The Heiwa Challenge

[Fjolle]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop.

Now tell me. What is the difference from C=A to C=1/10A?

With C=1/10A, shoulden it then be able to destroy 1/10 of A again, which in turn will be able to destroy 2/10 of A and so on?

When i drop 10 pizza boxes on 10 pizza boxes they still bounce off. The same happens with lemons.

 

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

 

[Heiwa]

Now tell me. What is the difference from C=A to C=1/10A?

With C=1/10A, shoulden it then be able to destroy 1/10 of A again, which in turn will be able to destroy 2/10 of A and so on?

When i drop 10 pizza boxes on 10 pizza boxes they still bounce off. The same happens with lemons.

C=1/10A! Normally C bounces on A. Max damage C can ever do to A is to destroy 1/10A depending on structure. It happens only to very weak C/A structures. After that C is in pieces, which cannot do further harm, i.e. further damage 2/10A.

C=A! Same thing has for C=1/10A. C may bounce on A (compare pizza boxes, &c) or partly or completely destroy A, when C=A. Depends on the structure.

C can never crush down A without damaging itself.

In WTC1 C about 1/8A!

 

[Swing Dangler]

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.

William, what you fail to realize apparently is that the Skyline Towers did not suffer a global collapse nor did they have 1/10 of something crush down the remaining 9/10. The collapse was partial not global. The collapse took place during construction because of the early removal of a shore up of a concrete column, not 20+ years after construction. Arlington County investigated the incident and blamed the accident on insufficient wooden shoring to hold up concrete being poured to form the floor above it. Not only that, your source describes survivors of this process after the collapse that "rode" the collapse down several floors, not blown apart into pieces like WTC 1. You state that the collapse would have kept going....that is probably true because the area beneath, the parking garage, was still under construction!! But I agree that if you remove the support beneath a structure via explosives or due to incomplete construction, you may just get your global collapse but certainly not due to gravity alone.

What you have done, William, is inadvertently supported Hewia's assessment of the WTC 1 collapse.

And you have proposed reality that is not even close to the reality of 9/11. I'm sorry but your example for Hewia's challenge fails miserably.

 

[Shrinker]

Damn, Heiwa added a no-removal-of-concrete-shore-ups clause to the challenge now? Our structures have to stand for 20+ years? The parking garage has to be complete? People have to die in the upper part?

Why don't you just cut to the chase? Unless its an exact replica of the WTC, and ends up in exactly the same shaped heap, it doesn't count.

 

[twinstead]

But I agree that if you remove the support beneath a structure via explosives or due to incomplete construction, you may just get your global collapse but certainly not due to gravity alone.

Or a fully-loaded jet impact at high speed and resulting unfought fires

 

[boloboffin]

Sorry, Balzac/Vitry is a controlled demolition with part C 6 floors, then three floors that are destroyed, and then part A 6 floors below, or so. And the result was still not a complete crush of part A. Has been pointed out many times.

Pls, try again. Describe the structure where C can crush down A, etc, after a drop.

Yes, I thought you'd say that. So my solution is that my design is of the Balzac/Vitry building, but 62 floors high. Then Part A is the correct proportion, it would obviously destroy part C all the way down, and any remaining section left standing would be in the same proporton as what was left standing when the towers collapsed. Please let's get this taken care of. I've got my eye on a nice world cruise.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, I thought you'd say that. So my solution is that my design is of the Balzac/Vitry building, but 62 floors high. Then Part A is the correct proportion, it would obviously destroy part C all the way down, and any remaining section left standing would be in the same proporton as what was left standing when the towers collapsed. Please let's get this taken care of. I've got my eye on a nice world cruise.

Maybe you have mixed up C and A? Anyway, your structure is 62 floors high so part A is the 56 floors below and part C the six floors on top. C/A = 6/56 = 0.107 > 1/10 but OK, I accept that. What kind of elements are you using?

I suggest that floor height is, say only 0.05 m so structure becomes total 3.1 m high, easy to build. Part A = 2.8 m and part C = 0.3 m. Very good. Then it is quite easy to detach part C, lift it up 3.7 m for a drop.

Say one floor + small supports weighs 10 kgs! Part A thus weighs 560 kgs and part C 60 kgs. OK, to lift 60 kgs require assistance.

Note that part A bottom supports to ground must carry 620 kgs, while part C bottom supports only carries 60 kgs, i.e. the part A bottom supports are 10 times stronger than part C bottom supports.

At impact part C (60 kgs) applies 2180 J to part A (560 kgs) and itself (the total system - 620 kgs), total system will first compress elastically and then you think part A will globally collapse?

I doubt it. But have a try!

 

[boloboffin]

Maybe you have mixed up C and A? Anyway, your structure is 62 floors high so part A is the 56 floors below and part C the six floors on top. C/A = 6/56 = 0.107 > 1/10 but OK, I accept that. What kind of elements are you using?

Now, how do you intend to drop part C on A? Using a crane? Pls, advise progress!

That building, the same way. Removing the columns and down it goes.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Damn, Heiwa added a no-removal-of-concrete-shore-ups clause to the challenge now? Our structures have to stand for 20+ years? The parking garage has to be complete? People have to die in the upper part? Why don't you just cut to the chase? Unless its an exact replica of the WTC, and ends up in exactly the same shaped heap, it doesn't count.

No of course not. Those parameters don't need to exist. Just take 1/10 of something and crush down the remaining 9/10. Very simple, eh?

I understand your disappointment by trying to accept the example below, the resulting process, and end results that doesn't meet Heiwa's challenge thereby disproving the official story.

The model-example doesn't meet the requirements....1/10 of something crushing the 9/10 of something else in a global collapse.

But if you accept the example cited below as a model for Hewia's challenge, then it disproves the official story. Is this why you are perturbed?

 

[Heiwa]

That building, the same way. Removing the columns and down it goes.

Yes, part C drops, if you remove its bottom supports, but what about part A? You are supposed to crush 56 sets of supports in part A + floors. You do not seriously believe that part C can do THAT?

 

[Swing Dangler]

Or a fully-loaded jet impact at high speed and resulting unfought fires

I understand your belief system, but NIST didn't model the global collapse to conclusively prove that 1/10 part crushing the 9/10 part in a complete global collapse. "Too chaotic...." for those darn computers.

Do you blame them? I don't. I know why they didn't, but I don't blame them. Why didn't they? It can't be done. If it could, it would, but it can't so it wont.

Nobody I know or around these parts can model it either because it can't be done. I'm sure there are many who continue to rely on the faulty Bazant paper, but then that reliance becomes a politico-religion based upon faith, not fact or science.

Model it and they will agree don't model equals conspiracy!

 

[Gamolon]

The Heiwa Challenge


...a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it...

Question.

Is your above statement supposed to be a simplified description of the WTC towers? That the towers were the same all the way through from top to bottom?

If so, in my opinion, people should have a problem with your experiment as the towers were not the same as I have said before. In order to replicate the tower's collapse, I have suggested that the upper 1/10 of the structure include solid steel cubes to represent the transformers and 5 ton elevator motors located at the top of the towers. Why do you not want us to include this aspect of the structures in the experiment?

Someone came up with making a structure out of emptied eggs and then taking the upper 1/10 of siad structure and dropping it on the sturcture below. What if we added steel ball bearings to the upper 1/10 to replicate the 5 ton motors and transformers? Would that make a difference as far as what would happen?

 

[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?

A structure is always a structure. That's what structural analysis is all about. Structual damage analysis is about damaged structures.

If you believe that WTC 1 differs from any other structures in universe, you have not understood much!

WTC 1 is not a unique structure in the universe! It is just like pizza boxes, &c. This one off one way Crush down once in the universe is just Hollywood stuff.

But I appreciate your interest in this thread - The Heiwa Challenge. We in old Europe solved it a long time ago. It seems the knowledge got lost in the Atlantic? So I just remind you ... over there!

Clearly you didn't understand my point. In the WTC collapses, C and A were not the same structure, but you're making that a requirement of the challenge.

 

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

Bump

 

[phunk]

Question.

Is your above statement supposed to be a simplified description of the WTC towers? That the towers were the same all the way through from top to bottom?

If so, in my opinion, people should have a problem with your experiment as the towers were not the same as I have said before. In order to replicate the tower's collapse, I have suggested that the upper 1/10 of the structure include solid steel cubes to represent the transformers and 5 ton elevator motors located at the top of the towers. Why do you not want us to include this aspect of the structures in the experiment?

Don't forget the hat truss...

 

[Swing Dangler]

Bump

The difference in your example are two different material compositions.

What is your point? Bullets penetrate soft materials easier if shot by gun rather than thrown by hand?

 

[Heiwa]

Clearly you didn't understand my point. In the WTC collapses, C and A were not the same structure, but you're making that a requirement of the challenge.

Condition is that structure of both parts C and A is identical and not different. You have to make part A a little stronger to carry part C, etc. as pointed out in the conditions but otherwise the structure should be more or less same in the Challenge. Now, back to the drawing board!

 

[beachnut]

Yes, part C drops, if you remove its bottom supports, but what about part A? You are supposed to crush 56 sets of supports in part A + floors. You do not seriously believe that part C can do THAT?

I won with the reminder the WTC towers fell due to gravity after fire and impacts. I win. You lost; your idea is dirt dumb stupid.

I lie your drop it 2 miles and it stops a the top of the building delusion best. Good for you, don't let engineering, physics or gravity get in the way of your delusions. Keep up the good work here at a skeptic forum where your work and ideas was found to be pure poppycock the moment you posted your first kids jumping on a bed for the reason the WTC can not gravity collapse.

And you don't think planes hit the WTC either. Good for you still in denial for over 7 years and not a single piece of evidence to support your inside job delusions as you apologize for terrorists.

I present the WTC fell on 911 as a gravity collapse supported by 99.999 percent of all world engineers and scientist. Send me the money.

 

[TheRedWorm]

That doesn't address the issue of scale. Think about it this way: If I throw a bullet at a watermelon, what happens? Now what happens when I fire a bullet at the same melon? Remember, the only difference in my example is scale.

Is scale important in the way physical reality operates, "heiwa," yes or no?

Is the question really that hard to answer, "heiwa"?