The Heiwa Challenge

[Tony Szamboti]

This has been debated to death here. Why are you reviving it? Treating the initial collapse as pure axial impact is a perfectly reasonable simplification for the purposes of calculation. The fact that there's no observable 'jolt' doesn't mean Bazant is wrong, just that he's doing theoretical mechanics to demonstrate a point. In reality - of course - it would be a gradual and skewed meeting of damaged sections where the 'deceleration' you crave would be unobservable from moment to moment. You're obsessed by this point just as that idiot here (psikey?) is obsessed about knowing the exact steel dimensions of every member on every floor, top to bottom. Demanding to see something that can never be seen allows you a flimsy excuse to cling to delusions. Your ego is over-invested now, and you can't back off.

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain the mechanics of how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

There should have been a detectable deceleration at every floor impact for the statically insufficient load above to have been able to destroy the structure below. The detection can be done due to the velocity taking time to recover, one does not actually need to observe the actual jolt. Of course, the problem for Bazant's theories and by extension the NIST, as they use Bazant to avoid analyzing the collapse dynamics themselves, is that there were no decelerations of the upper block in WTC 1.

 

[Heiwa]

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure (part A) designed to handle several times the load above (part C) it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass (of part C)? You do not explain how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

Sorry, TS, for adding parts A and C in your very basic question above, which is the crunch of the whole matter. Why doesn't part C decelerate, when contacting part A?

One reason is, of course, that part C is a very flexible assembly of structural elements and that we are using the top element - the roof line - of part C to measure displacement/velocity/deceleration of part C. It is not colliding with part A. It is just part of an assembly of elements, lower section of which is colliding with part A.

But this part C roof line element is subject to a downward acceleration of 0.65-0.7 g for more than 3 seconds, when 9-13 stories of structure below are supposed to be crushed into rubble.

NIST & Bazant suggest that it is 9-13 stories of part A that are one-way crushed by part C + gravity and that part C remains 99% intact during these 3 seconds, while I suggest that a lower section of part C is being destroyed first by CD. The latter event would explain why there is no deceleration of the roof line. Your paper about the roof line displacement is a very valuable contribution to explain the WTC 1 destruction!

 

[GlennB]

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=¹/₂*mv² .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.

2, The deceleration (in your terms, as far as I can see) consists in the falling object accelerating at less than the unimpeded rate. Because a structure got in the way. I realise, of course, this is not the true meaning of 'deceleration', but rather the observed rate when stuff gets in the way as opposed to the rate expected when stuff doesn't get in the way.

Your error is in supposing there was one titanic and instantaneous clash of WTC sections when, indeed, we might well see a 'jolt', a noticeable reduction in acceleration for a short time. There was no such unit collision, but that's been explained to you many times before. We simply can't see the many thousands of tiny jolts that caused the less-than-freefall rate of acceleration.

You just can't let it go, eh? Too much invested to just walk away?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Sorry, TS, for adding parts A and C in your very basic question above, which is the crunch of the whole matter. Why doesn't part C decelerate, when contacting part A?

One reason is, of course, that part C is a very flexible assembly of structural elements and that we are using the top element - the roof line - of part C to measure displacement/velocity/deceleration of part C. It is not colliding with part A. It is just part of an assembly of elements, lower section of which is colliding with part A.

But this part C roof line element is subject to a downward acceleration of 0.65-0.7 g for more than 3 seconds, when 9-13 stories of structure below are supposed to be crushed into rubble.

NIST & Bazant suggest that it is 9-13 stories of part A that are one-way crushed by part C + gravity and that part C remains 99% intact during these 3 seconds, while I suggest that a lower section of part C is being destroyed first by CD. The latter event would explain why there is no deceleration of the roof line. Your paper about the roof line displacement is a very valuable contribution to explain the WTC 1 destruction!

Anders, I agree that the two points work hand in hand. The overall force developed in a shock load is a function of mass participation and loose rubble elements do not participate with each other.

You have capably pointed that out here and shown the bankruptness of the notion that this loose amalgam could have continued to crush the lower structure.

Some people here just don't want to get it. They don't want to see that you can't drive a nail with a hammerhead composed of a bag with loose nails in it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=¹/₂*mv² .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.

2, The deceleration (in your terms, as far as I can see) consists in the falling object accelerating at less than the unimpeded rate. Because a structure got in the way. I realise, of course, this is not the true meaning of 'deceleration', but rather the observed rate when stuff gets in the way as opposed to the rate expected when stuff doesn't get in the way.

Your error is in supposing there was one titanic and instantaneous clash of WTC sections when, indeed, we might well see a 'jolt', a noticeable reduction in acceleration for a short time. There was no such unit collision, but that's been explained to you many times before. We simply can't see the many thousands of tiny jolts that caused the less-than-freefall rate of acceleration.

You just can't let it go, eh? Too much invested to just walk away?

The deceleration required for amplification is greater than 1g. It isn't just lesser acceleration.

If you read his 2002 paper with Zhou and it's Addendum you will see that Dr. Bazant thought there would have to be a large powerful jolt to cause a fatal collapse.

The many tiny jolts won't work and naval architect Anders Bjorkman has challenged those who think it will to show it.

 

[FineWine]

Yes, it is only a friendly and lively Discussion of “What did and did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York” by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008).

It was submitted 3 February 2009 so it took ASCE/JME four months to decide to publish. When the latter will actually take place, we'll see. Maybe JME will ask Bazant & Co to reply and publish it in same issue? I would say it is a positive sign.

When the real engineers at the ASCE journal finish repeating what the real engineers on this forum have told you countless times, you will intone your mindless mantra ("See my papers for children. Everything is explained."). The experience will demonstrate, redundantly, to all but your terminally stupid parrots that you cannot learn.

 

[FineWine]

First we have to see, if there is a rebuttal by Bazant & Co or anybody to my simple, basic, friendly and lively Comments in JEM about the BLGB paper. I am very curious. Anyway, I am grateful to Prof. Ross Corotis and ASCE/JEM for deciding to publish them. R.Mackey - I think you are just feeling ill will because of actual loss of reputation, etc. You see, exclusive loyalty and whole-hearted service to a lost cause are painful.

Will there be a rebuttal? Hmmmm, I don't claim any psychic powers, but I'll make you a sporting offer. You were willing to bet $1 million a short while ago--money, I hasten to add, that you don't have. I will bet real money with you, and what's more, I'll give you big odds. I'll wager my thousand dollars against your hundred (you do have a hundred bucks, don't you?) that the engineers at the ASCE journal trash your nonsense. I will bet that nobody there will be persuaded by your mad garble of basic physics.

That's about as simple, friendly, and lively as it gets. What do you say, sport?

 

[GlennB]

The deceleration required for amplification is greater than 1g. It isn't just lesser acceleration.

I'll happily take your word for it, but still ask .... And ?

The only thing we can visually track is the acceleration of the entire upper section. Not what's happening internally to its component members.

You're still thinking in terms of a monolithic, unit impact. Try not to.

p.s. Bjorkman is much less of a 'naval architect' than you might suppose. Check his CV and contact some of the Naval Architecture publications where he claims he has had 'many articles' published. I have. Try to check out some of the 'International conferences' where he supposedly presented. Even he admits to being thrown out of one of them by the organisers. The man is a charlatan and a shameless liar, as evidenced by his potty ideas about basic physics (the "Two mile drop" being a true classic, among many) and his refusal to acknowledge that he has even said such things.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If the cash prize for the Heiwa Challenege were actually offered (and verified that it existed) I would provide a structure that would satisfy it. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother. Why would I want to spend a couple thousand dollars of my money to win an argument on the internet?

 

[Heiwa]

1. I don't need to explain that a falling mass will cause more damage than a static mass, surely? Momentum. p=mv. Kinetic energy. e=¹/₂*mv² .Falling bricks on head vs. static bricks on head.

But you should! Especially when the falling bricks (part C) drop on identical bricks (part A) (and not on your weak head - part 0).

Take WTC 1 as example. Upper part C has uniform density 0.255 according BLGB. Very light structure. Not like a brick! OK, it is a composite structure with strong steel columns, thin floors mostly of concrete and plenty (>95%)of air.

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.

 

[Heiwa]

If the cash prize for the Heiwa Challenege were actually offered (and verified that it existed) I would provide a structure that would satisfy it. Otherwise, I'm not going to bother. Why would I want to spend a couple thousand dollars of my money to win an argument on the internet?

No cash prize as ever been offered in The Heiwa Challenge, which is just to produce any structure that self-destructs. Just look around! Can you find any? Enter it in The Heiwa Challenge. Shouldn't cost you a kopek.

No, the cash prize has been offered to selected indivudals that imply that they can prove the phenomenon C one-way crushing A theoretically. In spite of this encouragement they have all given up.

 

[tfk]

Hey Tony,

Can you please explain your natural mechanism for overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it, without a deceleration of the statically insufficient impacting mass? You do not explain the mechanics of how that could happen here and many are curious, not just me.

I will assume that you don't mean "how did the failure initiate?" That has been completely explained. I assume that you are asking "why didn't the collapse arrest immediately"? And "why didn't we see the jolts during the collapse"?

Sure. Easy. It's been explained about 20 times in just this thread.

This is a completely false assumption: "... overloading a structure designed to handle several times the load above it ...".

The COLUMNS of the towers were designed to carry the weight above. The FLOORS of the towers were NEVER designed, intended or CLOSE to capable of carrying the loads of the floors above. They were overloaded by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

Accurate estimates of the force on EACH column of the 12 stories of the North Tower was approx 80 TONS per column. Each column was on the order of 1 square foot. The result pressure was approximately 160,000 psf DYNAMIC load. The floors were designed to support (IIRC) about 300 psf STATIC load.

Notice any difference there, Tony?

Is this really a mystery to you???

There should have been a detectable deceleration at every floor impact for the statically insufficient load above to have been able to destroy the structure below. The detection can be done due to the velocity taking time to recover, one does not actually need to observe the actual jolt. Of course, the problem for Bazant's theories and by extension the NIST, as they use Bazant to avoid analyzing the collapse dynamics themselves, is that there were no decelerations of the upper block in WTC 1.

As you can see above, the stress overload on the concrete floors was a MULTIPLE of ~160,000/300 = 5000. Tell me how much of a deceleration jolt you expect to see from this...!!

Let's create an analogy. We will use a stress based model, so that scaling factors don't complicate things too badly.

A chicken egg (brittle, just like the concrete floors) is "designed" to support the weight of an approximately 1 pound hen, nicely distributed over approximately 3 square inches. If I carefully set a 1 pound hammer on top of the egg, it will support that weight just fine. If I drop a hammer, say from one foot height, onto the egg, there is a certainty that it'll crack. When it does, it'll provide a jolt to the hammer. If one were to take high speed video of the hammer, one might even be able to detect the jolt. IF you had sufficient resolution of time & space to detect the very slight, very high frequency jolt.

Now, without resorting to all those annoying calculations, what does your gut tell you about the magnitude of the jolt if the hammer happened to be "overweighted" by the same multiple (5300x), AND dropped from a, say, one foot height. How much deceleration do you expect to see from dropping a 2 1/2 TON weight onto an egg??

Go do some real NUMBERS, Tony.

Include the MAGNITUDE of the jolt that you expect to see. FYI, the concrete floors were 4" thick. They will certain fracture after having been deflected by 1/2". Then you'd have the ductile failure of the cross trusses & bolts that'd be 90% complete in about, say, 1 foot of deflection. So there's the travel distance of the upper block over which your impulse goes from zero to max to zero again. You have to be able to resolve FRACTIONS of this distance in your data.

Now wrap that number around the resolution of your camera, Tony, when the images are taken from 1/2 mile away. How many FEET is one pixel??

Include the frequency of the jolt that you expect to see, Tony. You've got NTSC video. 30 frames per second. Oooops. INTERLACED. 15 frames per second on successive raster lines. Nyquist sampling theory, tony. Max frequency component that you can resolve is going to be about 2 Hertz.

Now you know why I asked you if you took your data from every frame. You didn't answer me.

And then there's the dampening effects of the air exhaustion that I mentioned earlier. To which you also never replied.

Very "Heiwa-esque" of you, Tony.

Would you answer me now? Please. Pretty please. With a cherry on top.

Do you REALLY think that you'll be able to see this jolt with a video camera from 1/2 mile away??

tom

 

[beachnut]

(and not on your weak head - part 0).

...

Was that a weak insult of just another failed joke as you lie about 911?
Your work gets more moronic each time you post. Your pizza box physics and kids jumping on beds proved you lack engineering skills in structures like the WTC towers.

Your challenges was busted on 911 twice. Your failure to prove the towers did not collapse due to impacts, fire and gravity are public record as you make up stupid axioms and dirt dumb models. Keep up the good work on your conspiracy theories and apologizing for terrorists. Thank you for being disrespectful with your shoddy engineering and failed ideas. With you helping the terrorists I know we will win.

 

[Gamolon]

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.

But won't Part A rip apart the connections at each floor of part C? Won't the ripped apart pieces of Part C then be added to Part A as it continues downward?

Wouldn't Part C be to much for the floor supports on the perimeter columns and core columns of the top floor of Part A to hold up?

 

[Heiwa]

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...?

It seems the WTC 1 mast on roof was 360 feet tall or abt 109 m and with a pin joint at base platform, so it must have been supported by cables/wires. The mast was much taller than the width of the Tower.

Most of the wind load on the mast must therefore has been transmitted via the cables/wires to support points on the roof.

As the whole roof/hat truss structure + mast just drop as supports 50-60 m below fail (we are told), then, evidently the mast would drop too. If supports fail unsymmetrically, the roof and mast may tilt at the same time.

According to BLGB the roof is the last major element of part C to be destroyed at crush down, i.e. first is lower structure part A one-way crushed down into rubble, part B, by part C that is not really damaged! Then when part A is completely rubble, upper part C is crushed up by part B. The second last structure to be crushed up is the roof/hat truss and the mast platform. The last object to be destroyed according to BLGB is the 360 feet mast.

The mystery is that the mast disappears pretty quickly in the destruction and is not seen sticking up through the fountain of smoke/dust being ejected by rubble part B throughout one-way crush down for 13 seconds.

The mast is not seen either on top of the rubble after global collapse. So where did the mast go?

 

[GlennB]

Go do some real NUMBERS, Tony.

Include the MAGNITUDE of the jolt that you expect to see. FYI, the concrete floors were 4" thick. They will certain fracture after having been deflected by 1/2". Then you'd have the ductile failure of the cross trusses & bolts that'd be 90% complete in about, say, 1 foot of deflection. So there's the travel distance of the upper block over which your impulse goes from zero to max to zero again. You have to be able to resolve FRACTIONS of this distance in your data.

Now wrap that number around the resolution of your camera, Tony, when the images are taken from 1/2 mile away. How many FEET is one pixel??

Include the frequency of the jolt that you expect to see, Tony. You've got NTSC video. 30 frames per second. Oooops. INTERLACED. 15 frames per second on successive raster lines. Nyquist sampling theory, tony. Max frequency component that you can resolve is going to be about 2 Hertz.

Now you know why I asked you if you took your data from every frame. You didn't answer me.

And then there's the dampening effects of the air exhaustion that I mentioned earlier. To which you also never replied.

Do you REALLY think that you'll be able to see this jolt with a video camera from 1/2 mile away??

tom

Now you've gone and done it !
I was going to mention that acceleration is a /sec/sec function, and that even if there were a discernible jolt then it could well be so brief that capturing it on video is no gimme. Especially recycled YouTube carp.
But now the poor boy is all confused
Perhaps he's busy checking out his hero Heiwa's CV?

 

[tfk]

Tony,

Anders, I agree that the two points work hand in hand.

This may be the first statement that you've made that I agree with, Tony. Hand in hand right off the cliff.

The overall force developed in a shock load is a function of mass participation and loose rubble elements do not participate with each other.

Isaac said: F = m a.

Show me the qualifying paragraph where he adds "... as long as m is greater than __ kg."

Write me a note about how "loose rubble elements do not participate with each other". I'd like to send it to that lady that was climbing on the same wall I was about 25 years ago. She got hit by "a piece of rubble". It wasn't very big. About a 3 foot block. But it had fallen about 200 feet. Ooops, never mind. She wouldn't really get it. Because the one piece of "rubble" took her arm off & she bled to death hanging there.

Now, you were saying that the rubble would not "participate with her" ...??

I'll go out on a limb here, and suggest that she'd disagree. And has the experimental proof that you have your head lodged somewhere dark & warm, Tony.

You have capably pointed that out here and shown the bankruptness of the notion that this loose amalgam could have continued to crush the lower structure.

Some people here just don't want to get it. They don't want to see that you can't drive a nail with a hammerhead composed of a bag with loose nails in it.

Heiwa? "capable"??

Well, moving on...

Tony, nobody "drove a nail" down thru the towers. Let's improve your analogy a tad.

Let's say a 8 foot x 8 foot x 1" inch thick piece of tempered plate glass could support, say 10 lbs static load in the middle. (This is way too small, but we'll use it.) We'll stand up 95 of them all in a straight line, separated by about, say, 6 feet.

Based on the overload factor that I mentioned last post, I am going to take a 53,000 pound car, well, better make that a 25 ton monster truck. With your "bag of loose nails" strapped to the front.

I put the truck about 12 from the first pane of glass & floor it...

Tell me what your imagination says will happen...?

tom

 

[Heiwa]

1. But won't Part A rip apart the connections at each floor of part C? Won't the ripped apart pieces of Part C then be added to Part A as it continues downward?

2. Wouldn't Part C be to much for the floor supports on the perimeter columns and core columns of the top floor of Part A to hold up?

1. The stronger elements of part A (e.g. vertical columns) rip apart the weaker elements of part C (e.g. horizontal floors) at contact. The connections are not really affected! This means that the weaker, damaged elements of part C (the floors) are still connected to, e.g. strong elements of part C. There are no loose elements, just damaged ones, and they are not added to part A.

2. Part A carried part C before destruction. What strong elements in part C, i.e. columns, do to weak elements of part A, i.e. floors, is same as in 1. Strong part C elements rip apart weak part A elements, the latter still hanging on to strong part A elements via their connections. As both structures are >95% air, there is plenty of space for damaged elements to displace and get entangled into one another.

And this is the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge to show. Most contenders so far seem to choose structures with plenty of air inside and with rather slender vertical support elements and very heavy, solid, horizontal elements that are supposed to be one-way crushed down from top to bottom without breaking. Fair enough. It has nothing to do with, e.g. WTC 1, but is within Challenge rules. And then they drop a top part C on a lower part A hoping that the bottom horizontal element (a solid floor?) of C will impact the top horizontal element of A (another solid floor) - BANG - and hoping that vertical support elements in A will break from top down. But surprise! It is the vertical support elements in part C that break first - a mini crush up! - while the bottom element of C remains on top of A. And then a second horizontal element in C may contact the bottom element in C, etc. No one-way crush down. Etc, etc. Part A applies big forces on part C. As the structure is not perfect, connections may break somewhere, unsymmetry is developed and elements of part C may slide down outside part A below. Gravity forces tend to take the easiest way down in cases like this.

So beware, if you build a 10 m structure to one-way crush down and test it. Loose elements or whole top may drop outside and hit you on the head. Wear a strong helmet + gloves. If mountain climbers do that, their heads are protected from rocks falling from above.

 

[tfk]

No cash prize as ever been offered in The Heiwa Challenge, which is just to produce any structure that self-destructs. Just look around! Can you find any? Enter it in The Heiwa Challenge. Shouldn't cost you a kopek.

No, the cash prize has been offered to selected indivudals that imply that they can prove the phenomenon C one-way crushing A theoretically. In spite of this encouragement they have all given up.

This is unexpected & great news.

Please answer these questions directly. Succinctly.

"Yes" or "no" for each question. Embellish as you wish.

1. Is the $1 million prize is available for providing this theoretical proof.

2. What does "selected individuals" mean? I would very much like to get into this club & offer my proof.

3. You must prove that the funds are available. Please arrange to put them into escrow for the duration of your challenge.

4. Who judges? Since you are both unqualified and biased, we MUST have INDEPENDENT, QUALIFIED individual or panel to make this judgment.

5. Are there any other stipulations about to arise?

tom

 

[tfk]

But you should! Especially when the falling bricks (part C) drop on identical bricks (part A) (and not on your weak head - part 0).

Take WTC 1 as example. Upper part C has uniform density 0.255 according BLGB. Very light structure. Not like a brick! OK, it is a composite structure with strong steel columns, thin floors mostly of concrete and plenty (>95%)of air.

Now just drop this part C on a similar, but bigger, part A also with uniform density 0.255 and same structure. I can assure you that the strong elements of part A will first rip apart the weak, lower elements in part C and then, yes, slow down the whole part C assembly to velocity 0.

Happens every time when similar structures collide.

.
Bricks don't drop on brick, Anders.

Each layer is comprised of many widely spaced bricks, stood vertically and joined together with a laminate of thin glass & chicken wire. The glass can support 3 pounds of distributed weight before cracking. When assembled, each layer of glass/chicken wire will have one pound of nuts & bolts spread on the glass.

A tall stack of these assemblies is dropped on a taller stack of the same, with the upper bricks landing on the glass.

Stand back. No explosives needed.

Your models suc, uh, are "less than optimal".