The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

On 9/11/01, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS HIT THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND REPEATED THE PROCESS UNTIL THE BUILDING WAS GONE. THERE IS NO "PART A."

Part A is the 90% structural assembly below part C (e.g. 97 floors interconnected by columns). Part C is the 10% structural assembly above part A (e.g. 13 floors).

There are no collapsing floors anywhere, only locally failed structural elements. According Bazant as adopted by NIST, part C displaces down a short distance and contacts part A.

What happens then is the TOPIC to be demonstrated in a model. According Bazant/NIST C one-way crushes A. Your task is to design a structure that behaves like that.

 

[FineWine]

Part A is the 90% structural assembly below part C (e.g. 97 floors interconnected by columns). Part C is the 10% structural assembly above part A (e.g. 13 floors).

There are no collapsing floors anywhere, only locally failed structural elements. According Bazant as adopted by NIST, part C displaces down a short distance and contacts part A.

What happens then is the TOPIC to be demonstrated in a model. According Bazant/NIST C one-way crushes A. Your task is to design a structure that behaves like that.

Stop these stupid lies. You have been exposed. The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.

Nobody can be as obtuse as you appear.

 

[twinstead]

The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.

This should have been the second post in this thread, and the thread should have been a two-poster. Just saying.

When even I get things, there NO excuse for somebody like Heiwa to not get it.

 

[Heiwa]

Stop these stupid lies. You have been exposed. The collapse begins at the impact floors and carries with it the floors above. Their combined mass hits ONE FLOOR, the floor immediately below. The process is repeated until each successive floor has been crushed.

Nobody can be as obtuse as you appear.

Please, stop your nonsense. This thread is about designing a structure where top part C (C = 1/10 A) crushes lower part A. You can use, e.g. the papers of Bazant or the NIST reports as guidelines.

NIST suggests, e.g. that C can apply so, too much potential energy when dropped than A can absorb = A collapses.

Well - try to find a structure that behaves like that! Ask NIST for advice!

What kind of magic structure A can be crushed down by a piece C of A itself, when C is dropped from a small distance on A?

Do you think this happens?

I cannot see C there! C seems to have disappeared!

And all these damaged structural parts being thrown out like a fountain? Do you really think C (where is it?) can produce that by a small drop?

I doubt it! Anyway, your job is to produce a structure A that behaves like that when a small part C is dropped on it.

Good luck!

 

[240-185]

Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.

Your few phrases written in a horrible French shows that you're blatantly lying about your nationality. Three french words can sum up your lies: "Arrêtez vos conneries".

Other lie you keep repeating: no, the part A wasn't intact.
Other lie you keep repeating: no, The rubble doesn't form one entity.
Other lie you keep repeating: no, part C isn't the tenth of part A.

 

[FineWine]

Please, stop your nonsense. This thread is about designing a structure where top part C (C = 1/10 A) crushes lower part A. You can use, e.g. the papers of Bazant or the NIST reports as guidelines.

NIST suggests, e.g. that C can apply so, too much potential energy when dropped than A can absorb = A collapses.

Well - try to find a structure that behaves like that! Ask NIST for advice!

What kind of magic structure A can be crushed down by a piece C of A itself, when C is dropped from a small distance on A?

Do you think this happens?

[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC.jpg[/qimg]

I cannot see C there! C seems to have disappeared!

And all these damaged structural parts being thrown out like a fountain? Do you really think C (where is it?) can produce that by a small drop?

I doubt it! Anyway, your job is to produce a structure A that behaves like that when a small part C is dropped on it.

Good luck!

You keep babbling your refuted nonsense, but you are trapped by your dishonesty and incompetence. NIST says nothing about your mythical part A because there is no part A, you fraud. The collapsing floors didn't disappear. They kept adding the mass of each successive floor they crushed. You are clueless about the contents of the NIST Report.

PART C, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS, IS THE BIG PART; THE SINGLE FLOORS THEY HIT IN SUCCESSION ARE THE SMALL PART.

 

[Heiwa]

You keep babbling your refuted nonsense, but you are trapped by your dishonesty and incompetence. NIST says nothing about your mythical part A because there is no part A, you fraud. The collapsing floors didn't disappear. They kept adding the mass of each successive floor they crushed. You are clueless about the contents of the NIST Report.

PART C, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS, IS THE BIG PART; THE SINGLE FLOORS THEY HIT IN SUCCESSION ARE THE SMALL PART.

OK, OK! Design a structure that behaves like that and win The Heiwa Challenge!

It is difficult, though, as no structure A can be crushed down by a part C of A being dropped on A.

But maybe you can arrange some 'collapsing floors' hitting other floors one after the other. Don't forget the columns!

 

[BigAl]

OK, OK! Design a structure that behaves like that and win The Heiwa Challenge!

Why not deal with the WTC towers as they were on 9/11 and the fire, lack of firefighting, the structural damage and the 150 tons of overload that caused them to collapse

 

[Heiwa]

Why not deal with the WTC towers as they were on 9/11 and the fire, lack of firefighting, the structural damage and the 150 tons of overload that caused them to collapse

Any structural design is welcome in The Heiwa Challenge, incl. the one of, e.g. WTC 1.
Evidently a dynamic load is applied when you drop part C on part A and let's call it an overload. This overload will normally produce local failures of both parts C and A ... and not collapse of A.
The Challenge is in fact to find a structure that behaves unnormally, i.e. C makes A collapse. No such structure exists to my knowledge.

 

[releaseeabode]

Any structural design is welcome in The Heiwa Challenge, incl. the one of, e.g. WTC 1.
Evidently a dynamic load is applied when you drop part C on part A and let's call it an overload. This overload will normally produce local failures of both parts C and A ... and not collapse of A.
The Challenge is in fact to find a structure that behaves unnormally, i.e. C makes A collapse. No such structure exists to my knowledge.

Aside from all the bitching, moaning and obfuscation regarding the $1m dollars reward (even my dog would have understood it not to be literal but, it is not in the JREF mindset to attack the proposition when you can have a dig elsewhere), I'd have thought that proving Newton's Third Law wrong would have been reward enough for the finely honed minds of the JREF.

 

[releaseeabode]

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave

I clearly was paying attention because, in reply you repeated back to me almost exactly what I was saying!!! Were you paying attention is the more relevant question I think. Comprehension difficulties, just enjoy talking over people or could not bear to converse in a friendly and lively way with someone you don't wholly agree with? I know which one I think is right.

I scanned THIS THREAD ONLY, and as far as I could see Heiwa has yet to link THIS CHALLENGE THREAD directly to 911. The question is, how dedicated to the truth are you? Can you be honest and truthful, even with someone you don't agree with, it appears not.

The only intellectually honest thing to do is to accept Newton's Third Law and concede Heiwa's very simplistic challenge and then debunk the analogy. It really is painful watching the ego overpowering educated minds like it does on the JREF.

 

[dtugg]

Please explain how beating Heiwa's retarded challenge would disprove Newtons Third Law. This should be good.

 

[Heiwa]

Please explain how beating Heiwa's retarded challenge would disprove Newtons Third Law. This should be good.

Newton's third law: All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force.

It means that when part C contacts part A and applies a force F_C on A, part A applies force F_A on C and F_C has equal magnitude but opposite direction than F_A.

Now to win The Heiwa Challenge you have to design a structure where force F_C one-way crushes A without force F_A applied on C preventing C from doing that.

As C and A have similar structures, except that A = 10 C and that A carried C statically before the drop, it would appear that when C applies F_C on A in order to one-way crush A, A applies F_A on C with effects that must be considered.

Bazant & Co of ill-fame make it simple. They assume that C is rigid and that F_A cannot deform or damage C. But if you assume or design your Heiwa Challenge structure that C is rigid, you also have to assume that A is rigid and the result will be that no one-way crush down takes place.

No, you have to design a non-rigid structure and let the two non-rigid parts C and A come into contact. Have a go at it! Size and scale doesn't matter!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The only intellectually honest thing to do is to accept Newton's Third Law and concede Heiwa's very simplistic challenge and then debunk the analogy. It really is painful watching the ego overpowering educated minds like it does on the JREF.

Heiwa's "simplistic model" is fatally flawed. He claims that the mass gets shredded to tiny pieces and the floors "hinge" downwards in a series of local failures. All the while assuming that the columns will not only contain the debris through friction, but claiming that the columns would be capable of standing despite incredibly large unbraced lengths and unusual load paths. You may have a high tolerance for incompetence but I don't, and your lack of expertise in the subject compound the problem for you and is no excuse.

Newton's third law is already accounted for and satisfied... Heiwa and yourself by extension don't apply it correctly. And I dare say Heiwa is totally unqualified to even be a practicing engineer if he think lemons are a model for built structures

 

[releaseeabode]

Heiwa's "simplistic model" is fatally flawed. He claims that the mass gets shredded to tiny pieces and the floors "hinge" downwards in a series of local failures. All the while assuming that the columns will not only contain the debris through friction, but claiming that the columns would be capable of standing despite incredibly large unbraced lengths and unusual load paths. You may have a high tolerance for incompetence but I don't, and your lack of expertise in the subject compound the problem for you and is no excuse.

Newton's third law is already accounted for and satisfied... Heiwa and yourself by extension don't apply it correctly. And I dare say Heiwa is totally unqualified to even be a practicing engineer if he think lemons are a model for built structures

Strangely, I don't see any of these claims in the Heiwa challenge?

Heiwa's model reduces the problem down to a single fundamental law, the fact that you can't comprehend that is not mine or Heiwa's fault. Whatever I disagree with about his other work on 911, he is right in this challenge. No amount of personal attacks on either Heiwa or myself or obfuscation or talking past the point will change that.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Strangely, I don't see any of these claims in the Heiwa challenge?

Ask him for his website. I'm sure he would absolutely love another excuse to plug it.

Heiwa's model reduces the problem down to a single fundamental law, the fact that you can't comprehend that is not mine or Heiwa's fault.

I can't comprehend it? Oh I'm well aware of what he wants to claim. He sets an absolute law that ignores every principal of design. His malpractice is inexcusable, and his graphical models reaffirm it.

Whatever I disagree with about his other work on 911, he is right in this challenge.

Then instead of a hit and run cheering Heiwa on, why don't you add something substantive to corroborate Heiwa's argument? Under what architectural principal is his claim valid?

No amount of personal attacks on either Heiwa or myself or obfuscation or talking past the point will change that.

I can't speak for everyone, but my argument has nothing to do with personally assassinating Ander's character. He's demonstrably incompetent or intentionally lying, and his work proves it. I don't need to insult him to characterize his credibility. You and him can whine about Newton's third law being "violated" but it never was.

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa's challenge is a carefully-crafted intellectual exorcise and has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC collapses, yet he appears to be using it as some kind of evidence that the collapses couldn't happen like most experts suggest. This thread, and his challenge, is not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

 

[Heiwa]

Ask him for his website. I'm sure he would absolutely love another excuse to plug it.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com

If you find any incorrect information there just send pm.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Heiwa's challenge is a carefully-crafted intellectual exorcise and has absolutely nothing to do with the WTC collapses, yet he appears to be using it as some kind of evidence that the collapses couldn't happen like most experts suggest. This thread, and his challenge, is not only irrelevant, but idiotic.

The crux of heiwa's problem is that he treats the collapse as if both sections are monolithic entities, which is an incredibly huge deviation form how the towers were actually built. The towers consisted of many many pieces working in unison as a system. If the individual pieces fail, or a critical part of that system is compromised, then it cannot hold together.

 

[FineWine]

Aside from all the bitching, moaning and obfuscation regarding the $1m dollars reward (even my dog would have understood it not to be literal but, it is not in the JREF mindset to attack the proposition when you can have a dig elsewhere), I'd have thought that proving Newton's Third Law wrong would have been reward enough for the finely honed minds of the JREF.

You don't think very well. There was nothing figurative about Heiwa's bigus challenge. (Wait--did I really just tell a "truther" that he doesn't think very well?) Heiwa meant his dishonest challenge to be taken literally. It turned out, after several people won, that he was betting with money he didn't have.

After eight years, "truthers" are still clueless about Newton's laws.