The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

Upper part drops onto lower part
[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydralicdemolition.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/hydcd2.jpg[/qimg]

Nice pictures. Now design/build a similar structure and participate in The Heiwa Challenge. The real thing only counts!

 

[Heiwa]

ROFLMAO!!!!!!

hahahahahaha.

Oh poor heiwa... we have now shown a crushdown with the smaller part A crushing the LARGER part c from REAL LIFE.

and you try to handwave it away, because they have to be "YOUR" design.

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

You have shown a crushdown from REAL LIFE? Controlled demolitions of various types do not qualify ... just a simple drop of upper part on lower part is sufficient (and details of the structure, of course).

 

[TruthersLie]

You have shown a crushdown from REAL LIFE? Controlled demolitions of various types do not qualify ... just a simple drop of upper part on lower part is sufficient (and details of the structure, of course).

PMSLMAO.

Did you not just see 6 different videos showing a crushdown? Yes or no heiwa.

Controlled demoltions? They pushed out one floor, with hydraulic jacks. That is it...

that is "dropping of upper part on the lower part."

but handwave, and shift shift shift.

I thought you were an ENGINEER? Now we know for a fact that you are a dishonest, intellectual midget.

now run and hide heiwa. Run away from simple questions. Run, RUN.

 

[Heiwa]

PMSLMAO.

Did you not just see 6 different videos showing a crushdown? Yes or no heiwa.

Controlled demoltions? They pushed out one floor, with hydraulic jacks. That is it...

that is "dropping of upper part on the lower part."

but handwave, and shift shift shift.

I thought you were an ENGINEER? Now we know for a fact that you are a dishonest, intellectual midget.

now run and hide heiwa. Run away from simple questions. Run, RUN.

You only show videos of controlled demolitions and similar. There the structure, mostly concrete, has been weakened and prepared to be destroyed, explosives and/or external force/energy are applied to start destruction, etc, etc, and such structures do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge. See post #1 for details.

But I repeat:

The structure must be same top/bottom and bottom must carry top prior challenge test. Top is abt. 1/10 bottom!

Describe the elements and their connections (and, why not, describe the intact relevant load paths, and, why not, the expected path(s) of failures at drop/gravity energy applied and the expected result; elements and connections broken).

Then just drop top on bottom (and compare with calculations)!

PS - You'll find that top cannot apply, by gravity, the energy required to destroy the bottom.

 

[TruthersLie]

You only show videos of controlled demolitions and similar. There the structure, mostly concrete, has been weakened and prepared to be destroyed, explosives and/or external force/energy are applied to start destruction, etc, etc, and such structures do not qualify for The Heiwa Challenge. See post #1 for details.

But I repeat:

The structure must be same top/bottom and bottom must carry top prior challenge test. Top is abt. 1/10 bottom!

Describe the elements and their connections (and, why not, describe the intact relevant load paths, and, why not, the expected path(s) of failures at drop/gravity energy applied and the expected result; elements and connections broken).

Then just drop top on bottom (and compare with calculations)!

PS - You'll find that top cannot apply, by gravity, the energy required to destroy the bottom.

We have found that like with RONIN point you are talking out of your rear.

They did NOT weaken the lower floors. They only weakened 2 floors which is where the hydraulics were used.

And weren't you the one saying NUMEROUS TIMES ON THIS VERY THREAD that 49% wouldn't crush down 51%.

handwave handwave handwave.
Thank you intellectual midget.

Your claims have been completely destroyed and you run and hide from it. Hahahahahaha.

We have found that THE TOP WHEN DROPPED ON THE BOTTOM destroys it down.

amazing that isn't it?

Are you like other twoofs who ignore the strutrual differences between the towers and other structures ALL the time... except when shown that a CRUSH DOWN/CRUSH UP is not only possible, but USED REPEATEDLY, then the structural differences are noticable and can't be compared.

Oh Anders... that is just tooooooo funny.

next time do your homework.

 

[Heiwa]

We have found that ...

We have found that THE TOP WHEN DROPPED ON THE BOTTOM destroys it down.

amazing that isn't it?

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

 

[BigAl]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Troll much?

 

[TruthersLie]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Hahahahahaha.

I love it when flounder are talking about foundering...

We have presented you with 6 REAL structures, which met ALL of your requirements, that have then "dropped" the top part (which was LESS than 50%) and it crushed down.

Come on twoof... do some RESEARCH into that method of demolitions. YOu are the one who is dodging and handwaving.

Poor widdle anders...

I'll take that $million... oh wait, you LIED about that too.

ROFLMAO.

go back to ships

 

[twinstead]

Yes, amazing! The Heiwa Challenge is to demonstrate that it is amazing. Have a go with a real structure! Pls report facts, pls do not report opinions with no foundation what you found. Do not founder (my speciality - I will tell you how!).

Wow. I had hoped for a more, uh, shall we say....rational response to the collapses in question. What the hell is this? We aren't telling you that it's our opinion there's examples out there that definitively prove your "axiom" wrong, we have given you actual videos of them.

I found those videos interesting. I learned something in the last few days. Why can't you?

 

[EnJaySee]

I'd like to propose The REAL HEIWA CHALLENGE

Nothing too complex. Just get him to admit his views on building collapse are incorrect and therefore his Axiom is flawed.

 

[Heiwa]

I'd like to propose The REAL HEIWA CHALLENGE

Nothing too complex. Just get him to admit his views on building collapse are incorrect and therefore his Axiom is flawed.

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

 

[Justin39640]

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

heiwa
i would hate to point this out
but er..
you said under no circumstances is that possible

the french must not have read your paper....

 

[TruthersLie]

Why not start with the Axiom?:

A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Show that the Axiom is flawed (e.g. by designing a suitable structure, top of which, etc, etc) and ... you win The Heiwa Challenge!

hahahahaha.

Great...
the french have won it.

3 of those 6 videos have the smaller part of an isotropic 3-d structure, which when dropped on the greater part of the same structure caused a one way crush down of the greater part.

Nice attempt at the dodge
"dropped by gravity" (laughing dogs.gif)

 

[Justin39640]

i think this is appropriate

 

[Heiwa]

hahahahaha.

Great...
the french have won it.

3 of those 6 videos have the smaller part of an isotropic 3-d structure, which when dropped on the greater part of the same structure caused a one way crush down of the greater part.

Nice attempt at the dodge
"dropped by gravity" (laughing dogs.gif)

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

 

[stateofgrace]

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

WRONG troll. Here is the challenge

The Heiwa Challenge


It is assumed at JREF 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Forum that a structure will be crushed, if you drop a piece (1/10th) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it!

Conditions:

1. The structure is supposed to have a certain cross area A and height h and is fixed on the ground. The structure is an assembly of various elements of any type. It can be any size!
2. The structure should be more or less identical from h = 0 to h = h, e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements may be reinforced or made a little stronger, if required. Connections between elements should be similar throughout.
3. It is recognized that the structure may be a little higher stressed at h=0 than h=h due to uniform density, elements, etc.
4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before test 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at h = 0.9 h without damaging the structure.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 h high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 h high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush part A (if you can! That's the test).
9. In order to easily repeat the test/challenge drop height should be <1.1 h, i.e. C can only be dropped from 2h above ground on A that is 0.9 h high.
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other after test, i.e. drop by part C on A.

Have a try! I look forward to your structures!

Heiwa

I guess when you lie so often it is hard to keep track of them, right troll ?

 

[TruthersLie]

You are supposed to design a structure, drop the top, etc. Pls not copy/paste old videos and photos of whatever.

hahahahaha.

You have stated REPEATEDLY that it is NOT POSSIBLE for a smaller part A to crush down a LARGER part C.

You have acted like a troll. An ignorant troll.

so we have provided you with REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of a smaller part A crushing DOWN a larger part C.

Do you admit that they have?

Yes or no.

gravity driven collapse. No explosives. NO weakening of support structures on lower levels.

All 6 of the examples provided to you EXIST in the real world. Thank you very much... The heiwa challenge has been answered and the structures are REAL and then did crush down. Amazing isn't it?

But you will handwave, and try to dodge around. But it is over Heiwa. You should just admit that you have been exposed to crushdown from a smaller part to the larger part.

You were going on about how 49% couldn't crushdown the 51%. Do the videos show that you are full of crap? Yes they do.

ROFLMAO.
(yes, I am laughing at YOU.)

 

[Justin39640]

good thing these are all new videos or we would be debating
"PORTA-POWER IS AN INSIDE JOB!!!"

 

[Architect]

Heiwa has an international reputation in the field of structural damage analysis.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call you on that one. Evidence, please.

We are, after all, talking about the man hiding from the Ronan Point thread where he's been unable to substantiate his own structural analysis.

 

[twinstead]

Well, Heiwa has a reputation, all right, but I don't think it's the one bill is talking about.