Heiwa has taken the unusual, but not particularly surprising, tactic of declaring information from his own web site as being "irrelevant". So it looks like I will have to continue without his help. Doubtless, he will claim that I don't understand his web site and will offer to explain it to me.
Here is the first serious gaffe from his website:
There are 280+ support elements between any floor; only two are indicated in the model.
This invalidates the model immediately, because it fails to acknowledge that there is a major difference between the core columns and perimeter columns in modern skyscrapers. It is the core columns that provide the vertical support that becomes stronger the closer to the ground it gets. This is the part of the structure that is key to Heiwa's theory. The perimeter columns, which are the only ones he shows in his model, serve the function of providing stiffness and transmitting load to the core column through the floors. Since the core columns aren't even there in his model, it becomes nonsensical.
There are thus two possibilities:
i) weaker support elements fail between floors #98/99 above impact, or
ii) stronger support elements fail between floors #96/97 below impact.
Note that the supports are virtual and broken supports just disappear at no time.
Let's assume that these failures initiate a second free fall drop.
In case i) it will be a reduced section C of mass 13 m that drops and impacts floor #98.
In case ii) it will be an increased section C of mass 15 m that drops and impacts floor #96.
Here we see that Heiwa's theory lacks internal consistency. He claims that if the stronger section breaks first, then the moving section increases in mass by one unit, while if the weaker section breaks first, then the moving section decreases in mass by one unit.
Something about the properties of a stronger section allows it to continue to apply force after it fails, while the properties of a weaker section are fundamentally different: Failed supports "disappear" and no longer apply any force at all.
How? He doesn't say. We just have to take his word for it.
At this second impact and high pressure between two elements the structure compresses elastically again and once more the question is - what support elements will break, if any? The ones below or the ones above? Or none.
The ones below are getting stronger and stronger relative to any undamaged supports above. So sooner or later the weaker supports above will start to fail!
In the real world the weaker supports above in a structure cannot crush the stronger supports below. The worst case is that all supports in upper section C are broken and then any crush-down is arrested.
This implies two things: That the supports in one section or another will fail, but not both, and that a failed column is unable to exert any force.
The former is a false dichotomy. The latter is a physical impossibility.
How would the stationary section "know" whether the mass crushing down on it is composed of failed or intact supports? The only difference is that, once the "weaker" elements become crushed, they actually exert more force because they can no longer absorb energy by deforming.
Heiwa has not shown that a "one-way crush-down" (whatever he means by that) is not possible. Of course, he will simply counter, once again, that his theory is not understood.
Perhaps he should learn to communicate clearly.
