• 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.
Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom
 
tfk said:
Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom
Click to expand...

I thought you didn't know German and I am right*. I look forward to your structure! You'll be challenger #3. The two firsts failed. Glück auf!

*Heiwa is not feminim.
 
tfk said:
Heiwa,

I'm tied up with work today. I'll get back later regarding your reply.

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom
Click to expand...

You should have paid more attention to your German classics when you were at school T. Then you might understand the meaning of the expression.

Are you going to hang your reputation as an engineer on that post ?....and I would like an answer to that question please
 
tfk said:
Heiwa,

Meanwhile, please answer one question for me:

How do you do it with the idiot who pretends to be an engineer?
Or in original: "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?"

tom
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
I thought you didn't know German and I am right*.

*Heiwa is not feminim.
Click to expand...

1. I don't speak German.

2. I don't speak Japanese either, which, you've informed us, is the origin of the word "Heiwa".

3. But, when I wrote "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?" & its English translation, you thought that my emphasis was on the GERMAN words...?

Well, that may explain a lot. After all, engineering is not likely to be a successful career path for an unobservant person...

tom
 
tfk said:
1. I don't speak German.

2. I don't speak Japanese either, which, you've informed us, is the origin of the word "Heiwa".

3. But, when I wrote "nun sag, wie hast du's mit der Heiwa?" & its English translation, you thought that my emphasis was on the GERMAN words...?

Well, that may explain a lot. After all, engineering is not likely to be a successful career path for an unobservant person...

tom
Click to expand...

1. Ok, nobody is perfect.
2. Ditto.
3. Grammer counts.
So what? Is your career unobservant? Pls, just produce a structure that one-way crushes down and you are a winner. So far you are not.
 
Heiwa said:
I thought you didn't know German and I am right*.

*Heiwa is not feminim.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn he said der Heiwa. Isn't der a masculine article? Der, die, das..... und so weiter.
 
oldhat said:
I'm not a science wiz or anything but Heiwa's challenge reminds me of this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys
Click to expand...

Can you imagine if structural engineers designed high rise buildings by stacking office supplies and saying to each other "Gentlemen, in-boxes stacked on top of each other can withstand the impact of in-boxes dropped on it. This design looks good."

Absolutely moronic.
 
bill smith said:
Are you going to hang your reputation as an engineer on that post ?....and I would like an answer to that question please
Click to expand...
.
Bill,

You really don't understand very much about people. It makes me think that you are more like 15 years old than in your 20s.

You live a flippant, insincere existence, bill. You lie casually and effortlessly. You accuse & insult without concern. And your reputation as a buffoon matters not one whit to you.

As difficult as it may be to imagine, there are people in the world who take things seriously. Most professionals are like that, and get in the habit of speaking carefully, accurately, and seriously when they speak of matters within their field.

And, for serious people, that habit carries over even to anonymous opinion sites like this one.

So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering.

You should try posting sometime as though something mattered. It'll be a brand new experience for you.

But, the probability is extreme that you'll simply keep "LoLing" your way thru life.
 
tfk said:
.
Bill,

You really don't understand very much about people. It makes me think that you are more like 15 years old than in your 20s.

You live a flippant, insincere existence, bill. You lie casually and effortlessly. You accuse & insult without concern. And your reputation as a buffoon matters not one whit to you.

As difficult as it may be to imagine, there are people in the world who take things seriously. Most professionals are like that, and get in the habit of speaking carefully, accurately, and seriously when they speak of matters within their field.

And, for serious people, that habit carries over even to anonymous opinion sites like this one.

So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering.

You should try posting sometime as though something mattered. It'll be a brand new experience for you.

But, the probability is extreme that you'll simply keep "LoLing" your way thru life.
Click to expand...

Okay...that's fair enough. Noted.

''So, yeah, bill. I am willing to hang my reputation as an engineer on pretty much every post that I've made. Whenever I've spoken on some aspect of engineering ''

But for now I would just like to observe the rest of your conversation with Heiwa on why a one-way crush down is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
1. Part C is assumed to displace downwards = gets loose.
2. Part C therefore drops and contacts part A.
3. Evidently forces develop between parts C and A at contact!
4. When two elements come in contact and the forces developing exceed what the weakest element can transmit, the weakest element fails.
5. Oh yes, part A previously carried part C. And part A will destroy part C prior part C destroys part A. Easy to show with proper structural damage analysis, incl. fracture analysis. Plenty of energy required to fracture an element in overload. And to fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred.
6. This is the result if you apply proper structural damage analysis.
Click to expand...



The twenty or so collapsing floors hit the floor below. Do they crush it and add it to the collapsing mass, or do they bounce off?

You see, your scam that 1/10 of the building hits the other 9/10 is ridiculous. It would be far more accurate to say that 1/5 of the building hits 1/110.

Right?
 
FineWine said:
The twenty or so collapsing floors hit the floor below. Do they crush it and add it to the collapsing mass, or do they bounce off?

You see, your scam that 1/10 of the building hits the other 9/10 is ridiculous. It would be far more accurate to say that 1/5 of the building hits 1/110.

Right?
Click to expand...

In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
...fracture ONE element in two locations only by gravity is quite difficult. The force slips off when first failure has occurred...
Click to expand...

This is not true when you are dealing with inelastic materials with multiple rigid connection points.

Your understanding of physics and buildings is beyond childish.

 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. hat's a rough outline.
Click to expand...

Did you guys (bill smith, Heiwa, and KreeL) all take the same class in "avoiding direct questions using nonsense and non-sequiturs"?
 
bill smith said:
In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.
Click to expand...


Sorry, wrong answer. This is the one your guru keeps missing, so you can be excused for demonstrating repeatedly that it is actually possible to know less than he does. We'll start over.

Thirteen floors fall on top of ONE floor, not ninety-seven.


The thirteen original collapsing floors crushed ONE floor and either did or did not ADD ITS MASS TO THE TOTAL COLLAPSING MASS.

Do your best to concentrate and try again.
 
bill smith said:
In WTC1 there were only about 13 floors that fell. According to Bazant they fell 0.5m. These 13 crushed down the other 97 into the ground. To do this the top 13 floors did not disintegrate remaining as a solid block until it hit the ground at which time it too disintegrated. That's a rough outline.
Click to expand...


The correct proportion should then be, 1/8 of the building crushes 1/110, right?
 
the-real-heroes-of-nine-eleven.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom