The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carlos said:
Thanks Heiwa, but I was talking about the Björkman's axiom.

If the weight of 98th to 110th floor were able to crush down the 97th floor columns, why weren't the 97th to 110th floor able to crush down the 96th floor?

Is it because the bottom floors cross section was greater than the upper floors cross section?
Click to expand...

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?
 
releaseeabode said:
If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?
Click to expand...

Even if it is, that reaction force is insufficient to decelerate the 98th floor to a standstill as well as to collapse its supports and those of the 97th floor. The collapse then continues for another floor, but with the upper block initially in motion rather than stationary; the result is that the energy balance is even more in favour of collapse at the next impact. Therefore, if the 97th floor collapses, the 96th is more, not less, likely to collapse. This has all been worked out many times over.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Even if it is, that reaction force is insufficient to decelerate the 98th floor to a standstill as well as to collapse its supports and those of the 97th floor. The collapse then continues for another floor, but with the upper block initially in motion rather than stationary; the result is that the energy balance is even more in favour of collapse at the next impact. Therefore, if the 97th floor collapses, the 96th is more, not less, likely to collapse. This has all been worked out many times over.

Dave
Click to expand...

On what basis do you make the claim that the reaction force would not be sufficient to collapse the supports of the 98th floor if the force it is reacting to caused the collapse of those of the 97th?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
On what basis do you make the claim that the reaction force would not be sufficient to collapse the supports of the 98th floor if the force it is reacting to caused the collapse of those of the 97th?
Click to expand...


He said the reaction force wouldn't be sufficient to desacelerate the 98th floor, not to destroy it.
 
Carlos said:
He said the reaction force wouldn't be sufficient to desacelerate the 98th floor, not to destroy it.
Click to expand...

It's a simple question Carlos...

If the 98th floor is crushing down on the 97th floor, why isn't it experiencing a reaction force as destructive as that which is destroying the 97th?
 
releaseeabode said:
So, you're saying that FEMA was right and it was pancake collapse?
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume, just this once, that you're not being wilfully dishonest, and point out that FEMA's theory was that the collapse was initiated by pancaking as the floor trusses disconnected at one end and the floors fell on to the next one down. This was superseded by NIST's conclusion that the collapse was initiated by perimeter column bowing due to pull-in forces from sagging floor joists, the distinction being that FEMA's mechanism required the connections between floor and perimeter columns to have failed whereas NIST's was based on their having remained intact up to the moment of collapse initiation. Once collapse had initiated, there is no other rational interpretation than that the falling upper mass destroyed the lower structure in a crush-down process, and this is commonly (though perhaps rather loosely) described as pancaking. Therefore, using the word "pancake" to describe the collapse, rather than collapse initiation, does not disagree with either FEMA or NIST.

That's your free strike. Next time you bring this one up, I'll know you're being deliberately dishonest.

Dave
 
The Heiwa Challenge is re-opened!

Dave Rogers said:
I'm going to assume, just this once, that you're not being wilfully dishonest, and point out that FEMA's theory was that the collapse was initiated by pancaking as the floor trusses disconnected at one end and the floors fell on to the next one down. This was superseded by NIST's conclusion that the collapse was initiated by perimeter column bowing due to pull-in forces from sagging floor joists, the distinction being that FEMA's mechanism required the connections between floor and perimeter columns to have failed whereas NIST's was based on their having remained intact up to the moment of collapse initiation. Once collapse had initiated, there is no other rational interpretation than that the falling upper mass destroyed the lower structure in a crush-down process, and this is commonly (though perhaps rather loosely) described as pancaking. Therefore, using the word "pancake" to describe the collapse, rather than collapse initiation, does not disagree with either FEMA or NIST.

That's your free strike. Next time you bring this one up, I'll know you're being deliberately dishonest.

Dave
Click to expand...

I remind you that The Heiwa Challenge is closed and that nobody managed to design a structure, top of which dropped on remainder, crushes it.

FEMA suggests that it suffices to disconnect some top horizontal elements (floors) of the structure and that they drop on other horizontal elements (floors) below that are automatically disconnected from whatever supports they have and ... voilà ... crush down of everything.

NIST proposes that you first sag some top horizontal elements (floors) by fire, so that they pull in the outer walls and that then top elements drop on lower elements that are automatically disconnected from whatever support and ... voilà ... crush down of complete structure below.

Mackey suggests you simply drop top mass M on the first little mass m (of 90 below = the structure) and that ping, ping, ping .... ping (90 times) M crushes 90 m.

I wonder why nobody has managed to repeat or reproduce above magic destruction methods of a structure to win The Heiwa Challenge?

It sounds so easy. So I re-open The Heiwa Challenge again! Conditions are as per post #1.

Just design a simple structure - it need not be the size of WTC 1 - that is crushed down when dropping a little part on it.
 
Just design a simple structure - it need not be the size of WTC 1 - that is crushed down when dropping a little part on it.
Click to expand...


Are you sure the effects caused by the kinetic energy are the same in both structures? (the real structure and the model)
 
I'm going out on a limb here, heiwa, but I suspect not many folks here give a crap about the Heiwa Challenge any more. Your delightful little challenge has nothing to do with the WTC collapses. It's just a silly little intellectual exorcise you've come up with the keep from having to deal with expert disagreement with your 9/11 theories.
 
Carlos said:
Are you sure the effects caused by the kinetic energy are the same in both structures? (the real structure and the model)
Click to expand...

The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.

Why don't you assume that you are free to build a structure where kinetic energy is more favourable for you, I think that might be the smart thing to do.
 
Last edited:
releaseeabode said:
The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.

Why don't you assume that you are free to build a structure where kinetic energy is more favourable for you, I think that might be the smart thing to do.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
releaseeabode said:
The challenge says to design a structure. It doesn't say that you have to build a real structure or a model.
Click to expand...

In that case, the challenge has been met several times. However, Heiwa's response is invariably to propose a modification to the structure that will prevent collapse, point out that his modified structure won't collapse, then claim that, because of that, the original structure hasn't met the challenge. Scroll back over the thread and take a look.

Dave
 
So Heiwa, what's your point?

The falling upper floors of a structure cannot destroy the floors below due to gravity?
 
twinstead said:
I'm going out on a limb here, heiwa, but I suspect not many folks here give a crap about the Heiwa Challenge any more. Your delightful little challenge has nothing to do with the WTC collapses. It's just a silly little intellectual exorcise you've come up with the keep from having to deal with expert disagreement with your 9/11 theories.
Click to expand...

You are right - The Heiwa Challenge has nothing to do with the WTC destructions!

In The Heiwa Challenge 70% of the elements must be disconnected from one another and the final result should be as per Bazant; a heap of rubble. No big scrap assemblies of elements are permitted after 'crush down' as seen at WTC:

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=63&MMN_position=148:148

The WTC rubble is quite clearly not produced by a crush down of a top part.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom