• 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.
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...

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.
 
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

wtc1peelingcore.jpg


wtc2corestanding.jpg
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

It is equally applicable to the collapse of the towers?

Maybe you should apply your stringent criteria for correct wording to this challenge.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
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.

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

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc2corestanding.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I already have, which is why I used the words, " a few seconds after".
 
RedIbis said:
I already have, which is why I used the words, " a few seconds after".
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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?
 
Redtail said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited:
Redtail said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?
 
bill smith said:
Do NIST and Bazant include the still-standing sections of core in their collapse dynamic ? Do they explain it in other words ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
GlennB said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

You wonder what other nut cases than NIST and Bazant are around. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom