The Heiwa Challenge

[Carlos]

The WTC rubble is quite clearly not produced by a crush down of a top part.

Are you saying gravity cannot produce rubble?

 

[Heiwa]

So Heiwa, what's your point?

The falling upper floors of a structure cannot destroy the floors below due to gravity?

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity. The upper part is simply too light and too weak! Gravity is also too weak. It can accelerate the upper part but the lower part should easily stop it at contact. The lower part is too strong.

It means, i.a. as you suggest, that upper floors - free (?) sub-elements of the upper assembly - cannot destroy the floors of the lower assembly or the walls keeping the floors in position for that matter. Only local failures will be produced that absorbs all energy applied.

 

[Carlos]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

 

[twinstead]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

This has been explained to him a thousand times. He can't, or won't, get it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity.

This is contradicted by actual calculations of the energies involved, which give a comfortable excess of kinetic energy of the upper part over the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. Heiwa has to take an unrealistically high estimate of the fracture energy and to handwave away half the kinetic energy to get any other result.

Dave

 

[releaseeabode]

Heiwa,

The upper part crushed the lower part floor by floor. Do you think 20 floors cannot crush a single floor?

I think we all get the "pancake theory" Carlos.

The real problem that the "pancake theorists" have is that there should have been crush up. Bazant really tries hard to reconcile this by creating an element B made up from fragmented masses that mysteriously compact and then accrete even more mass, all acting around a theoretical centroid! This makes B perfectly efficient for transferring energy or momentum.

He also knows that attributing any significant impact from C on B would result in crush up of C. The way around this is to attach C to B to calculate the momentum and energy and to detach it when calculating crush up. B is either attached to C or it is not.

That aside, Bazant's model has as much to do with the WTC as Heiwa's!!!

 

[Heiwa]

This is contradicted by actual calculations of the energies involved, which give a comfortable excess of kinetic energy of the upper part over the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. Heiwa has to take an unrealistically high estimate of the fracture energy and to handwave away half the kinetic energy to get any other result.

Dave

You're sure? Then design a structure where the kinetic energy of the upper part, when dropped, exceeds the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. It should be easy! But no crush down of lower part will take place.

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact! It means that the fracture energy required NOT to collapse the upper part must be pretty great, BUT, I am glad to advice; it is smaller than the lower part's.

As I explain in my papers; play basket! Fool around with the ball! Dribble. And note that the ball bounces. It is fun! The ball doesn't one way crush the stadium! Why does the ball bounce (and not crush down the stadium)? Because every time it impacts anything, it - the ball - absorbs energy that makes it bounce.

It is only if you assume, like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Mackey & Co, that the basket ball is rigid that it immediatly punches a hole in the stadium, etc. No bounce. No game. NWO!

 

[tuc0]

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact!

And that's exactly why your popular challenge failed with post #1.

 

[twinstead]

You're sure? Then design a structure where the kinetic energy of the upper part, when dropped, exceeds the fracture energy required to produce collapse of the lower part. It should be easy! But no crush down of lower part will take place.

Remember that the upper part must be able to apply its kinetic energy on the lower part and destroy the lower part, while the upper part remains intact! It means that the fracture energy required NOT to collapse the upper part must be pretty great, BUT, I am glad to advice; it is smaller than the lower part's.

As I explain in my papers; play basket! Fool around with the ball! Dribble. And note that the ball bounces. It is fun! The ball doesn't one way crush the stadium! Why does the ball bounce (and not crush down the stadium)? Because every time it impacts anything, it - the ball - absorbs energy that makes it bounce.

It is only if you assume, like FEMA, NIST, Bazant, Mackey & Co, that the basket ball is rigid that it immediatly punches a hole in the stadium, etc. No bounce. No game. NWO!

You're kidding, right?

 

[EnJaySee]

You're kidding, right?

I think in his mind, the only way he'll admit that there were no planted explosives in the WTC buildings is if a basketball really does crush down a stadium.

He'd be right if the WTC buildings were single solid structures though.

Heiwa, you so crazy!

 

[willhaven]

My point is that an upper assembly of structural elements (and their masses), e.g. top parts of WTC 1 and 2, lack the strength (and energy) to apply the required forces on a similar structure below to destroy the latter by simply dropping the former on it by gravity. The upper part is simply too light and too weak! Gravity is also too weak. It can accelerate the upper part but the lower part should easily stop it at contact. The lower part is too strong.

It means, i.a. as you suggest, that upper floors - free (?) sub-elements of the upper assembly - cannot destroy the floors of the lower assembly or the walls keeping the floors in position for that matter. Only local failures will be produced that absorbs all energy applied.

The WTC towers weren't some giant immovable structure. They were mostly empty space tied together structurally to withstand common forces that would be applied to them. You also have to keep in mind that a key structural element, the hat truss, was disconnected from the structure when the top came crashing down.

It's been said that they were "airliner proof" but that was: 1) theoretical and 2) was initially judged with smaller aircraft traveling at runway approach speeds without full fuel loads.

It's estimated that the towers were 500,000 tons each. The planes struck between the 93rd-99th floors and the 77th-85th floors out of 110.

I know the following is simplistic, but if you do the math and arrive at 4545.454545 tons/floor, you've got somewhere between 49,995-81,810 tons for component C of one building and between 113,625-149,985 tons for component C of the other.

Can a 4 inch slab of concrete supported by lightweight/long steel trusses (short ones were ~30ft and the long ones were ~60ft) support that much of a dynamic load? Apparently not. The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming.

 

[Carlos]

I think we all get the "pancake theory" Carlos.

The real problem that the "pancake theorists" have is that there should have been crush up. Bazant really tries hard to reconcile this by creating an element B made up from fragmented masses that mysteriously compact and then accrete even more mass, all acting around a theoretical centroid! This makes B perfectly efficient for transferring energy or momentum.

But why couldn't the rubble mass crush the lower floors?

 

[Heiwa]

The WTC towers weren't some giant immovable structure. They were mostly empty space tied together structurally to withstand common forces that would be applied to them. You also have to keep in mind that a key structural element, the hat truss, was disconnected from the structure when the top came crashing down.

It's been said that they were "airliner proof" but that was: 1) theoretical and 2) was initially judged with smaller aircraft traveling at runway approach speeds without full fuel loads.

It's estimated that the towers were 500,000 tons each. The planes struck between the 93rd-99th floors and the 77th-85th floors out of 110.

I know the following is simplistic, but if you do the math and arrive at 4545.454545 tons/floor, you've got somewhere between 49,995-81,810 tons for component C of one building and between 113,625-149,985 tons for component C of the other.

Can a 4 inch slab of concrete supported by lightweight/long steel trusses (short ones were ~30ft and the long ones were ~60ft) support that much of a dynamic load? Apparently not. The photographic and video evidence is overwhelming.

Re last question: it is not a matter if one element in the interface crush zone upper/lower parts can support a dynamic load or not! If it can - case 1 -the upper part bounces. If it can't - case 2 - some element may break.

In case 1 the lower part evidently applies a force on the upper part and the result is a BOUNCE. Upper part flies up like my grand children jumping in my bed (the start of my involvement in this matter).

In case 2 the lower part also applies a force on the upper part and the result is that one element breaks.

In both cases the lower part applies a force on the upper part, when the latter is coming crushing down. You follow?

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.

I know of course that it is impossible but the NWO suggests differently and I had expected a lot of NWO architects to prove me wrong ... but so far without any success. As expected.

But you can have a try. Don't talk - produce a real structure that proves me wrong!

 

[Carlos]

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.

Was the WTC upper part intact?

 

[willhaven]

Re last question: it is not a matter if one element in the interface crush zone upper/lower parts can support a dynamic load or not! If it can - case 1 -the upper part bounces. If it can't - case 2 - some element may break.

In case 1 the lower part evidently applies a force on the upper part and the result is a BOUNCE. Upper part flies up like my grand children jumping in my bed (the start of my involvement in this matter).

In case 2 the lower part also applies a force on the upper part and the result is that one element breaks.

In both cases the lower part applies a force on the upper part, when the latter is coming crushing down. You follow?

The Heiwa Challenge is in fact to design a structure where the lower part DOES NOT apply a force on the upper part dropping/crushing down on it with the result that the lower part is destroyed by the forces of the upper (intact) part coming crushing down.

I know of course that it is impossible but the NWO suggests differently and I had expected a lot of NWO architects to prove me wrong ... but so far without any success. As expected.

But you can have a try. Don't talk - produce a real structure that proves me wrong!

The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

 

[releaseeabode]

But why couldn't the rubble mass crush the lower floors?

I'm sure a mass of rubble can destroy floors beneath it.

 

[Carlos]

I'm sure a mass of rubble can destroy floors beneath it.

So what could destroy the floors above it?

 

[releaseeabode]

The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

Only "probably right"?

Actually no, it's up to NIST who have the vast majority of the evidence available to provide a plausible collapse progression story. I don't really care if it involves controlled demolition, Thermite, lasers, Higg's Bosun or Santa Claus.

Bazant has speculated as well, do you know why? It is because he doesn't know for sure either!!! NIST certainly don't know and pulled back from saying so while observing that dust clouds obscured the video evidence.

Bazant has simplified the problem to the point that his models are as meaningful to the WTC collapse as Heiwa's challenge model is. Rather than admit that the ensuing chaos in a novel structure like the WTC just cannot be modelled reliably he has skewed the data to support what he thinks he observed.

 

[twinstead]

This is skeptic fundamentalism and what really [anger] narks me is that most of the morons on this forum who support the OCT don't even understand what they are supporting and yet feel a sense of elevated superiority over "Truthers" while basking in their ignorance[/anger][chillmode]

Ooooookay. Well, then most of the morons on this forum who support 9/11 "truth" don't understand the "OCT" either. Your delightful temper tantrum aside, many people on this forum who support the "OCT" DO indeed know exactly what they are supporting.

It's not the generally-accepted narrative of that day for nothing. Do you think GWB just came out for a news conference and told the world's experts the "official story" and they just nodded and said, "Hmmm. sounds good to me"?

 

[Heiwa]

The WTC towers prove you wrong. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that the building simply collapsed. If someone wants to charge otherwise, it's up to them to provide evidence of another collapse mechanism.

I've never seen any believable evidence of foul play. I've heard many charges of foul play but the logistics of them are usually laughable.

If it is impossible for the building to collapse due to airliner impacts and the subsequent fires, what caused the collapse?

What happened that day was documented by hundreds of cameras and the debris was sifted through by regular people and no hard evidence of foul play has emerged. What that tells me is that the official story is probably right.

The WTC Towers prove The Heiwa Challenge wrong? A structure simply collapses, when you drop a little piece of same structure on it?

The purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is simply to see, if and how it is possible. I invite everyone to design a structure that can be destroyed by dropping a piece of it on it. In my opinion, based on long experience of structural design and structural damage analysis, it is NOT possible.

I have made that conclusion an axiom:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

I invite you to find anyone that can prove this axiom wrong.

Thanks for your post.