The Heiwa Challenge

[Gamolon]

Yes! How could you miss that. I have said it seeal times. But, sorry, this GWB ... he said ... unbelievable .... sorry. I have to lay down and rest !!!

But, pls, continue ask off topic questions.

It has everything to do with your "topic".

I'm just making absolutely sure that I understand you because you have a habit of twisting words.

I'm trying to understand why you are the only one out of anyone in this thread or anyone outside this thread that I have found who says that "rigid bodies" are not to be used in calculations.

It comes down to the simple fact that you are a naval architect and NOT a structural engineer so you really don't comprehend the use of "rigid bodies". I have an email from Bazant that even states the same conclusion.

Welcome (finally) to ignore.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It has everything to do with your "topic".

I'm just making absolutely sure that I understand you because you have a habit of twisting words.

I'm trying to understand why you are the only one out of anyone in this thread or anyone outside this thread that I have found who says that "rigid bodies" are not to be used in calculations.

It comes down to the simple fact that you are a naval architect and NOT a structural engineer so you really don't comprehend the use of "rigid bodies". I have an email from Bazant that even states the same conclusion.

Welcome (finally) to ignore.

The International Building Code 2006 allows engineers to use rigid bodies in specific applications if certain basic assumptions are made.

There are some types of analysis that CANNOT be done by hand without rigid elements.

 

[nicepants]

Mass is always mass. But 100 small masses m dropped one after the other on the floor, ping, ping ...., is different from dropping one big, solid M = 100 m on the floor, BANG.

If the maximum weight that the floor can hold is m=90, it doesn't matter whether the masses are dropped in small increments or all at once.

 

[FineWine]

See post #1. Just design/build a structure of any type, size and scale, then disconnect the upper 1/10 part (C) of the structure, lift it a little and drop it on the 9/10 structure below (part A).

Now GRAVITY is supposed to assist you to win The Heiwa Challenge! If C one-way crushes A due to GRAVITY, you are a WINNER. So far - 1800+ posts here - nobody has managed, incl. NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ... but they cannot show it in a simple test!
I asked GWB to have a try and you know what happened?

Curious?

GWB suggested that .... ha, ha, ha ... GWB said .... ha, ha, ha ... lol, lol ... . Sorry, I am laughing so I can't ...

"NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ..." but they and all the rest of the world's structural engineers are wrong. I, Heiwa, alone understand this phenomenon.

Hmmmm.

Can you say, "pathology"?

 

[twinstead]

"NIST, NASA, FEMA, ASCE, Bazant, Seffen, Mackey, MIT, Harvard & Co. They all say it will happen ..." but they and all the rest of the world's structural engineers are wrong. I, Heiwa, alone understand this phenomenon.

Hmmmm.

Can you say, "pathology"?

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.

 

[FineWine]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.

Pathology provides the only lens through which Heiwa's ravings can be viewed. Do you realize that in all the time he's been posting here, he has never taken a single backward step? He runs away when he's getting beaten to a pulp, but he returns spouting the same nonsense. He has never conceded the tiniest point. He accepts no corrections. He is repeatedly challenged to show calculations supporting his mad assertions, but he arrogantly dismisses such requests as unworthy of him. He is above the engineering community, he is above math, he is above science. There are places for such types.

 

[BigAl]

Mass is always mass. But 100 small masses m dropped one after the other on the floor, ping, ping ...., is different from dropping one big, solid M = 100 m on the floor, BANG.

What do you want to say? This thread is about something else! See post #1.

Wasn't the floor loading spec for WTC 30 pounds/sq ft? When the debris of the upper part settled down on the lower part there is no way it's not going to exceed the floor limits. The collected mass is going to proceed to collapse the floor and the next floor, and so on.

30 pounds over the whole floor is about 600 tons. That's at least an order of magnitude less than the mass up the upper part of WTC, so even without factoring in momentum, a complete collapse is a done deal.

This doesn't include the 100+ tons of airplane concentrated on some part of the floors it crashed into, the structural damage it caused and the resulting fire.

I am not a structural engineer, or engineer of any type. I welcome comments from Heiwa and the real engineers about how this is a flawed view of the WTC collapse.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Pathology provides the only lens through which Heiwa's ravings can be viewed. Do you realize that in all the time he's been posting here, he has never taken a single backward step? He runs away when he's getting beaten to a pulp, but he returns spouting the same nonsense. He has never conceded the tiniest point. He accepts no corrections. He is repeatedly challenged to show calculations supporting his mad assertions, but he arrogantly dismisses such requests as unworthy of him. He is above the engineering community, he is above math, he is above science. There are places for such types.

He accepts corrections in the sense that he has updated his "paper" based on what people have said, but then claims that he never made a change.

I wonder what fun we could have using archive.org and his website. Assuming it was archived in any event...

 

[FineWine]

He accepts corrections in the sense that he has updated his "paper" based on what people have said, but then claims that he never made a change.

I wonder what fun we could have using archive.org and his website. Assuming it was archived in any event...

How can he "update" his paper to accommodate criticisms that destroy his lunatic thesis root-and-branch?

 

[bill smith]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'the Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say nothing at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official version of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

 

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Le's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

How many thousands of engineers are involved with the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations, the independent work by NIST critics such as Frank Greening and Gregory Urich? The perps, the nineteen hijackers, are dead. Only an agenda-driven megalomaniac devoid of critical thinking skills such as Heiwa could dream that the total absence of voiced dissent in the engineering community does not reflect the absence of unvoiced dissent.

 

[twinstead]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

BS. I'm sick and tired of the old "because they don't say anything, you can't assume they support the official story". That is insulting to them, and to MY intelligence. Show me a "Geologists for A Round Earth", or "Historians In Support of the Holocaust", or "Astronomers Against the Moon Hoax" group.

How many experts have to tell you you're wrong before you believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Yea, you want ALL of them. And even then it won't be enough. I would bet money that if every single expert from around the world literally sent you a certified letter telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that they support the "official story", your spiel wouldn't change one iota.

 

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

On those extremely rare occasions when a lying fraud crawls out from under his bed to confront a real engineer, he gets the living hell beat out of him. Just out of curiosity, how does your insane movement's unbroken string of crushing defeats and painful humiliations "alert" anybody sane? To the scientists and engineers of the world, there is no controversy.

 

[bill smith]

This is what is totally confusing for a layman like me: As adamant as Heiwa is, as arrogant as he is, does he REALLY believe that all the structural engineers are wrong? Does he REALLY think he is on to something that the mainstream engineering community just doesn't get?

What could possibly be going through his mind when he thinks about why nobody is agreeing with him? I think pathology is pretty close.

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Let's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say nothing at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

 

[FineWine]

BS. I'm sick and tired of the old "because they don't say anything, you can't assume they support the official story". That is insulting to them, and to MY intelligence. Show me a "Geologists for A Round Earth", or "Historians In Support of the Holocaust", or "Astronomers Against the Moon Hoax" group.

How many experts have to tell you you're wrong before you believe them? 1? 10? 100? 1000? Yea, you want ALL of them. And even then it won't be enough. I would bet money that if every single expert from around the world literally sent you a certified letter telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that they support the "official story", your spiel wouldn't change one iota.

You will receive the proof of your assertion when the real engineers at the ASCE journal rip Heiwa's idiocy to shreds. He will rave about religious fundamentalists and the NWO and Bill, of course, will chirp his agreement.

 

[FineWine]

We are into a never-before-seen iteration of 'te Emperor's new Clothes'. Le's face it- the vast majority of engineers and other qualified people say anything at all. That is not the same as them supporting the official verson of events.

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

The perps are playing for time. No more than that.

You posted this idiocy twice. I suppose I should destroy it twice:

How many thousands of engineers are involved with the NIST reports, the FEMA reports, the Purdue simulations, the Berkeley simulations, the independent work by NIST critics such as Frank Greening and Gregory Urich? The perps, the nineteen hijackers, are dead. Only an agenda-driven megalomaniac devoid of critical thinking skills such as Heiwa could dream that the total absence of voiced dissent in the engineering community does not reflect the absence of unvoiced dissent.

 

[Heiwa]

The International Building Code 2006 allows engineers to use rigid bodies in specific applications if certain basic assumptions are made.

There are some types of analysis that CANNOT be done by hand without rigid elements.

If you are not interested in the deformation of an element you simply put it at 0. It simplifies long hand calculations. But in order to enter The Heiwa Challenge I strongly recommend that you use elements that deform in your design! Otherwise it will not break at all!

 

[Heiwa]

If the maximum weight that the floor can hold is m=90, it doesn't matter whether the masses are dropped in small increments or all at once.

Doesn't it? Take a floor that is supported by four columns in the corners! It looks like a kitchen table. It can support a certain dynamic load, DL, applied on the floor, i.e. the table top.

Say that you apply 2 DL suddenly - BANG - and tell me what happens!

Say that you apply 0.02 DL one after the other - ping, ping ... etc. - and what happens then?

Assume that one column fails before the other three. Does it affect the process?

Details like these are important to understand when designing a structure of The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Many of them are not even aware that there is a controversy having taken the mainstream version of events at face value. This situation will only erode with the passing of time as we reach out to those people and alert them.

I think this is an excellent idea, bill. I suggest you e-mail Heiwa's paper on the WTC collapses to every structural and civil engineer you can possibly track down, accompanied by a demand that they take notice of this scandalous coverup and act to expose it at once. That should do an excellent job of mobilising support for one side of the argument, though possibly not the side you were hoping to aid.

Dave

 

[bill smith]

I think this is an excellent idea, bill. I suggest you e-mail Heiwa's paper on the WTC collapses to every structural and civil engineer you can possibly track down, accompanied by a demand that they take notice of this scandalous coverup and act to expose it at once. That should do an excellent job of mobilising support for one side of the argument, though possibly not the side you were hoping to aid.

Dave

Dear Engineer/Architect.

1.I say that no structure on Earth can be crushed down flat on the ground by the top 10% of itself by gravity alone. Agree/disagree

2. I say that 4mm aluminium will not penetrate a 14'' x 14'' x 3/8'' well-braced steel box column. Agree/disagree.

...any additions Dave ?