The Heiwa Challenge

[Heiwa]

Of course they wouldn't suddenly and spontaneously collapse. If you work an airliner traveling about 600mph slamming into the building and partially severing important structural elements and also work a raging fire into the equation, a crush-down seems to happen 100% of the time in these cases.

As I say:

... you can fly as many planes as you like into the tops of towers with steel structures or put tops of towers with steel structure on fire and ... there is no risk what so ever that the towers suddenly one way crush down collapses down to ground in millions of pieces.

 

[CHF]

Several structures have been entered. Your refusal to admit you're a fool is no one's problem but your own.

 

[Heiwa]

Several structures have been entered. Your refusal to admit you're a fool is no one's problem but your own.

?? Every structure must have a designer and comply with post #1. No such structure will be refused. No fool or foolish design will be refused. NIST is invited to show their standard design! Mackey also! You too! Be a winner!

 

[stateofgrace]

Nevermind.

 

[Justin39640]

wow
some would call that getting totally PWNED
he even broke down into spamming close to a dozen times
isnt that a rule 6 violation?

ETA:

 

[Locknar]

I have moved a number of posts to AAH; please keep the conversation civil and polite, attack the argument not the arguer, and on topic....all without flooding the Forum with repetitive posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[willhaven]

Thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge! When will you enter your structure?

WTC towers 1 and 2 are my structure. Do they qualify or not?

AA. According FEMA, NIST, Bazant and Mackey (??) crushing is straight down. That big, heavy, perimeter wall panels/spandrels assemblies were pushed out from a 95% air structure is 100% evidence of controlled demolition.

If we see panels being thrown hundreds of feet, "straight down" is obviously meant as a general expectation and not a literal observation. If you're wanting to split hairs and say that cladding falling outward means the building is not falling "straight down," then your challenge is flawed. Your challenge should represent a general picture of the WTC collapse, including outer cladding falling well away from the structure. The structure did not topple, it crushed itself downward and some elements fell hundreds of feet away from the footprint.

BB. No, all cuts of core columns seen in the rubble is prior clean up. I wonder how FEMA/FBI/NIST missed that!

Not true.

You have any images of cut beams from before the cleanup? I don't believe they exist. In the one image that gets thrown around all the time, I distinctly remember a cleanup crew member in the rubble as well.

CC. As have said many times. A structure cannot be crushed down by dropping a piece on it = The Björkman Axiom. Google for more details.

And the videos in the other threads about the French collapses using hydraulics and gravity to crush buildings?

EE. I do not understand! Fire, cladding fell outward??? Equation? Pls, clarify.

You're saying that none of the building can fall outward. The WTC had parts of the structure fall outward. If the challenge is to replicate the WTC without using controlled demolition, both fire and parts falling well out of the footprint of the building should be additions to the challenge.

FF. The Heiwa Challenge is clear and simple. The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1. In my view part C of both towers are destroyed long before the parts A are destroyed. You can see it on all videos. I know Bazant has another opinion; C crushing down A producing part B(azant) before B crushes up C.

The challenge is clear and simple, but it is not representative of the WTC towers, therefore it is an irrelevant comparison and insufficient to prove or disprove any WTC collapse/demolition theory.

What's your opinion about B(azant)? What part does it/he plays in this mass murder? And yourself? What is your agenda?

My agenda is simply to dispel myths and misconceptions. To think critically.

So, knowing what you know about WTC 1 and 2, do they qualify for the Heiwa Challenge or not?

 

[Heiwa]

WTC towers 1 and 2 are my structure. Do they qualify or not?


If we see panels being thrown hundreds of feet, "straight down" is obviously meant as a general expectation and not a literal observation. If you're wanting to split hairs and say that cladding falling outward means the building is not falling "straight down," then your challenge is flawed. Your challenge should represent a general picture of the WTC collapse, including outer cladding falling well away from the structure. The structure did not topple, it crushed itself downward and some elements fell hundreds of feet away from the footprint.

Not true.

You have any images of cut beams from before the cleanup? I don't believe they exist. In the one image that gets thrown around all the time, I distinctly remember a cleanup crew member in the rubble as well.


And the videos in the other threads about the French collapses using hydraulics and gravity to crush buildings?


You're saying that none of the building can fall outward. The WTC had parts of the structure fall outward. If the challenge is to replicate the WTC without using controlled demolition, both fire and parts falling well out of the footprint of the building should be additions to the challenge.


The challenge is clear and simple, but it is not representative of the WTC towers, therefore it is an irrelevant comparison and insufficient to prove or disprove any WTC collapse/demolition theory.

My agenda is simply to dispel myths and misconceptions. To think critically.

So, knowing what you know about WTC 1 and 2, do they qualify for the Heiwa Challenge or not?

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test? Design your own structure and let it selfdestruct by dropping the top on it. If you can. It is evidently impossible, but you can always try. It will help you think critically.

 

[Dog Town]

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test?

Scale will forever escape you, huh?

 

[A W Smith]

Scale will forever escape you, huh?

No he understands scaling perfectly well after I educated him on it some time ago via MIT professor Walter Lewin's lecture

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

So what he is doing now is trying to use the effects of scaling to debunk the towers collapse. He knows if we scale down a model. It cannot possibly perform on the scale of a life size skyscraper. Which is exactly why he is handwaving off all those french hydralic demolitions which destroy his argument. And insisting that we build a small scale model. So it is not a challenge at all if you understand scaling. which Heiwa hopes we don't. Because scaling debunks his challenge.

 

[Heiwa]

No he understands scaling perfectly well after I educated him on it some time ago via MIT professor Walter Lewin's lecture

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

So what he is doing now is trying to use the effects of scaling to debunk the towers collapse. He knows if we scale down a model. It cannot possibly perform on the scale of a life size skyscraper. Which is exactly why he is handwaving off all those french hydralic demolitions which destroy his argument. And insisting that we build a small scale model. So it is not a challenge at all if you understand scaling. which Heiwa hopes we don't. Because scaling debunks his challenge.

Hm, a Heiwa Challenge structure design evidently is always full scale. But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big. Dropping the top of it will just result in a bounce or local failures. Never a one-way crush down of lower part.

Pls, try to design a structure that self-destructs. Don't just chatter like ... you know! Use your brains! Design/build a structure! Follow the NIST advice and Bazant's theory and see how it POUFF destroys itself when top is dropped. Isn't it amazing?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Scale will forever escape you, huh?

Scaling down is what makes his challenge flawed.

ETA: AW beat me to it.

 

[willhaven]

As I say: The WTC towers may qualify if the designers comply with post # 1.

But why rebuild the WTC towers for a test? Design your own structure and let it selfdestruct by dropping the top on it. If you can. It is evidently impossible, but you can always try. It will help you think critically.

Why would I bother rebuilding it? The WTC towers themselves were the right size and scale. The WTC towers as they stood in 2001 were the right weight and of roughly uniform density. Roughly 1/10 of one of the building top collapsed down into the rest of it and crushed it completely.

So I win right? The WTC towers 1 and 2 are the perfect example to win the Heiwa Challenge! 1:1 scale. Same materials. Same location. Same stresses applied. It's perfect!

If you want to see how it was built and see how it collapsed, I can provide you with lots of information on how it was done. Let me know.

 

[A W Smith]

But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big.

Yes. Yes it does. And you know that. I have called you out Anders.
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/VideoLectures/detail/embed01.htm

Galileo Galilei asked himself the question: Why are mammals as large as they are and not much larger? He had a very clever reasoning which I've never seen in print.
But it comes down to the fact that he argued that if the mammal becomes too massive that the bones will break and he thought that that was a limiting factor.
Even though I've never seen his reasoning in print I will try to reconstruct it what could have gone through his head.
Here is a mammal.
And this is one of the four legs of the mammal.
And this mammal has a size S.
And what I mean by that is a mouse is yay big and a cat is yay big.
That's what I mean by size--
very crudely defined.
The mass of the mammal is M and this mammal has a thigh bone which we call the femur, which is here.
And the femur of course carries the body, to a large extent.
And let's assume that the femur has a length l and has a thickness d.
Here is a femur.
This is what a femur approximately looks like.
So this will be the length of the femur...
and this will be the thickness, d and this will be the cross-sectional area A.
I'm now going to take you through what we call in physics a scaling argument.
I would argue that the length of the femur must be proportional to the size of the animal.
That's completely plausible.
If an animal is four times larger than another you would need four times longer legs.
And that's all this is saying.
It's very reasonable.
It is also very reasonable that the mass of an animal is proportional to the third power of the size because that's related to its volume.
And so if it's related to the third power of the size it must also be proportional to the third power of the length of the femur because of this relationship.
Okay, that's one.
Now comes the argument.
Pressure on the femur is proportional to the weight of the animal divided by the cross-section A of the femur.
That's what pressure is.
And that is the mass of the animal that's proportional to the mass of the animal divided by d squared because we want the area here, it's proportional to d squared.
Now follow me closely.
If the pressure is higher than a certain level the bones will break.
Therefore, for an animal not to break its bones when the mass goes up by a certain factor let's say a factor of four in order for the bones not to break d squared must also go up by a factor of four.
That's a key argument in the scaling here.
You really have to think that through carefully.
Therefore, I would argue that the mass must be proportional to d squared.
This is the breaking argument.
Now compare these two.
The mass is proportional to the length of the femur to the power three and to the thickness of the femur to the power two.
Therefore, the thickness of the femur to the power two must be proportional to the length l and therefore the thickness of the femur must be proportional to l to the power three-halfs.
A very interesting result.
What is this result telling you? It tells you that if I have two animals and one is ten times larger than the other then S is ten times larger that the lengths of the legs are ten times larger but that the thickness of the femur is 30 times larger because it is l to the power three halves.
If I were to compare a mouse with an elephant an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size so the length of the femur of the elephant would be a hundred times larger than that of a mouse but the thickness of the femur would have to be 1,000 times larger.
And that may have convinced Galileo Galilei that that's the reason why the largest animals are as large as they are.
Because clearly, if you increase the mass there comes a time that the thickness of the bones is the same as the length of the bones.
You're all made of bones and that is biologically not feasible.
And so there is a limit somewhere set by this scaling law.
Well, I wanted to bring this to a test.
After all I brought my grandmother's statement to a test so why not bring Galileo Galilei's statement to a test? And so I went to Harvard where they have a beautiful collection of femurs and I asked them for the femur of a raccoon and a horse.
A raccoon is this big a horse is about four times bigger so the length of the femur of a horse must be about four times the length of the raccoon.
Close.
So I was not surprised.
Then I measured the thickness, and I said to myself, "Aha!" If the length is four times higher then the thickness has to be eight times higher if this holds.
And what I'm going to plot for you you will see that shortly is d divided by l, versus l and that, of course, must be proportional to l to the power one-half.
I bring one l here.
So, if I compare the horse and I compare the raccoon I would argue that the thickness divided by the length of the femur for the horse must be the square root of four, twice as much as that of the raccoon.
And so I was very anxious to plot that, and I did that and I'll show you the result.
Here is my first result.
So we see there, d over l.
I explained to you why I prefer that.
And here you see the length.
You see here the raccoon and you see the horse.
And if you look carefully, then the d over l for the horse is only about one and a half times larger than the raccoon.
Well, I wasn't too disappointed.
One and a half is not two, but it is in the right direction.
The horse clearly has a larger value for d over l than the raccoon.
I realized I needed more data, so I went back to Harvard.
I said, "Look, I need a smaller animal, an opossum maybe maybe a rat, maybe a mouse," and they said, "okay." They gave me three more bones.
They gave me an antelope which is actually a little larger than a raccoon and they gave me an opossum and they gave me a mouse.
Here is the bone of the antelope.
Here is the one of the raccoon.
Here is the one of the opossum.
And now you won't believe this.
This is so wonderful, so romantic.
There is the mouse.
( students laugh ) Isn't that beautiful? Teeny, weeny little mouse? That's only a teeny, weeny little femur.
And there it is.
And I made the plot.
I was very curious what that plot would look like.
And...
here it is.
Whew! I was shocked.
I was really shocked.
Because look--
the horse is 50 times larger in size than the mouse.
The difference in d over l is only a factor of two.
And I expected something more like a factor of seven.
And so, in d over l, where I expect a factor of seven I only see a factor of two.
So I said to myself, "Oh, my goodness. Why didn't I ask them for an elephant?" The real clincher would be the elephant because if that goes way off scale maybe we can still rescue the statement by Galileo Galilei and so I went back and they said "Okay, we'll give you the femur of an elephant."
They also gave me one of a moose, believe it or not.
I think they wanted to get rid of me by that time to be frank with you.
And here is the femur of an elephant.
And I measured it.
The length and the thickness.
And it is very heavy.
It weighs a ton.
I plotted it, I was full of expectation.
I couldn't sleep all night.
And there's the elephant.
There is no evidence whatsoever that d over l is really larger for the elephant than for the mouse.
These vertical bars indicate my uncertainty in measurements of thickness and the horizontal scale, which is a logarithmic scale...
the uncertainty of the length measurements is in the thickness of the red pen so there's no need for me to indicate that any further.
And here you have your measurements in case you want to check them.
And look again at the mouse and look at the elephant.
The mouse has indeed only one centimeter length of the femur and the elephant is, indeed, hundred times longer.
So the first scaling argument that S is proportional to l that is certainly what you would expect because an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size.
But when you go to d over l, you see it's all over.
The d over l for the mouse is really not all that different from the elephant and you would have expected that number to be with the square root of 100 so you expect it to be ten times larger instead of about the same.

 

[Heiwa]

So I win right? The WTC towers 1 and 2 are the perfect example to win the Heiwa Challenge! 1:1 scale. Same materials. Same location. Same stresses applied. It's perfect!

If you want to see how it was built and see how it collapsed, I can provide you with lots of information on how it was done. Let me know.

No, you do not win! You have to design/build your own structure, etc, etc. You can of course copy WTC 1 or 2 and I look forward to that, i.e. how your structure is designed/built and how you think it will fail, when top is dropped. The path of failures is evidently of interest, to be verified at the real test. Good luck! We are really moving forward here.

 

[releaseeabode]

Hm, a Heiwa Challenge structure design evidently is always full scale. But if you read my papers you'll find that it doesn't matter the least if the structure is 1 or 1000 meters big. Dropping the top of it will just result in a bounce or local failures. Never a one-way crush down of lower part.

Pls, try to design a structure that self-destructs. Don't just chatter like ... you know! Use your brains! Design/build a structure! Follow the NIST advice and Bazant's theory and see how it POUFF destroys itself when top is dropped. Isn't it amazing?

If I was going to design/build a structure for the challenge and I thought scale would work to my advantage in any way then, I would design that into it! Especially as your challenge states that it can be any size.

Constantly whining about it would just be bringing it to the attention of the rest of the class and giving away an edge. My suggestion to the other contributors is that if you think scaling gives you an edge then keep quiet about it and use it to win the challenge.

 

[Baylor]

. My suggestion to the other contributors is that if you think scaling gives you an edge then keep quiet about it and use it to win the challenge.

Already done, so stop with the lame cyber lectures.

 

[TruthersLie]

No, you do not win! You have to design/build your own structure, etc, etc. You can of course copy WTC 1 or 2 and I look forward to that, i.e. how your structure is designed/built and how you think it will fail, when top is dropped. The path of failures is evidently of interest, to be verified at the real test. Good luck! We are really moving forward here.

hahahahaha.

stop whining you intellectual midget.

You have stated repeatedly that 49% cannot crushdown 51%. Isn't that correct?

Have you modified your axiom (snicker), or do you still stand by that completely BS claim?

We have provided 7 examples of a crushdown, and in 2 of them we have 3 floors crushing down over 10 floors.

are you really that much of an intellectual coward that you cannot admit that a crushdown/crush up doesn't happen?

 

[Heiwa]

hahahahaha.

stop whining you intellectual midget.

You have stated repeatedly that 49% cannot crushdown 51%. Isn't that correct?

Have you modified your axiom (snicker), or do you still stand by that completely BS claim?

We have provided 7 examples of a crushdown, and in 2 of them we have 3 floors crushing down over 10 floors.

are you really that much of an intellectual coward that you cannot admit that a crushdown/crush up doesn't happen?

What I state is:

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.

A.k.a. Björkman's Axiom.

The examples you show of various controlled demolitions confirm this axiom, e.g. you first destroy a large part of the greater, lower structural part A (that is also weakened in different ways) and allow the upper part C, which is quite big or bigger than the lower part A, to drop into the local rubble, whereby both parts suffer further failures with ground assisting, etc, etc. Thus you have to destroy the lower part A first to destroy the structure.

However, WTC 1 is another matter. The upper part C is very small compared with the lower part A. The alleged drop height of C is also very small, so energy applied is small. And that energy cannot drive any 'one-way' crush of the lower structural part. Part C should just land on part A causing some local failures to C and A.

Thanks for your interest in The Heiwa Challenge. I look forward of your structural design that does not follow my Axiom!

 

[TruthersLie]

Are you dense?
were you dropped on your head?

IN ALL of the examples provided to you a
SMALLER PART OF the structure is dropped on the larger part of the structure.

And then GRAVITY (by itself) causes the crushdown.

None of the lower parts in ANY of the examples provided to you have been weakened.

Pleae provide a single citation or source to show the lower structures have been weakened. You dont' have any.

How do you destroy a LARGE part of the greater? They have removed a floor or TWO. That isn't destroying a Large part.

ROFLMAO.

So again and again. Weren't you saying that 49% cannot crush down 51%? Yes or no coward.

We have shown you that 33% can crushdown 67%... isn't that amazing?