The Heiwa Challenge

[tfk]

I reiterate.

I understand. You understand.
I stated the situation clearly. You are handwaving & dancing.

You said (exactly) "Transverse wind loads? They produce a bending moment at the bottom, blue platform. Which is transmitted via the hat truss frames to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces/moments."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4760121#post4760121

You can take your pick of errors, Heiwa.

1. You said that "transverse wind loads produce a bending moment" at the base of the antenna. This is wrong, as you are NOW correcting. Transverse wind loads produce a bending moment AND a shear load.

2. You said that "the bending moment is transmitted to the core and perimeter columns as shear forces". This is wrong. Bending moments do NOT turn into shear forces in the midst of cantilever beams.

The second one caught my eye, because I've taught this theory to many young engineers (undergrad & degreed).

Hm, let's get our coordinates right; x-axis is in the E-W hat truss beam, z -axis upwards (or downwards!), y-axis in the N-S hat truss beam. Say wind load is applied in x-z-plane in x-axis direction.

Sure. Whatever.

The shear force at the bottom of the vertical mast due wind loads ...

Irrelevant. In your OP, you were talking about the MOMENT at the base of the mast, not the shear.

The vertical force applied on the hat truss due to the mass of the mast (in the z-axis) ...

Irrelevant. In your OP, you were talking about the MOMENT at the base of the mast, not the vertical load.

Start another thread about it.

Ahhh, I see.

You, offering deceptive technobabble to the non-Mech Engr's here, is NOT off topic.
But my comments, correcting your nonsense, is.

Got it.

Fascinating stuff.

It is. It's even MORE fascinating when it's correct.

tom

 

[GlennB]

.
.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "consistency"?
How about "rigor"?

tk

PS. Nice job of deceitful "image mining", tho.

How strange! He's posted mutually-contradictory photo evidence. I'm shocked, frankly.

 

[tfk]

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) ...

Asserts the high school drop-out, having no idea how to perform a competent failure analysis.

... the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement.

Asserts the high school drop-out, having no idea about the hat truss's failure modes, failure locations, failure effects, or even whether the external walls did or did not "pull in".

[pssst, a quick look makes me think that they did. But I know better than to jump to that conclusion based on just a couple of low-res frame grabs.]

You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

Yeah sure, bill smith. I really do need to pass my ideas thru you, one "special" font of ignorance, before speaking so hastily on engineering issues ...

You know, bill smith, there are a whole bunch of really, really sharp people in the world who, for one reason or another, did not have the opportunity to finish high school or college. You meet these folks every day.

And there are also a bunch of people, who don't have the common sense that god gave a fence post, who have gotten college degrees. As our friend, Mr. Bjorkman, proves.

So, your failure to finish high-school did not inevitably result in your very "special" level of uninformed ignorance. But it sure helped.

"lol".

tk

 

[tfk]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.

.
And yet, the middle & right images at the beginning of Section 1.6 of YOUR OWN "analysis" [ http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ] proves this statement to be a complete fabrication.

Not really

Yes.
Really.

Your usual sloppy, careless writing, and subsequent hand-waving, notwithstanding ...

... in both sets of pictures the upper part C is destroyed prior to any serious damages to the lower part A.

In YOUR analysis ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ), there are three side-by-side images at the beginning of Section 1.6. These conveniently scale on my screen to 100' : 1".

The middle image shows the Upper Part C AFTER it has descended approximately 25' (2 stories), taking more than 1.25 seconds.
Through the smoke, the upper 100' of Part C is visible on the left side of the near face. The upper 60 - 80 feet is visible on the right side of the near face. Approximately 110' of the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

In the right picture, the Upper Part C has fallen approximately 60' (~5 stories), taking more than 1.9 seconds.
Through the smoke, between 40' & 70' of the face is visible on the left near face, about 50' in the middle and near the right edge are visible, and about 60' on the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

Your statement above, "It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below! One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed" is proven to be totally false.

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".

Your claim that you have any idea when the Upper Part C is "totally destroyed" is laughable on its face.

The truth of the matter is that you have ZERO idea how long the upper block stays intact, nor when it is ultimately destroyed, precisely because the whole assembly disappears behind a completely opaque curtain of smoke & debris. And on all visible surfaces, the outer walls are intact when last seen.

The truth is that you are intentionally mistaking the smoke, dust & particle laden air that is expelled from the crushing floors for "the explosion and destruction of Upper Part C".

The truth is that you are intentionally lying.

Ain't no big thing, Heiwa.

Ain't nothing new,either.

Ain't very admirable, tho.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The upper portions of each WTC tower did not destroy each entire lower portion at once. The falling mass first overwhelmed one floor below (or near enough for argument's sake) and then that collective amount overwhelmed the next section(s), and so on and so forth.

I, with no engineering or architectural training whatsoever, can deduce this.

You're sure?

For the sake of argument, yes.

What about the collective amount of the lower part A?

I don't follow. Please elaborate.

And I'll thank you to not respond with another plea for your "challenge."

 

[Quad4_72]

Where and what is the CT and can you produce the work to support Heiwa's work which is wrong in the first place?

How can you be skeptical of Heiwa's work when you have zero skills at engineering?

Are you referring to me with this comment or Bill? I assume Bill...

 

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Heiwa
It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.

So here is your claim.............................

Originally Posted by Heiwa
It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!

The stateofgrace Challenge

I challenge Heiwa to offer maths, logic, facts and evidence to support the above claim.
I challenge Heiwa to support fully his claim that some fifteens floors, the core, the top hat and the roof was blown up in the centre of New York.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully what happened to the mass of the upper section once it had been blown up.I challenge him to explain fully where this mass went once it was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, using his engineering expertise, to describe in detail the exact amount of explosives that would be needed to ensure the entire upper section was blown up.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully the amount of explosives it was required to blow up the upper section and why such an amount once denonated was not noticed or recorded by anybody.
I challenge Heiwa to explain fully why the upper section was blown up and how the explosives survived the plane impact.
I challenge Heiwa to offer a full explanation as to the precise sequence of events regarding the lower section once the upper section had been blown up

And finally I challenge Heiwa to explain fully, once the upper section had been blown up, why nobody heard the upper or lower sections being blown up.

I challenge you Heiwa to not hand wave this post away, I challenge you to offer up your maths, your logic, your expertise and back up your claim.

( to all sane and normal people, I know my challenge is pointless and bordering on self importance, please forgive me but this fraud does my head in )

 

[Heiwa]

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".

LOL! In The Heiwa Challenge, however, (see post #1), topic, you are supposed to design a structure where the upper part is simply supposed to one-way crush down the lower part.

 

[FineWine]

Yes.
Really.

Your usual sloppy, careless writing, and subsequent hand-waving, notwithstanding ...



In YOUR analysis ( http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm ), there are three side-by-side images at the beginning of Section 1.6. These conveniently scale on my screen to 100' : 1".

The middle image shows the Upper Part C AFTER it has descended approximately 25' (2 stories), taking more than 1.25 seconds.
Through the smoke, the upper 100' of Part C is visible on the left side of the near face. The upper 60 - 80 feet is visible on the right side of the near face. Approximately 110' of the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

In the right picture, the Upper Part C has fallen approximately 60' (~5 stories), taking more than 1.9 seconds.
Through the smoke, between 40' & 70' of the face is visible on the left near face, about 50' in the middle and near the right edge are visible, and about 60' on the right side face is visible. On ALL of these visible surfaces, the peripheral walls of Upper Part C are completely intact.

Your statement above, "It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below! One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed" is proven to be totally false.

The truth of the matter is that, FOR AS LONG AS THE UPPER PART IS VISIBLE, it is seen to be intact, and NOT "blown apart".

Your claim that you have any idea when the Upper Part C is "totally destroyed" is laughable on its face.

The truth of the matter is that you have ZERO idea how long the upper block stays intact, nor when it is ultimately destroyed, precisely because the whole assembly disappears behind a completely opaque curtain of smoke & debris. And on all visible surfaces, the outer walls are intact when last seen.

The truth is that you are intentionally mistaking the smoke, dust & particle laden air that is expelled from the crushing floors for "the explosion and destruction of Upper Part C".

The truth is that you are intentionally lying.

Ain't no big thing, Heiwa.

Ain't nothing new,either.

Ain't very admirable, tho.

I have alluded a couple of times to the National Geographic documentary on the 9/11 attacks that I watched last week. It featured videos of the collapses of the towers that show clearly, more clearly than other videos I've seen, that the upper part was indeed intact.

Yes, Heiwa is intentionally lying, and the myth about the upper part "exploding" really needs to be tossed into the dumpster.

 

[FineWine]

LOL! In The Heiwa Challenge, however, (see post #1), topic, you are supposed to design a structure where the upper part is simply supposed to one-way crush down the lower part.

It's funny that when the bottom-of-the-barrel "truthers" (KreeL, bill smith, roundhead, Homeland Insurgency, etc.) get totally demolished, they always seem to end up on the floor, foaming at the mouth, giggling hysterically.

Your buffoonery has taken up a lot of space on this forum. Your bogus "challenge" has nothing to do with the collapses of the towers. You can't produce the simplest calculations to support your garble of basic physics.

Once more I will remind you that the upper part DOES NOT stay the same size relative to the bottom part. As it adds floors, it gets bigger. A child could grasp this concept. You can't.

 

[FineWine]

It goes very quick, when the whole upper part C is blown apart as seen on clips below!
[qimg]http://heiwaco.tripod.com/WTC1x.jpg[/qimg]
One moment the upper part is intact, a second later it is totally destroyed ... while the lower part is ... intact.
A moment later the lower part is also destroyed from top to bottom (the famous fountain of debris) ... but not by any dropping, one-way crushing down by the upper part.
The upper part is already destroyed, roof, hat truss included ... and have become smoke and dust.

Lies. All lies. You are lying, Heiwa. The upper part was not "blown apart." It is clearly visible on the videos shown in the National Geographic documentary.

Let me guess: National Geographic is part of the NWO. That was easy!

 

[MIKILLINI]

If the hat truss had buckled in the middle (which is highly unlikely) the attachments to he perimeter walls would ave pulled those walls in- visibly. The roofline would have shadowed the hat truss movement. You do talk a load of crap sometimes T.

Sure Bill, you talk a load of nothing all the time. All you've managed to show for knowledge is parroting heiwa, while failing to show you know anything.

 

[Heiwa]

Once more I will remind you that the upper part DOES NOT stay the same size relative to the bottom part. As it adds floors, it gets bigger. A child could grasp this concept. You can't.

The upper part C gets bigger! LOL! OK, topic is The Heiwa Challenge - very popular - and you suggest that there is a structure, where, dropping little part C on big part A, part C gets bigger ... while one-way crushing down part A. All due to gravity alone?
Anyway, just prove it!

 

[Heiwa]

Lies. All lies. You are lying, Heiwa. The upper part was not "blown apart." It is clearly visible on the videos shown in the National Geographic documentary.

You say National Geographic has found and showed videos showing upper part C being intact, while one-way crushing down lower part A?

Link, please.

 

[Heiwa]

The stateofgrace Challenge

...

( to all sane and normal people, I know my challenge is pointless and bordering on self importance, please forgive me but this fraud does my head in )

You are right!

 

[GlennB]

You've been caught in a blatant lie, Heiwa. Again.

 

[Heiwa]

You've been caught in a blatant lie, Heiwa. Again.

??? There is no lying involved with The Heiwa Challenge! Just produce a structure where part C one-way crushes part A, etc. Don't say you can do it or that it is possible. Just do it!

 

[KreeL]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why....actually I don't wonder.

 

[dtugg]

Kreel, I put you in for that pay raise. I don't know if your handler told you yet, but you should start getting it next paycheck.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Hahahaha...still no winners? I wonder why actually I don't wonder.

Fixed that for ya.