The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa said:
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!
Click to expand...

twinstead said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

I believe Heiwa's understanding of the word "rigid" is different from the meaning of the same word in engineering
 
Heiwa said:
The WTC Towers prove The Heiwa Challenge wrong? A structure simply collapses, when you drop a little piece of same structure on it?
Click to expand...
It sure appeared to in the WTC when it collapsed nearly 8 years ago. And it does match all of your criteria unless you want to omit things like fire and gravity from the equation. But at that point we might as well remove steel and concrete from the equation as well.

Oh. Given my other half-assed calculations above. The percentages would be C=22.72%-29.99% and C=9.99%-16.36%. Apparently the WTC towers do not qualify for the Heiwa challenge since their C's have too much mass. :(
 
Last edited:
releaseeabode said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just curious... have Heiwa or this guy ever read Bazant's paper? Moreover, did they ever understand that the purpose of the model was not to represent the actual collapse, but instead to show that the collapse would have continued even with the best case scenario for collapse arrest?

Just a question; Why should skeptics -- that is -- your peers take Heiwa's analysis seriously when:

A) You can't even read another engineers representation model correctly
B) Cannot even distinguish between whether they're using a simplified model to bias against collapse or trying to directly model a complex event which was NOT biased at all.
C) Can't qualify to speak on a simple precedent (Heiwa seems deafetly quiet on this one).

Why are we to take you all seriously when your claims are based on blatant misrepresentation of a paper you did not read or understand?

Why are we to take you all seriously when your claims are based on claims with which you all have made without any prior study in the relevant fields?
 
willhaven said:
It sure appeared to in the WTC when it collapsed nearly 8 years ago. And it does match all of your criteria unless you want to omit things like fire and gravity from the equation. But at that point we might as well remove steel and concrete from the equation as well.

Oh. Given my other half-assed calculations above. The percentages would be C=22.72%-29.99% and C=9.99%-16.36%. Apparently the WTC towers do not qualify for the Heiwa challenge since their C's have too much mass. :(
Click to expand...

We all agree that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911. Question is if it were the tops crushing the lower parts by gravity. It does not appear so in the videos in my opinion! So the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm if any structure behaves like that. Can a little top part crush down the complete, bigger, lower part by gravity alone? Just a little drop!

So far nobody has been able to present a suitable structure. Pls do not propose the WTC structures as your proposed candidates for obvious reasons. They are already destroyed.
 
releaseeabode said:
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.
Click to expand...

Given that debris must be created at the crushing front, this debris must either stay at the crushing front or go somewhere else. Bazant's assumption, a thoroughly reasonable one, is that most of it remains at the crushing front, and then falls due to gravity. If you dispute the existence of this debris layer, where exactly are you suggesting that the fragmented material at the crushing front goes to?

Once the existence of the debris is accepted, the rest follows from simple physics. If its acceptance is denied, physics has already been abandoned. You seem to be taking the latter position. Welcome to the middle ages.

Dave
 
Heiwa said:
We all agree that the WTC towers were destroyed on 911. Question is if it were the tops crushing the lower parts by gravity. It does not appear so in the videos in my opinion! So the purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to confirm if any structure behaves like that. Can a little top part crush down the complete, bigger, lower part by gravity alone? Just a little drop!

So far nobody has been able to present a suitable structure. Pls do not propose the WTC structures as your proposed candidates for obvious reasons. They are already destroyed.
Click to expand...

Carlos has your models in the "more structures for Heiwa" thread


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5050058&postcount=34
 
A W Smith said:
Carlos has your models in the "more structures for Heiwa" thread


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5050058&postcount=34
Click to expand...

He has? It seems to be about controlled demolition. The Heiwa Challenge is not really about controlled demolition. Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone. No hydraulic jacks, etc. Just gravity. And a suitable STRUCTURE of course.

NIST has developed US standards and technology for such a STRUCTURE!! The structure must lack capability to absorb strain energy so that the kinetic energy applied by the dropping top is bigger than that capacity. You follow? Result is POUFF!

Bazant has developed a theory how it works. Little top part C drops on big lower part A and transforms A into part B(azant) = rubble. Same result! POUFF. Or BOUFF.

So let's have FUN. Design a STRUCTURE that goes POUFF! See post #1 for details.
 
Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone.
Click to expand...
We get to set the middle part (top of A, bottom of C) one fire for an hour or so first. You forgot that part.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Nothing counts, Grizzly Bear. Heiwa has the power of clairvoyance, and from a single photograph of a collapsed building he can divine properties of the original structure that invalidate the example. That's what he did with Bailey's Crossing.

Dave
Click to expand...

And, unfortunately for Heiwa, Bailey's Crossing perfectly fits his challenge.

This thing was resolved a long, long time ago. We need to let this thread die. Don't engage Heiwa. Just post what building failures have already met his "challenge".
 
Newtons Bit said:
And, unfortunately for Heiwa, Bailey's Crossing perfectly fits his challenge.

This thing was resolved a long, long time ago. We need to let this thread die. Don't engage Heiwa. Just post what building failures have already met his "challenge".
Click to expand...

No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!
 
Heiwa said:
No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

No.
 
Heiwa said:
He has? It seems to be about controlled demolition. The Heiwa Challenge is not really about controlled demolition. Here you just have to design a structure, cut off the top, drop it and POUFF, the structure shall be destroyed by gravity alone. No hydraulic jacks, etc. Just gravity. And a suitable STRUCTURE of course.

NIST has developed US standards and technology for such a STRUCTURE!! The structure must lack capability to absorb strain energy so that the kinetic energy applied by the dropping top is bigger than that capacity. You follow? Result is POUFF!

Bazant has developed a theory how it works. Little top part C drops on big lower part A and transforms A into part B(azant) = rubble. Same result! POUFF. Or BOUFF.

So let's have FUN. Design a STRUCTURE that goes POUFF! See post #1 for details.
Click to expand...

actually
those the only thing they did to collapse the building was use jacks to shift the support
the mass of the upper part plus gravity did the rest

didnt you watch the 1 where the top part shifted and fell, destroying the lower part?

this is as close as a full scale (1/1 not your 1/300 water box stupidity) demonstration of the Heiwa challenge as anyone could ever hope to get

you have failed sir

ETA: this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU7eUny_5U
 
Last edited:
Justin39640 said:
actually
those the only thing they did to collapse the building was use jacks to shift the support
the mass of the upper part plus gravity did the rest

didnt you watch the 1 where the top part shifted and fell, destroying the lower part?

this is as close as a full scale (1/1 not your 1/300 water box stupidity) demonstration of the Heiwa challenge as anyone could ever hope to get

you have failed sir

ETA: this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IU7eUny_5U
Click to expand...

Upper part drops onto lower part
hydralicdemolition.jpg


hydcd2.jpg
 
Heiwa said:
No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

Here you have to design (and describe) a STRUCTURE, remove and drop the top on the STRUCTURE and demonstrate that complete or 70% of the STRUCTURE fails as per post #1. It should not be too difficult (according NIST and Bazant).

Do not start a fire in your STRUCTURE - just keep it SIMPLE. Drop the top!

You are the one to initiate the crush down by dropping the top on your STRUCTURE.

If you think other structures have been crushed down before by tops dropping, just copy the details in your DESIGN, drop and submit.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

sure thing.
here you go



count the floors above the collapse initiation. count the floors below the collapse initiation.

the small part A crushes down the LARGER part C.

Thank you.

I expect my check for $1,000,000 soon. Pm me and I'll send you my routing numbers.
 
Heiwa said:
No local 'building' failures of unknown type meet The Heiwa Challenge!

in your DESIGN, drop and submit.
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

hahahahahaha.

Oh poor heiwa... we have now shown a crushdown with the smaller part A crushing the LARGER part c from REAL LIFE.

and you try to handwave it away, because they have to be "YOUR" design.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!
 
new model

although i think the recent videos finds above pretty much end the debate once and for all



(darn, before i meant to link the one TL just linked)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom