The Heiwa Challenge

[FineWine]

http://heiwaco.tripod.com

If you find any incorrect information there just send pm.

Ah, so that's the mistake being made the posters who have found a mountain of incorrect information there. They made their findings public. I get it.

 

[twinstead]

Does Heiwa know that the PM function probably has a size limit? I doubt it could handle ALL the incorrect information.

 

[A W Smith]

anders and releaseeabode ignore the effects of gravity

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.

!

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[Heiwa]

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Do I? In The Heiwa Challenge the only force allowed is gravity. Pls re-read post #1.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I clearly was paying attention because, in reply you repeated back to me almost exactly what I was saying!!!

No, I didn't. You're asking that we concede Heiwa's challenge. However, Heiwa's challenge claims that it is impossible to build a structure, INCLUDING THE WTC TOWERS, of which the top 10% can crush down the remainder. Since that is demonstrably untrue, there's no need to concede.

[quotwe]I scanned THIS THREAD ONLY, and as far as I could see Heiwa has yet to link THIS CHALLENGE THREAD directly to 911. [/quote]

Other than posting it in a forum specifically dedicated to discussion of alternative theories surrounding 9/11. The implication is obvious. And you can't take one of Heiwa's lies out of context and pretend it's unrelated to all his others.

Dave

 

[Pantaz]

releaseeabode,
Please read the thread, "Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration".

 

[releaseeabode]

Except for the fact that its not a closed system. You are again ignoring gravity.

"Unless acted upon by an external force" (gravity)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

A less honorable person than me would have taken this little gem to the Stundie nominations. Lucky I have a little more intellectual honesty than most here.

 

[Heiwa]

releaseeabode,
Please read the thread, "Proposed Design for Progressive Collapse Demonstration".

Good thread - but Myriad's structure failed The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[BigAl]

Do I? In The Heiwa Challenge the only force allowed is gravity. Pls re-read post #1.

But on 9/11 we had fire, floor overload due to the unplanned 100+ tons of aircraft, structural damage, and no firefighting.

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa do you think we are claiming that gravity alone made the towers collapse? If you allow gravity as the only force, then your challenge is in no way, shape, or form similar to what happened to cause the WTC collapses and should be moved to another subforum.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa do you think we are claiming that gravity alone made the towers collapse? If you allow gravity as the only force, then your challenge is in no way, shape, or form similar to what happened to cause the WTC collapses and should be moved to another subforum.

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

 

[FineWine]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

Upper-part C fell down, AS YOU KNOW, on ONE floor, the floor immediately below. The process repeated until the building was gone.

 

[Justin39640]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

yes cause they all thought the buildings could fall prior to 911 without being hit or on fire first
will you stop lying already
or at least try to operate in reality

 

[twinstead]

NIST, Bazant & Co, Seffen, Mackey and others suggest that gravity alone and nothing else provided the force/energy for the WTC 1 one-way crush down on 911, i.e. upper part C + broken rubble part B (whereever it came from) destroyed lower part A by gravity only.

What other force(s) are you suggesting? Controlled demolition?

But, the plane impacts and fires are what allowed the collapse initiation. Gravity just took control from there. Besides, as you have been told a THOUSAND times, there are only TWO parts, the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation, and the individual floor just below it. There is no monolithic "lower part A". It's just a collection of floors.

For the THOUSANDTH time. Even I get this, and you're supposed to be an engineer. Everybody else gets it. Why don't you? What makes you so much smarter than all the other engineers?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Lucky I have a little more intellectual honesty than most here.

Would you care to demonstrate that intellectual honesty by adding some content to this forum, rather than just cheerleading for Heiwa?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Would you care to demonstrate that intellectual honesty by adding some content to this forum, rather than just cheerleading for Heiwa?

That's bill smith's job anyway. releaseeabode appears to be some kind of usurper.

 

[Heiwa]

But, the plane impacts and fires are what allowed the collapse initiation. Gravity just took control from there. Besides, as you have been told a THOUSAND times, there are only TWO parts, the entire mass of the building above the collapse initiation, and the individual floor just below it. There is no monolithic "lower part A". It's just a collection of floors.

For the THOUSANDTH time. Even I get this, and you're supposed to be an engineer. Everybody else gets it. Why don't you? What makes you so much smarter than all the other engineers?

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

 

[FineWine]

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

Yes, the mass above is a collection of floors. THEY ARE ALL COLLAPSING. THEIR MASSES ARE COMBINED WHEN THEY HIT ONE FLOOR, A SINGLE FLOOR NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF THIRTEEN FLOORS.

No, you will never get it.

 

[twinstead]

To answer your last question any smart engineer knows that a structure consists of elements connected to one another. So there are no TWO parts; one mass above and individual or a collection of floors (one part??) below in a structure like WTC 1.

The mass above happens to be a collection of floors held apart by columns. Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

If you get that - the upper part (C) is just an assembly of elements - you'll soon find out that it cannot produce a one-way crush of anything similar, e.g. a part (A) below. Reason is that A will damage C at contact.

You got it?

You are wrong. In fact, why do you get to claim the upper part is just an assembly of elements, but we can't claim the LOWER part is just an assembly of elements?

Yes, the mass above is a collection of floors. THEY ARE ALL COLLAPSING. THEIR MASSES ARE COMBINED WHEN THEY HIT ONE FLOOR, A SINGLE FLOOR NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF THIRTEEN FLOORS.

All I can do is repeat what FineWine typed. In fact, everybody copy this into their clipboard and simply paste it in response to every post Heiwa makes on the subject.

 

[Gamolon]

Only a fool considers that one mass, one part, or worse, one rigid block!

Are you are saying that in the world of structural engineering, there is no such thing as a "rigid body" be it in real life OR when doing calculations?

If you AREN'T saying that there is no such thing, please provide an example of either a real life example or when/how a "rigid body" should be used in calculations.

You are claiming that Bazant is applying the term "rigid body" in error. So please explain how one should use/apply the term "rigid body" in a structural sense.

I'm all ears.

I know most of you understand the term "rigid body", but I want Heiwa's explanation for it.