• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
RedIbis said:
It appears that no one has been able to produce an example of 1/10th of something crushing the other 9/10ths.
Click to expand...

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.
 
GlennB said:
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.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
Heiwa said:
Pls, see Condition #4 in post #1. You can do better!?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
ihaunter said:
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.
Click to expand...

?? 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????
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
stateofgrace said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ahem Heiwa?
 
Condition #4 rules out the actual towers, they had many connections that relied solely on friction (anything bolted and not welded).
 
Heiwa said:
PS - Do you really suggest that structures consist of mouse trap elements????
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
stateofgrace said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 :)
 
GlennB said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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!
 
GlennB said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

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%.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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%.
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

They are talking nonsense.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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%.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom