The Heiwa Challenge

[twinstead]

Did you have a rebuttal in there somewhere? A counter argument of some sort? Or were you just going to go with the Smoke And Mirrors?

I don't need a counter or rebuttal. You disagree with the commonly-accepted narrative of the collapses? Prove it. This ball is in your court. I'm just telling you how a layman like myself views the situation. It appears to us that you think you're either smarter than all the contributors to the NIST, Purdue, and others, or they are "in on it". I'll let the others here who are more qualified than me provide rebuttals.

I'm just here to point out your obvious arrogance.

 

[SteveAustin]

I don't need a counter or rebuttal. You disagree with the commonly-accepted narrative of the collapses? Prove it. This ball is in your court. I'm just telling you how a layman like myself views the situation. It appears to us that you think you're either smarter than all the contributors to the NIST, Purdue, and others, or they are "in on it". I'll let the others here who are more qualified than me provide rebuttals.

I'm just here to point out your obvious arrogance.

I did prove it, it's called Newton's Third Law of Motion.

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

 

[dtugg]

excellent counter argument there dtugg, I see you are up to your usual standards!!

A counter argument to what? The really stupid stuff that you said in order to discredit twoofers? Are you mad at me for exposing you? Don't worry, people probably just think that I'm messing with you.

 

[dtugg]

I did prove it, it's called Newton's Third Law of Motion.

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

Oh, this is just wonderful work. By misrepresenting Newton's Laws you are making it seem as though twoofers don't understand physics at all! Keep it up!

 

[twinstead]

You however have failed to show why in the case of the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings Newton's Third Law of Motion would be broken!

And, I've been told by people whom I trust and know are experts that you are misrepresenting Newton's law. So, whom do I believe?

 

[Heiwa]

Gamolon's model did not include any lifting bars. The failure you've declared, therefore, does not apply to his model, but to a strawman you've created.

OK, steel lifting bars are replaced by wooden dittos! All weights were thus secured to the wooden bars/poles, some way or another, and then upper wooden bar/pole with four weights were dropped on lower wooden bar/pole from 10 feet.

At impact upper wooden pole (C) contacts lower wooden pole (A). A is 40 feet high and secured to ground. A is like a flag pole! 40 feet. With one weight every feet!

It seems upper pole C will bounce off lower pole A!

Please, you cannot crush down a 40 feet flag pole by dropping another little - 4 feet - pole on it. Come on. Be serious!

 

[nicepants]

Heiwa Fails Again

OK, steel lifting bars are replaced by wooden dittos! All weights were thus secured to the wooden bars/poles, some way or another, and then upper wooden bar/pole with four weights were dropped on lower wooden bar/pole from 10 feet.

It seems upper pole C will bounce off lower pole A!<snip>

Golomon's model does not include an upper & a lower pole. Once again, the failure you've declared does not apply to golomon's model, but to a strawman you've created.

 

[Heiwa]

Golomon's model does not include an upper & a lower pole. Once again, the failure you've declared does not apply to golomon's model, but to a strawman you've created.

??? What does keep the 40 A and 4 C weights apart 1 foot? Are the 40 A weights suspended in air 40 feet high? And the 4 C weights? How can you lift them while they are 1 feet apart?

 

[tfk]

You keep repeating this ridiculous fantasy.

You keep saying that 2 identical blocks of differing sizes are to be treated differently. One is fragile and must be treated one floor at a time but the other is indestructible and is to be treated as ONE block.

This is fraudulent, and any engineer or other professional who peddles this nonsense should lose their license to practice, heck should lose their diplomas.

Maybe you need a refresher, here is a webpage you might be able to understand...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

I am an engineer. What do you do, Steve?

I've taught this stuff (Engineering Dynamics) to college-level engineering students.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The fact is that YOU (& bill, & probably a few others) are incapable of understanding what we've explained.

The comments that you've made make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you have zero concept of what Newton's 3rd law is or how to apply it.

Nobody decides "a priori" to consider the upper block to be indestructible. The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs??

Put your arrogance away, Steve. You don't have the chops to determine what is, and is not, "fraudulent" in this discussion.

Tom

 

[twinstead]

Now see, Steve. What exactly am I to make of tfk's post? It makes sense to me, but I'm no expert. Why should I believe you instead of tfk and others? What makes you smarter?

 

[FineWine]

You keep repeating this ridiculous fantasy.

As a peddler of absurd rubbish that can't possibly be true, you certainly know something about ridiculous fantasies.

You keep saying that 2 identical blocks of differing sizes are to be treated differently. One is fragile and must be treated one floor at a time but the other is indestructible and is to be treated as ONE block.

These are very stupid lies. There are no blocks, identical or otherwise. The impact floors collapsed after the floor trusses failed, taking along with them the floors above. The falling mass hit exactly ONE floor, the floor directly below, crushed it and added its mass. The process repeated until the building was gone.

Stop trotting out Heiwa's insane crapola about "indestructible" blocks. There isn't a human alive who holds that idiotic strawman position. As usual, you are fooling nobody.

This is fraudulent, and any engineer or other professional who peddles this nonsense should lose their license to practice, heck should lose their diplomas.

Maybe you need a refresher, here is a webpage you might be able to understand...

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaws/u2l4a.cfm

You know less about physics and engineering than you do about formal rhetoric. We're talking less than zero.

 

[bill smith]

I am an engineer. What do you do, Steve?

I've taught this stuff (Engineering Dynamics) to college-level engineering students.

Every competent engineer in the world understands EXACTLY where Heiwa's analysis falls apart. We've explained it 8 ways to Sunday.

The fact is that YOU (& bill, & probably a few others) are incapable of understanding what we've explained.

The comments that you've made make it PERFECTLY CLEAR that you have zero concept of what Newton's 3rd law is or how to apply it.

Nobody decides "a priori" to consider the upper block to be indestructible. The situation is ASYMMETRIC. It is asymmetric due to gravity. One piece is above the other piece, and when pieces get knocked free, they do NOT fall upwards & impact the upper piece!! How difficult is this to understand??

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs??

Put your arrogance away, Steve. You don't have the chops to determine what is, and is not, "fraudulent" in this discussion.

Tom

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.

 

[beachnut]

...

No, the theory JREF "debunkers" are pushing is one that does not follow the laws of physics.

...

The Heiwa challenge does not need science it is pure talk and has your vast knowledge of physics, engineering and math fooled.

WTC towers fell after impacts and fire with gravity. The jet fuel alone had the heat energy of 315 TONS of TNT in both jets, and the office fires had more heat than that. So you are saying over 1200 TONS of TNT heat energy could not weaken the steel in the WTC but some mythically placed explosives that make no noise, no blast effects, leave no trace of blast effects were used but were never found.

Your delusion defies the law of physics and you can't do anything but make up lies like this post and whine about your failed attempt at false flag vandalism.

I know Heiwa has nothing to present due to the lack of calculations on his engineering proposal; there is no substance but you believe there is but you can't present the calculation to prove your point. You have nothing but talk and that is the best part you are the real deal false flag engineering nothing to save Heiwa from fraud.

You could produce the pages of calculations to go with your theory but I bet you forgot to attend engineering school and get your masters degree in engineering. When can we expect you to earn a degree and wake up to the fact you support delusions with talk? In the 7 years you have wasted spewing delusions on 911 you could have had a PhD in structural engineering.

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.

LOL

You have not studied your physics lesson yet! So sad to see pure ignorance on engineering being expressed as if it was more than delusional failure at understanding something as simple and complex as gravity and energy. Your post is graded zero in physics and engineering.


... Heiwa proved wrong twice with the WTC towers falling by gravity on September 11, 2001 when 19 terrorist murdered fellow humans in NYC, DC, and a lonely field in Pennsylvania. 19 terrorists did it on purpose and never heard of Gandhi and Heiwa is doing it due to ignorance and never uses physics or produces calculations to go with his delusion.

Such a poor attempt at apologizing for terrorists who murdered people on September 11, 2001. When is Heiwa being published? Why can't he publish his calculations to prove his theory?

 

[Newtons Bit]

You lay on the floor. Your twin brother jumps on you from a height of 12 feet. It's a collision. Both you & your twin are the same, weigh the same, have the same muscle & bone content.

Why does he walk away from the collision & you lie there with broken ribs?

This is a good analogy. To further explain how it applies to reality, legs = columns, ribs = floors.

 

[nicepants]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

When the collapse reached the 10th floor, how many tenths of the structure were crushing it?

 

[FineWine]

When one tenth of a structure crushes down the other nine-tenths of a structure by gravity alone T.I don't need any engineer to tell me spmething is seriously skewed.

So you can explain all you like but until you can come up with any structure, big or small in the entire history of this Planet in which the top and lightest one-tenth crushed the other and stronger nine-enths down flat on the ground by gravity alone you will be 100% disregarded.

You've been caught lying again. Thirteen floors crushed one floor, and added its mass. Then fourteen floors crushed one, and added its mass. You know the drill, Bill.

It's over.

 

[bill smith]

This is a good analogy. To further explain how it applies to reality, legs = columns, ribs = floors.

Yes, and as Steven Jones says ''at night when you drop yoour trousers your legs are still there '

 

[twinstead]

Yea, because the master of analogies thinks trousers on legs is what happened at the WTC. LOL

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Yes, and as Steven Jones says ''at night when you drop yoour trousers your legs are still there '

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

Given that Jones' pants should be on fire.

 

[twinstead]

This is a surprisingly accurate analogy.

Given that Jones' pants should be on fire.

Oh, I get it. Very nice