A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

[Gravy]

Mark, just taking on a role you more commonly play yourself here: Is there any point to this challenge? Do you think there is the slightest possibility that either (a) Heiwa will admit to being a liar, or (b) any unbiased observer still believes he's honest?

Dave

Of course not. I just like to see this "professional" engineer or naval architect or whatever he claims to be, suffocate under the weight of his ever-increasing lies. It still amazes me to see someone whose identity is known, blatantly lying in public with nearly every post he makes. With this one he's really showing his desperation.

 

[GlennB]

Since I showed him this clip before he made the offer, I claim not only this but the Randi MDC too.

Dave

Yeah, but getting and editing that screenshot wasn't easy. Call it 50/50 on the Balzac tower and you can keep the Randi Million, OK?

 

[GlennB]

Well, in this model you destroy part A partly (not using gravity) before you drop part C on what is left of it, so it does not qualify.

It should also be understood that part C should volume/mass wise be, say 1/10th of part A, to make it more challenging and similar to WTC 1. Elements of both parts should have indentical connections to other parts. You cannot weaken, e.g. part A before the drop.

Good try, though.

OK - here's another. Take out the top level and the rest crashes down. That's about a 10:1 ratio, all the connections are identical, the elements are identical and nothing is pre-weakened :

$1M please, or my lawyer will be in touch.

 

[Heiwa]

OK - here's another. Take out the top level and the rest crashes down. That's about a 10:1 ratio, all the connections are identical, the elements are identical and nothing is pre-weakened :

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/houseofcards.jpg[/qimg]

$1M please, or my lawyer will be in touch.

Well, part A doesn't look like part C, whatever part C is. And you should drop part C on part A, etc. And where are the connections? If they are, e.g. glued ... nothing happens. And the 1/10 ratio???

Try again!

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

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

There. Can I have my $1,000,000 by PayPal please?

Moving video:

 

[Dave Rogers]

And where are the connections? If they are, e.g. glued ... nothing happens.

As we can now see, what Heiwa actually meant was that we had to propose a structure that would still collapse if he made fundamental changes to it to increase its strength. Funny how he didn't mention that in the original offer. I think we're well into Malcolm Kirkman territory here.

Dave

 

[moorea34]

Sorry, a mistake with my keyboard....

 

[rwguinn]

Of course not. I just like to see this "professional" engineer or naval architect or whatever he claims to be, suffocate under the weight of his ever-increasing lies. It still amazes me to see someone whose identity is known, blatantly lying in public with nearly every post he makes. With this one he's really showing his desperation.

well, Argumentum Ad Logicum is alive and well

&Law of Logical Argument
Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[GlennB]

Well, part A doesn't look like part C, whatever part C is. And you should drop part C on part A, etc. And where are the connections? If they are, e.g. glued ... nothing happens. And the 1/10 ratio???

Try again!

Part C - the top 3 cards. In fact part C is flimsier than part A, making this an even tougher test.
The connections are friction-based.
Part A is (by my calculation) the remaining 23 cards. About a 1:8 ratio.

Drop part C on part A and the whole thing will come down.

Or does the structure need to be welded/bolted steel, tube-in-tube design with concrete floors poured on steel floor spans and about 100 storeys tall to meet your criteria? If so, you really must learn to be more precise.

Meanwhile - where's my $1M ?

 

[Heiwa]

Part C - the top 3 cards. In fact part C is flimsier than part A, making this an even tougher test.
The connections are friction-based.
Part A is (by my calculation) the remaining 23 cards. About a 1:8 ratio.

Drop part C on part A and the whole thing will come down.

Or does the structure need to be welded/bolted steel, tube-in-tube design with concrete floors poured on steel floor spans and about 100 storeys tall to meet your criteria? If so, you really must learn to be more precise.

Meanwhile - where's my $1M ?

Part C - top 3 cards! So you lift the bottom one and the two inclined ones on top? But then the two top cards fall on the bottom one and cannot be dropped. It is not a structure or framework. 3 cards = structure = ?????
Maybe you are blinded by the hope of $1M but you really have to try harder.
Try again. Harder.

 

[rwguinn]

Anybody seen the goalposts. They were right Here a little while ago...

 

[Architect]

Sorry, I was mainly noticing how Heiwa's claim that FoS>3 had been wholly rubbished.

 

[Toke]

The tread is an attemt to get a strait answer from Heiwa, ok.
Or show that he makes it up as he go.

But I am not sure what the point is of whether fos>3 or not.

When a floor fall down the collums will be twice as long without support and down to 1/4 strenght. 2 floors, 3 times as long = 1/9 strenght.
And the collision zone were not pretty end on end.

 

[Heiwa]

The tread is an attemt to get a strait answer from Heiwa, ok.
Or show that he makes it up as he go.

But I am not sure what the point is of whether fos>3 or not.

When a floor fall down the collums will be twice as long without support and down to 1/4 strenght. 2 floors, 3 times as long = 1/9 strenght.
And the collision zone were not pretty end on end.

Är inte du till sjöss? Böljan blà! Eller svart. Eller grön. Var glad att skutan inte kollapsar, pga böljorna!

Don't derail this thread any further. Address the OP or do not post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode

 

[Toke]

Är inte du till sjöss?
Yes, but we do have a satelite connection.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Ok, I can't say I understand even half of the more technical stuff being discussed here, but on thing jumps out at me. Heiwa says, over and over, that an upper part, when dropped on a lower part, will not destroy the lower part.

Then he says this (bolded for emphasis)

I agree. Interesting stuff! How did the gangsters do it? I have some comments about it at the end of my WTC 7 paper, i.e. use of energetic materials, which are not really explosives. There are only 24 core columns in WTC 7 that must be suddenly cut at two locations, say at floors 6 and 13 and then the whole upper part above drops down ... free fall. As the floors may be service floors of some kind, installation of the remote controlled, pre-fab cutting devices is easy and quick.
Similar devices were probably used in WTC 1 and 2. Bigger job, though, but feasible. But it is outside my scope of expertize. I have of course informed FBI twice but have not heard from them.

By his own logic, floors 1-6 must have remained intact. I'm pretty sure this was not the case.

 

[Architect]

Ok, I can't say I understand even half of the more technical stuff being discussed here, but on thing jumps out at me. Heiwa says, over and over, that an upper part, when dropped on a lower part, will not destroy the lower part.

1. You and Heiwa both, then.

2. He only says that to deflect attention from his failure to substantiate his "FoS>3" claim, the point being that he's just made this figure up.

 

[GlennB]

Part C - top 3 cards! So you lift the bottom one and the two inclined ones on top? But then the two top cards fall on the bottom one and cannot be dropped.

Easily done, evidently. Lift the top horizontal card on a ruler or some other thin flat thing, very carefully. With a steady hand the inclined cards stay up. Then drop all 3 onto the rest. I did this quite easily just a few minutes ago. My grandchildren witnessed this, while I lectured them about never welding together large steel water tanks and lighting diesel fires underneath.

Then a 1000 tonne meteorite hit our roof at about 10,000 kph but - thanks to Newton's third law - action equalled reaction and it just stopped up there ! How I'm ever going to get it down I don't know because the pull of even a huge crane will be equalled by the weight of the meteorite so nothing can ever shift it, evidently. How do things ever move ? It's one of life's great mysteries I suppose.

Meanwhile we've decided to remove a lot of the joists in our house, to use for firewood. If ever a bad earthquake hits us we'll rest assured that the (smaller, lighter) upper section of the house can't ever plummet into the bottom section as we sleep* , so all that nice wood is pretty much going to waste. Maybe I can use some as a lever to get the meteorite off the roof? Dunno, but ....

Your conditions for the $1M were pretty clear (eventually), and the House of Cards has met the test. Where's my $1,000,000 ?

* typical house in these parts .. bedrooms downstairs.

 

[Heiwa]

Then a 1000 tonne meteorite hit our roof at about 10,000 kph but - thanks to Newton's third law - action equalled reaction and it just stopped up there !

You are just partly right; action force equal reaction force. Nothing stops due to that. Momentum, you know, if you treat it as a solid mechanics problem. That's why basket balls bounce, etc. Fast game!

 

[Architect]

This isn't a thread about bouncing balls (and I'm biting back the obvious comment there) but rather your unsubstantiated claim that "FoS>3".