The real engineers here have totally destroyed your mad garble of basic physics. You are incapable of comprehending what they write.
The Heiwa Challenge
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
The real engineers here have totally destroyed your mad garble of basic physics. You are incapable of comprehending what they write.
For the record, I did not say that National Geographic "found" anything. I stated that the upper part of the collapsing structure was plainly visible on the video presented in the documentary. It becomes obscured by the smoke and dust, but it can briefly be seen.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
Heiwa, you are completely wrong. You assume one solid mass from above hits one solid mass below, like
Gage's demonstration of one cardboard box bouncing off a larger cardboard box below, or your ship bouncing off another ship.
At this point I ignore the rest of your explication since your math describes the wrong model.
To understand the basic concepts and do the complex math one needs to analyze building chaotic failure ,
an education in civil/structural engineering is mandatory. You can't pick it up from the web or be a
naval engineer.
Bazant is convincing, not only because he is one of the top civil/structural engineers in the world, but
also because his analysis has stood the test of time from his peers. For a naval engineer I'm surprised at how enormously wrong you are. Run your ideas through a civil/structural
engineer to see what he says before you post, really. It would improve your arguments.
WTC Collapse Sequence
1. The initial failure was the columns collapse as evidenced by video (not exploded).
http://tinyurl.com/oqzfjz
2. The columns below were not crushed. The floors collapsed inside the columns when the floor above it
crushed the floor below it. Evidence of video and photographs show uncrushed column assemblies upright
at the base, and the "spire" center core columns that remained upright for 20 seconds after the floors
assemblies swept past them, proving the columns were not crushed from the weight or impact from the
columns above and the cores were not CD'ed.
http://tinyurl.com/op5a9f
3. After the floors pancaked at the rate of 9-10 floors per second, the exterior columns (36 foot long
,three column, three story bolted at base plates ) became excessively laterally unbraced,too slender and
the columns buckled at the bolted connections and toppled. Try balancing one stick at the end of another
stick. At 80 floors the columns were 960 feet high, WTC7 was 300 feet away.
The columns were not horizontally ejected by any force, they toppled. Bracing is a
well understood condition in structural engineering.
4. Whereas each floor only supported its own weight, (100# / SF, DL+LL) each column supported the
weight of ALL the floors above it in addition to the roof loads and lateral tension, compression, shear
wind loads.The floor assemblies were DL light, meant to carry only a live load of 50#/sf, the floor above
it weighing 100#/sf fell 12 feet atop it. This caused the secondary, global failure.
5. The WTCs were built with lightweight, fire vulnerable (high surface area to steel weight ratio)
truss joists instead of solid beams, light weight concrete floors (110 #/ sf vs 150 # / sf regular
weight), sprayed steel fire resistant insulation instead of plaster, tile ,concrete, and all gyp board
core walls (Shaftwall was invented for this job) instead of concrete fire rated walls. The Empire State
Building weighs 38 #/ Cu Ft, The WTC weighed 8 - 9# /Cu Ft. Cork weighs 10 #/ cu Ft. The WTCs were
light, fire vulnerable long span web joist floor system buildings.
http://tinyurl.com/ojzuwt
No! I assume a composite assembly of elements, weak/thin floors and strong/support columns in upper/lower parts of different, separate masses contacting each other, all connected to one another in respective parts. Only loose elements are furniture, etc, that do not contribute to anything. At first contact only one element of the upper part contacts another element in the lower part, etc.
It is NIST and Bazant that assume that upper part is one mass, rigid according to Bazant, that contacts the lower part that is not solid at all.
Read my papers!
But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.
It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.
Last edited:
Pls, provide link.
Elegantly put (your whole post, I mean).
Regrettably though, Heiwa will respond with "But no smaller part C can one-way crush-down a larger part A. I know this because it's true. It's true because I believe it".
I have $1,000,000 riding on this prediction
Video is WTC 2 and does not show any columns collapsing, rather a big internal explosion. Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1. Drop part C on part A and destroy A! If you can, report here!
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The first prize was a night out on the town with Heiwa.The second prize was two nights out on the town with Heiwa.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
There was no "internal explosion" consistent with man-made demolition.
Who has suggested that? Anyway, topic is The Heiwa Challenge where upper part C shall one-way crush down part A of a structure as per post #1 just assisted by gravity. Have a try.
Internal explosions and similar producing local failures are not permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Just a drop + gravity.
Actually, it is quite difficult. But, have a try. And report. No off topic comments, please.
Folks,
I made an egregious error in an earlier post. I believed something that Heiwa & Bill Smith told me without checking it. Yeah, yeah. Let the ridicule commence. I deserve it. I know better.
Specifically, I believed their statements that the antenna started to collapse before the peripheral walls of the building. It never occurred to me that someone could get something that obvious completely wrong. (OK, 2nd course of guffaws...)
As a consequence, I wrote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4766255#post4766255
All of the above is clearly wrong.
Thank you, Ryan Mackey for your (smugly understated) comment above: "I thought we answered this question a year ago."
[BTW, "smug" is a compliment in this context. When you've fought the wars, and know you're stuff, you've earned the right to "smug". And that style is distinctive - and sets off alarms - to all of us who've dealt with folks who do know their business. Lest smug get out of hand, Ryan, there is a particular episode of South Park that is now readily available.]
Based on a quick scan of the info that Ryan pointed to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3469739&postcount=355
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3484088#post3484088
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3485838#post3485838
it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax.
Thanks to Mangoose, rwguinn and others for that fine work.
"Thank you. Now back you your regularly scheduled broadcast..."
tom
I made an egregious error in an earlier post. I believed something that Heiwa & Bill Smith told me without checking it. Yeah, yeah. Let the ridicule commence. I deserve it. I know better.
Specifically, I believed their statements that the antenna started to collapse before the peripheral walls of the building. It never occurred to me that someone could get something that obvious completely wrong. (OK, 2nd course of guffaws...)
As a consequence, I wrote:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4766255#post4766255
All of the above is clearly wrong.
Thank you, Ryan Mackey for your (smugly understated) comment above: "I thought we answered this question a year ago."
[BTW, "smug" is a compliment in this context. When you've fought the wars, and know you're stuff, you've earned the right to "smug". And that style is distinctive - and sets off alarms - to all of us who've dealt with folks who do know their business. Lest smug get out of hand, Ryan, there is a particular episode of South Park that is now readily available.]
Based on a quick scan of the info that Ryan pointed to:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3469739&postcount=355
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3484088#post3484088
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3485838#post3485838
it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax.
Thanks to Mangoose, rwguinn and others for that fine work.
"Thank you. Now back you your regularly scheduled broadcast..."
tom
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
I had already a look at that thread a few days ago.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Why are you posting off topic, the topic is the Heiwa challenge, right Heiwa?
Isn't it time you called Bill obnoxious also?
Lets keep the standards up, right?
Originally Posted by Heiwa
Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple!
Originally Posted by Heiwa
A typical OCTist post! Off topic, obnoxious, etc. The Heiwa Challenge is very clear
So are you going to enforce your standards with Bill, Heiwa?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Of course he will. I will try to stay on topic from now on.
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
And make sure you ask no questions regarding anything he claims as this is also classed as off topic. Make you don't ask him to back up anything he claims, make sure you accept everything he says, without question as that is all obnoxiously off topic. Make sure you keep him happy now Bill, don't want to upset your leader do you?
Even just pointing out what is off topic is actually off topic, so I better mention the Heiwa challenge just to be on topic.
PS, Bill I am messing with you, post what you like when you like, it's a free world.
Last edited:
My typo.
For the interpretively challenged, it should read "the early descent of the antenna [compared to the external wall of the towers] is simply an illusion of rotation [of the upper block] & parallax [from certain filming locations]."
I am totally at a loss...
Yep, bill. The WHOLE collapse is just an illusion.
The Illuminati decided they wanted some new plush digs in downtown Manhattan, and being cheap (a euphamism for you-know-what), they didn't want to pay. So they arranged this whole thing to get free rent.
The towers are still there. They are behind a Klingon Cloak of Invisibility.
[facepalm]
Obviously, it is pointless to expect a dialogue with you to make any sort of progress, but here we go again. You acomplish nothing by repeating your mindless mantra "read my papers." Your papers are garbage--worthless junk--incompetent nonsense that no serious journal would dream of publishing. Your papers are riddled with the same absurd errors that the real engineers have demonstrated to you countless times. You can't get your mind, crippled by your mad political agenda, around the fact that the upper part keeps getting bigger as it adds floors to its mass, while the lower part gets smaller. Eventually, the top 109 floors crush the last floor remaining. You are incapable of learning.
- Status