The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assistance to design The Heiwa Challenge structure!

Please, gentlefolks, do not worry about the area of your structure - one or 100 acres. Keep it 1-D = area is 0! And start with some simple physical crush model!

For example!

Upper part C consists of 10 material points with mass m at various locations x linked by springs. It is floating. Evidently part C is not one rigid point with one mass. Such a point will destroy anything it touches.

Lower part A consists of 90 material points with mass m at various locations x linked by springs. It is fixed at one end (ground).

Before test assembly C is put on A and the springs are adjusted to elastically compress equally, i.e. the bottom springs of A are stronger than the top springs of C. The elastic strain energy absorbed by the springs in this static test is then known. Let’s say it is 30% of the maximum elastic strain energy that the springs can absorb. The model is 1-D! Material point masses held apart by forces!

At test C is dropped on A, i.e. C’s bottom material point contacts the top material point of A!

The total potential energy of A and C relative, e.g. ground is known before the test/drop. C is a floating in the air, A is connected to ground.

What happens when C’s bottom material point contacts the top material point of A?

We know the energy applied at contact!

That energy is absorbed by the springs of C and A, and all 100 material points will displace from their locations x at contact, i.e. the springs compress … and decompress with time. Ground is assumed to be rigid, i.e. it does not deform and can absorb infinite forces.

The dynamic forces in the A and C springs at and after contact vary everywhere with time. But it is easy to show that the forces are maximum at contact C/A and in the vicinity of interface C/A.

If no spring breaks and you assume that the springs are visco-elastic, i.e. dampens the impact C/A the system will after a while come to rest. A arrested C! All energy applied has become heat in the springs. The springs have become a little warmer. Easy to calculate.

You can actually calculate the forces in every A/C spring over time, after C has contacted A.

Now we increase the energy applied, e.g. C is dropped from a higher distance above A. We want to see what spring breaks first … and what happens then.

Thus one spring in the system must first compress elastically to its maximum, then compress plastically and then fail, while the other springs only deform elastically or, maybe, some also deform plastically without failing.

Many things can happen! The bottom spring of A may break first. Or the top spring of A. Or the bottom spring of C. But hardly the top spring of C.

In The Heiwa Challenge structure you must ensure that it is the top spring of A that fails first (and not the bottom A or C springs). It is a tricky task, but it may be possible with some funny structure.

Then you must ensure that when part C drops again due to this failure of A top spring, that it is the next top spring of A that fails, etc, etc. That is a big problem = The Heiwa Challenge.

Step 1 is fairly easy to solve 1-D on paper with some Lagrangian sums of potential energy before drop, at contact, etc, and with some Euler-Lagrangian differential equations of motions until one spring fails.

Step 2 is more complex. A spring has broken (the top A spring!) and C - still oscillating but free to drop again - contacts an oscillating assembly A (with one spring less). Actually it is the top A material point mass that contacts the material A point below first with C following, so keep track of your material points.

If you, like Bazant and Seffen (and Mackey!), regard C as only ONE rigid material point, then there is no problem to show that this MAGIC point can one-way crush down, from top to bottom, part A and its 90 material points.

But in the real 1-D world C is not magic. C consists of 10 material points with springs in between.

Now, when you have solved Step 2 you must transform your knowledge to a 3-D Heiwa Challenge structure. That is step 3!

Please, keep it 1 m² cross area! Not one acre!

As my favourite material girl told me. Anders, you are a hard material point ... but I like your spring!
 
Heiwa said:
1. Loose contents of C1 will drop together with the elements of C1 they are located on. When the element of C1 contacts something, e.g. an element in A97, loose contents will evidently contact elements in C1. Maybe the loose elements will be damaged?

2. Only elements of C1 contacts elements of A97. That's the key of The Heiwa Challenge! Other elements in C are affected by forces produced by the contacts of remote elements, e.g. they are broken? You see, you cannot regard part C as one rigid mass of uniform density as certain 'expert's do.

How are you getting on with your Heiwa Challenge structure?
Click to expand...



Nobody capable of writing such nonsense is fit to be called an engineer. Thirteen floors have collapsed, and you are seriously claiming that only the bottom floor of the falling mass makes contact?!?! Where does the mass of floors C2-12 go when C1 hits A97? Does it float in midair? Does it weigh less because it has collapsed?

I am asking the basic questions that would occur to anyone who lacks a background in engineering. Newton's Bit, tfk, Myriad, RWGuinn have shown that they are well-qualified to provide clear explanations of what happened on 9/11. You, by contrast, become ever more hopelessly befuddled as you attempt to support your absurd garble of physics.
 
releaseeabode said:
A little of each of those comes into play but, ultimately no one will beat your challenge because the simplifications you made make the result inevitable.

The most interesting thing to learn from this challenge is how much twisting and contorting of your model people are prepared to resort to in order to make it fit with belief.
Click to expand...


Why haven't you noticed that Heiwa's bogus "challenge" has nothing to do with the collapses of the towers?
 
FineWine said:
Nobody capable of writing such nonsense is fit to be called an engineer. Thirteen floors have collapsed, and you are seriously claiming that only the bottom floor of the falling mass makes contact?!?! Where does the mass of floors C2-12 go when C1 hits A97? Does it float in midair? Does it weigh less because it has collapsed?

I am asking the basic questions that would occur to anyone who lacks a background in engineering. Newton's Bit, tfk, Myriad, RWGuinn have shown that they are well-qualified to provide clear explanations of what happened on 9/11. You, by contrast, become ever more hopelessly befuddled as you attempt to support your absurd garble of physics.
Click to expand...

See my post #1366 above. Try to solve it 1-D before you suggest that thirteen floors have collapsed, etc. Use your spring, i.e. your head!
 
Heiwa said:
See my post #1366 above. Try to solve it 1-D before you suggest that thirteen floors have collapsed, etc. Use your spring, i.e. your head!
Click to expand...

Again I ask that you stop the idiocy. ALL the floors above the impact zone collapsed. ONE floor only does not hit the top floor below the collapse; ALL the collapsing floors hit A97.

Try this:

You are sitting in a chair on A97. Floors 98-110 have collapsed and are about to fall on top of your floor.
ARE YOU SAFE?
WOULD YOU BE SAFE ON A96?
HOW ABOUT A50?

WHAT ARRESTS THE COLLAPSE???
 
FineWine said:
Again I ask that you stop the idiocy. ALL the floors above the impact zone collapsed. ONE floor only does not hit the top floor below the collapse; ALL the collapsing floors hit A97.

Try this:

You are sitting in a chair on A97. Floors 98-110 have collapsed and are about to fall on top of your floor.
ARE YOU SAFE?
WOULD YOU BE SAFE ON A96?
HOW ABOUT A50?

WHAT ARRESTS THE COLLAPSE???
Click to expand...

YIHWYS!

So all upper part C floors C 98 ... C 110 collapsed - they were weak - and they all hit A97.

????

According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST and other experts upper part C is rigid. Doesn't collapse. Pls, clarify.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
The idea of controlled demolition being the cause for the destruction of the Twin Towers is 100% impossible. Not only didn't it happen, it was not possible.

Want to know why?
Click to expand...
Well, friends?

See, the problem is you've hitched your wagon to an idea ("inside job") that isn't even slightly, maybe, could-be-in-a-parallel-universe-where-Spock-has-a-goatee, possible. Not a little. Not a little little.

So...why?
 
Regnad Kcin said:
How casually you play your little game.

Please understand, your ficticious imaginings are just that: make believe. 9/11 was no more an inside job than Yogi Bear is a living, breathing, tie-wearing, picnic-basket-devouring, English-speaking, bear.

This "inside job" insanity has not been true, is not true, and won't be true in one-hundred years. Why do people like you persist? What's your agenda?
Click to expand...
So, Bill Smith? I'm interested in hearing -- what's your agenda?
 
Heiwa:

Once again. Insofar as your "challenge" has nothing whatsoever to do with what happened to either of the Twin Towers, what is your point? Why are you presenting this question here in the Conspiracy subforum rather than in Science?

These are simple questions.
 
Heiwa said:
YIHWYS!

So all upper part C floors C 98 ... C 110 collapsed - they were weak - and they all hit A97.

????

According Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, NIST and other experts upper part C is rigid. Doesn't collapse. Pls, clarify.
Click to expand...


How long do you expect to maintain this mad charade? The plane hits several floors simultaneously. There is considerable impact damage, and the resultant extensive fires, abetted by the loss of fireproofing, weaken the structural steel. Eventually, the perimeter columns bow inward, the floor trusses give way, and a global collapse ensues, which means that the floors above the impact floors are falling too. You keep raving about part C being "rigid." Nobody can figure out what that term means to you or its significance.

What can you possibly be suggesting when you claim, insanely, that only the bottom floor of the collapsing mass hits the top floor of the rest fo the building? What happens to the falling mass of C2-13? Do those floors float in midair?
 
FineWine said:
How long do you expect to maintain this mad charade? The plane hits several floors simultaneously. There is considerable impact damage, and the resultant extensive fires, abetted by the loss of fireproofing, weaken the structural steel. Eventually, the perimeter columns bow inward, the floor trusses give way, and a global collapse ensues, which means that the floors above the impact floors are falling too. You keep raving about part C being "rigid." Nobody can figure out what that term means to you or its significance.

What can you possibly be suggesting when you claim, insanely, that only the bottom floor of the collapsing mass hits the top floor of the rest fo the building? What happens to the falling mass of C2-13? Do those floors float in midair?
Click to expand...

The plane impact structural damage being a cause is actually a non-sequitur. The loads were easily redistributed with plenty of reserve to spare. The NIST itself has said that if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

While the NIST came up with a somewhat plausible scenario for collapse initiation, the problem they have is a need for an explanation of what occurs afterward to continue the collapse. Bazant's theory has now been shown not to conform to observation. The upper block of WTC 1 does not decelerate at all. How is it possible to explain a natural cause for the collapse of the central core without a deceleration of the upper block?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
The plane impact structural damage being a cause is actually a non-sequitur. The loads were easily redistributed with plenty of reserve to spare. The NIST itself has said that if the fireproofing wasn't removed the buildings would still be standing.

While the NIST came up with a somewhat plausible scenario for collapse initiation, the problem they have is a need for an explanation of what occurs afterward to continue the collapse. Bazant's theory has now been shown not to conform to observation. The upper block of WTC 1 does not decelerate at all. How is it possible to explain a natural cause for the collapse of the central core without a deceleration of the upper block?
Click to expand...

For debris to overtake the main collapse indicates that there was some apparent deceleration as the collapse of the floors progressed... Since gravity essentially won that battle I'm not sure why it's strange that as the collapse progressed with a net gain in speed. Especially considering that with how the collapse propagated the core wasn't largely responsible for allowing the collapse to continue after it had already begun in the impact regions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom