel free to use raw spaghetti, lemons, pizza boxes, or any other food-related material in devising your proof.

Ready? Set? Go!

[Disbelief]

So, the challenge has now been accepted. If Heiwa can't prove that he has the money to cover the challenge, say in 20 days, that means that Heiwa has been successfully debunked and can stop touting his "theory."

Bill, your hero is down to 19 days. Will he prove he has the money and accept the challenge?

[Jonnyclueless]

Is there a bonus for demonstrating with pizza boxes?

[Myriad]

Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Newtons Bit]

Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

The standard deductible for our liability insurance is about $100,000. ;)

[Heiwa]

Well, another day has passed without any word from Heiwa or his attorney regarding my acceptance of his challenge.

Perhaps he's prudently having some building engineers look at the terms. I sure hope that's not the case, because if so they will be advising him that yes, such a model as I'm contemplating (whose basic characteristics I have hinted at sufficiently for a rough evaluation) can indeed progressively collapse, as the wtc towers did, and he'd lose his money. I'd prefer he continue to rely on his own guesses, comparisons with tiny models made of lightweight materials, such as pizza boxes, and gut feelings based on the behavior of colliding boats. I can only win his money if he's willing to stand by his convictions.

I'll point out that real engineers stake other people's lives, and vast amounts of liability, on their conclusions about such things as what conditions will and will not permit a building to progressively collapse. A mere US$100,000 is a negligible amount by comparison.

But, of course, I cannot make him honor his own challenge. He's free to ignore my offer -- and the rest of us are free to draw the obvious conclusions from that.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?

[dtugg]

You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?

He's waiting for you to prove that you have the money. You do have the money, right? I would be shocked to learn that you are a complete fraud. :rolleyes:

[funk de fino]

You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?

So after running away from accepting you are now modifying the original challenge?

Do you accept Myriads terms?

[Myriad]

You have a one-way crush structure A? Good! Make a similar one C and drop C on A (C = 1/10A) and just demonstrate the one-way crushing phenomenon! What are you waiting for?


I am waiting for you to agree to the conditions I requested in post 142. Or for you, if you disagree with any of them, to state your objections. If they are satisfactory in broad outline, then we can begin writing the contract. I will have the advice of an attorney in the process, and having considered the matter I realized that ethics require me to insist that you do also.

The work of creating the demonstration will begin in earnest once a binding contract exists, as described in my condition 1.

The reason I require such a procedure is that the demonstration will likely incur several tens of thousands of dollars of expenses, and I believe that without a legal contract and the money in escrow in advance, the chance of my recouping those expenses from you in the event of a successful demonstration would be infinitesimally slim.

So that there's no misrepresentation, I'll also point out that the model I'm planning is a "one-way crush structure" only when standing upright within a "one-way" gravitational field. No "one way" properties are inherent in the structure itself. So if for instance the same structure were tested laying on its side floating in water, or free-falling in outer space, "one-way" crushing would not occur.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

I am waiting for you to agree to the conditions I requested in post 142. Or for you, if you disagree with any of them, to state your objections. If they are satisfactory in broad outline, then we can begin writing the contract. I will have the advice of an attorney in the process, and having considered the matter I realized that ethics require me to insist that you do also.

The work of creating the demonstration will begin in earnest once a binding contract exists, as described in my condition 1.

The reason I require such a procedure is that the demonstration will likely incur several tens of thousands of dollars of expenses, and I believe that without a legal contract and the money in escrow in advance, the chance of my recouping those expenses from you in the event of a successful demonstration would be infinitesimally slim.

So that there's no misrepresentation, I'll also point out that the model I'm planning is a "one-way crush structure" only when standing upright within a "one-way" gravitational field. No "one way" properties are inherent in the structure itself. So if for instance the same structure were tested laying on its side floating in water, or free-falling in outer space, "one-way" crushing would not occur.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Conditions are as per post #1. Evidently you must finance the structure yourself, e.g. buy elements from local building material shop, &c. Cannot be too expensive. It should be clear from post #1 that the structure A, to be one-way crushed, is resting on ground (not floating on water, &c) and that you drop part C on it using gravity available at your place free of charge. Good luck! I understand that you have given up using an isotropic structure, thus you aim for a composite structure.
Somebody has proposed a structure where all joints between elements are hinges and that the structure folds, when certain energy is applied to it from above but not from the side, &c. Sounds intriguing. Remember, also C must be similar. Even a door has hinges but it doesn't collapse if you open it :)
Good luck!

[dtugg]

So Heiwa, do you have severe reading comprehension problems? Or is there some other reason that you totally ignored the part where Myriad gave his conditions. Like say, for example, you have no intention of paying the money you don't have in the event of a successful demonstration? That wouldn't be it, would it?

[nicepants]

Conditions are as per post #1. Evidently you must finance the structure yourself, e.g. buy elements from local building material shop, &c.

So, as to the typical truther MO, when it comes to actually putting his money where his mouth is, Heiwa refuses.

Heiwa, If you're sure enough about your theory to offer up $1M to anyone who can defeat it, why do you refuse to make said offer legally binding? Or is this just a 'circuit breaker' of sorts so that when someone does prove you wrong you can refuse to pay, and the winner will thus have no legal recourse to collect the money promised?

[phunk]

Of course. He's setup the challenge so that if someone does win, they actually lose because they spent their own money and will get no prize.

[Disbelief]

Bill, your hero is down to 19 days. Will he prove he has the money and accept the challenge?

18 days now. Bill, why the sudden silence when your hero is under the gun?

[Myriad]

I'm less concerned about the money (hey, any businessperson can have liquidity issues; that's why I asked for only $100K to be put up in advance, since anyone with a million in assets should be able to raise 1/10th that amount in cash with little difficulty no matter what the assets are tied up in) than I am about term 9.

Term 9 essentially limits the velocity of the upper mass after the initial drop to less than that in the Bazant progressive collapse hypothesis we're testing, unless the model is more than 30 meters tall. That's like trying to conduct car crash safety tests not only using scale model cars (which already presents complex scaling issues), but also crashing them at slower speeds. (If you did that, even a Model T with no seat belts could get a "five star" safety rating! In other words, the results would be utterly meaningless for the real world.)

Since the recent additional stipulations in post 209 rule out a 30 meter tall model (a ten story freestanding structure, even if just a framework, cannot be "not too expensive" by anyone's standards except perhaps Bill Gates'), Heiwa's conditions rule out a valid scale model test.

Hence, my proposed alternative and additional terms in post 142, which Heiwa has continued to ignore, neither agreeing to them nor stating his objections to them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Heiwa]

I'm less concerned about the money (hey, any businessperson can have liquidity issues; that's why I asked for only $100K to be put up in advance, since anyone with a million in assets should be able to raise 1/10th that amount in cash with little difficulty no matter what the assets are tied up in) than I am about term 9.

Term 9 essentially limits the velocity of the upper mass after the initial drop to less than that in the Bazant progressive collapse hypothesis we're testing, unless the model is more than 30 meters tall. That's like trying to conduct car crash safety tests not only using scale model cars (which already presents complex scaling issues), but also crashing them at slower speeds. (If you did that, even a Model T with no seat belts could get a "five star" safety rating! In other words, the results would be utterly meaningless for the real world.)

Since the recent additional stipulations in post 209 rule out a 30 meter tall model (a ten story freestanding structure, even if just a framework, cannot be "not too expensive" by anyone's standards except perhaps Bill Gates'), Heiwa's conditions rule out a valid scale model test.

Hence, my proposed alternative and additional terms in post 142, which Heiwa has continued to ignore, neither agreeing to them nor stating his objections to them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Money makes the world go around and it seems to cause one-way crush downs here and there at different velocities. I am sad you are not concerned about that. I have an old house nobody wants to buy. To me it is worth $1M! You'll get it for $100 000:- . Anyway!

If impact velocity is a concern for you or that gravity needs a certain time to speed up part C to a suitable velocity that will one-way crush your part A structure, then I am prepared to simplify my Challenge.

You can drop part C from any height you like (2 miles? - 10 miles!) to get your required impact velocity or energy.

As contact and what happens after (one-way crush?) then goes very fast, it is recommended that you set up a high speed camera to confirm that your part A structure is one-way crushed down by gravity (+ initial impact energy input of course), while part C remains intact.

What kind of structures are you thinking of? Uranium? Is part C going to crush the inside of atoms of part A? By gravity? :)

[Dave Rogers]

As contact and what happens after (one-way crush?) then goes very fast, it is recommended that you set up a high speed camera to confirm that your part A structure is one-way crushed down by gravity (+ initial impact energy input of course), while part C remains intact.

Just to point out, for those expecting consistency from Heiwa, that this condition was not present in post #1, and is not clearly defined enough to be assessed. Nor is it representative of the collapse of the WTC towers, in which there was clearly damage to the falling blocks before the completion of crush-down of the lower. Nor, indeed, is it a result of Bazant and Verdure, which predicts a small amount of crush-up until the intermediate layer B has reached dynamic equilibrium. Heiwa is therefore offering a challenge the terms of which are significantly different to (a) the collapses, (b) models of the collapses and (c) his original challenge. Myriad, although the probability of him coming up with the $1M is vanishingly small, I suspect that the probability of him paying it out is zero, as he'll come up with some improbable interpretation of the original wording by which even a completely successful and convincing demonstration will be judged to have failed.

Dave

[stateofgrace]

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

Really ?
Money makes the world go around and it seems to cause one-way crush downs here and there at different velocities. I am sad you are not concerned about that. I have an old house nobody wants to buy. To me it is worth $1M! You'll get it for $100 000:- . Anyway!
:)

So you lied about paying $1M ? You don't have and have never had $1M?

Your $1M challenge is one big fat lie, right?

Your house ? Are you now offering this as payment ?

[Newtons Bit]

Really ?


So you lied about paying $1M ? You don't have and have never had $1M?

Your $1M challenge is one big fat lie, right?

Your house ? Are you now offering this as payment ?

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.

[tsig]

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.


Can we crush his house to win it?

[Zorglub]

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.
If it´s Heiwas house it must be indestructible and therefore worth $1 million at least. :p

[stateofgrace]

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.

Oh I see, so if anybody wins this challenge he will sell a worthless house for 100,000.

Yep, I am sure in crazytown his property is worth millions.

[nicepants]

No, he's offering to sell a house that's not worth anything for 100,000. Because it's worth a million bucks to him.

So...instead of paying one million dollars to the winner of this challenge...he expects someone to pay HIM $100,000. (After carrying out the experiment at their own expense)

I'm not seeing anything which would motivate anyone to actually attempt this.

[roundhead]

So...instead of paying one million dollars to the winner of this challenge...he expects someone to pay HIM $100,000. (After carrying out the experiment at their own expense)

I'm not seeing anything which would motivate anyone to actually attempt this.


Me either.

Heiwa knows that only anti science can explain the 9/11 jibberish NIST excretes.

His Million is safe

[stateofgrace]

Me either.

Heiwa knows that only anti science can explain the 9/11 jibberish NIST excretes.

His Million is safe

Not really been following the thread have you ?

[dtugg]

Edited for Rule 12.

[Zorglub]

So...instead of paying one million dollars to the winner of this challenge...he expects someone to pay HIM $100,000. (After carrying out the experiment at their own expense)
And as this will not happen he has proven that NIST is wrong. Somehow there´s a beautiful logic stupidity, albeit twisted and deranged in shapes hitherto unknown to man, behind his reasoning.

[johnny karate]

His Million is safe

Imaginary things usually are.

[johnny karate]

Heiwa knows that only anti science can explain the 9/11 jibberish NIST excretes.

Also, not to derail, but I'd like some clarification on this comment. Do you feel NIST "excretes jibberish" because the entire organization from top to bottom is part of the evil conspiracy? Or do you think they are merely cowards coerced into silence in the same way you've previously characterized the FDNY (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4413684&postcount=164)?

[3bodyproblem]

Heiwa continues to ignore things like this: http://www3.gendisasters.com/alabama/2925/birmingham%2C-al-building-collapse%2C-apr-1900

More than 100 years ago. 1 beam drops and takes out the whole building. A single strutural element. This more than meets your stupid challenge Heiwa, pay up. Make the cheque payable to "Cash" please.

[Newtons Bit]

Heiwa continues to ignore things like this: http://www3.gendisasters.com/alabama/2925/birmingham%2C-al-building-collapse%2C-apr-1900

More than 100 years ago. 1 beam drops and takes out the whole building. A single strutural element. This more than meets your stupid challenge Heiwa, pay up. Make the cheque payable to "Cash" please.

NYC has a rule in it's building code that requires contractors to evacuate the top two floors of a building that has a crane carrying steel operating above it. It's becuase of situations like this.

I'd like to know what the impetus for this was...

[stateofgrace]

Post deleted.

[Heiwa]

Heiwa continues to ignore things like this: http://www3.gendisasters.com/alabama/2925/birmingham%2C-al-building-collapse%2C-apr-1900

More than 100 years ago. 1 beam drops and takes out the whole building. A single strutural element. This more than meets your stupid challenge Heiwa, pay up. Make the cheque payable to "Cash" please.

Pls, make model of strutural (?) beams and drop one of them, call it C, on other 10 (call them A). If C one-way collapses the A assembly, you have won a prize. OK, one beam is not really a structure (!) so assemble 10 C beams into a structure and drop it on a 100 C beams (part A) assembly and see what happens.

It seems my house was under attack 1640 when the Swedish army under Torstensson fired 1000+ rounds into the town (not very friendly). The canon ball went though the roof and cut a beam (still missing) in the roof supporting structure. Due to redundancy house + roof are still standing 2009!

Ok, roof is one structure and cannon ball another structure. ThE Heiwa Challenge is that a part C of a structure drops on a part A of identical structure, where C = 1/10 A and C was previously carried by A, and that C then manages to one-way crush down A assisted by gravity only. One-way crush means C is just negligibly damaged in the process (which contender must prove) while A is crushed.

Myriad has problems with impact velocity of C (gravity is acting too slowly) so drop height of C can from now on be up to 3.7 m (guess why?). Just put A on ground beside house and walk up two stories in same house and drop C on A. Hope your house has two stories!

Mackey has problems with scale. None of his structures one-way collapses as per the Heiwa Challenge. Mackey is apparently a NASA engineer and maybe he should ask NASA for assistance?

Get working at your structures, boys! And girls, of course!

[3bodyproblem]

Pls, make model of strutural (?) beams and drop one of them, call it C, on other 10 (call them A). If C one-way collapses the A assembly, you have won a prize. OK, one beam is not really a structure (!) so assemble 10 C beams into a structure and drop it on a 100 C beams (part A) assembly and see what happens.


You're delusional. In that accident, 1 member took out the entire structure of more than 20 beams. An example of a cascade failure.

Pay up.

[dtugg]

Bump. Looks like Heiwa is running away from his own challenge. I wonder what the problem is. :rolleyes:

[Heiwa]

You're delusional. In that accident, 1 member took out the entire structure of more than 20 beams. An example of a cascade failure.

Pay up.

Pls supply your model dropping one beam on 20 identical beams connected to one another at your choice and that one-way collapse follows and I will have a look.

PS - Challenge as per post #1 is still there. You can modify conditions within reason if you feel it is neccesary to demonstrate a one-way crush down of structure A by part C!

[dtugg]

Bump. Heiwa is still running away from his own challenge. I wonder why.

[MIKILLINI]

Bump. Heiwa is still running away from his own challenge. I wonder why.

He has a missing beam in his roof.;)

[nicepants]

Bump. Heiwa is still running away from his own challenge. I wonder why.

Because it's not even a legitimate challenge.

"Build something, at your own expense, that does what I require it to do and I'll give you money that I can't prove exists if I'm satisfied with the results. Also I won't put the money in escrow or agree to be legally bound to the requirements of my "challenge" which may change as I see fit"

Those goal posts are probably getting pretty heavy...
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1418947d05fc07d27e.jpg

[Heiwa]

The Heiwa Challenge is still on as per post #1. Below some clarifications:


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 more than required for disconnection.
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. Drop height of part C above part A is max 3.7 m. Less drop height is permitted.
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 from 3.7 m.

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

PS - If you want to change the conditions I will consider that.

[tuc0]

The Heiwa Challenge is still on as per post #1. Below some clarifications:

meaningless :words:


Epic Fail is truly and magnificently EPIC.

[Dave Rogers]

Can we assume that you have now withdrawn the requirement that part C must be undamaged by the impact and pure crush-down must be observed using a high-speed camera, or do you plan to re-introduce that condition retrospectively if anyone meets the first ten?

Dave

[nicepants]

The Heiwa Challenge is still on as per post #1. Below some clarifications:


Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

PS - If you want to change the conditions I will consider that.

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree.

[Heiwa]

I believe Myriad already proposed some changes. I look forward to your either agreeing to them or suggesting alternatives to those changes with which you do not agree.

All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

[dtugg]

All considered! He can drop C from 3.7 m!

What about his other conditions that you are conveniently totally ignoring, you complete fraud?

[Heiwa]

What about his other conditions that you are conveniently totally ignoring, you complete fraud?

??? See posts #1 and #239. 10 conditions - no fraud. Just DO it! If you CAN!

[dtugg]

??? See posts #1 and #239. 10 conditions - no fraud. Just DO it! If you CAN!

Why would anybody go to the time and expense of attempting to meet your challenge when you absolutely refuse to prove that you even have the money to pay up and draw up a contract saying you will in the event of a successful demonstration? Do you think that people are just going to take your word on it?

You are a fraud.

[Heiwa]

Why would anybody go to the time and expense of attempting to meet your challenge when you absolutely refuse to prove that you even have the money to pay up and draw up a contract saying you will in the event of a successful demonstration? Do you think that people are just going to take your word on it?

You are a fraud.

Money? Contract? Pls read conditions again! It is a Challenge. Prove me wrong! Foul language doesn't impress anybody. Tips how to assemble a structure is found at http://the911forum.freeforums.org/crush-down-models-t145-135.html .

Actually, Benson of BLGB fame and a Bazant partner is actually trying! I hope NIST and NASA will catch on. Imagine a structure that can one-way crush down, if you drop a piece of it on it! What amazing possibilities such a structure will have. It can be used for many things! You will earn $$$$ if you can patent it!

But inventors have tried in vain for centuries to find such a structure. But it is never too late! :)

[dtugg]

What are now trying to lie and say that you weren't offering a million dollars to somebody that could fulfill your fraudulent challenge?

See post #1 above.

BTW I'll pay you $1M if you can produce a structure that can be crushed like that. Suteki desu ne!? Get working!

You lies aren't fooling anybody, Anders. You are a fraud.

[Heiwa]

What are now trying to lie and say that you weren't offering a million dollars to somebody that could fulfill your fraudulent challenge?



You lies aren't fooling anybody, Anders. You are a fraud.

Gomen kudasai, it was a personal offer to some Japanese clown at JREF that I haven't heard from since. Pls, read conditions and do not lose face!

[dtugg]

Gomen kudasai, it was a personal offer to some Japanese clown at JREF that I haven't heard from since. Pls, read conditions and do not lose face!

What about this, liar?:


I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.