stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Do you ? Or your hero ?
How do they sit with this statement ?
Is your hero's assumption wrong ?
Last edited:
The Heiwa Challenge
- Thread starter Heiwa
- Start date
- Status
Do you ? Or your hero ?
How do they sit with this statement ?
Is your hero's assumption wrong ?
Sizzler and I discussed a similar "challenge" in some detail in a previous thread. (I'll try to find a link.)
Based on some of the results of that discussion, I will take this challenge under the following additional conditions.
1. A prize of a minimum of $100,000 is offered, with the funds held in escrow by a third party to be mutually agreed upon. The existence of the funds will be verified and the terms of the challenge will be formally enumerated in a legally binding contract.
Just to be clear, Heiwa has offered a challenge and not a wager, so I am not offering to stake any money on my own. The risk I take is that if I fail to meet the challenge's terms, my expenses in the project, which will very likely include materials, leasing of land and facilities, permit fees, legal representation, materials, recording instruments, and of course my own time and labor, will go uncompensated.
2. There are no restrictions in the ratio of the area of the structure to the height of the structure. (There are none in the challenge as offered, so this should not be a problem.) Specifically, there is no stipulation that the ratio of height to horizontal cross section area, or the shape of the horizontal cross section, will be similar between the model and the actual wtc towers.
3. The upper "10%" portion of the structure may be detached, lifted, and dropped from a distance of up to (but no more than) three meters above the lower portion, regardless of the scale of the model. This represents the same distance as is hypothesized in models of the tower collapses resulting from the failure of one floor, meaning that the ratio of potential energy released by the initial drop to the mass of the structures will be comparable between the real tower collapse scenario and the model test. (Obviously, this ratio must be comparable for the test to be reasonably fair and meaningful.)
4. At my discretion, a freestanding fixed rigid pole or a fixed taut vertical cable may be placed inside the model's frame. The size or mass of the vertical member will not be considered as part of the size or mass of the model. The vertical member will not be attached to the model and will not constrain the vertical movement of any part of the model, but will act to prevent sideways toppling. This will likely be necessary because moment of inertia scales as the fifth power of linear scale while the torque experienced by the parts in a collapse scales as only the fourth power. Thus even though in a structure the size of the wtc towers, the moment of inertia was apparently sufficient to prevent the upper or lower masses from rotating sufficiently as to topple, this would not necessarily be true of any smaller model. The vertical pole or wire compensates for this unavoidable scaling issue. As Heiwa's hypothesis for the impossibility of collapse does not depend on the occurrence of toppling, but rather on the resistance and friction created by the lower structure, this condition should not be a problem.
If you're interested, Heiwa, please PM me with contact information for your legal representative so we can begin the process of setting out specific contract terms.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Based on some of the results of that discussion, I will take this challenge under the following additional conditions.
1. A prize of a minimum of $100,000 is offered, with the funds held in escrow by a third party to be mutually agreed upon. The existence of the funds will be verified and the terms of the challenge will be formally enumerated in a legally binding contract.
Just to be clear, Heiwa has offered a challenge and not a wager, so I am not offering to stake any money on my own. The risk I take is that if I fail to meet the challenge's terms, my expenses in the project, which will very likely include materials, leasing of land and facilities, permit fees, legal representation, materials, recording instruments, and of course my own time and labor, will go uncompensated.
2. There are no restrictions in the ratio of the area of the structure to the height of the structure. (There are none in the challenge as offered, so this should not be a problem.) Specifically, there is no stipulation that the ratio of height to horizontal cross section area, or the shape of the horizontal cross section, will be similar between the model and the actual wtc towers.
3. The upper "10%" portion of the structure may be detached, lifted, and dropped from a distance of up to (but no more than) three meters above the lower portion, regardless of the scale of the model. This represents the same distance as is hypothesized in models of the tower collapses resulting from the failure of one floor, meaning that the ratio of potential energy released by the initial drop to the mass of the structures will be comparable between the real tower collapse scenario and the model test. (Obviously, this ratio must be comparable for the test to be reasonably fair and meaningful.)
4. At my discretion, a freestanding fixed rigid pole or a fixed taut vertical cable may be placed inside the model's frame. The size or mass of the vertical member will not be considered as part of the size or mass of the model. The vertical member will not be attached to the model and will not constrain the vertical movement of any part of the model, but will act to prevent sideways toppling. This will likely be necessary because moment of inertia scales as the fifth power of linear scale while the torque experienced by the parts in a collapse scales as only the fourth power. Thus even though in a structure the size of the wtc towers, the moment of inertia was apparently sufficient to prevent the upper or lower masses from rotating sufficiently as to topple, this would not necessarily be true of any smaller model. The vertical pole or wire compensates for this unavoidable scaling issue. As Heiwa's hypothesis for the impossibility of collapse does not depend on the occurrence of toppling, but rather on the resistance and friction created by the lower structure, this condition should not be a problem.
If you're interested, Heiwa, please PM me with contact information for your legal representative so we can begin the process of setting out specific contract terms.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
You should see him with a camel toe!Tell Gage I said I think he looks cute in that dress.
http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/fmrlUApLYBTeeUvR
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Tell Gage I said I think he looks cute in that dress.
If I say 'Clever Dick' do you think I am referring to Richard Gage or Myriad's signature ?
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
?????? This is a friendly and lively discussion. Evidently I put forward my ideas. If anybody does not like them, focus on the ideas! The music!
That made no sense whatsoever.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
I think it is music only he can hear. I'm guessing it's the heavenly choir chanting "You are right"
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
So now all of a sudden spaghetti isn't good enough any more? That sucks, I just started preliminary testing. It seems like you are constantly changing the conditions of your challenge.
In the interest of (inter)national security during this time of war, it has to be asked: why do you hate Blue Peter?
So now all of a sudden spaghetti isn't good enough any more? That sucks, I just started preliminary testing. It seems like you are constantly changing the conditions of your challenge.
In the interest of (inter)national security during this time of war, it has to be asked: why do you hate Blue Peter?
Structure should be 3-D and there spaghetti elements can be used. No change. 1-D structures should be avoided - no space in them!
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
NIST did not analyze the collapse progression in the initial report.
They explain it in their December 2007 FAQ's for dummies. It concurs with the cores remaining standing. I thought you would know that before shooting your mouth off.
Have you read the NIST report fully? Or even the FAQ's?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
still-standing ore secton
Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it
Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.
Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)
Sorry to keep inflicting this model on everybody but I think it is a good aid to providing a mental image of various collapse phenomena
----------------------------------------------------------
Have a look at this model. Pretend it is six feet tall. Be honest now and tell me if you really think the top 10% will crush the lower 90% down level with the ground if dropped 6'' or 9'' onto it
Take 240 long spaghetti sticks to act as as the perimeter columns with an aditional 47 x 4 sticks to represent the stronger core spaced in a rectangle to cover about 60% of the centre of the structure. Then you have 110 x compressed glue and superfine sugar floors made to scale with holes drilled to correspond to the column locations. Then each floor is carefully slid down over he spaghetti columns and glued into position corresponding to the 110 floors of the WTC Towers. Allow to dry. Then anchor the columns in a solid surface. Allow to dry.
Finally lift up the top (and lightest) 10% of the model and drop it say 6'' onto the lower 90%.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For intance in the case of the still-standing core column sections in a recent video. Have a look at the collapse of the North Tower in the attached clip. As you see, immediately after the collapse there is a huge section (800-900 feet tall ?) left standng for some seconds after the rest goes down. Now if you hold the model in your mind's eye and start the collapse sequence it is plainly obvious that this upstanding core section eviscerates- guts- the falling block that has been designated 'C'. So at the very least we can say for certain that the supposed rigid block 'C' no longer exists past the point where the still-standing columns begin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY
(for some reason this video takes ages to load- for me anyway but it DOES load in the end)
Last edited:
Good point. And video loaded quickly. So upper part C missed 250 m of lower part A core when part C passed by. Bye, Bye Bazant.
Why would this result in dismissing Bazant? We have been aware of this effect for a long time, and it is clear evidence that the floor trusses and general flooring area were much weaker than the core columns / core framing.
How can requiring less energy per floor negatively affect a theory that explicitly uses the maximum energy per floor in their calculations?
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Assuming hat everybody ccepts the argument in post #150 you have to ask yurself the following:-
If the rigid block 'C' could not crush down the still-standing core section we see in the video how the heck did it crush down the core columns higher up before block 'C' thad gathered appreciable mass and momentum ?
The downwards force was even across the building so if the core section we see standing did not fall like the rest what was different about it ? Could it be that whatever explosive/incendiary that may haave brought the rest down did not ectivate on cue ?
If the still-standing columns were 800-900 feet tall, and the width of the building was only 208' how come we did not see the calumns falling out sideways when they DID fall ? It would be ridiculous to assume that columns that are still standing one moment disconnect themselves at the joints the next in a sequence that never allows a long length to fall sideways out of the footprint and into camera view. Who can think of a natural mechanism for that ?.
Last edited:
Because the columns were not that tall. They were composite, and welded in sections equivalent (if I recall correctly) to three storeys height.
You must study the Bazant, Greening, Benson theorem of one-way crushing - first down, then up! Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for a summary. It is a Greek letter lambda - the compaction ratio - that is responsible. Very funny! No space for any core remaining with lambda at work!
bill smith
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 8,408
Glenn describe if you don't mind how you see the 800-900 foot section disassembling so that the whole thing never falls sideways.Obviously if it had begun at the bottom the whole structure woud have gone sideways. On the other hand I can't see how sisassembly could begin at the top and progress downwards.
Consider "the spire". As it begins to fall sideways the welds are subjected to lateral forces they were not designed to cope with. The spire falls downwards and slightly sideways as the welds give way.
If collapse had begun at the bottom the welds would have broken in a similar way. The towers would not have toppled like a tree, Bill. A tree consists of millions of fibres tightly bonded together, giving it monumental lateral strength to cope with high winds and its own weight when growing skewed. A building is a composite structure that - hopefully - does well under normal, predictable lateral wind loads while it remains substantially intact. A building is not comparable to a tree.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
So let me get this straight.
You thought it was dodgy because 1/10 th of the building crushed the lower 9/10ths of the building.
And now you think it is dodgy because 1/10th of the building did not crush the lower 9/10ths of the building.
Got to love truther logic.
Last edited:
Here's a mental model for you to consider: Crash a 2" long model car into another 2" model car at 1 mile per hour. Observe the results.
The results will prove one of two things:
1. That a real 200" car crashing into another 200" car at 100 miles per hour would suffer little or no damage.
2. That real things do not behave the same as scale models.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which.
Respectfully,
Myriad
PS: It's late afternoon in most of Europe, and I have not yet been contacted by Heiwa or his attorney about the challenge contract. Perhaps the prize money is currently tied up in securities and he's waiting until the funds can be moved.
Meanwhile, my plans for the model (should the contract be completed) are coming along. Although it's not one of Heiwa's requirements, I'm planning a structure that can bear my weight; that is, prior to the test, I'll be able to climb up it and stand on top of it. Those who can do actual engineering calculations instead of pretending to do them will understand that this ultimately means I'll have to build relatively tall, on the order of ten meters, to get a complete progressive collapse.
The biggest problem is getting a town permit and/or a landlord's permission to construct (and then destructively test) such a structure anywhere, indoors or out, even on my own property. That probably will not be possible. So I'm working out prefab construction methods that will let me put it up and then do the test all in the same day. That's probably preferable for site-safety reasons anyhow. Then the problem becomes hoisting all the dead weight (ten tons or so total) quickly enough. Solutions are available but they will incur expenses, which is why I'm glad Heiwa has offered a million dollars and should have no problem entering into a contractual obligation for a mere tenth that amount.
- Status