The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

There have been at least 2, possibly 3, scenarios which would win this challenge clearly put forth in this thread.

Scenarios do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge, which is about structures, where a part C of the structure one-way crushes down part A of the identical structure after being dropped on it (C<1/10A) by gravity.

According the OCT these structures should be common, &c, and the gravity driven one-way crush down phenomenon is a frequent event in these structures. The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm the OCT suggestion ... or conclude that it is untrue.

There are now >400 posts on this thread and no structure presented that one-way crushes down!

 

[beachnut]

I think I'm starting to understand you. If I have ten mice and I stand each one on a paper plate, one on top of the other, with sticks separating them and creating a little tower, I can pick up the top mouse and drop it on the other nine without causing the whole thing to fall down. You think that this would work the same if I used elephants. Is that what you believe?

It depends on how much super-thermite the mice ate. Good to start with mice, the elephants eat too much super-thermite.

 

[Minadin]

The author of and donor to the Heiwa Challenge is a charlatan, offering Monopoly money only and consistently moving the goal posts to make certain he never has to pay up to Parker Brothers for another box.

There have been at least 2, possibly 3, scenarios which would win this challenge clearly put forth in this thread.

NORAD reports that the Goal Posts are now somewhere over the Indian Ocean. NATO cautions travelers in the area due to violence in Sri Lanka.

 

[Wildy]

Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?

No answer?

 

[Swing Dangler]

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

You realize your example and support of NIST in response to the challenge is ridiculous. They modeled up to the point of initiation and then stopped. Much to the sadness of the structural engineering community I'm sure. End conclusion: lots of fireproofing stops global collapses from happening.

Now what you should do is investigate whether owners of high rise steel structures around the globe heeded NIST's advice and immediately began to increase the amount of fireproofing materials within their structures. After all, millions of lives depend upon fireproofing preventing global collapse.


NIST did notmodel the global collapse. Their excuse was that it was "too chaotic" for the computer models. So they ignored the science and let the world speculate. They could have provided other means to model the collapse say like the challenge offered to you, but they didn't take advantage of that. They didn't offer any math behind it, but relied on the Bazant paper that is full of flaws. And now they simply avoid the issue all together.

And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.


Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

 

[Disbelief]

And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.


Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

You still haven't learned to read yet. Myriad did in fact accept the challenge, at only 1/10th the price, but it is your hero who is backing out. He is the one who is not coming to the table with proof of having the money, and he seems unwilling to do as was asked to ensure the money is safe for disbursement.

 

[dtugg]

You realize your example and support of NIST in response to the challenge is ridiculous. They modeled up to the point of initiation and then stopped.

Yeah. They were charged with finding out why the collapse happened. So that's what they did. It is completely obvious to anybody that is not an idiot twoofer that after it started, that it couldn't be stopped.

Much to the sadness of the structural engineering community I'm sure. End conclusion: lots of fireproofing stops global collapses from happening.

I must have missed the sadness from the structural engineering community. Where is it? Or can I just assume that you made it up.

Now what you should do is investigate whether owners of high rise steel structures around the globe heeded NIST's advice and immediately began to increase the amount of fireproofing materials within their structures. After all, millions of lives depend upon fireproofing preventing global collapse.

Please. What happened at the WTC was totally unique and extremely unlikely to repeat itself.

NIST did notmodel the global collapse.

They weren't asked to.

Their excuse was that it was "too chaotic" for the computer models.

And it was.

So they ignored the science and let the world speculate.

They didn't ignore any science. And by "world" you mean a bunch of idiots on the internet, right?

They could have provided other means to model the collapse say like the challenge offered to you, but they didn't take advantage of that.

Please. This challenge is completely stupid. It would need to be scaled appropriately to mean anything and it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to scale such large buildings correctly. Heiwa, who is supposedly an engineer has no clue about scale, which is one of the many reasons he fails with every single post that he makes. If they did make the model, you guys would just say it was rigged anyway.

They didn't offer any math behind it, but relied on the Bazant paper that is full of flaws. And now they simply avoid the issue all together.

Point out the flaws in Bazant's paper and explain why I should listen to some morons on the Internet over a world renowned expert.

And now the challenge has been presented to this distinguished group of individuals to model the process that NIST refused to model. It should be quite simple really.

No. Actually it wouldn't be simple. And nobody has an real reason to go out of their way to try just to prove something to some morons.

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.

Myriad accepted the challenge. But as it turns out, Heiwa is a fraud and a liar. Why should Myriad go out of his way, spending his time and money to just to prove something to a bunch of morons?

Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

Because nobody cares enough to go out of their way and spend a bunch of their valuable time and hard earned money just to prove something to a group of morons.

Because if it did, you would shut Hewia up (be it 0 dollars or a million)as well as the truth movement and prove NIST correct!!

See above. I personally don't care about shutting Heiwa up. It would actually be shame, because he is comedy gold. I mean, we are talking about the guy who is supposedly an engineer and compares lemons, pizza boxes, sponges, ect. to 110 story skyscrapers. It doesn't get much funnier than that.

 

[TheRedWorm]

Yes. You can chose any scale or size for the heiwa "challenge" structure to demonstrate one-way crush down.

That's not what I asked. Here it is again:

Do you actually understand scaling? Not just in buildings, but in the everyday world?

Do you understand the importance of scale?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa

Could you please clear this up. If someone was to apply and succeed in this challenge, would they automatically disprove the axiom and win money?

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

 

[WilliamSeger]

And yet what is offered? Character attacks and like NIST, excuses NOT TO MODEL! There is a reason no one will accept the challenge. It has nothing to do with money and has everything to do with reality.

Why does NOBODY want to turn Bazant's math into reality?? Unless of course reality doesn't match Bazant's math which appears to be the case.

I offered Heiwa some reality: Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads VA, 1973. Two collapsing floors took out 22+ floors, one at a time, all the way into the sub-basement. After it got started, there was no reason it couldn't have taken out any number of floors, since each collision had more energy than the one before. Heiwa's fantasy physics have nothing to do with reality, which is why he now ignores the Skyline Towers collapse. I was working as a structural draftsman in an office a few miles away in Alexandria. There was a lot of talk among the structural engineers about how it might have gotten started, but what happened after that was pretty danged obvious, even to those of us who are not engineers and even without theoretical models. All it takes is some real-world common sense about heavy masses in motion, and some understanding that very few buildings are designed to withstand that kind of abuse -- not because it isn't possible but because it would make the construction very expensive.

 

[Heiwa]

That's not what I asked. Here it is again:




Do you understand the importance of scale?

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes! You are probably smaller than you believe.

 

[Fjolle]

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

Stop lying.

You mentioned the prize in posts #34 and #117 in this thread.

 

[twinstead]

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes!

this answer actually makes me think you have no idea.

 

[Wildy]

The Heiwa Challenge is one thing as per posts #1 and #239. C one-way crushing down A, etc. If you manage that you have won the Challenge and will disprove the Björkman Axiom that applies to all isotropic and composite structures.

The money award, $1M, is mentioned in another thread with >2 000 posts in a similar context to encourage people to think about the problem. None of the >2 000 posts was even near to just think about the difficulties involved.

It has been mentioned that you offered a million dollars to the successful applicant in this thread.

So if I were to enter this challenge and if I were successful, would that mean that you would give me a million dollars?

 

[TheRedWorm]

You mean relative size, proportion between sizes, &c. and what effects they can have. Yes! You are probably smaller than you believe.

Then why do you compare pizza boxes, lemons, sponges and the like to the twin towers?

 

[Heiwa]

Stop lying.

You mentioned the prize in posts #34 and #117 in this thread.

Post #34 is personal encouragement to one poster. #117 is refering to another thread. No prize in The Heiwa Challenge. Just honour.

 

[Heiwa]

It has been mentioned that you offered a million dollars to the successful applicant in this thread.

So if I were to enter this challenge and if I were successful, would that mean that you would give me a million dollars?

Pls enter the challenge and be successful! Question has been discussed many times before with other contenders. Pls check the relevant threads.

 

[Heiwa]

Then why do you compare pizza boxes, lemons, sponges and the like to the twin towers?

Good question! You see the part C and A structures must be same, only C<1/10A size wise. Internally they have same size - all elements/joints are 1/1 in C and A.

So when C and A are pizza boxes', lemons', sponges', &c, structures C/A collide/impact in experiments/models, there are no one-way Crush downs, ever.

Same apply to WTC 1 structure and its parts C/A.

It is the phenomenon one-way Crush down we discuss.

The WTC 1 C and A parts will behave exactly like pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, when they impact/collide.

My 12 years old kids crowd understand that 100%. What's your age?

 

[D'rok]

The WTC 1 C and A parts will behave exactly like pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, when they impact/collide.

 

[phunk]

Good question! You see the part C and A structures must be same, only C<1/10A size wise. Internally they have same size - all elements/joints are 1/1 in C and A.

So you're not looking for something similar to WTC 1 & 2?