The Heiwa Challenge

[beachnut]

... This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.

You are the winner of moronic delusions; you get to keep them.

The WTC tower fell on 911 due to gravity after murderers took two planes and impacted at high speed. You lost.

 

[FineWine]

Pls, provide link.

Find it yourself.

 

[FineWine]

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!

Stop these ridiculous lies. There was no internal explosion.

 

[FineWine]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?

Boy, you really know your stuff. Yeah, maybe he means that the collapse of the tower was an illusion.

I can see why you're willing to debate engineers even though your own lack of education is painfully obvious.

 

[MIKILLINI]

You say 'it seems evident that the early descent of the tower is simply an illusion of rotation & parallax. '

Do ypu mean that the ENTIRE collapse of the Tower was an illusion ?

What about the antenna ?

No Bill. It's you and Heiwa who are having the illusion since you two are convinced it was explosives that brought the towers down.

Can you provide an example of a top down demolition performed before 9/11? Wouldn't this be an example as well for your challenge?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

 

[tsig]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

After 1000 posts I will declare myself, definitely, the winner.

All structures will eventually succumb to gravity.

But what have you won? You consider us all stupid so I guess you have out argued the stupid. Are you proud of that?

 

[Jackanory]

Obnoxiously off topic as usual. This thread is about The Heiwa Challenge. Very simple! Design a, any structure that selfdestructs due to gravity.

.

No no no no no. This thread is about The Heiwa Ego and post counts. Nothing more.

Two buidings where already designed, built, hit by terrorists and collapsed. Challenge completed.

The terrorists challenge was completed on 911. They beat you Heiwa. You owe those terrorist your $1m. You make excuses for them now go lay with them. Fraud.

 

[BasqueArch]

Thanks GlennB.
Krazy Kat avatar, Herriman. I best like him for Don Marquis' "Archie and Mehitabel". "...There's a dance in the old dame yet ... toujours gai ..."

http://tinyurl.com/lnec33

 

[Tricky]

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 don't think this should pass unremarked. It is rare to find people admitting error these days, especially in this subforum. Whatever you think about tfk's position, I must commend him on his willingness to apologize in such an unforgiving place.

 

[dafydd]

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

Yes,he does seem to model himself on The Bellman in The Hunting Of The Snark.
'
What I tell you three times is true'.

 

[dafydd]

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.

Every time that qualified people point out Heiwa's mistakes to him he cries ''Off topic!''

 

[George 152]

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!

What 'big internal explosion' ?
And why didn't it register on the videos or in the testimonies of the witnesses?
And why are you still flogging this dead horse ?

 

[BasqueArch]

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!

......

There are two Heiwa Challenges:
1. It's been proven that the collapse of the WTC structure above,
demolished the entire structure below and therefore these posts are OT and decisive.

25 pages pass by of typically obtuse Heiwa, on the 26th page after some
telling posts ...:

=Heiwa But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! .

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

Pls, this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge, see post #1.

No off topic comments, please.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

I think he protests too much, don't you.

The second Heiwa Challenge

Heiwa = It seems Bazant uses 1960's assumptions, as when he was
designing bridges in CSSR, the latter collapsing around 1989/90 (and never
very stable).
Bazant is now retired. Cannot the NWO clowns get some better brain to
explain this one-way crush down of little C of big A?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143307 post #21,23

I replied "Are you saying that Bazant designed bridges that collapsed?
Provide references.

Heiwa is out of his element to besmirch Bazant.

He ran away without answer.

2. The other Heiwa challenge is to endure Heiwa - an indefatigably irrational insolent pipsqueak.

--------------------------------------------------------
Why there are many CT hypotheses, but only one theory - "Again, there are many ways of going wrong ... but only one way of going right; so that the one is easy and the other hard — easy to miss the mark and hard to hit it. " - Aristotle

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No Bill. It's you and Heiwa who are having the illusion since you two are convinced it was explosives that brought the towers down.

Can you provide an example of a top down demolition performed before 9/11? Wouldn't this be an example as well for your challenge?

There are examples of top down demolition done since 911. Why does it make a difference when it was done?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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.

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

 

[BasqueArch]

I don't think this should pass unremarked. It is rare to find people admitting error these days, especially in this subforum. Whatever you think about tfk's position, I must commend him on his willingness to apologize in such an unforgiving place.

Re TFK ... Hear, Hear ! ....

 

[MIKILLINI]

There are examples of top down demolition done since 911. Why does it make a difference when it was done?

I said prior to 9/11, not since 9/11. It makes a difference when there is alleged top down demolition of the trade towers. Especially when bottom up demolition is the basic foundation (No pun intended) of taking down tall structures.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I said prior to 9/11, not since 9/11. It makes a difference when there is alleged top down demolition of the trade towers. Especially when bottom up demolition is the basic foundation (No pun intended) of taking down tall structures.

Are you saying it was never envisioned prior to 911?

If so, why would it have been done after 911?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

You realize however that the impact of the upper section whether intact or not is not accurately represented in your assumption. Much of this mass was falling in unison and applying these loads as essentially a single or relatively few large scale impacts.

The strength of the lower section as a whole is somewhat of a moot point in this context, since the dynamic loads associated with such a large section coming down far exceeded any safety factors that the individual structural elements had the capacity for. We aren't treating it as a single unit of structure by pretending that the towers consisted of a uniform solid mesh.