• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Newtons Bit said:
You really don't understand much about dynamics do you?

The WTC had a period of about 11seconds. Which means that if some force caused the building to displacement some distance it would take 11 seconds for the building to cycle through maximum displacement and then back to it's original displacement.

The structure will then continue vibrating, though each cycle will have a maximum displacement reduced by the damping of the structure. For the WTC, the damping ratio is about 3% for elastic displacements of the moment frame.

It takes quite awhile to damp out this much motion.

I know you'll never do it, but I still recommend that you go get a very fundamental education in physics and engineering. This stuff is trivial. Pretending to know something about it when you obviously don't must be incredibly embarrassing for you. Though, like most truthers, I don't think shame is an emotion you're vulnerable to.
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it too much.Others will no doubt pay heed to your words on the matter. Or they will use their own heads like me.
 
bill smith said:
They say that the plane hat hit WTC1 weighed one-half of one tenth of one percent of the weight of the building. Can you believe that the impact caused the 500,000 ton building to sway back and forth for four minutes ? Incredible.
Click to expand...
IF you could do math and physics you would understand and you could calculate that. Sad all you do is post lies, hearsay and delusional twaddle from 911Truth sites.

The impacts were equal in energy to 1300 pounds and 2000 pounds of TNT.


Like the energy of this blast!
 
bill smith said:
Don't worry about it too much.Others will no doubt pay heed to your words on the matter. Or they will use their own heads like me.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Running full tilt into a brick wall with your head down is not everyone's cup of tea.
 
tfk said:
.

I am NOT talking about "collapse initiation". I am talking about the collapse propagation.

Please provide YOUR distinction between "crushed down" and "pancaked".

tom
Click to expand...

See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.
 
Heiwa said:
See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.
Click to expand...

And the humoring continues
 
Heiwa said:
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.
Click to expand...


[Announcer voice] Tell them what they win!
 
bill smith said:
Pancaking is a floor dropping on a floor and then those two dropping on the floor below etc all the way down. A Crush Down is an overbearing weight on top crushing everyhing in it's path as it comes to it. So do NIST support pancaking ?
Click to expand...
Yup.

Didn't think you knew what you were talking about.

Thanks for the confirmation.
 
Heiwa said:
See Condition #10 in post #1 what "crushed down" of the structure means. 70% of the elements must be disconnected, etc. Only gravity forces can be used.
"Pancaked" was introduced by somebody else just after 9/11; e.g. one element, e.g. a floor, only disconnecting identical elements, i.e. other floors, in the structure during crush down leaving other elements, e.g. intermediate supports, undamaged.

NIST has evidently said that WTC 1 was not "pancaked" as it is quite obvious from evidence that the intermediate supports were broken and ejected in all directions! According to NIST this is due to energy applied to the structure by an upper part and other loose parts exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Purpose of The Heiwa Challenge is to see if NIST is right, as NIST has not provided any evidence for it's suggestion.
So just provide ONE structure, where part C can apply energy on part A (C<1/10A) and where part A then is crushed down due to lack of strain energy in part A and assisted by loose elements in part A providing additional energy. You will then win The Heiwa Challenge.
Click to expand...
Once again, I asked you to provide YOUR definition of the ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between "pancaking" & "crush down".

Please don't answer different questions.
 
tfk said:
Yup.

Didn't think you knew what you were talking about.

Thanks for the confirmation.
Click to expand...

The best thing is just for me to wait for Heiwa to educate you. I will be interested to see where I am wrong. I hope that you are not dealing in your usual semantics though.
 
tfk said:
Once again, I asked you to provide YOUR definition of the ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE between "pancaking" & "crush down".

Please don't answer different questions.
Click to expand...

But I just did! Pancaking is, apparently, when one element in a structure gets loose and drops and contacts another identical element that also gets loose; the two identical elements then apparently fuse, drop and contact a third identical element that gets loose. The loose elements fuse, drop and contact a fourth identical element that gets loose, and so on. At the end of pancaking - when a pile of pancaked elements hits the ground - apparently these loose, identical elements are crushed up (!) by the ground. The rest of the structural elements are not affected by pancaking.

Crush down is, when an assembly of elements in a structure gets loose (part C), drops and contacts a similar but bigger structure below (part A). The energy applied by part C results in forces applied by part C on part A and by part A on part C. The forces will first compress parts C and A and if no element breaks, part C will bounce on part A. If an element breaks, it will be the weakest element in parts C and A and as part A previously carried part C, the weakest element is in part C, or, in other words, you would expect part C to be damaged before part A. That's one reason why part C cannot one-way crush down part A.

The Heiwa Challenge is to provide a structure (C+A) that doesn't follow the above description of a crush down. Conditions are in post #1.
 
bill smith said:
The best thing is just for me to wait for Heiwa to educate you. I will be interested to see where I am wrong. I hope that you are not dealing in your usual semantics though.
Click to expand...
.

The "best thing" would be for you to stop trying to pass off your usual uninformed blather as tho it were anything but nonsense.

... like THAT's ever gonna happen...
 
Heiwa said:
The Heiwa Challenge is to provide a structure (C+A) that doesn't follow
the above description of a crush down. Conditions are in post #1.
Click to expand...

Apart from when you contradicted your own "conditions" by stating that the structural elements needed to themselves be broken, not merely disconnected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom