The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

Thanks TS. Evidently lower part A of the structure can statically carry upper part C as per post #1. Challenge is simply, if part C can one-way crush down part A after being dropped on part A from a height h as per post #1.

The simple answer is, I repeat, it is not possible. And the reason is, I repeat, that part A decelerates and deforms the total assembly of elements of part C and locally damages elements of part C in contact with part A. As A is bigger than C, A stops C.

Evidently very strong elements coming loose of part C may damage very weak elements of part A, but how can strong elements of part C detach themselves completely from weak elements of part C?

Somebody suggested that the mast dropped first as totally 4 beam frames collapsed below the mast. But the frames carried the mast before ... and nothing dropped on the frames and the frames were not affected by heat.

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy.

Conclusion, the only way to one way crush down A by C is to assist with CD.

It seems that should be the final post of The Heiwa Challenge thread!

 

[stateofgrace]

Every time that qualified people point out Heiwa's mistakes to him he cries ''Off topic!''

It is pathetic and amusing to watch. Catering to the forum trolls, ignoring anything that makes him question his own beliefs, insulting anybody who simply asks him a civil question, running and hiding beside the well used "off topic" excuse and all the while declaring himself victorious.And he wonders why no one and I mean no one takes him seriously.

Yep this guy is a true professional.

( I will post the reply Heiwa, don't bother --- "off topic, topic is Heiwa challenge, post on topic, blah, blah, blah".)

 

[oldhat]

I demand more office filing trays and/or Erector sets in this thread.

 

[GlennB]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

Whereas falling columns, beams and concrete-lined floors don't have great momentum by virtue of their very high mass ?

 

[Minadin]

The examples of the shotgun and grenade are not analogous to relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble as the momentum of the pellets and shrapnel is very high due to their extremely high velocity.

The example of an avalanche taking out a house is generally not analogous since it is usually gross yield due to the massive static weight of the material in the avalanche which takes out the house. This one has some merit in the sense that if it is a large rock avalanche the large rock impacts may cause enough cumulative damage to eliminate the house. However, this would still fail an analogy test since the rocks are significantly harder and stronger than the house materials.

The example of the snowflakes accumulating into a large snow load is not analogous as it is also gross static overloading that causes the failure.

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

Heiwa says that 'rubble' can never destroy something that is 'intact'. He even says that it doesn't matter if the rubble is falling from 2 miles up.

What do you think of a snowfall being able to collapse the roof of an arena? You think that's a static load? OK. Doesn't that make it EASIER to resist than a dynamic load? The bridge ahead says the weight limit is 40 tons for a truck. You could probably still drive a 45 ton truck over it without it collapsing. Could you drop a 45 ton truck onto it from 30 ft without any damage?

Why do you attempt to rationalize this crap?

 

[GlennB]

Actually, a gravity force (loose mass dropping) applied on an element can either break the element in two pieces or break one connection of the element to other elements. The element does not become completely loose, only broken. To break loose an element you need two forces applied simultaneously ... and doing that by gravity is impossible. But with CD it is quite easy

This is nonsense that is truly cosmic in scale.

Damaged bolts/welds may - with no further impact - be too weak to hold the sheer weight of the broken member. If not, subsequent impacts may finish the job.

What's truly funny, of course, is that in conventional CD each column is cut and gravity then cheerfully completes the task of dismantling the members, something Heiwa describes above as "impossible". He somehow manages to totally misunderstand the CD process he claims took place. Jesu H Xristo, what a dolt.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa says that 'rubble' can never destroy something that is 'intact'. He even says that it doesn't matter if the rubble is falling from 2 miles up.

Why do you attempt to rationalize this crap?

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[Minadin]

But he really is a winner.


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

Yes, my ideas are certainly contrary to yours.

You have been saying that Part C will be 'as crushed' as part A. That's the entire basis for your rejection of the 'one way crush', right? Well, that means that Part B is growing in mass, as parts of A and C become disassociated from each other. Part B is falling. That means, by definition, that it's accelerating downward. Therefore, its relative velocity is becoming increasingly distant from 0.

When Parts B and C both fall, they're both accelerating downward, and Part A is not (except that upper part of A that is becoming part of B as it is dislodged) and therefore, you must admit that the parts C and B are moving in the same direction. So, the velocity difference between C and B is significantly less than the difference between A and B. Because of this, B does more damage to A than it does to C.

I cannot actually fathom the sort of thinking that would cause someone to believe that 'rubble' can't do any damage to 'non-rubble'. Under that premise, shotguns and grenades should both be relatively inert weapons, shouldn't they? Billions of snowflakes placed gently should never collapse a roof. Rock slides would just flow around the non-rubble houses in their paths.

Are you serious? Think about this critically, for a change.

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.

 

[dafydd]

What I say is that 'rubble' formed, when part C contacts part A, and becomes part B (?) according to Bazant, the 'rubble' is just damaged elements still part of C or A - and should be treated as such.

Question is whether damaged part C, i.e. original part C as modified by 'rubble' attached to part C, can one-way crush down part A. Answer is no.

Evidently no 'rubble' falls from anywhere, as it is still attached to, e.g. part C and is part of modified part C after contact.

But whatever height h part C drops from on part A, the forces developing between A and C are equal and opposite. One consequence is that C is destroyed (see definition in post #1) prior to A, i.e. C cannot one-way crush down A.

Still 50 posts and nobody has managed The Heiwa Challenge!

That's because nobody can be bothered to waste their time on childish experiments.At the risk of going off topic,how did they smuggle the explosives in and rig them undetected?

 

[dafydd]

Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.

It is our duty to help the afflicted.

 

[Heiwa]

Yeah?

I say, you're full of *****. Your challenge has been met multiple times, not that you'll ever admit it. Move those goalposts! Watch out! Yesterday they were in Belarus!

And, it's been shown over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You couldn't prove your way out of one of Richard Gage's pathetic cardboard boxes. I've already shown why, with sources, in the previous 20+ pages of this ridiculous thread - Among others.

Come up with a decent argument sometime, but do it for others. You're hopeless as far as I am concerned, and I'm not completely devoted to charity.

The Heiwa Challenge met several times???? When, where, how? Not possible ... for reasons I have given in order to terminate this thread.

No rubble was formed by Richard Gage's boxes! An excellent example why a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances.

Real reason for the box demonstration was to show that, if you put something (e.g. boxes A) between a box C to be dropped and ground, boxes A is an obstruction to free fall of box C, etc.

It is this obstruction that makes The Heiwa Challenge very difficult ... actually impossible ... to accomplish.

It seems only religious integrists of various types believe in one-way crush downs! What about you?

 

[Heiwa]

That's because nobody can be bothered to waste their time on childish experiments.At the risk of going off topic,how did they smuggle the explosives in and rig them undetected?

No explosives are permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Only gravity.

 

[sylvan8798]

The reason why I offer $1M to anybody that can disprove my axiom, &c, is as follows:

It is very simple to model a One-way Crush down process. Take an object A and put in on the ground and then another object C. You drop C on A and A is crushed.

Why is that?

If C can apply suffient energy PE at impact C with A and following downward displacement and total strain energy SE that can be absorbed by A+C is less than PE and that C can absorb more strain energy than A and only deform elastically in the process, then A is crushed and C is not.

It is not really 'one-way' as C is always affected - elastic deformation - but it is pretty near.

I would conclude that 'one-way' crush down is only possible, if C can absorb more strain energy only as elastic deformation than A can absorb totally (elastic & plastic deformation, failures, &c).

If C is then only 1/10th of A volume/mass wise - as per Challenge conditions - and can only absorb 1/10th of A strain energy (A and C have same internal structure), then I would conclude C can never crush A in any model, size or scale.

It is just a question of strain energies! C has too little!

The Challenge is to prove me wrong!

What is the science and mathematics behind the 1/10 vs 9/10th? Did I miss your explanation for that? Is this relationship a necessary condition for your theory to be true? If so, why?

 

[tsig]

No explosives are permitted in The Heiwa Challenge. Only gravity.

You are aware that this is a public forum and that your posts here could be used to destroy any credibility you might have in other venues?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Once again:

But, topic is The Heiwa Challenge! Upper part C of a structure is supposed to one-way crush down a similar, but bigger part A. It is not possible! A will destroy and stop C quite quickly. The Challenge is to demonstrate the opposite.

It cannot be done, but you can try. Pls, keep to topîc.

Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

 

[Justin39640]

Once again:

to attempt to confuse everyone into believing the "evidence" really fits into his preconceived notions

 

[Heiwa]

What is the science and mathematics behind the 1/10 vs 9/10th? Did I miss your explanation for that? Is this relationship a necessary condition for your theory to be true? If so, why?

Part C being 1/10 of part A is a condition of The Heiwa Challenge. It can also be 1/8 as discussed, if your structure so requires. The Heiwa Challenge is not a theory, it is a challenge.

The theory or axiom states that a part C of a structure A cannot one-way crush down A when dropped on A under certain conditions, e.g. C = 1/10A (as in Challenge), i.e. C is smaller than A; a small part cannot one-way crush down a bigger part of same structure.

If C is greater than A other things happens, e.g. C is damaged by what supports A, etc. but that's another story.

Thanks for asking.

 

[Heiwa]

Considering what you propose did not take place with either of the Twin Towers, what is the point of your "challenge?"

Read post #1.

A professor Bazant & Co suggested on 9/13/01 that a small piece of a structure can one-way crush down the remaining structure by gravity alone and this has been adopted as the explanation of the WTC 1 collapse on 9/11/01. The Challenge is to produce any structure that behaves like that.

 

[funk de fino]

Loose relatively slow moving separate pieces of rubble would be more analogous to many separate two x fours hitting a house, in the sense that each individual item is not capable of destroying or doing significant damage to the structure below in it's impact. The structure is capable of absorbing a huge number of these relatively benign impacts. The overall weight does not matter for a building as the lower structure is designed to handle several times the weight of the material above it, so it can never overload statically like the snow load example you used.

How much were the floor connections designed to hold Tony?

 

[FineWine]

Read post #1.

A professor Bazant & Co suggested on 9/13/01 that a small piece of a structure can one-way crush down the remaining structure by gravity alone and this has been adopted as the explanation of the WTC 1 collapse on 9/11/01. The Challenge is to produce any structure that behaves like that.

Do you ever stop telling your nonsensical lies? Bazant's stature in the engineering community is huge. You are an unknown incompetent.

NOBODY suggested that "a small piece of a structure" crushed the rest of the structure. The top parts of two buildings, consisting of 15-20 floors, collapsed. When they did so, they crushed in succession each floor they contacted, gaining mass and momentum . You are incapable of understanding why the towers fell. You are a disgrace to your profession.