• 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.
Has anyone noticed that bill smith's mannerisms are nearly identical to Heiwa's?
 
stateofgrace said:
A truly representative model is one that does not start out with a false assumption.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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
Click to expand...



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.
 
stateofgrace said:
A truly representative model is one that does not start out with a false assumption.
Click to expand...

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

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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
stateofgrace said:

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?
Click to expand...

Perhaps somebody else would like to answer the question I asked of you seeing that you are evidently reluctant to comment directly yourself.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Perhaps somebody else would like to answer the question I asked of you seeing that you ar evidently reluctant to comment yourself.
Click to expand...

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?
 
stateofgrace said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

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


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.
 
Redtail said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
bill smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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!
 
Heiwa said:
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!
Click to expand...
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom