The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?
 
Shalamar said:
The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?
Click to expand...
What truthers don't seem to understand is the way it was designed in large part contributed to why AND how it collapsed.
 
Shalamar said:
The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?
Click to expand...
29,000,000 million pounds; see FAQs from NIST.

You could tell truthers anything they have no clue; math is prohibited in 911TruthLies.

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Click to expand...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm
 
beachnut said:
29,000,000 million pounds; see FAQs from NIST.

You could tell truthers anything they have no clue; math is prohibited in 911TruthLies.



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm
Click to expand...

Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.
Click to expand...
What lie are you trying to support now? Oops, you failed to understand NIST, failed to read NIST, and failed to make a valid point on anything 911. You are short 6 years of education, unable to understand the engineering, not able to make a rational statement or question on this topic save the moronic junk Heiwa posts.


Cover-up? You "Suppse" it is "obvously" a cover-up? Too bad you are stuck with nano-evidence that burns up before you can use it and too small to see.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.
Click to expand...


Would it hurt to make an attempt to read NIST's FAQ? Is learning really that painful for you?
 
bill smith said:
Is NIST forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppse they WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory they have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and a coverup.
Click to expand...

Are you forgetting anything here ? Do you think that is possible ? Suppose you WERE forgetting something absolutely critical to this theory you have laid out here ? Could that REALLY be accidental or an oversight ?

If you say 'no' then obvously it was a deliberate omission and therefore a lie and the official story is in fact what actually happened.
 
bill smith said:
I sometimes get the impression that they were very determiined to keep damage to adjacent non-WTC buildings to an absolute minimum. Remember when the top of WTC2 started to tip over and it looked like it would fall off to one side ? In my mind's eye I can virtually see the guy pushing the button that blew the rest of the building underneath away allowing the tipping section to fall straight down. That was a dead giveaway. Even on the day I noticed that. Maybe in WTC1 they didn't want the 30-storey antenna to fall independently.
Click to expand...

Who would that be Bill? You seem quite certain about this allegation, but you keep on ignoring Regnad's question. Are you unable to acknowledge it?
 
Last edited:
Shalamar said:
The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.
Click to expand...

Exactly: Heiwa's challenge is flawed.
 
Shalamar said:
The 'challenge' that Heiwa is proposing is actually a "gotcha".

If no-one does the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that buildings cannot collapse like WTC 1 and 2, thus proving an inside jobby job.

If someone DOES successfully do the challenge, then it is a 'Gotcha!' proving that WTC 1 and 2 were designed to collapse like they did, thus proving an inside jobby job.

I think the whole concept of 'Upper part cannot crush lower part'. I am given to understand that this did not happen. The supports at point of impact and fires weakened due to heat and damage. This is shown through pictures showing the sagging floors, and the slight twist. What seems to have happened is that upper part of WTC 1 and 2 indeed fell.. onto the floor beneath it.

So, what would by the mass of the 'upper part' and what is the load capacity of a single floor?
Click to expand...

The Heiwa Challenge is what it is - see post #1. Just provide a structure that behaves like Bazant & Co postulate in their theory or where a part C can apply energy through gravity that exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed (the NIST cause of global collapse) and you are a winner!
 
Heiwa said:
The Heiwa Challenge is what it is - see post #1. Just provide a structure that behaves like Bazant & Co postulate in their theory or where a part C can apply energy through gravity that exceeds the strain energy that can be absorbed (the NIST cause of global collapse) and you are a winner!
Click to expand...
Part C one-way crushed down part A! I assume you're getting your finances in order. You're already 4 days late!
 
Nist error

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
******************************

So does nobody want to have a guess what NIST might have omitted in the above explanation ? Or maybe comment on the liklihood of whether that omission could have occurred accidentally ? Does the omission totally invalidate this explanation and if so who will be the first to call NIST and damand a rectification?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Your support of the moronic ideas of Heiwa without evidence or calculations is standard for non engineers and 911TruthLies.

Heiwa's challenged was met twice on 911. Your inability to understand this fact is your problem.
Click to expand...

I see that you still believe that bluster, arrogance and aggression are substitutes for rational debate.

Have a nice life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom