The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Heiwa said:
Oh, it was that Japanese poster that needed some extra encouragement. Haven't heard from him since. Loss of face?
Click to expand...

Heiwa' 1,000,000ドルを持つsの要求はおそらく偽である。 たぶん彼は欺瞞である。 なんと悪い人か。
 
Heiwa said:
Arigato. But US$? What's wrong with 1930's Chinese ones?
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact, your several discussions here would be quickly submitted as evidence of your promise to pay $1 million U.S., including the rather detailed challenge work-through with Myriad's proposal. You are on the hook for $1 million U.S., and as has been pointed out, courts will make you pay.
 
Heiwa said:
Oh, it was that Japanese poster that needed some extra encouragement. Haven't heard from him since. Loss of face?
Click to expand...
This is all you've got?
Me?:D
I asked for proof for your challenge on paper and proof of your Million Dollars just like what JREF has done with the paranormal challenge.
you're a fraud.
Several Architects here have proved your lunacy wrong.
Pure and simple.
 
HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP said:
This is all you've got?
Me?:D
I asked for proof for your challenge on paper and proof of your Million Dollars just like what JREF has done with the paranormal challenge.
you're a fraud.
Several Architects here have proved your lunacy wrong.
Pure and simple.
Click to expand...

The Heiwa Challenge is quite difficult to say the least; design a structure where a part C of it can destroy part A when dropped on A by gravity. Nobody seems to be close and may therefore get mad. But do not blame me. According Bazant and Seffen it is possible (C one-way crushing A). So you have to study the Bazant and Seffen papers (use Google) and then go about adapting your designs accordingly. Seffen suggest that the design should be like a 'party balloon' (!!) as according to Seffen a party balloon structure part C apparently one-way crushes down part A. Bazant suggests that part C will not be damaged at all but, due to a natural phenomenon not really explained as it is superfluous, C will start to compress A into rubble - part B - that in turn totally destroys A.
So you only have to adapt your structural designs to follow the theorries of Bazant and Seffen.
 
Heiwa said:
The Heiwa Challenge is quite difficult to say the least; design a structure where a part C of it can destroy part A when dropped on A by gravity. Nobody seems to be close and may therefore get mad. But do not blame me. According Bazant and Seffen it is possible (C one-way crushing A). So you have to study the Bazant and Seffen papers (use Google) and then go about adapting your designs accordingly. Seffen suggest that the design should be like a 'party balloon' (!!) as according to Seffen a party balloon structure part C apparently one-way crushes down part A. Bazant suggests that part C will not be damaged at all but, due to a natural phenomenon not really explained as it is superfluous, C will start to compress A into rubble - part B - that in turn totally destroys A.
So you only have to adapt your structural designs to follow the theorries of Bazant and Seffen.
Click to expand...

Didn't you see a video clip in another thread were in a demolition, one floor was instantly removed with cables (no explosives used), and Part A and Part C were both destroyed in a one-way top to bottom collapse.

The floors were a wider surface area too compared to the buildings height.
 
KJC said:
Didn't you see a video clip in another thread were in a demolition, one floor was instantly removed with cables (no explosives used), and Part A and Part C were both destroyed in a one-way top to bottom collapse.

The floors were a wider surface area too compared to the buildings height.
Click to expand...

You mean this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Anyway, the Challenge is to design a structure, any structure, where by first removing and then dropping part C of it on the remainder, part A, C crushes A. You have to describe the structure, do the test and describe the result, i.e. how C manages to destroy A.
 
Heiwa said:
Yes, we French are better than the British when it comes to blowing up old buildings.
Click to expand...
You can't do engineering and present your calculations to support your failed ideas. If you are the rule the best thing the French can do is talk a big talk and fail to produce the million dollars when their challenge is a big BS lie formed with fantasy and failed engineering.

What happen to the money? Why have you failed to present a comprehensive engineering analysis of your ideas? Are all French liars about money issues, apologist for terrorists and unable to present a rational engineering argument that does not include pizza boxes and kids jumping on beds?

NO

You are the exception; I worked with French Officers in NATO and other French groups in the Balkans and your lack of knowledge on engineering is not indicative of the expertise of the French I worked with which was outstanding and rational. Your posts are more like bar banter after a few too many.
 
Last edited:
releaseeabode said:
Typically JREF thread.

1770 posts the majority of which are irrelevant or personal attacks.

Keep going Heiwa.
Click to expand...

Another 45 posts added in three weeks and still nothing but obfuscation, irrelevance and personal attacks coming from the JREF debunkers.

There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge. Once you have overcome your ego and accepted this then you can regain face by pointing out that the simplifications do not represent the complexity of 911.

Instead we get all this ******** defending the indefensible. Your ego will only allow you to accept complete crushing of Heiwa because he contradicts the groupthink. it really is sad to see educated people twisted in knots by their ego.
 
releaseeabode said:
There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge.
Click to expand...
:train
Heiwa said:
It seems Prof. Bazant assumes that WTC1 can be modeled as 97 lemons on top of each other. You compress one lemon with an upper part of 13 lemons and then they compress the second lemon, and the first and second lemon (and the 13 top lemons) then compress the third lemon, etc, etc, until there is just lemon juice.
Click to expand...
 
releaseeabode said:
There really is a very simple solution to this, all you do is concede that Heiwa is right when he is using his simplified model in his challenge. Once you have overcome your ego and accepted this then you can regain face by pointing out that the simplifications do not represent the complexity of 911.
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You clearly haven't been paying attention. Nobody is denying that it's possible to build a model in which the upper 10% is incapable of crushing down the other 90%. What has been pointed out, over and over again, is that results on models do not reproduce either the complexity or the scale of the 9/11 collapses; what has also been pointed out is that Heiwa's "axiom", that it is impossible for 10% of any structure to crush down the remaining 90% in any circumstances whatsoever, is pure and utter fantasy.

We don't oppose Heiwas because he contradicts the groupthink. We oppose him because he misrepresents his fantasies as sound engineering principles, and on that basis accuses innocents of mass murder. He is a liar and a fraud, and no amount of handwaving about lemons or pizza boxes will make him anything else.

Dave
Click to expand...

So far nobody has been able to design a structure of any type, size and scale where the upper part C dropping on lower part A destroys A without destroying C before. So far the result is thus in conformity with the Björkman axiom of structures.

But The Heiwa Challenge is still open for any contender. See post #1 for details.
 
Heiwa said:
So far nobody has been able to design a structure of any type, size and scale where the upper part C dropping on lower part A destroys A without destroying C before. So far the result is thus in conformity with the Björkman axiom of structures.

But The Heiwa Challenge is still open for any contender. See post #1 for details.
Click to expand...


On 9/11/01, THE COLLAPSING FLOORS HIT THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW AND REPEATED THE PROCESS UNTIL THE BUILDING WAS GONE. THERE IS NO "PART A."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom