The Heiwa Challenge

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Evidently lower part A of the structure can statically carry upper part C as per post #1.

Your becoming transparent, Heiwa. To me. That's just because you're new to me. Others were already familiar with your style before I got here, and warned me.

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.

.

Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.

Continuing vagueness. Continuing sloppiness.

Just as soon as upper Part C comes OFF OF the support beams of lower Part A, then Lower Part A is doomed. The FLOORS were never able to carry the weight. The floors of Part A collapsed, and without the FLOORS, the whole structure was unstable.
.

Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?

Sloppiness continues. Combined with out and out error.

This is 100% opposed to your PREVIOUS nonsense, when you claimed that detached rubble could not cause damage. And that was just as incompetently wrong as this loony suggestion.

Anything that has mass & momentum, REGARDLESS of whether they are attached or detached, will cause damage in a collision.

.

Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.

Pssst, Heiwa. It was an antenna. A MAST is something on a boat. As all this farce has shown, buildings are NOT boats.

Now you're getting coy, Heiwa. YOU said "the antenna dropped first". And Bill Smith said "the antenna dropped first".

Please do not confuse those two events with someone knowledgeable and honest saying "the antenna dropped first".

The antenna dropped when everything below it dropped. Ain't no mystery there.
.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

What sort of a complete nonsense is this??

Drop your TV set out of your third story window. (This will be roughly comparable to dropping a building's steel latticework 1300 feet.) It hits the ground & breaks up into 100 pieces. Under the effect of gravity alone.

According to your idiocy, it'll have to be in ONE SINGLE (destroyed) piece. Each piece attached at one end to every other piece.

Or were there explosive charges buried by dark forces in your TV.

And a TV set is, for its size, STRONGER than the WTC. You could plausibly stack 2 to 4 additional TV sets on top of your own. One could not stack even ONE additional WTC tower on top of the one that was there.

Heiwa, you should be humiliated to be making statements this nonsensical.
.

Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.

A chain of illogic. Not one single link in the chain stands 10 seconds of scrutiny. And a laughable conclusion at the end.

Sorry, Heiwa. You are not competent at your engineering.
.

It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!

I really, really understand that you'd like that to be the case. To end on a sloppy, thoughtless piece.

I doubt that you'll get that wish.


tk

 

[Heiwa]

Do you ever stop telling your nonsensical lies? Bazant's stature in the engineering community is huge. You are an unknown incompetent.

NOBODY suggested that "a small piece of a structure" crushed the rest of the structure. The top parts of two buildings, consisting of 15-20 floors, collapsed. When they did so, they crushed in succession each floor they contacted, gaining mass and momentum . You are incapable of understanding why the towers fell. You are a disgrace to your profession.

No, Bazant suggests that the top part does not collapse - it remains intact - and that it, called part C in later papers, one-way crushes down the structure below, part A, that is 8 times bigger ... and much stronger.

Bazant is a retired professor with experience of material properties of isotropic structures, etc. He knows little about construction, steel element structural analysis and even less of such structural damage analysis, i.e. the analysis of steel or composite structures where elements and connections fail one after the other. Just check the 400+ papers he has produced. Nothing about structural damage analysis.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa,

Your becoming transparent, Heiwa. To me. That's just because you're new to me. Others were already familiar with your style before I got here, and warned me.

You perpetuate your nonsense by being intentionally sloppy in your language. Precise use of language is your enemy. You know it.

"Lower Part A" did NOT carry upper Part C. Your sloppiness.

The SUPPORT BEAMS of Lower Part A carried the weight of Upper Part C.

The FLOORS of Lower Part A never carried upper Part C. They never could carry Upper Part C, even statically. The FLOORS of Part A could NEVER carry even the RUBBLE of upper Part C. They could not carry it statically with zero drop. Clearly they could not carry it dynamically after ANY drop.

.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.


Continuing vagueness. Continuing sloppiness.

Just as soon as upper Part C comes OFF OF the support beams of lower Part A, then Lower Part A is doomed. The FLOORS were never able to carry the weight. The floors of Part A collapsed, and without the FLOORS, the whole structure was unstable.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?
Sloppiness continues. Combined with out and out error.

This is 100% opposed to your PREVIOUS nonsense, when you claimed that detached rubble could not cause damage. And that was just as incompetently wrong as this loony suggestion.

Anything that has mass & momentum, REGARDLESS of whether they are attached or detached, will cause damage in a collision.

.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.
Pssst, Heiwa. It was an antenna. A MAST is something on a boat. As all this farce has shown, buildings are NOT boats.

Now you're getting coy, Heiwa. YOU said "the antenna dropped first". And Bill Smith said "the antenna dropped first".

Please do not confuse those two events with someone knowledgeable and honest saying "the antenna dropped first".

The antenna dropped when everything below it dropped. Ain't no mystery there.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

What sort of a complete nonsense is this??

Drop your TV set out of your third story window. (This will be roughly comparable to dropping a building's steel latticework 1300 feet.) It hits the ground & breaks up into 100 pieces. Under the effect of gravity alone.

According to your idiocy, it'll have to be in ONE SINGLE (destroyed) piece. Each piece attached at one end to every other piece.

Or were there explosive charges buried by dark forces in your TV.

And a TV set is, for its size, STRONGER than the WTC. You could plausibly stack 2 to 4 additional TV sets on top of your own. One could not stack even ONE additional WTC tower on top of the one that was there.

Heiwa, you should be humiliated to be making statements this nonsensical.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.

A chain of illogic. Not one single link in the chain stands 10 seconds of scrutiny. And a laughable conclusion at the end.

Sorry, Heiwa. You are not competent at your engineering.
.
[QUOTE who="Heiwa"]
It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!

I really, really understand that you'd like that to be the case. To end on a sloppy, thoughtless piece.

I doubt that you'll get that wish.

LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! Throwing TV sets out of windows.

Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.

Pls, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Where an upper part C of a structure is carried by a lower part A. Both parts are assemblies of elements.

You are supposed to disconnect C from A, drop it on A and to show that C one-way crushes A.

 

[dafydd]

You are aware that this is a public forum and that your posts here could be used to destroy any credibility you might have in other venues?

That will have no effect on him.He is convinced that his harebrained theory is true and that far more qualified people than he do not know what they are talking about.He would be pleased if you posted his drivellings on other forums.

 

[tfk]

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

Sorry Anders,

The "Heiwa Challenge" collapses (appropriately) under its own weight of nonsense the INSTANT that anyone starts talking with accuracy, with precision.

This is precisely why you adamantly refuse to talk with precision. And instead offer your "Part A", "Part C", and "do it with religion" nonsense.

You should note, tho, that the mere fact that YOU won't talk in specifics, with accuracy, with attention to detail, does NOT stop the rest of us from talking in specifics.

With accuracy.

With attention to detail.

And you are just the class clown sitting in the corner with his fingers in his ears. Rocking back & forth & saying "I'm not going to talk about THAT!"

Or, perhaps a better metaphor would be the Black Knight out of The Holy Grail. Sitting there armless, legless, crying that "it's only a flesh wound", while everyone else just moves on.

C'ya...

tk

 

[GlennB]

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

You seem to have ignored my previous post on this subject, so let's try a different tack..

According to you (see above), gravity cannot have caused the disconnections in the steel members in the following GZ photo? It had to be CD?

 

[Heiwa]

You seem to have ignored my previous post on this subject, so let's try a different tack..

According to you (see above), gravity cannot have caused the disconnections in the steel members in the following GZ photo? It had to be CD?

[qimg]http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/groundzeromassivedetail-1.jpg[/qimg]

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

 

[tfk]

LOL. You don't know much about structural analysis, don't you! Throwing TV sets out of windows.

Lower part A didn't carry upper part C!!!??? Sorry! It did, for 30+ years.

Pls, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! Where an upper part C of a structure is carried by a lower part A. Both parts are assemblies of elements.

You are supposed to disconnect C from A, drop it on A and to show that C one-way crushes A.

As I said, the ONLY way that you perpetuate your nonsense is by being sloppy.
And short. The less MEANINGFUL things you say, the less nonsense there is with which others can beat you about the head & shoulders.

So you are reduced to this...

"You don't know much about structural analysis..."

I know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams, Heiwa. Something that, yesterday, you proved that you do not.

I know that a TV set is a structure. I know that it has elements in it. I know that those elements are connected to each other. I know that, if I throw it out of a window, it will fall to the ground ONLY under the influence of gravity. And I know that, when it hits the ground, it will break into a bunch of separate DETACHED pieces.

But let's hear what some other fool says about my TV set:

.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

Gee, Heiwa. Who was the fool that said that??

How does he explain my "TV in 100 pieces"?

Explosives, no doubt.

No, Heiwa. You don't say "explosives". In fact, you won't say ANYTHING.

You will - ONCE AGAIN - retreat behind sloppy language.

You will run away from the discussion. Cowardly. Exactly like you refused to answer my direct, ON TOPIC, points.

You will attempt to bluff & bluster.

All of it, unsuccessfully.

Keep trying, tho. Maybe Bill Smith & Kreel still think you're a genius....

Maybe...

tom

 

[GlennB]

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

You are saying , then, that in a CD every steel member is cut? On every floor?

If not, then how does the CD'd building collapse into a totally broken heap when only the cut steel columns - according to you - can fully disconnect?

In the photo above - according to you - every single piece of steel should bear the traces of CD. That is, a blackened and diagonally cut end.

I suspect you know your position on this subject is ridiculous, as tfk has indicated above.

 

[tfk]

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.

Mr. Szamboti,

Why are you writing like this? I was under the impression that you are an engineer. Is that not true?

bb pellets and grenade fragments follow PRECISELY the same rules as snow flakes, gas molecules, rocks avalanches, steel beams and planets and galaxies.

Each has kinetic energy & momentum, and exists on the VERY SAME CONTINUUM, according to mass and velocity.

Why are you suggesting they are "not analogous"? They are precisely analogous, as long as the WHOLE MODEL is set up according to well known rules of dimensional analysis & scaling.

But it is the whole model that is consistent or not. Not components of the model.

Your freshman dynamics professor (to say nothing of Isaac Newton) would be disappointed with you.

tk

 

[bill smith]

Thanks for picture. Typical result of CD! Gravity alone cannot produce THAT!

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You are saying , then, that in a CD every steel member is cut? On every floor?

If not, then how does the CD'd building collapse into a totally broken heap when only the cut steel columns - according to you - can fully disconnect?

In the photo above - according to you - every single piece of steel should bear the traces of CD. That is, a blackened and diagonally cut end.

I suspect you know your position on this subject is ridiculous, as tfk has indicated above.

Heiwa, very clearly -- whether intentionally or out of incompetence -- doesn't regard connection failures as a collapse mechanism as you've begun to imply. And I suspect not one person contending the demolition theory both self proclaimed professionals or laymen cares for taking that into account. Those failure points are absolutely expected in a structure like the towers, without any need for controlled demolition to induce it.

 

[FineWine]

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/

It is certainly all over as regards the insane inside job nonsense. You usually spout nothing but falsehoods, but when you state that listening to one wrong-headed fraud is pretty much the same as listening to another, you have inadvertantly managed to tell the truth.

Two months ago, we were discussing how Jones could settle the issue of his red chips by submitting them for independent analysis. I pointed out that his mindless followers will still be making excuses for him six months, a year, two years from now. Heiwa will never succeed in persuading a serious journal to publish his rubbish. I'm sure we will hear how they are all staffed by religious fundamentalists taking orders from the NWO.

You people are beyond pathetic.

 

[Heiwa]

As I said, the ONLY way that you perpetuate your nonsense is by being sloppy.
And short. The less MEANINGFUL things you say, the less nonsense there is with which others can beat you about the head & shoulders.

So you are reduced to this...

"You don't know much about structural analysis..."

I know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams, Heiwa. Something that, yesterday, you proved that you do not.

I know that a TV set is a structure. I know that it has elements in it. I know that those elements are connected to each other. I know that, if I throw it out of a window, it will fall to the ground ONLY under the influence of gravity. And I know that, when it hits the ground, it will break into a bunch of separate DETACHED pieces.

But let's hear what some other fool says about my TV set:

.


Gee, Heiwa. Who was the fool that said that??

How does he explain my "TV in 100 pieces"?

Explosives, no doubt.

No, Heiwa. You don't say "explosives". In fact, you won't say ANYTHING.

You will - ONCE AGAIN - retreat behind sloppy language.

You will run away from the discussion. Cowardly. Exactly like you refused to answer my direct, ON TOPIC, points.

You will attempt to bluff & bluster.

All of it, unsuccessfully.

Keep trying, tho. Maybe Bill Smith & Kreel still think you're a genius....

Maybe...

tom

What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?
But if you "know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams", why not try to design a structure as per The Heiwa Challenge?

OK, it is 3-D and at least 1000+ diagrams. x-y is ground, z is up!

Start with diagram 1! Intact! What are the stresses in every element/connection? That's easy.
Diagram 2 or 22 or 222! The structure is damaged and element(s) or connection(s) has(ve) failed. What are the stresses then in every element/connection and how much energy has bee used to produce the failures, etc.
I will extend The Heiwa Challenge also to include pure computer/FEA/beam based analysises of a part C one-way crushing down A.
Just get going - hopefully by post #2000 we'll have some results?

 

[FineWine]

What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?
But if you "know how to CORRECTLY construct force, moment & shear diagrams for cantilever beams", why not try to design a structure as per The Heiwa Challenge?

OK, it is 3-D and at least 1000+ diagrams. x-y is ground, z is up!

Start with diagram 1! Intact! What are the stresses in every element/connection? That's easy.
Diagram 2 or 22 or 222! The structure is damaged and element(s) or connection(s) has(ve) failed. What are the stresses then in every element/connection and how much energy has bee used to produce the failures, etc.
I will extend The Heiwa Challenge also to include pure computer/FEA/beam based analysises of a part C one-way crushing down A.
Just get going - hopefully by post #2000 we'll have some results?

The results achieved on 9/11/01 were definitive.

 

[beachnut]

Heiwa this is a good lecture by Steven Jones at UC Davis on may 1st. At around the 26-minute he discusses WTC1 with diagrams and so on. Might as well be listening to you. Very convincing stuff. it really is all over as regards whether 9/11 was an inside job. It's only a matter of whether anything will be done about it.
http://johnp.blip.tv/

Good video; it matches the same level of moronic ideas you like and Heiwa spews. Good job finding a match at the same level of delusions you hold with Heiwa.

 

[Heiwa]

The results achieved on 9/11/01 were definitive.

Yes, CD 100%. So to clarify matters this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls, submit structures that one-way crushes down as per post #1.

 

[beachnut]

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.

Both you and Heiwa are great anti-intellectual examples of engineering gone wrong. You continue to prove you don't need to use engineering with you lack of understanding 911 and you are so proud you post proof.

Proved wrong on 911, you and Heiwa think made up ideas and talk will suffice to support your failed conclusions.

You and Heiwa have problems grasping the mass and gravity issues of 911 and fail to make rational conclusions. Your failed ideas need explosives or thermite and Heiwa needs more pizza boxes and kids jumping on beds.

The gravity collapse of 911 satisfies this thread and makes your ideas and Heiwa's failed delusions. Changing your name will not hide the fact you had a preconceived conclusion on 911 based on moronic delusions.

You are joined with another evidence free moronic idea producer.

Yes, CD 100%. ...

A lie since you have no evidence. Why and how can you keep a moronic delusion based on no evidence? You lost your challenge on 911 due to lack of engineering skills. After 1000 posts Heiwa has failed to refute reality.

 

[FineWine]

Yes, CD 100%. So to clarify matters this thread is about The Heiwa Challenge! Pls, submit structures that one-way crushes down as per post #1.

You're almost right--at least, as close as you'll ever come. The correct probability is CD, 0%. You see, you are an incompetent fraud who is incapable of learning. Every demolition professional in the world rejects your lies about explosives.

The Heiwa Challenge is as bogus as your cash offer. The real engineers have exposed you completely.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Anders, please. Stop trying to be clever. You are just not very good at it. You are not subtle. You can no longer hide your theory's flaws - even to the LEAST technologically inclined people here.

Do you REALLY think that anyone is fooled by your continued use of the meaningless terms "Part A" and "Part C"?

Do you REALLY think that even musicians, poets & artists now fail to see that you will not discuss the weaknesses of the floors & cross trusses & welds & bolts?

Do you REALLY think that they do not recognize that the concrete floors could not carry the STATIC weight of the debris? Much less the dynamic weight. People are smart, Anders. No amount of your baloney is going to convince an honest person that PLACING a 40 pound concrete block on their head is equivalent to DROPPING the same block on their head from a 12 feet height.

What has this to do with The Heiwa Challenge?

Every post that I've written to you on this thread has is DIRECTLY related your challenge. Because your silly challenge has TWO parts: theory & a model.

Some folks are likely to waste their time on a model, just to show you what an idiot you are. (I know EXACTLY how I would build a model that WOULD crush down and defeat your stupid theory. Why don't you put up a $20,000 reward. If you do, I WILL produce a model that would collect it. 20 people here could probably do that. At that point, it'd be worth it to put in the time.)

What get discussed here is the theory. And I have answered EXACTLY where your theory fails.

Your ONLY response has been to run away from what I've said. And hide behind silly platitudes and meaningless drivel.

If you'd care to HONESTLY and DIRECTLY discuss the issues that I've brought up with the model I presented, then AFTER you've addressed those issues, I'll tell you exactly how to build that model.

If you continue to just run away & hide, then I'll just sit here with all the others, exposing what a fraud you & your theories are. And having a good laugh at your expense.

You DO realize, don't you, that all your fawning acolytes at ae911t just read that, in your "professional engineering opinion", EVERY PIECE of disconnected debris in the rubble pile at ground zero was detached using explosives.

You DO realize that any building, structure (& yes, TV set) that collapsed for any reason OTHER than CD & had a piece detach makes your "professional engineering opinion" look - as difficult as it is to imagine - even LESS dependable than it was.

You DO realize that there was just a giant, wide-eyed "uh-oh" over there.

tom