• 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.
Just for clarity....somebody on another thred posted this picture of the top of the hat truss to which the antenna was attached.


I wonder was it such a good idea to pre-install the support cables though...?
 
Some posts moved to AAH.

Keep it civil please. Attack the argument, not the arguer
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
The same pathology, bill.

bill smith said:
In my experience of Teddy he is a great one for 'rubbing it in'.
Click to expand...

Your "experiences" are internal, and uniquely self-serving, to yourself.

bill smith said:
His arguments against heiwa's conclusions failed completely and transparently.
Click to expand...

My arguments were made here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

And my arguments were countered ... where?

Heiwa NEVER addressed them. His ONE response is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743729#post4743729

He typically EVADED all the arguments that I made.
His points 1 -13 are a simply an ignorant restatement of his "challenge". They are completely irrelevant to my arguments.

His remaining 4 points (14 - 18) are ludicrous. And I addressed them, one by one, in my reply here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4746822#post4746822

And after my reply, Heiwa has simply run away & hid.

So, bill, Heiwa has NOT debunked my arguments. Heiwa has not even addressed my arguments. Heiwa has RUN AWAY from addressing my arguments.
___

Perhaps you are under the delusion that YOU have debunked my arguments, with your own "compelling arguments". Such as:

bill smith said:
You should just give it up T..
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
I agree..that post looked good but was unconvincing.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
Right...and then you must knw that a giant skyscraper is never crushed down to the ground by one tenth of itself whatever you are told. This is evidenced by the fact that it has never hppened in the history of worldwide consructon.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
The less said about the last paragraph the better....
Click to expand...

Sure thing, bill. There is a TON of hard hitting, irrefutable engineering in THOSE posts...

And, thus far, NO ONE else on the twoofer side has stepped up either.

So, the answer is, "You're wrong, bill. Totally and, for you, typically wrong. No one has debunked my arguments."

bill smith said:
This is evidenced by the lack of Teddy's 'Victory dancing'.
Click to expand...

There is precisely zero motivation for a math teacher to perform a "victory dance" after showing a bunch of children that 2+3 = 5.

Although I suspect that this analogy will be over your head as well...


tom
 
tfk said:
The same pathology, bill.



Your "experiences" are internal, and uniquely self-serving, to yourself.



My arguments were made here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

And my arguments were countered ... where?

Heiwa NEVER addressed them. His ONE response is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4743729#post4743729

He typically EVADED all the arguments that I made.
His points 1 -13 are a simply an ignorant restatement of his "challenge". They are completely irrelevant to my arguments.

His remaining 4 points (14 - 18) are ludicrous. And I addressed them, one by one, in my reply here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4746822#post4746822

And after my reply, Heiwa has simply run away & hid.

So, bill, Heiwa has NOT debunked my arguments. Heiwa has not even addressed my arguments. Heiwa has RUN AWAY from addressing my arguments.
___

Perhaps you are under the delusion that YOU have debunked my arguments, with your own "compelling arguments". Such as:









Sure thing, bill. There is a TON of hard hitting, irrefutable engineering in THOSE posts...

And, thus far, NO ONE else on the twoofer side has stepped up either.

So, the answer is, "You're wrong, bill. Totally and, for you, typically wrong. No one has debunked my arguments."



There is precisely zero motivation for a math teacher to perform a "victory dance" after showing a bunch of children that 2+3 = 5.

Although I suspect that this analogy will be over your head as well...


tom
Click to expand...

Well, I will leave it to Heiwa but whether he considers it worth responding again or not I can't say. For me there is nothing to answer other than a string of insults.Incidentaly you would do better to bring the insults to the general dscussion thread where it might not matter so much.
 
Heiwa,

You have challenged us to prove that, in a model of the collapse of the WTC towers, an upper Part C of a structure could crush down a lower Part A of the same structure.

The SPIRIT of this challenge is to show that the collapse of the towers is understandable in term of "physical damage, fire & gravity driven collapse". The spirit is NOT to meet a bunch of artificial, unrealistic criteria that you have impressed on the thought experiment in order to stack the deck in your favor.

I have produced compelling arguments that this will, in fact, happen. My arguments are shown here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

I've shown that you have several specific errors in your statements. I've outlined those errors in that same post.

In the spirit of that challenge, I am now calling on you to address my arguments. Sincerely, and with fully developed arguments. NOT with facile, one sentence "good luck proving this". I want to hear your argument as to why mine is wrong.

And I am also asking you to not ignore my arguments and return to your own, with "see my web site" or "see the OP" nonsense.

Please don't be rude.

Thank you.

tom
 
Bill,

Let me see if I've got this about right.

The topic is "have tk's arguments been debunked?"

You claimed here (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4762312&postcount=4) that they were. And your "evidence" was the fact that I had not performed a "victory dance".

I showed that Heiwa has not even addressed, much less debunked, my arguments. And that he has simply run into hiding.
I then posted YOUR responses, which are a laughable cipher, devoid of content.
And I pointed out that no one else on the Twoofer side has stepped forward to offer their debunking either.
And arrived at the indisputable conclusion from this that nobody here has debunked my arguments in the slightest.

Finally, I explained why it is not necessary for people who know what they are talking about to perform "victory dances" in front of children. In an attempt to get you to understand exactly why your silly interpretation that the fact that I "did not perform a victory dance is evidence that my arguments had failed completely and transparently" is so childishly, amusingly wrong.

So, bill, my points were right on topic. They addressed:
1. the fact that no one, including you and Heiwa, has debunked my arguments. and
2. the fact that your view that "victory dances are an accurate metric for winning & losing arguments" is, uh "interesting", but flawed.

And your response is:

bill smith said:
... For me there is nothing to answer other than a string of insults.Incidentaly you would do better to bring the insults to the general dscussion thread where it might not matter so much.
Click to expand...

For you, "there is nothing but a string of insults..."??

Bill, please. I addressed nothing but the arguments.

And I HIGHLY encourage you, once again, to bring forth YOUR concise, compelling arguments that counter the ones that I've laid out.

If you dare, of course... :D

Meanwhile, I will happily direct you to my sincere reply to your previous post. Which have been moved here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144183

tom
 
tfk said:
Heiwa,

1. You have challenged us to prove that, in a model of the collapse of the WTC towers, an upper Part C of a structure could crush down a lower Part A of the same structure.

The SPIRIT of this challenge is to show that the collapse of the towers is understandable in term of "physical damage, fire & gravity driven collapse". The spirit is NOT to meet a bunch of artificial, unrealistic criteria that you have impressed on the thought experiment in order to stack the deck in your favor.

2. I have produced compelling arguments that this will, in fact, happen. My arguments are shown here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4743226&postcount=769

I've shown that you have several specific errors in your statements. I've outlined those errors in that same post.

In the spirit of that challenge, I am now calling on you to address my arguments. Sincerely, and with fully developed arguments. NOT with facile, one sentence "good luck proving this". I want to hear your argument as to why mine is wrong.

And I am also asking you to not ignore my arguments and return to your own, with "see my web site" or "see the OP" nonsense.

Please don't be rude.

Thank you.

tom
Click to expand...

Hello tom.

1. Yes, The Heiwa Challenge is as per post #1.

2. Your arguments that part C of a structure can one-way crush down part A of same structure only by gravity, where A>10C and C is dropped on A, are not valid.

Reasons are that in a composite structure stronger elements in the structure will damage weaker elements and that in an isotropic structure, where all elements are identical, elements in both C and A are damaged at contact in a gravity field.

After contact, the two structural parts have changed, they are damaged, and there are two modified parts that are in contact trying to destroy each other. There is no possibility that part C remains unchanged. And for the simple reason that A>10C, C will be destroyed before A, i.e. A is only partially damaged at first contact and a little later.

Now, the next question is, if destroyed C = rubble (C will be shredded by A) and the destroyed parts of A = more rubble can continue to destroy what remains of A, so that a one-way crush down of A takes place? The rubble becomes a new part B. The answer is NO as per the Björkman Axiom.

The reason seems to be that the rubble - part B according to the BLGB paper - is not very solid or strong and that what remains of A is stronger. A will push B aside or B will just remain on top of A. I can prove this theoretically for a number of structures of all kind in a gravity field or in outer space but not in general. Thus the Axiom.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to produce a structure that does not behave according the Björkman Axiom.

I am never rude. Why should I be? But I always smile when this or similar questions are discussed. And it seems to upset people!

"Wipe that smile off your face", I have been told many times. And then I laugh!
 
The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.
 
Heiwa said:
Hello tom.

1. Yes, The Heiwa Challenge is as per post #1.

2. Your arguments that part C of a structure can one-way crush down part A of same structure only by gravity, where A>10C and C is dropped on A, are not valid.

Reasons are that in a composite structure stronger elements in the structure will damage weaker elements and that in an isotropic structure, where all elements are identical, elements in both C and A are damaged at contact in a gravity field.

After contact, the two structural parts have changed, they are damaged, and there are two modified parts that are in contact trying to destroy each other. There is no possibility that part C remains unchanged. And for the simple reason that A>10C, C will be destroyed before A, i.e. A is only partially damaged at first contact and a little later.

Now, the next question is, if destroyed C = rubble (C will be shredded by A) and the destroyed parts of A = more rubble can continue to destroy what remains of A, so that a one-way crush down of A takes place? The rubble becomes a new part B. The answer is NO as per the Björkman Axiom.

The reason seems to be that the rubble - part B according to the BLGB paper - is not very solid or strong and that what remains of A is stronger. A will push B aside or B will just remain on top of A. I can prove this theoretically for a number of structures of all kind in a gravity field or in outer space but not in general. Thus the Axiom.

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to produce a structure that does not behave according the Björkman Axiom.

I am never rude. Why should I be? But I always smile when this or similar questions are discussed. And it seems to upset people!

"Wipe that smile off your face", I have been told many times. And then I laugh!
Click to expand...



How's your paper coming along, sport? Did that serious journal get around to publishing it yet? Why not?
 
FineWine said:
How's your paper coming along, sport? Did that serious journal get around to publishing it yet? Why not?
Click to expand...

The one to ASCE Journ. Of Eng. Mechs. that was submitted 3 February 2009?

Haven't heard from them or R. Corotis, editor, lately. Maybe they still peer review? Ask them!
 
Regnad Kcin said:
The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.
Click to expand...

You're sure?

What about the collective amount of the lower part A? Need assistance to enter The Heiwa Challenge? See post #1 for details.
 
Heiwa said:
The one to ASCE Journ. Of Eng. Mechs. that was submitted 3 February 2009?

Haven't heard from them or R. Corotis, editor, lately. Maybe they still peer review? Ask them!
Click to expand...

Maybe I will. You should ask them yourself, but then you know perfectly well why they won't be publishing your rubbish. I guess they're NWO religious fundamentalists.
 
TheDaver said:
Heiwa:

Kent Hovind called. He wants you to stop using his gimmick.
Click to expand...

??? But if you can find a structure in any scripture(s) that fulfill The Heiwa Challenge commandments (post #1) just copy/paste here. I like Ramses a lot! The good ole times at the Nile!
 
FineWine said:
Maybe I will. You should ask them yourself, but then you know perfectly well why they won't be publishing your rubbish. I guess they're NWO religious fundamentalists.
Click to expand...

Pls, do and report. I call them every two, three months anyway. What rubbish are you refering to?
 
Heiwa, Part 'B' in your scenario is:

A) Gaining both mass and velocity
B) Traveling in the same direction as Part 'C'
C) Not only capable of destroying 'A', it actually accomplishes this.
D) All of the above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom