The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

Yet another stupid response from Heiwa He loves having his name in bold, doesn't he? Here you go Heiwa.. perhaps you understand it now... because its so easy to come up with a whole bunch of structures that meet your challenge.

Anyway here is an example of how total collapse can be generated by less than 1/20th of the total weight of a structure:
1. Get 20 Pizza boxes and stack on top of each other.
2. Tape together the sides with a few vertical lines of scotch tape.
3. cut each side vertically into 4, starting at each corner. Add vertical tape to stick the columns together
4. cut out all horizontal cardboard (the floors), and then replace them sticking them back in position with tiny amounts of glue, that is only just able to support the self weight of 1 piece of cardboard.
5. drop the top horizontal piece.

So what happens.
1. the top piece falls and hits the next piece.
2. and because the glue is only strong enough to support one piece of cardboard the next piece falls...
3 and so on, until all the horizontals have fallen
4. at some point during the collapse the outside of the box falls down. The columns will become unstable because they have lost the lateral restraint of the floor thro the glue. The columns will not be able to support their own weight as a single skin of cardboard 20 pizza-boxes tall. The columns will tend to fall outwards because the air is being pushed out of the boxes by the collapse.

Interestingly, the floors will collapse at essentially free-fall speed as they pancake, because the glue offers no real resistance and is massively overloaded, even after the first impact (200% of design load plus impact force to bring it to about 300% of design). The columns will be slower to fall, and will tend to fall radially out from the middle.

Now I am sure Heiwa will say that I am cheating, but not according to "Heiwa's Challenge" . And, of course, this type of failure works even better in steel, although Heiwa did suggest Pizza boxes. The "heiwa challenge" was to cause collapse by using a tiny proportion of the total mass, which this does quite nicely.

Don't ya just love pizza!! If by some miracle Heiwa concedes, then pls donate my winnings to a charity that supports the victims of the Iraq war; both the servicemen and the civilians

As I just said. Produce your structure and let it self-destruct. Ensure that the glue is very weak, though, and do not make the top part stronger than the bottom. Same glue up top as below.
Result? Top part fails first and cannot produce a one-way crush down. But have a go!
Previously we had a structure with very heavy horizontal elements and weak vertical supports. So the connections between the heavy and weak elements were a problem. Now we have a structure with very light horizontal elements and even weaker vertical supports so maybe the interconnections between elements need not be so strong? But still you have to break the connections and/or the elements ... in the right order. Not easy ... but have a go!

 

[Heiwa]

What do you mean it's impregnable? "Heiwa's Axiom" is disproved by the WTC1&2 collapse.

WTC1&2 also meet "Heiwa's Challenge" as outlined in post #1 of this thread.

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

 

[Heiwa]

Could you prove that with some math?

Prove an axiom with some math? LOL! But it applies to millions of structures. Your task is to find a structure that doesn't behave like all the other. Maybe another tower somewhere?

 

[Justin39640]

You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

i guess you mean the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) when you say that too?
i guess that will be the pretext to you labeling them shills when your paper gets destroyed lol

 

[Newtons Bit]

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

Wait, WHAT?!

The towers collapsed Heiwa. There were no explosives or nano-thermites or termites or space-beams. Yes, the lower block did damage the upper block significantly during the collapse (maybe even completely obliterating it to rubble). That doesn't change the fact that your axiom is debunked and your challenge is met.

If you want to actually argue that WTC1&2 don't debunk your axiom and meet your "challenge" then I suggest you actually prove some other form of demolition. Until then, no one is going to waste any money just to prove you, a lunatic, wrong.

 

[bill smith]

There seem to be only two alternatives;-

1.A one-way crush down using only gravity.
2. A one-way crush down using gravity and explosives.


Bazant says number one applies. Heiwa says number 2 applies because number one can never happen in he real world.

Now that Heiwa has published Bazant must provide some proof that number one can actually happen.

Threfore Bazant must accept the Heiwa Challenge.

....or be seen not to...

 

[GlennB]

There seem to be only two alternatives;-

1.A one-way crush down using only gravity.
2. A one-way crush down using gravity and explosives.


Bazant says number one applies. Heiwa says number 2 applies because number one can never happen in he real world.

Now that Heiwa has published Bazant must provide some proof that number one can actually happen.

Threfore Bazant must accept the Heiwa Challenge.

....or be seen not to...

3. Bazant's 'one-way crush down' was a limiting case, but shown mathematically to be true. Reality was different. Falling floors ripped out other floors and horizontal bracing was destroyed, felling the finer upper vertical columns and leaving heavier,lower vertical columns unstable. The last remaining parts of both towers were large sections of core. Unstable and impacted at the base, they fell last.

4. The Heiwa challenge, though, is easily met as it stands. See 9/11 and Bluesky's pizza-box structure earlier in this thread.

 

[Heiwa]

Wait, WHAT?!

The towers collapsed Heiwa. There were no explosives or nano-thermites or termites or space-beams. Yes, the lower block did damage the upper block significantly during the collapse (maybe even completely obliterating it to rubble).

Yes, the towers were destroyed! We agree on that! My only interest is if gravity alone assisted. And that's the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Just design a structure that self-destructs - top C one-way crushing-down bottom A - assisted only by a little drop of C on A + gravity.

According Bazant & BLGB this is normal ... under certain strange assumptions ... as demonstrated in their theory. Very well! But isn't it of interest to see this in practice? It could be very useful! To get rid of structures! Just drop a piece on the rest and POUFF ... rubble!

With your alleged superb knowledge of structures and their designs and behaviour I am a little surprised that you just not ... prove it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, the towers were destroyed! We agree on that! My only interest is if gravity alone assisted. And that's the whole purpose of The Heiwa Challenge!

Just design a structure that self-destructs - top C one-way crushing-down bottom A - assisted only by a little drop of C on A + gravity.

According Bazant & BLGB this is normal ... under certain strange assumptions ... as demonstrated in their theory. Very well! But isn't it of interest to see this in practice? It could be very useful! To get rid of structures! Just drop a piece on the rest and POUFF ... rubble!

With your alleged superb knowledge of structures and their designs and behaviour I am a little surprised that you just not ... prove it.

I have proved it. See 9/11.

I'm not going to waste money building a model.

And yes, if you destroy all the columns on one floor of building, don't be surprised when the whole thing falls down. Regardless of where those columns were.

 

[FineWine]

His aticle has already been examined by some of those engineers you speak of and judged worthy of publication in their journal. That in itself is a kind of peer review. The only questions are whether they will go ahead with publication and when.

No, the journal has decided to publish his idiocy to allow the people he slanders to respond. Your comment about peer-review is amazingly stupid, and therefore typical.

 

[FineWine]

LOL! Only if you assume that the destructions of the WTC 1/2 structures were produced by a small upper part C one-way crushing the lower part A you are right. But you have to prove it. Not assume it or guess it. You talk like a true OCTist with no knowledge of structural damage analysis or design.

But he's a real engineer and you're an incompetent fraud. What do you know that he doesn't?

 

[FineWine]

Not really. I don't even know what blu-tak is! So, please, make a real blu-tak + pizza boxes structure, number the elements n and connections m and demonstrate. For conditions, see post #1. Do not forget the lateral pre-test.
You may be a winner!

Well, you are certainly a loser!

 

[FineWine]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. I will be happy to hear what these other engineers, especially Bazant have to say. I don't for a minute believe that they will be able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear but I am open to persuasion.

It makes sense to you that you could drop the top third of a building from a height of two miles (I'm copying almost word-for word from an older thread) onto the bottom two-thirds without doing significant damage? That makes sense to you? And you're not stupid?

Real engineers are not stupid. It sure doesn't make sense to them.

 

[FineWine]

Those are just analogies. But the heart of Heiwa's argument makes perfect sense to me. I sincerely doubt that anybody will be able to prove him wrong. And if they cannot ?.......

You "doubt" that anybody will be able to prove him wrong??? But real engineers on this forum have totally destroyed his nonsense. He's been proved wrong repeatedly. You know nothing and you can't think, so you can't understand why he's wrong. The people who know a lot understand exactly why he's wrong. They've explained it too often.

 

[tsig]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

I guess you missed the part where I said the top 10% only had to crush the floor below it and not all 90% at once.

Is your name Bill?

 

[FineWine]

But beware, maybe the 90% below destroys or stops the top 10% before!

Most of us can figure out that the top 10% quickly becomes the top 20%...and the top 30%...and the top 50%...and the top 75%...and the top 90%, until what's left of the building is shown quite clearly in ALL the photos of Ground Zero.

 

[dtugg]

Months ago, when Heiwa first submitted his garbage the ASCE journal, I emailed the editor and told him all about Heiwa and his "experiments" and all the other insane stuff he says here. They are well aware of how crazy he is. I expect him to get thoroughly destroyed. Oh well, I guess the ASCE is a part of the conspiracy too.

 

[beachnut]

I may not be an engineer but I am not stupid either. I don't believe what Heiwa says because it goes against the OCT but because it makes sense to me. ...

Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of your sense. Heiwa needs support for his delusions.

 

[FineWine]

Don't let the facts and evidence get in the way of your sense. Heiwa needs support for his delusions.

Bill won't be replying to post #1673.

 

[Bluesky]

As I just said. Produce your structure and let it self-destruct. Ensure that the glue is very weak, though, and do not make the top part stronger than the bottom. Same glue up top as below.
Result? Top part fails first and cannot produce a one-way crush down. But have a go!
Previously we had a structure with very heavy horizontal elements and weak vertical supports. So the connections between the heavy and weak elements were a problem. Now we have a structure with very light horizontal elements and even weaker vertical supports so maybe the interconnections between elements need not be so strong? But still you have to break the connections and/or the elements ... in the right order. Not easy ... but have a go!

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down.
Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Having won, can anyone remind me what the prize was?