The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
GlennB said:
OK that's nice. But you seemed to be leaning towards the idea that I'm unable to read the little clock at the bottom right of my PC, or setting out to deceive for no apparent reason. Why on earth might you doubt my idea of my local time? That's worrying.
Click to expand...

Trust everybody Glenn, but tie up your horses.
 
tfk said:
bill smith,



Sorry, the vote on that proposition has been tallied for quite some time. It was a landslide. The news is not good for you.



Considering the vote above, "what makes sense to you" is singularly irrelevant to the real world.



You have already heard what many other engineers (Including me) have said.

Heiwa says: Sum of all forces = zero
Engineers say: Sum of all forces = mass * acceleration

Heiwa says: "Equal & opposite forces at contact means [variable at different times] 1. no destruction, 2. destruction of bigger component, 3. destruction of globally stronger component, 4. instantaneous deceleration to zero velocity or 5. bounce.
Engineers say: "Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. And nope."

Heiwa says: "Average stresses in a structure determines what will fail."
Engineers say: "Nope. LOCAL stresses determine what will fail."

Heiwa says: "Dynamic loads = static loads"
Engineers say: "WTF?? Dynamic loads are MUCH higher than static loads."

Heiwa says: "If you drop a bowling ball onto a piece of thin glass, the glass will stop the bowling ball."
Engineers say: "Get the broom & dust pan."

Heiwa says: "Engineers don't know what they are talking about."
Engineers say: "Yeah. Sure kid. Say, did you see that the Sox took another one from the Yankees?"



Here is a VERY good idea of what Bazant will say.

"The interdisciplinary interests of Bjorkmann, a naval architect with a background in ... , ahh ... , well, a background, are appreciated. Although none of the discusser’s criticisms is scientifically correct, his discussion provides a welcome opportunity to dispel doubts recently voiced by some in the community outside structural mechanics and engineering."

Or:

"The interest of Bjorkmann, a naval insurance claims adjuster, is appreciated. After close scrutiny, however, his calculations are found to be incorrect, for reasons explained in the following."

Or, more parsimoniously:

"Who farted?"



No, you are not.

You are "open to persuasion" that:

"the plane could not have penetrated the outer wall of the towers under any circumstances"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36343

"Robertson, Skilling & Di Martini believed the plane should have bounced off of the side of the building"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36182

"since the plane did not bounce off, molecular disruption was used to get the 767 thru the outer wall of the tower"
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36042
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36076

"ae911t completely debunked the WTC7 report within an hour of its release."
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post35812

"silent explosives could explain the lack of explosions"
[bill has stated that the demolition shown starting at 0:38 of this video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ePuE0tvp4 - proves the existence silent explosives. Rather than a closed window.]
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post21800

THAT's the sort of nonsense that you are "open to".

tk
Click to expand...


Great job. As usual.
 
bill smith said:
Remember when Sunder explained it first though? He introduced it as if it was a new physical law. It's actually quite funny now when I look back. When he said 'thermal expansion' I had to do a double-take. I thought 'isn't that just the normal expansion under heat' ? Even at the end of his lecture I was still wondering if I hadn't misheard him somehow. I wonder will Bazant be as amusing ?
Click to expand...


Here's another question you won't answer. You obviously lack education in technical subjects. You have admitted to a lack of intelligence, a failing so apparent that it hardly required acknowledgment. Yet, you take a condescending attitude toward prominent engineers and scientists. Doesn't it ever occur to you that your inability to understand them is your problem, not theirs? They are writing for an educated community. They have to get it right, or their reputations will suffer. Their concern is that engineers and physicists in countries around the world will detect errors, not that agenda-driven crackpots trolling tiny internet forums won't understand them.

What makes you think that sneering from a perspective of near-total ignorance helps to further the aims of your insane movement? How do you hope to persuade people who know vastly more than you do?
 
GlennB said:
Nice dance, but give me one good reason why I might be lying about my timezone. Hmmmm......
Click to expand...

I can't really. I just had a strong feeling you were English and the 2-hour timezone difference made me wonder.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
That's a service condition, not a strength condition. We're talking building failure. And yes, sophomore level undergrads should already be proficient in analyzing it in simple situations.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I was simply making the point that the concept of thermal expansion isn't something new or something they just made up at NIST, and it has certainly been something engineers are aware of and deal with in various contexts, even to the seemingly minute level of the variation in temperature over the course of a regular day.
 
bill smith said:
If you think that we are wrong you should just say so.
Click to expand...
You, yourself, state as much when you postulate a hypothesis ("9/11 was an inside job") that is 100% impossible.

Now, knowing that, as you do, what did you say your actual agenda is in promoting the same? C'mon, you can tell me.
 
bill smith said:
I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...
Click to expand...
Come now, Mr. Smith, don't go trying to horn in on my turf. It's what the "truth" movement attempts to promote that is impossible. 100%, in fact.
 
bill smith said:
I was just thinking...now that it looks like Bazant will be forced to accept Heiwa'a challenge what on Earth is he going to do ?

He has to demonstrate that the impossibe is possible...

There was a time that he could pull the wool over people's eyes but that time is long gone. Reducing the whole thing to impenetrable technical jargon will not work either as eminently qualified Truthers and other Techs will be able to see right through it.

So what CAN he do ?

He can radically alter his explanation by introducing a peviously unknown phenomenon into the equation- A bit ike NIST did with the 'thermal expansion' in WTC7. It will have to be very exoticly exotic to explain WTC1 though.

Or he may decline to answer at all....
Click to expand...

Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it.
 
Bluesky said:
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
Click to expand...

Heiwa, you owe this man $1,000,000.
 
Bluesky said:
Hey I did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dtugg, yes it was GlennB who also solved the Heiwa Challenge with Post 1682

We did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it yet. We win!
 
Bluesky said:
Sorry Dtugg, yes it was GlennB who also solved the Heiwa Challenge with Post 1682

We did it... and it collapsed. I followed the method in post 1641 and it fell down. I am sure if I can do it, so can Bazant.

Complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?

Dtugg also came up with a scheme in Post 1682.. but I am not sure he tested it yet. We win!
Click to expand...

Good progress! Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.
 
Heiwa said:
Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.
Click to expand...

Why does this sound familiar? Ah yes! It's exactly the kind of information you stubbornly refused to provide for your "children's flaming water tank" experiment.
 
1337m4n said:
That sounds like it would violate all kinds of safety regulations.
Click to expand...

You bet. And he's "a good EU citizen" :rolleyes: But, in fairness, he does say "Call your parents to ensure that safety is maintained! ". But this is after the welding project involving:
4 off steel pipes, length 750 mm, dia 20 mm wall thickness 1 mm (each cross area 62.83 mm²). Yield stress 23.5 kgs/mm²
2 off 1000 x 1000 x 5 mm steel plates (weight about 40 kgs)
4 off 1000 x 1500 x 5 mm steel plates (each weight about 60 kgs)
4 off 960 x 4 x 3 mm steel flat bars (spandrels)
amongst other stuff.

You couldn't make this up. But he did, at here section 8.1
 
Heiwa said:
Good progress! Please provide more details of your structure and particularly the TEST and verification that elements/connections really were broken. Where, when was this TEST supposed to have taken place? Any witnesses? Some photos/video would help.
Click to expand...

Hey come on we won the heiwa Challenge. Its so obvious, it fails and you just have to look at the method in post 1641 or the one by GlennB in post 1682. How couldn't that fail?

So know you want us to do some test documentation. are you saying that we have to build t to a specification and that we need to test and inspect the joints. There is no mention of this in your first post and it seems to me that you are just adding new rules.

Our scheme complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?
:boxedin:
 
Bluesky said:
Hey come on we won the heiwa Challenge. Its so obvious, it fails and you just have to look at the method in post 1641 or the one by GlennB in post 1682. How couldn't that fail?

So know you want us to do some test documentation. are you saying that we have to build t to a specification and that we need to test and inspect the joints. There is no mention of this in your first post and it seems to me that you are just adding new rules.

Our scheme complies with every point of Heiwa's stupid first post!
Heiwa concedes defeat?
:boxedin:
Click to expand...

He won't ever concede...anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom