The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Szamboti said:
Yes, they also used some heavier rebar in the floors along with the WWF. It seems that it was used to support and keep the WWF positioned vertically prior to and during pouring. It appears it was also used as an end tie.
Click to expand...


According to nist the 5/8 inch rebar (#5) was only used in pairs above the bridging trusses and 1/2 inch rebar (#4) at the ends of the span 3 inches from the end the testing frame

page 28 & 75 which you linked to above. The bridging trusses were spaced 13 feet 4 inches. (page 7)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
According to nist the 5/8 inch rebar (#5) was only used in pairs above the bridging trusses and 1/2 inch rebar (#4) at the ends of the span 3 inches from the end the testing frame

page 28 & 75 which you linked to above. The bridging trusses were spaced 13 feet 4 inches. (page 7)
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6B.pdf
Click to expand...

Was the 5/8 inch rebar tied into the bridging trusses somehow? I looked and couldn't find anything on that. I am wondering if it was used to make the bridging trusses composite with the slab also.

It seems to me that the 1/2 inch rebar would have been used at the ends of the welded wire fabric to ensure the ends were tight.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Was the 5/8 inch rebar tied into the bridging trusses somehow? I looked and couldn't find anything on that. I am wondering if it was used to make the bridging trusses composite with the slab also.

It seems to me that the 1/2 inch rebar would have been used at the ends of the welded wire fabric to ensure the ends were tight.
Click to expand...

The bridging trusses would have to pass through the main trusses directly under a knuckle.(fig 3-1 and fig 4-7 fig 4-12 ) From what I can see the twin #5 bars passed on either side of this knuckle. Those bars were tied to the second layer of 4 X 10 mesh. But there is no mention of them being wired or tack welded to the knuckles. In fact in fig 4-17 the bars appear to be 10 inches apart and miss the knuckle by a wide margin. The page numbers I gave above post were the document pages, not the pdf page numbers.
 
releaseeabode said:
As evidenced by the replies I received.

While they make the attacks more personal I see you sticking to your guns well, great fortitude.
Click to expand...
Your support of the moronic ideas of Heiwa without evidence or calculations is standard for non engineers and 911TruthLies.

Heiwa's challenged was met twice on 911. Your inability to understand this fact is your problem.
 
I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to
Edited by Myriad: 
edited
, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heiwa said:
The Heiwa Challenge is to repeat the process once!
Click to expand...

Your moronic challenge was met twice on 911. Your pizza box physics is a big hint at your lack of expertise in engineering. Saying you can drop a part of building from 2 miles and it will not damage the lower section of a building is dumb.
 
Last edited:
Dipsy said:
I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to
Edited by Myriad: 
edited
, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.
Click to expand...

Aha, a new participant of The Heiwa Challenge! Remind you that part C shall brain part A assisted by gravity only. No shovels.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dipsy said:
I think the real Heiwa challenge is to resist the urge to
Edited by Myriad: 
edited
, but that's just my opinion.

Dipsy.
Click to expand...

I see youre new here , but that doesnt make you immune to the rules .
Threatening to brain someone with a shovel even jokingly is not allowed and you could be suspended (i was). You leave me no choice but to report you.
Welcome to the forum.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Heiwa said:
Aha, a new participant of The Heiwa Challenge! Remind you that part C shall brain part A assisted by gravity only. No shovels.
Click to expand...

Heiwa do you think they deliberately designed-in the top block - bottom block scenario or did they just make the best of a bad job ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Heiwa do you think they deliberately designed-in the top block - bottom block scenario or did they just make the best of a bad job ?
Click to expand...

Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!
Click to expand...


It is easy for you to produce fraudulent scientific papers because you are an incompetent driven by a bizarre political agenda. It is incredibly difficult for real scientists and engineers to perpetrate a fraud because they are subject to the criticism of their peers. Professionals take informed criticism seriously. You can ignore everything that demolishes your absurd burlesque of science because you are a bad joke.
 
FineWine said:
It is easy for you to produce fraudulent scientific papers because you are an incompetent driven by a bizarre political agenda. It is incredibly difficult for real scientists and engineers to perpetrate a fraud because they are subject to the criticism of their peers. Professionals take informed criticism seriously. You can ignore everything that demolishes your absurd burlesque of science because you are a bad joke.
Click to expand...

You are kindly requested to enter a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that demonstrates what you suggest! See post #1 for details.
Re fraud in science - fraud occurs everywhere! Grow up!
 
Heiwa said:
Any structure A can not be one-way crushed down by a top part (part C) of itself + gravity under any circumstances. Thus the perpetrators of 911 had to spread info to the opposite in the media as part of the job; e.g. the outragous Bazant paper that popped up soon after. No coincidence in my view. Then it was easy for FEMA and NIST just to confirm this.

In is quite easy to produce fraudulent scientific papers. I can provide a couple of examples.

In meantime watch how a supership slices through any obstruction:

http://www.ansys.com/products/explicit-dynamics/examples.asp#/2/5

With ANSYS LS-dyna you can produce anything. Pls note that NIST uses ANSYS LS-dyna!
Click to expand...

When they hit WTC1 so high up they were knowingly creating a very small top block C- only 13 floors out of 110. They must have known that that would look kind of ropey. Maybe they had to hit it so high for some reason to do with the antenna ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
When they hit WTC1 so high up they were knowingly creating a very small top block C- only 13 floors out of 110. They must have known that that would look kind of ropey. Maybe they had to hit it so high for some reason to do with the antenna ?
Click to expand...
More like 14 floors. The terrorist flew a plane into the WTC after he killed the pilots. What dirt dumb idea are you implying with this post?

One floor of the WTC can only hold 11 more floors and it fails. So Heiwa's moronic ideas are based on nothing but his failed opinion. Can you use engineering to back up your support of Heiwa's failed ideas?
 
beachnut said:
More like 14 floors. The terrorist flew a plane into the WTC after he killed the pilots. What dirt dumb idea are you implying with this post?

One floor of the WTC can only hold 11 more floors and it fails. So Heiwa's moronic ideas are based on nothing but his failed opinion. Can you use engineering to back up your support of Heiwa's failed ideas?
Click to expand...

I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom