The Heiwa Challenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
TruthersLie said:
We have shown you that 33% can crushdown 67%... isn't that amazing?
Click to expand...

Yes, amazing ... and impossible. And that's what The Heiwa Challenge is all about. See post #1. Do not spam this thread with irrelevant videos of controlled demolitions of all kinds using explosives, etc.

The Heiwa Challenge is much simpler - just drop the top C of your structure and show that it can one-way crush bottom A.

If your structure has external, vertical elements, ensure that they are crushed down (deformed, ripped apart, pushed down, etc) and not blown out sideways in big assemblies, etc, etc.

Keep track of the connections of the elements and establish where you want the failures due to gravity forces to occur in your structure; in the connections or in the elements themselves, i.e. what is strongest; the connection or the element?

Be guided by the NIST standard; kinetic energy (due gravity acting on upper part C) is to be applied so that it exceeds the capability of the structure, i.e. its elements and connections of part A, to absorb it as strain.

Be warned by the Bazant theory; "When the upper floor crashes into the lower one, with a layer of rubble between them, the initial height h of the story is reduced ... . After that, the load can increase without bounds."

So be careful! It seems by dropping C on A the load can increase without bounds according Bazant! It sounds NWO to me. In my universe the load will be reduced pretty quickly and soon arrested.
 
Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.
 
Oscar said:
Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.
Click to expand...

Are you completely unable to contribute without insult or irrelevance.

Welcome to my ignore list.
 
Who rattled your cage? I only suggested an independent adjudicator as it's obvious that Heiwa can't do it.
 
Oscar said:
Someone suggested an independent adjudicator for the Heiwa challenge and I agree. It's obvious that Heiwa is not fit to adjudicate his own challenge, so an impartial, objective third party should do it.

The outcome might cause Heiwa to froth a bit because he has shown no understanding of what people without a screw loose keep telling him, but that's his problem.

Time for the judging panel to give their scores.

I hope Heiwa has the money to put where his mouth is.
Click to expand...


What engineer could that the Heiwa Challenge seriously and also be impartial?
 
releaseeabode said:
I thought there was already a thread addressing Ronan Point?
Click to expand...

Exactly! It was created in response to some completely erroneous claims by Heiwa concerning said collapse, and now he's avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure there's a good reason; well, beyond simply not wanting to admit that he was wrong, of course.
 
Architect said:
Exactly! It was created in response to some completely erroneous claims by Heiwa concerning said collapse, and now he's avoiding it like the plague.

I'm sure there's a good reason; well, beyond simply not wanting to admit that he was wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

And it is off topic in here.

You guys can't have your cake and eat it.
 
releaseeabode said:
And it is off topic in here.

You guys can't have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think any of us here would consider a polite reminder - and it is excrutiatingly polite - to be bad form at all.

And, I have to ask you, why do you think Heiwa is avoiding the Ronan Point thread which originated in response to one of HIS posts?

A final word of advice; keep popping eveyone on ignore and bandying around the kind of sniping that you have been, and you'll be suspended in a few days. Steady the buffs, as Biggles always said.
 
Heiwa said:
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!
Click to expand...

Funny, that. So far you've said that you'll pay $1M to anyone who can disprove your axiom, but that this is separate to the Heiwa Challenge which is for fun only. Then you said that the Heiwa Challenge was closed. Now you're saying that the Heiwa Challenge is to show that the axiom is flawed, and is still open. You've also said that the Heiwa Challenge requires that a structure be designed that will exhibit crush-down, but you're now saying that the Heiwa Challenge can be won by showing that the Axiom is flawed, which the posted videos indisputably show.

Could you please try a little harder to keep track of which pack of lies you're telling at what time?

Dave
 
releaseeabode said:
Are you completely unable to contribute without insult or irrelevance.
Click to expand...

Heiwa has offered a million dollar prize to anyone who can disprove his axiom, but chosen to be the adjudicator. The conflict of interests is rather obvious, don't you think? That, together with the fact that Heiwa is now rejecting examples that clearly disprove his axiom on the basis of his own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, means that a discussion of his impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but I would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
That, together with the fact that Heiwa is now rejecting examples that clearly disprove his axiom on the basis of his own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, means that a discussion of his impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but I would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

Dave
Click to expand...

Well, this is The Heiwa Challenge thread! See post #1. Very simple - just design/build a structure, etc, etc. A practical exercise.

The result so far is disappointing for some and quite good for me, i.e. nobody has been able to design/build a structure ... where dropping the top destroys it.

Is it too difficult? I have even offered money if you can describe the phenomenon theoretically. No takers! Of course, the theoretical part is quite difficult, but the practical?

Bazant has done one attempt to do it theoretically. In 1-D. A line A that disappears or is compressed into another line B, when it is impacted by another line C. Very theoretical! Has nothing to do with reality.

NIST has provided a standard. KE of line/part C exceeds the strain energy absorption capacity of line/part A = A disappears. Asking NIST to clarify results in ... silence.

Some JREFers spam the forum with videos of controlled demolitions or demolitions caused by explosives or bad workmanship suggesting that WTC 1 & 2 were not destroyed by controlled demolitions. I see no logic there.

Dave suggests that I am now rejecting examples that clearly disprove my axiom on the basis of my own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, and that it means that a discussion of my impartiality and competence is not only relevant, but, Dave argues, would argue necessary, in a thread discussing his challenge.

A bit unclear and off topic. I wonder why Dave cannot design/build a structure to prove his point, whatever it is. That's the purpose of this long and interesting thread; The Heiwa Challenge.
 
Last edited:
I wonder why Heiwa can't go to the Ronan Point thread and defend his position regarding Ronan Point?
 
the Heiwa challenge is not about real buildings according to you now
which would probably be fine... unless... YOURE POSTING YOUR STUPID CHALLENGE IN A 9/11 CONSPIRACY FORUM (you know where 4 very real buildings are discussed), not a tinkertoy forum

which in turn, based on your latest dodges and goal post shifts, MAKES THE BULK OF YOUR (almost) 3000 POSTS COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC
thank you for wasting everyone's time for the last 2 years
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Some JREFers spam the forum with videos of controlled demolitions or demolitions caused by explosives or bad workmanship suggesting that WTC 1 & 2 were not destroyed by controlled demolitions. I see no logic there.
Click to expand...

I see no logic in this challenge.
Heiwa said:
Dave suggests that I am now rejecting examples that clearly disprove my axiom on the basis of my own deliberate misrepresentation of their content, <snip>
Click to expand...

This has been proven many many times in this thread.
Heiwa said:
A bit unclear and off topic. I wonder why Dave cannot design/build a structure to prove his point, whatever it is. That's the purpose of this long and interesting thread; The Heiwa Challenge.
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to see why this challenge is even in this forum.
 
EnJaySee said:
I see no logic in this challenge.


This has been proven many many times in this thread.


I'm struggling to see why this challenge is even in this forum.
Click to expand...

The reason is explained in post #1.

On other threads at JREF we can see how structures (buildings) are easily destroyed in France and none of these structures (buildings) fulfill The Heiwa Challenge condition § 4 (see below). Reason is that in France, when you destroy buildings, the structure is prepared for destruction by removing primary structural elements so that the structure becomes like a 'house of cards' that only needs a little kick to collapse. No explosives, etc, etc. are needed. Just a little kick! And then you are really certain that destruction will follow!

Thus these French structures (buildings) do not comply with § 4 of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. : 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart.

Hopefully this clarifies the situation for many people? Now, carry on with your designs/constructions for The Heiwa Challenge.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
The reason is explained in post #1.

On other threads at JREF we can see how structures (buildings) are easily destroyed in France and none of these structures (buildings) fulfill The Heiwa Challenge condition § 4 (see below). Reason is that in France, when you destroy buildings, the structure is prepared for destruction by removing primary structural elements so that the structure becomes like a 'house of cards' that only needs a little kick to collapse. No explosives, etc, etc. are needed. Just a little kick! And then you are really certain that destruction will follow!

Thus these French structures (buildings) do not comply with § 4 of The Heiwa Challenge, i.e. : 4. Before drop test the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart.

Hopefully this clarifies the situation for many people? Now, carry on with your designs/constructions for The Heiwa Challenge.
Click to expand...

So it took you 2 days to try to weasle out of it. Nice try twoof. I bet you were sooooooo :mad:

But as we can see, they have only weakened 2 floors in most of the buildings.

Provide PROOF that they have weakened ANY other floors.

I await your citation to back that crapola up.

Be able to withstand a SMALL lateral impact at the top w/out falling apart.

how SMALL?

I mean in one of them , they had to TEAR OUT THE FREAKING WALL :jaw-dropp to make it collapse. Until the WALL WAS TORN COMPLETELY OUT, I think that counts as a "small" lateral impact. (until the whole wall was torn out)

hahahahahaha.

shift them goalposts. Very nice. But complete and utter bs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom