The Heiwa Challenge

[bill smith]

The purpose of guy wires, if fitted, is to transmit wind loads on the mast from their connections to their supports ... on the roof. Wires can only transmit tensile forces and can thus be included in a beam analysis with that restriction. Problem is that the wire must be in tension. If it is slack it doesn't do anything. A wire cannot transmit any bending moment for obvious reasons. Guy wires, as elements, are permitted in any The Heiwa Challenge design. Pls submit your design!

Is a skyhook allowed ? lol

 

[bill smith]

If part C had a huge rocket motor on the roof that accelerated it into the lower 90% it seems plain that part C would be destoyed by the upight columns of A fixed in the ground.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Funny pictures. But they do not make any sense.

Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.

Let's start with the mast! A lateral wind load is applied on it. Result is of course a shear force in the mast - 0 at top, max at bottom. This shear force/lateral load produces a bending moment at the bottom of the mast, that is rotating the hat truss.
The shear force also produces an axial force in the hat truss.
The bending moment applied to the centre of the hat truss is transmitted to the supports at the perimeter walls. In order to transmit the bending moment in the hat truss, a shear force is required.

The mast has also a mass and applies a vertical force on the hat truss. This vertical force is transmitted to the perimeter wall supports also as a shear force in the hat truss. The vertical force also produces a bending moment in the hat truss. Etc, etc. Simple beam analysis.

You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

 

[Minadin]

According BLGB part B is rubble. In my opinion rubble (part B) can not one-way crush down anything but Bazant, Greening and Benson (and various other clowns) think so. The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to design a structure that, when being one-way crushed down produces rubble that assist in the feat!

I have never heard of rubble gaining mass, velocity, travelling in a certain direction, destroying non-rubble, etc. Any idea to the contrary?

Yes, my ideas are certainly contrary to yours.

You have been saying that Part C will be 'as crushed' as part A. That's the entire basis for your rejection of the 'one way crush', right? Well, that means that Part B is growing in mass, as parts of A and C become disassociated from each other. Part B is falling. That means, by definition, that it's accelerating downward. Therefore, its relative velocity is becoming increasingly distant from 0.

When Parts B and C both fall, they're both accelerating downward, and Part A is not (except that upper part of A that is becoming part of B as it is dislodged) and therefore, you must admit that the parts C and B are moving in the same direction. So, the velocity difference between C and B is significantly less than the difference between A and B. Because of this, B does more damage to A than it does to C.

I cannot actually fathom the sort of thinking that would cause someone to believe that 'rubble' can't do any damage to 'non-rubble'. Under that premise, shotguns and grenades should both be relatively inert weapons, shouldn't they? Billions of snowflakes placed gently should never collapse a roof. Rock slides would just flow around the non-rubble houses in their paths.

Are you serious? Think about this critically, for a change.

 

[tsig]

Heiwa,



Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.



You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

It's funny how he handwaves your diagrams as "funny pictures"
when I studied engineering the first thing you did when faced with a new problem was to start making diagrams in order to organize the facts and figures. One of our instructors was famous for always saying "think with your hands".

It is hard to understand how anyone with engineering pretensions could just ignore such basics of the trade.

BTW thanks for your informative posts. Shame they don't have a better reward but maybe posting has to be it's own reward and not the response.

 

[phunk]

The purpose of guy wires, if fitted, is to transmit wind loads on the mast from their connections to their supports ... on the roof. Wires can only transmit tensile forces and can thus be included in a beam analysis with that restriction. Problem is that the wire must be in tension. If it is slack it doesn't do anything. A wire cannot transmit any bending moment for obvious reasons. Guy wires, as elements, are permitted in any The Heiwa Challenge design. Pls submit your design!

Indeed, they would transfer the wind load mostly to the upwind side of the building, not to the base of the mast where you said it was maximum.

 

[GlennB]

It is hard to understand how anyone with engineering pretensions could just ignore such basics of the trade.

Well, I have a degree in biology but could never call myself a biologist. My actual work over the years has mostly been teaching English, programming and databases. If I were to spout about biology today I'd certainly expect to be making basic errors.

Take a look at Heiwa's CV. He apparently has a degree in marine engineering, but his actual work has been loss-adjusting in the marine insurance trade. He's as much an experienced engineer as I am an experienced biologist. i.e. not.

He's just a CTist with a (very) distant engineering background.

 

[tfk]

Good drawings T. Can you make another one giving an idea how the pure compresive force of the 30-storey antenna broke through the hat truss when it started on it's downwards journey before any other signs of collapse began including a stationary roofline ?

I already answered that question above.

The building [i.e, all structural members, including core & peripheral columns -tk] softened, yielded and failed at the 98th floor. The core failed a fraction of a second before the peripheral columns.

Why would you need a diagram?

There are certain effects that would predict the core fail before the peripheral columns (e.g., higher temperatures).
While other effects would predict the peripheral columns fail first (e.g., higher bending stresses).

Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.

What is so hard to understand?

 

[bill smith]

Heiwa,



Hmmm, an engineer would have no problem at all making sense of them.



You can stop with the posturing, Heiwa.

Both of us know what you said. Both of us know what you meant to say.

What you meant to say was "Transverse wind loads? Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

[Which is precisely why I asked if you wanted to stand by your original comment that "the bending loads were transmitted as shear loads".]

BTW, you & Bill Smith were talking about the stresses in the core & peripheral columns resulting from wind loads. Both of us see where, in an attempt to twist in the air & land on your feet, you are NOW introducing the stresses in the hat truss itself.

Lots of people in lots of professions are intentionally vague in their conversation. Used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians.

Engineers are precise, Heiwa. Engineers LIKE being precise. (You really chose a profession ill-suited to your personality.)

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol

 

[bill smith]

I already answered that question above.



Why would you need a diagram?

There are certain effects that would predict the core fail before the peripheral columns (e.g., higher temperatures).
While other effects would predict the peripheral columns fail first (e.g., higher bending stresses).

Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.

What is so hard to understand?

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.

 

[tfk]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.

.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

 

[beachnut]

But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol

Heiwa is not an engineer for structures like the WTC. Heiwa is a graduate of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. He does not build buildings he inspects shipwrecks and hates the United States and apologizes for terrorists with his failed work.

Heiwa challenge was beat twice on 911 by the towers gravity collapse. You are following an person who makes up moronic ideas about structures he never understood.

The fall of the towers on 911 prove Heiwa's ideas to be delusions. You support delusions with talk, no engineering, no math, no physics.

Heiwa has no more than 0.00087 percent of all the engineers in the world supporting his failed conclusions, plus you the cheerleader for 911 fraud.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/ Did you read all the reports from NIST on the WTC? How long did it take you?

 

[tfk]

That is why a real engineer, when challenged with my first comment, would have replied, "Of course the bending moment isn't transmitted as shear, but there's a shear force due to the side load that is transmitted." And I would have immediately agreed with such a real engineer, Heiwa. And this whole divert would have been avoided.

But Heiwa was essentially right ? Right ? lol

Are you literate, Bill Smith?

I will happily concede that Heiwa was absolutely, 100% correct for everyone who believes that:

"The bending moment at the bottom of the blue platform is transmitted thru the hat truss to the peripheral and core columns as shear loads"

is contextually equivalent to:

"The bending moment at the bottom of the blue platform is NOT transmitted thru the hat truss to the peripheral and core columns as shear loads"

I strongly suspect that both you & Heiwa are in this curious subset of the population.

"lol" away, now.

tk

PS. For the rest of us, he was completely, 100% wrong in that statement. Which is why I brought it up & gave him a chance to clarify it.

He clarified his ignorance, and then began his customary tap-dance.

 

[BigAl]

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell
THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.

I can't make out a word of that and to the degree it reflects reality, it's a big "so what?"

Can I point out that the sway of the tower at the instant of the plane impact (several ft) combined with the inertia of the mast put a tremendous strain on the antenna-truss connection. Who knows what kind of damage it caused.

We know the towers "survived" the impacts more or less as expected by what we know the designers planed for. Has anyone asked the designers of the mast what they anticipated?

 

[tfk]

But we established at great length that the antenna was attached to the hat truss and not to the core columns. The hat truss did not fall by the several feet that the antenna did or we would have instantly seen that effect in the walls and roofline.Therefore neither did the core columns fall which were welded TO the hat truss. So the antenna fell THROUGH the hat truss which you will now no doubt explain.

.
Read it again. Pay attention.

Based on the evidence of the antenna, the central supports for the hat truss (i.e., the tower core columns) failed slightly before the peripheral supports did. The hat truss buckled in the middle, bringing the antenna down with it.

This precipitated a total collapse, including the peripheral columns, a moment later.

Don't bother me with anymore of this nonsense. This level of willful ignorance is annoying.

"lol"

tk

 

[Quad4_72]

Anyone responding to Heiwa in this thread should probably take a look at my sig and question what good will really come out of it...

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Well, like all distributed loads in cantilevers, they produce a lateral (shear) load and a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. And the shear load (only) is transmitted, via the hat truss, to the core and peripheral columns as shear loads. And the bending moment is transmitted, via the hat truss, to those columns as compressive & tensile loads of varying magnitudes."

You are exposed as much by intentional imprecision as you are by outright error, Heiwa.

tom

Hm, let's get our coordinates right; x-axis is in the E-W hat truss beam, z -axis upwards (or downwards!), y-axis in the N-S hat truss beam. Say wind load is applied in x-z-plane in x-axis direction.

The shear force at the bottom of the vertical mast due wind loads then applies an axial force to the horizontal E-W hat truss beams. It also produces bending around the y-axis. The N-S hat truss beams are subject to torsion, etc.

The vertical force applied on the hat truss due to the mass of the mast (in the z-axis) is transmitted as a shear forces in the NS/EW hat truss beams to the perimeter columns. It also produces downward bending of the hat truss beams. Etc, etc. Start another thread about it. Fascinating stuff.

 

[bill smith]

.
Read it again. Pay attention.



Don't bother me with anymore of this nonsense. This level of willful ignorance is annoying.

"lol"

tk

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

 

[Heiwa]

.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

Not really - in both sets of pictures the upper part C is destroyed prior to any serious damages to the lower part A. Last (right) picture in section 1.6 is the start of the destruction of the upper stories of lower part A when part C is almost completely destroyed.
According NIST part A is supposed to be destroyed by energy applied by part C and due to lack of strain energy absorption capability of A, etc. According Bazant & Co part C + hat truss are supposed to be intact and to produce a rubble layer - part B - that is not seen anywhere and then one-way crush down part A while, repeat, part C remains intact. Part C is supposed to be crushed-up 15 seconds later by part B!!
Thanks for linking to my paper!

 

[beachnut]

If the ht truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would avepulled tose walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

Heiwa was proved wrong on 911; where is your support applicable to a conspiracy theory on 911? You have no clue on engineering proved by your blind support of Heiwa and his pizza box physics delusions that spawned the delusional OP.

"If you scale up the Pizza Tower 100 times and adjust the material you will get WTC1." - Heiwa
"No. My experiment is full scale. It is a 3.5 m tower (95 boxes) with an 0.5 m pizza impactor." - Heiwa

Where and what is the CT and can you produce the work to support Heiwa's work which is wrong in the first place?

How can you be skeptical of Heiwa's work when you have zero skills at engineering?