The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bluesky said:
Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?
Click to expand...

an autographed 8x10 of heiwa and a leather bound copy of his paper
 
Bluesky said:
Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?
Click to expand...

No, Heiwa will invent a new condition. Good work though. I was thinking in terms of a bookcase with 10 shelves lightly attached, and with the dowels and screws holding the vertical planks replaced with something weaker. Once the shelves collapse the 'columns' fall away, like your pizza box arrangement. But your method is superior, what with getting to eat the pizzas. Just don't tell me you've eaten 10 pizzas since posting your design ...... :)
 
GlennB said:
3. Bazant's 'one-way crush down' was a limiting case, but shown mathematically to be true. Reality was different. Falling floors ripped out other floors and horizontal bracing was destroyed, felling the finer upper vertical columns and leaving heavier,lower vertical columns unstable. The last remaining parts of both towers were large sections of core. Unstable and impacted at the base, they fell last.

4. The Heiwa challenge, though, is easily met as it stands. See 9/11 and Bluesky's pizza-box structure earlier in this thread.
Click to expand...

When you say that the sections of core that remained standing were 'impacted' at the base, what exactly do you mean ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
When you say that the sections of core that remained standing were 'impacted' at the base, what exactly do you mean ?
Click to expand...

Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.
 
GlennB said:
Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.
Click to expand...
Do you mean that they were plastically deformed at the bases ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Do you mean that they were plastically deformed at the bases ?
Click to expand...

You'd need to ask an engineer. But plastic or elastic, once they were no longer vertical their sheer weight would topple them. Think radio mast without the guy wires.

wtc1peelingcore.jpg
 
GlennB said:
Countless thousands of tons of debris were hitting them on the way down, then piling up against them at the bottom. All at very high speed. Being unstable from lack of horizontal bracing (and also probably just plain bent) already they were bound to fall.
Click to expand...

The Heiwa Challenge is quite simple - see post #1. Yes, countless of thousands of grams (or tons) of broken structural parts of C and A ... or B ... are permitted to assist hitting other, very very weak, unbraced elements anywhere in the structure on the way down. At high speed! The elements are also permitted to bend. Or to become unstable for any reason ... except that gravity is only permitted to assist in the one-way crush down destruction to be demonstrated.
Do not forget that the poor connections between all these weak or strong parts/elements have no mass at all! They just have one property! Strength/friction or capability to absorb energy before being ripped apart.

GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?
 
Heiwa said:
GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?
Click to expand...

Why would anybody waste time and money building a structure to prove something to some fraud on the Internet who has no idea what he is talking about? After all, you're the guy who says that massive skyscrapers are comparable to stacks of sponges, lemons, and pizza boxes.
 
dtugg said:
Why would anybody waste time and money building a structure to prove something to some fraud on the Internet who has no idea what he is talking about? After all, you're the guy who says that massive skyscrapers are comparable to stacks of sponges, lemons, and pizza boxes.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to ccept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whle thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....
Click to expand...

There comes a time when your lack of silence becomes great comedy.
 
bill smith said:
I...
He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....
Click to expand...
Thermal expansion has been around forever, you have fallen for more lies from the idiots in 911TruthLies.
 
Heiwa said:
GlennB - why not design a structure to prove all your nonsense?
Click to expand...

Because BlueSky already has. See above. It worked, with pizza boxes. My bookcase model would just be a more expensive version.
 
beachnut said:
Thermal expansion has been around forever, you have fallen for more lies from the idiots in 911TruthLies.
Click to expand...

Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.
Click to expand...

According to the retired fireman quoted on this page, the question of "How much does a 100 ft beam expand in a fire" has been on the FDNY Lieutenant's test for decades as a risk factor for collapse of steel buildings on fire.


The only "discovery" on the part of NIST (and after much thought) was that only the expansion of a specific cantilever beam could caused a collapse of WTC7 that fit all the evidence.
 
bill smith said:
Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?
Click to expand...

My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.
 
Newtons Bit said:
My office has designed a number of structures for thermal expansion. If you don't do very special detailing, the thermal expansion can bring the whole structure down.

Typical office buildings don't have this sort of detailing.
Click to expand...
Can you give any example in the world history of steel framed buildings over 15 floors collapsing from thermal expansion ? 9/11 excluded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom