The Heiwa Challenge

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
You aren't qualified to make such a judgement.

Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!



Please post your evidence to support your claim!

Every time you post your words support newton3376's claim. Your arguments are unsupported by evidence and display lack of basic education in the areas in question.

Edit: I will gladly withdraw my comment if you can show evidence you have the qualifications.

 

[nicepants]

carlito needs your help badly. So far he has not discussed/debated anything but has consistently run and hid from every little question put to him.

He has refused to answer any and all questions and has simply resorted to insult, smear and unsourced claims.

Pot? Kettle?

This website is much better suited for in-depth debate than the comments section of a months-old blog entry.

Back to my questions which you've yet to respond to:

The path of least resistance is to fall off the building, fall away and to the sides.

The path of greatest resistance is to fall straight down through those many many thousands of tons of steel and concrete

Resistance to what?
In what units is this resistance measured?

 

[releaseeabode]

........5. the debris builds up underneath the upper block, and protects it from the collisions, which happen at the BOTTOM of the debris layer, while the upper block rides down on the TOP of the debris layer.......

Can I name this one?

I want to call it "Surfing Collapse".

Block C literally surfed over Block A on the crest of a wave of debris.

 

[releaseeabode]

As the founder of The Heiwa Challenge I have decided to terminate it. Reason is that it is impossible to design a structure A, where a part C of A, when dropped on A, one-way crushes A. Thanks to all participants that tried to prove the impossible.

The knowledge gained can be applied to WTC 1 on 9/11:

At the moment of contact of the WTC 1 upper part C and lower structure, part A, a certain momentum (mass times velocity), energy (momentum times velocity divided by 2) and forces (energy divided by displacement) are involved. Local failures occur in all structural elements involved due to the forces applied, energy is absorbed and consumed, friction forces between failed elements in contact develop, forces and loads are re-distributed, momentums are reduced as outer forces are applied on the parts and the destruction is always arrested after a while.

It is not a static or dynamic solid mechanics problem! It is a structural damage analysis matter!

The upper part C of WTC 1 can only apply forces on the lower structure, part A, that the upper part C can itself withstand in the first place. As the upper part C and the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1 have identical structures, the upper part C cannot destroy the lower structure, part A, of WTC 1. Part C will destroy itself first.

I have of course described it in my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm , which many contenders of The Heiwa Challenge missed.

Anyway - see you in other threads and thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge!

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

 

[Baylor]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

Evidence? Lemons?

 

[funk de fino]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

You have found your vocation in life. Cheerleading for the losing side.

 

[beachnut]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

He lost on 911 before he had his first delusion on 911.
You share Heiwa's delusions on 911 and can't provide the calculations to support your position. What is new? Zero evidence, no calculations, the delusion maker and delusion believer declare victory based on their opinions and lies. True to the truth movement; spreading false information.

 

[twinstead]

Truthers, convince SOMEBODY, ANYBODY who can actually DO something about it; some MSM News, law enforcement agency, respected scientific organization, government official. Whatever. Allow some reporter the chance to get a Pulitzer Prize for breaking this news story of the century. Now THAT would be a victory.

Spouting off on an internet forum? Not so much.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

Depends on what your definition of success is...

 

[releaseeabode]

Depends on what your definition of success is...

Yeah, read the report. Quote...

"This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward."

The removal of the floor resulted in an upward reaction in which the floors above failed first and then collapsed through the floors beneath. That is not an intact C crushing through A. It is certainly not a one way crush down.

The second obvious point is that the C portion is not detached from the structure.

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

Unless it can be demonstrated otherwise then we can only assume that the shoddy building practices were uniform through the whole building. Being equally flawed throughout, I can accept that the structure meets the homogenity requirements for Heiwa's model.

One bizarre thing I was always taught was too read the specification as my starting point.

 

[Baylor]

Hi Janusaur!

 

[MIKILLINI]

I think you declared victory too late, You won this from the first post in the thread

Nope. No he hasn't. Now if you accept a flawed challenge as a victory, then go ahead and celebrate. OTOH if you are going to deal with reality and understand dynamic loads, in addition to an understanding of Newton's law, go back to school.

 

[releaseeabode]

Nope. No he hasn't. Now if you accept a flawed challenge as a victory, then go ahead and celebrate. OTOH if you are going to deal with reality and understand dynamic loads, in addition to an understanding of Newton's law, go back to school.

What is the flaw in the challenge?

 

[MIKILLINI]

What is the flaw in the challenge?

The collapse of WTC's 1 & 2 disprove Heiwas axiom.

As well as here, Bailey's crossroads:
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

 

[releaseeabode]

The collapse of WTC's 1 & 2 disprove Heiwas axiom.

I thought we were talking about Heiwa's challenge?

which one, the axiom or the challenge?

 

[releaseeabode]

Regarding Bailey's Crossroads which is again a flawed example, why?

Based upon the evidence I have been directed towards, it doesn't take much skeptical analysis to observe from the photographs that the area that collapsed between zones 3 and 4 in Photograph 5-5 was an edge of a partially constructed floor space. Photograph 5-6b, gives the impression that a huge chunk of the building collapsed but in fact, the edge of some freshly poured floors collapsed and the external walls nearby came down possibly because the wall supports were undermined and because the tower crane damaged the structure while falling. You can see the collapsed tower crane in the photograph 5-6a.

The example almost certainly fails on...

4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Yeah, read the report. Quote...

"This created a chain reaction in which floor nineteen collapsed, then floor twenty and so on, propagating upward."

"The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

BTW it should be noted that heiwa explicitely believes that all forms of progressive collapse are impossible.

The removal of the floor resulted in an upward reaction in which the floors above failed first and then collapsed through the floors beneath. That is not an intact C crushing through A. It is certainly not a one way crush down.

Nobody gives a rat's ass whether you think it was an intact structure or not. This bull**** claim was made by Heiwa because he can't properly read or distinguish between a simplified model and reality. This BTW already crashes his entire challenge premise

The Ronan Plaza should have clued you in on that one, that the mass -- the weight, including the dynamic load created by the top floors -- was responsible for initiating the second phase collapse. And this same thing was relevant to the WTC collapse, only instead of a single corner it was the entire floor plan. The intact qualification is not only a red herring, it's a stupid one, and completely irrelevant as the Ronan Plaza case demonstrates.

The second obvious point is that the C portion is not detached from the structure.

That's irrelevant is it not? Heiwa's claim is that under no circumstances can anything like Ronan Point happen.

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

Most buildings generally aren't designed to have.... well... anything explode inside of them. It's fairly obvious that accidental loading of any kind is going to result in unanticipated damage.

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

The collapse wasn't a consequence of "bad design" or errors in structural analysis. If structural analysis is thought of as a process of predicting the behavior of structures, the Ronan Point incident is a modeling failure. Progressive collapse is rare to begin with and it wasn't well understood back in the 1960's. This doesn't make the Ronan Point Plaza "badly built."

A book I have puts it this way: The fundamental lesson for structural analysis is that if you justify the analysis model on the basis of a code of practice, then you must be sure that the system you are designing is within the scope of the code.

 

[releaseeabode]

"The four floors fell onto level eighteen, which initiated a second phase of progressive collapse. This sudden impact loading on floor eighteen caused it to give way, smashing floor seventeen and progressing until it reached the ground."

BTW it should be noted that heiwa explicitely believes that all forms of progressive collapse are impossible.



Nobody gives a rat's ass whether you think it was an intact structure or not. This bull**** claim was made by Heiwa because he can't properly read or distinguish between a simplified model and reality. This BTW already crashes his entire challenge premise

The Ronan Plaza should have clued you in on that one, that the mass -- the weight, including the dynamic load created by the top floors -- was responsible for initiating the second phase collapse. And this same thing was relevant to the WTC collapse, only instead of a single corner it was the entire floor plan. The intact qualification is not only a red herring, it's a stupid one, and completely irrelevant as the Ronan Plaza case demonstrates.


That's irrelevant is it not? Heiwa's claim is that under no circumstances can anything like Ronan Point happen.



Most buildings generally aren't designed to have.... well... anything explode inside of them. It's fairly obvious that accidental loading of any kind is going to result in unanticipated damage.


The collapse wasn't a consequence of "bad design" or errors in structural analysis. If structural analysis is thought of as a process of predicting the behavior of structures, the Ronan Point incident is a modeling failure. Progressive collapse is rare to begin with and it wasn't well understood back in the 1960's. This doesn't make the Ronan Point Plaza "badly built."

A book I have puts it this way: The fundamental lesson for structural analysis is that if you justify the analysis model on the basis of a code of practice, then you must be sure that the system you are designing is within the scope of the code.

First off, READ THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES VERY SLOWLY "THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE HEIWA CHALLENGE AND THE STRUCTURE FAILS HIS PARAMETERS. NOT YOUR PARAMETERS OR ANYONE ELSE'S PARAMETERS".

Secondly, if you READ THE ACTUAL REPORT it says....

"A shocked Webb commented, “I knew we were going to find bad workmanship – what surprised me was the sheer scale of it. Not a single joint was correct. Fixing straps were unattached: leveling nuts were not wound down, causing a significant loading to be transmitted via the bolts: panels were placed on bolts instead of mortar. But the biggest shock of all was the crucial H-2 load-bearing joints between floor and wall panels. Some of the joints had less than fifty percent of the mortar specified.” (Wearne, 2000)."

I didn't say the design was flawed or didn't meet current regulations.

You clearly do not read, comprehend or look for yourself when responding to posts so welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This thread is about the Heiwa challenge and the structure fails HIS parameters NOT YOURS or ANYONE elses.

I haven't invented any parameters -- Heiwas' premise is fundamentally flawed... it's impossible to successfully meet the requirements of a flawed premise. Heiwa doesn't even know HOW the Ronan Plaza collapsed, so it amuses me how you can so carelessly overlook that idiocy.

I didn't say the design was flawed or didn't meet current regulations.

....

The third obvious point is that the structure was so badly made it clearly could not "carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart." The lateral impact being a relatively innocuous gas cooker explosion.

You clearly do not read, comprehend or look for yourself when responding to posts so welcome to my ignore list.

Good Bye

 

[MIKILLINI]

Perhaps releaseeabode will put everyone on ignore. Even then he will still lose arguments with himself.