• 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 said:
Myriad has great difficulties with his structure entered in The Heiwa Challenge - see other thread. He has not yet identified what element fails first at initial contact and what the first contact really is! Is it an element in upper part C or in lower part A? And how much energy is required to do it? Or is it just a connection (another element) between elements?
Therefore Myriad cannot predict what happens next! What element is then failing?

Myriad is treating a complete floor as one element and allows it, C1, to contact the top floor, A97, of the lower part A. Neither C1 nor A97 is damaged! So what element is damaged first?

Vertical support columns? Where? Or connections? Where? Answer that to start with!

It would appear that it is a support element between C1 and C2 that fails first, while part A - the lower structure remains - unaffected. That's a good start. And then all other support elements between C1 and C2 fail and C2 may drop and contact C1. What happens then?
Click to expand...


When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.
 
FineWine said:
When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.
Click to expand...

Suppose the top portion 'C' had been only three floors ? Would that have crushed the other 107 floors of the lower 'A' portion onto the ground ?

If not, at what point (how many floors) would there have been just enough to do the job ? Six floors ?....eight ?
 
Which would have more effect on the lower 'A' portion ? Three floors dropped 150 feet or 13 floors dropped 20 inches ?
 
FineWine said:
When floors C1-13 fall onto A97, they crush that floor and add it to the falling mass. Your total lack of understanding is staggering.
Click to expand...

Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!

Pls note that floors C3-C13 do not collide with anything. They just displaced downwards two stories. Didn't have the chance to contact anything.

This is what normally happens to structures of The Heiwa Challenge.

Your task is to develop an improved structure where part C destroys part A! Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.

Mackey has proposed another structure. Upper part C is only one big mass M that is also indestructible, so it is supposed to crush supports below while fusing with small masses in between. What happens to M and its fused ms when contacting Earth is not clear.

I don't know which of those structures is the most ridiculous. Neither fulfills the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. both parts A and C have identical structures + that A can carry C before.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!

Pls note that floors C3-C13 do not collide with anything. They just displaced downwards two stories. Didn't have the chance to contact anything.

This is what normally happens to structures of The Heiwa Challenge.

Your task is to develop an improved structure where part C destroys part A! Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.

Mackey has proposed another structure. Upper part C is only one big mass M that is also indestructible, so it is supposed to crush supports below while fusing with small masses in between. What happens to M and its fused ms when contacting Earth is not clear.

I don't know which of those structures is the most ridiculous. Neither fulfills the conditions of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. both parts A and C have identical structures + that A can carry C before.
Click to expand...

You have been validated completely since setting up this thread Heiwa. Nobody has come close to making a model that replicates the collapse of WTC1 and nobody has come up with any example in the history of this planet of a comparable collapse.

NIST said that the collapse of WTC7 was a unique event. Now it looks like the collapse of WTC1 and by implication the collapse of WTC2 were also both unique events.

This is mathmatically virtually impossible.

All that has happened is that a couple of credible people have tried halfheartedly and unsuccessfully to disprove your axiom and that you have had a posse of jackals snapping continually and uselessly at your heels.


Your case is proven. Now let's see the response.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Actually floor A97 and its supports below stop floor C1 and destroys the supports above C1 (the weakest elements) and below floor C2 that comes to rest on C1. And that's the end of the local failures!
Click to expand...
Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.


Heiwa said:
Bazant has made one structure in 1-D on a piece of paper! Upper part C is then rigid, i.e. is indestructible, and part A is very weak. Thus C destroys A and then the Earth below.
Click to expand...
Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
1. Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.



2. Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.
Click to expand...

1. ?? I have always treated the structure as an assembly of strong and weak elements joined by connections. That's why a little part C cannot one-way crush down the bigger part A below.

2. ?? Bazant & Co, Seffen and Mackey, all, treat the upper part C as 'indestructible' and/or rigid, i.e. lower part A cannot damage it. Read their papers before using them in the toilet. NIST, lamely, just suggests that energy applied by the structure exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. Sorry, that's ultimate nonsense! Kayser, Sunder, Gross & the NIST Co know it ... but are paid to produce it. So that media can report it as some sort of news! The info war, you know! FOX, CNN, BBC, you know. And you, Grizzly Bear.

As I always say; just produce a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that proves me wrong and you are a winner. Please, do not whine!
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Heiwa, I thought you would have learned by now that treating any portion of the structure as a single entity is a significant error on your part. It's surprising that you haven't corrected this problem after continually having this pointed out by other professionals, as well as laymen who have studied this subject enough to have some understanding in it.



Proving yet again that you missed the entire purpose of his model. The upper section is not indestructible, nor does having it break up reduce the collective mass of the debris bearing down on the structure. Had you understood bazant's model you would have been well aware that it was a highly simplified representation that was biased as much as possible to collapse arrest. It's unfortunate you don't have the intellectual capabilities to understand this.
Click to expand...

You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities. You don't get to be where Heiwa is if you are not highly qualified and you don't gain an international reputation as he has without being exceptional and outstanding in your field.

Given that you cannot stand up to heiwa's challenge as apparently nobody else can either your calling him stupid is clearly politically driven. You would do better to ask yourself why nobody can meet Heiwa's challenge. Could it be because he is right ? If not, give me another reason ?
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
1. ?? I have always treated the structure as an assembly of strong and weak elements joined by connections. That's why a little part C cannot one-way crush down the bigger part A below.

2. ?? Bazant & Co, Seffen and Mackey, all, treat the upper part C as 'indestructible' and/or rigid, i.e. lower part A cannot damage it. Read their papers before using them in the toilet. NIST, lamely, just suggests that energy applied by the structure exceeds the strain energy that the structure can absorb. Sorry, that's ultimate nonsense! Kayser, Sunder, Gross & the NIST Co know it ... but are paid to produce it. So that media can report it as some sort of news! The info war, you know! FOX, CNN, BBC, you know. And you, Grizzly Bear.

As I always say; just produce a structure in The Heiwa Challenge that proves me wrong and you are a winner. Please, do not whine!
Click to expand...


You know those studies are just up until the moment right BEFORE collapse.
NIST studied why the collapse happened not the mechanics of the collapse itself (same with 7)
I've already beat this challenge.
So has anyone else who has ever played "Jenga" lol.
 
bill smith said:
You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities.
Click to expand...

LOL!

You don't get to be where Heiwa is if you are not highly qualified and you don't gain an international reputation as he has without being exceptional and outstanding in your field.
Click to expand...

What position is that? The joke of JREF?

Given that you cannot stand up to heiwa's challenge as apparently nobody else can either your calling him stupid is clearly politically driven. You would do better to ask yourself why nobody can meet Heiwa's challenge. Could it be because he is right ? If not, give me another reason ?
Click to expand...

1) Heiwa's challenge is stupid and doesn't match what happened on 9/11.

2) Most people have better things to do than spending their time and money meeting some Internet kook's challenge. Of course if your hero wasn't a flat out liar and was actually offering the million dollars like he originally said, it would have been done already.
 
Heiwa said:
Myriad has great difficulties with his structure entered in The Heiwa Challenge - see other thread. He has not yet identified what element fails first at initial contact and what the first contact really is! Is it an element in upper part C or in lower part A? And how much energy is required to do it? Or is it just a connection (another element) between elements?
Therefore Myriad cannot predict what happens next! What element is then failing?
Click to expand...


Heiwa appears to have a very strange notion of what a model is for, if he thinks my failure to confidently state in advance exactly what the model will do indicates a difficulty with the models (one physical, one computer) I'm developing.

Guess what? If you can make and analytically justify what a model is going to do before the model is created, then you don't need the model. The idea of creating a model is to find out what it does.

Heiwa's funny m model is a good example. He created it but he could not correctly predict how it would behave. Because he could not correctly predict how it would behave, he published a false prediction that two floors would bounce if dropped on 20. By running that model (that is, doing the actual math), I showed his prediction was wrong and that the structure modeled actually would progressively collapse if you drop the top two floors. So, we've now learned something from Heiwa's model that Heiwa, at least, didn't know before.

So it doesn't work this way:

1. State what the model will do.
2. Create a model.

Or this way:

1. Create a model.
2. State what the model will do.

It works this way:

1. Create a model.
2. Run/execute/test/analyse the model to learn what the model does.
3. Now you've learned something without embarrassing yourself.

Heiwa's perception of my supposed difficulty appears to amount to, "Hey, you're not pulling predictions out of your ass the way I do. Ur doin it rong."

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.

I guess high-rise steel framed buildings have been with us for nearly a hundred years now and in their long lives many undergo fires. Would there have been a million such structures built worldwide by now ? Few if any have collapsed and certainly none have collapsed in the way that WTC1 did.

So Myriad is going to have his work cut out for him to replicate by modelling an event that is absolutely unique in the history of construction.
 
Last edited:
Bill, you can thank dtugg for this response, since the ignore feature don't work for quotes :(

bill smith said:
You are normally quite reasonable Grizzly and it surprises me to see you disparage Heiwa'a undoubted intellectual abilities.
Click to expand...
I'll take the first part as a compliment and the second part as... *cough* laughably funny. Laughably funny in the context that Heiwa has made ridiculous claims that ships are the same as buildings. I have no doubt Heiwa may be an engineer, but at best his commentary suggests he's either incompetent in that profession or he intentionally makes assertions that destroy his credibility.

bill smith said:
You don't get to be where Heiwa is if you are not highly qualified [incompetent] and you don't gain an international reputation [in horribly flawed premises] as he has without being [demonstrating] exceptional and outstanding [ignorance] in your field.
Click to expand...
You're speaking to me as if I'd want to be in the same league as Heiwa. My standards aren't quite that low.

bill smith said:
...your calling him stupid is clearly politically driven.
Click to expand...
If you've read any of my posts addressing Heiwa you would of course understand I'm not calling him an idiot, I'm calling him incompetent in the field he claims to have expertise in. I personally don't care about his IQ, nor do I have evidence that his IQ level falls anywhere below the 72 threshold. I do however have ample reason to believe that he is dangerously incompetent in his field based on his understanding of simple engineering and design concepts.

As for your counter claim that my motivation is politically driven, I'll ask that you refrain from making baseless accusation against this 21 year old University graduate, unless you can supply ample evidence to back that up.


bill smith said:
You would do better to ask yourself why nobody can meet Heiwa's challenge. Could it be because he is right ? If not, give me another reason ?
Click to expand...
Considering several people among one of whom you are familiar with have pointed out Heiwa's errors quite astutely. The only response Heiwa brought to the table was "LOL" might be one out of the many reasons why people have so much doubt in his premise. You'll have to forgive me if I scoff at his reputation when he doesn't seem to be taking his errors seriously.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Bill, you can thank dtugg for this response, since the ignore feature don't work for quotes :(


I'll take the first part as a compliment and the second part as... *cough* laughably funny. Laughably funny in the context that Heiwa has made ridiculous claims that ships are the same as buildings. I have no doubt Heiwa may be an engineer, but at best his commentary suggests he's either incompetent in that profession or he intentionally makes assertions that destroy his credibility.


You're speaking to me as if I'd want to be in the same league as Heiwa. My standards aren't quite that low.


If you've read any of my posts addressing Heiwa you would of course understand I'm not calling him an idiot, I'm calling him incompetent in the field he claims to have expertise in. I personally don't care about his IQ, nor do I have evidence that his IQ level falls anywhere below the 72 threshold. I do however have ample reason to believe that he is dangerously incompetent in his field based on his understanding of simple engineering and design concepts.

As for your counter claim that my motivation is politically driven, I'll ask that you refrain from making baseless accusation against this 21 year old University graduate, unless you can supply ample evidence to back that up.



Considering several people among one of whom you are familiar with have pointed out Heiwa's errors quite astutely. The only response Heiwa brought to the table was "LOL" might be one out of the many reasons why people have so much doubt in his premise. You'll have to forgive me if I scoff at his reputation when he doesn't seem to be taking his errors seriously.
Click to expand...

Well at least I know where you stand. I think you are wrong though. Time will tell. Soon I hope.
 
bill, do you think dropping a sponge on another sponge proves that 9/11 was an inside job?
 
bill smith said:
I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.
Click to expand...

Buckling? You think that buckling hasn't ever occurred? Why would we even have a word for it, if that were the case?

Are you familiar with failure modes at all?
 
bill smith said:
I think I can say with confidence that the mode of collapse of WTC1 was a unique event in the history of the planet. Searching for a comparable event in a steel framed high-rise buiding produces no references anywhere in the World.
Click to expand...

Nominated as one of the most elegant Stundies I've seen in a long while. I'm all agog to hear why the collapse of WTC2 was not even a comparable event to the collapse of WTC1.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom