The Heiwa Challenge

[Minadin]

And of course that's what's missing from Heiwa's argument that crush-up dominates over crush-down. He claims that the upper supports are stronger and will therefore fail first, but this ignores the fact that the falling debris has momentum that must be absorbed by the lower structure. Since the only way the lower structure can absorb this momentum is by deformation - it can't react by acceleration, as the upper block can, because it's fixed to the ground - then if there is enough momentum in the falling debris that it can't be absorbed by elastic deformation, the lower structure fails. That is the asymmetry between the upper and lower blocks, and that's why crush-down is expected to predominate over crush-up.

Dave

Indeed.

 

[Heiwa]

And of course that's what's missing from Heiwa's argument that crush-up dominates over crush-down. He claims that the upper supports are stronger and will therefore fail first, but this ignores the fact that the falling debris has momentum that must be absorbed by the lower structure. Since the only way the lower structure can absorb this momentum is by deformation - it can't react by acceleration, as the upper block can, because it's fixed to the ground - then if there is enough momentum in the falling debris that it can't be absorbed by elastic deformation, the lower structure fails. That is the asymmetry between the upper and lower blocks, and that's why crush-down is expected to predominate over crush-up.

Dave

Hm, the reason why upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A is that stronger elements in part A simply damages weaker elements in part C at contact that in turn gets disconnected from stronger elements in part C.

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart. Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

Your task, DR, is to produce a real structure that doesn't follow the above description as per The Heiwa Challenge rules (see post #1).

But I can assure you! You'll fail.

 

[Jackanory]

Actually this thread is a simple Challenge to design any structure A+C that will one-way crush down, when a part C is dropped on part A (=10C). Nobody seems to be able to conceive such a structure but let's face it; it is not possible according to the Björkman Axiom.

19 terrorists proved it to be possible Heiwa. Your just chasing your tail for kicks.

 

[Jackanory]

Hm, the reason why upper part C cannot one-way crush down lower part A is that stronger elements in part A simply damages weaker elements in part C at contact that in turn gets disconnected from stronger elements in part C.

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart. Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

Your task, DR, is to produce a real structure that doesn't follow the above description as per The Heiwa Challenge rules (see post #1).

But I can assure you! You'll fail.

Yet part 'C' didnt just crush down part 'A' did it Heiwa. Part 'C' actually gradually displaced part 'A' laterally floor by floor - pushing most of it outwards as it did so.

19 terroists proved it to billions - you fail chasing your tail.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The momentum of the upper part C ... or the energy that upper part C can apply on lower part A ... is thus divided into smaller parts at and after contact, every one of which is absorbed by the total structure A+C as further damping, deceleration, deformations, failures and friction or any loose parts of C are simply deflected by/away from part A.

And yet, when you tried to prove that mathematically, you found that you had to handwave away half of the potential energy in the system and miscalculate the elastic strain energy to avoid exceeding the elastic limit of the entire lower structure. Funny, that.

Dave

 

[Jackanory]

Or in other words, part A rips the elements of part C apart[/COLOR]. [/COLOR]Part C fails! It doesn't mean that part C becomes debris; it is still a structure ... but severely damaged.
.

Your not very good at this Heiwa. Did it do what you said (In red) or did it do what you said (in black).

What was displaced latterally Heiwa?

Did the WTC collapse but remain the same height in debris?

You even fail at chasing your own tail.

(damn thing wont go to red)

 

[Heiwa]

And yet, when you tried to prove that mathematically, you found that you had to handwave away half of the potential energy in the system and miscalculate the elastic strain energy to avoid exceeding the elastic limit of the entire lower structure. Funny, that.

Dave

Did I? You can chose any parameters to establish the elastic strain energy capability of the structure and the result will ... advance your knowledge.

In one case the structure is 'soft' and the result is 100% elastic; only a bounce of C on A. That's the easy case! I like that one. In another case the structure is a little 'stiffer' and C is severly damaged before A is affected. Part C cannot elastically apply the energy to A. C breaks up! Then you have to re-calculate what damaged C can do to A later. A little more complex. Actually C is completely destroyed by A.

In either case no one-way crush down by C of A is possible.

But if you can prove the opposite just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

 

[Jackanory]

Did I? You can chose any parameters to establish the elastic strain energy capability of the structure and the result will ... advance your knowledge.

In one case the structure is 'soft' and the result is 100% elastic; only a bounce of C on A. That's the easy case! I like that one. In another case the structure is a little 'stiffer' and C is severly damaged before A is affected. Part C cannot elastically apply the energy to A. C breaks up! Then you have to re-calculate what damaged C can do to A later. A little more complex. Actually C is completely destroyed by A.

In either case no one-way crush down by C of A is possible.

But if you can prove the opposite just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

Heiwa - Still awaiting you to clarify the questions to post 826.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Did I?

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

 

[Jackanory]

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

I can sense a hand wave coming on, followed by more tech jargon from the Heiwa cavern.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes, then lied about it when I pointed it out. Your own calculations predict collapse unless you cheat.

Dave

?? lol ??? But if you can prove your point just mathematically or with a real structure - The Heiwa Challenge - pls feel free to do so. Have fun!

 

[beachnut]

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

I again present the WTC towers on 911. I win again.

Heiwa owes me 1 million dollars but he was telling a lie; he will not pay.

 

[Heiwa]

I again present the WTC towers on 911. I win again.

Heiwa owes me 1 million dollars but he was telling a lie; he will not pay.

Good! I like this. A full scale model. Now detach part C from part A and drop part C on A. Pls, advise full details, etc, etc.

Re winning, pls consult the conditions.

 

[beachnut]

Good! I like this. A full scale model. Now detach part C from part A and drop part C on A. Pls, advise full details, etc, etc.

Re winning, pls consult the conditions.

The towers prove you wrong and you can't figure it out. You don't have an engineering degree or a working knowledge of physics. Other than that you are completely capable of making up delusions about 911.

Please stop messing up science.

 

[Heiwa]

The towers prove you wrong and you can't figure it out. You don't have an engineering degree or a working knowledge of physics. Other than that you are completely capable of making up delusions about 911.

Please stop messing up science.

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

 

[bill smith]

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=en&q=bjorkmans+axiom&aq=f&oq=

 

[beachnut]

Hm, according experience gained from The Heiwa Challenge gravity cannot one-way crush down a structure. And I have an engineering degree + good knowledge of physics ... and am the man behind the Björkman Axiom (see Google). This thread is just to produce a structure that can one-way crush down itself. If you think any towers did so on 911, you'll have to prove it. Don't delude anybody!

You have to prove it did not happen. You have failed to do so. It happened and all your moronic delusions can't prove it did not. You have provided zero numerical analysis to prove the WTC can't collapse like it did from impact and fires on 911. You have completely failed to make your point and your delusional physics and total lack of engineering skills are evident in your work.

Your only cheerleader calls herself BillSmith, and she can't calculate the energy involved in the WTC gravity collapse to see you are make up lies.

 

[bill smith]

You have to prove it did not happen. You have failed to do so. It happened and all your moronic delusions can't prove it did not. You have provided zero numerical analysis to prove the WTC can't collapse like it did from impact and fires on 911. You have completely failed to make your point and your delusional physics and total lack of engineering skills are evident in your work.

Your only cheerleader calls herself BillSmith, and she can't calculate the energy involved in the WTC gravity collapse to see you are make up lies.

Beachnut do you think it is irresponsible of the mainstream media to show interviews like his or is it all fair and square in a democracy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/&feature=player_embedded

 

[Typicallucas]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

 

[bill smith]

Why are you trying to change the subject?

It's just a NEWSFLASH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/&feature=player_embedded