The Heiwa Challenge

Originally posted by Heiwa
The French Vérinage method to tear down buildings doesn't qualify for the Heiwa Challenge. In Vérinage you destroy the 1/3 mid-height of the building by hydraulic energy applied (from outside), the 1/3 top drops down and is crushed in contact with the bottom 1/3 part.

In the Heiwa Challenge you shall drop the 1/10 top C on the bottom 9/10 A and crush down A without damaging C. Ask Bazant and NIST how to do it!

It is curious how people can fail to see THE FACTS in the videos they select.

Not insisting on having correct information on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers within weeks of 9/11 was SCIENTIFICALLY RIDICULOUS!

Now the scientists have to keep everyone from understanding Newtonian physics forever to maintain the belief in this nonsense. And then we have educators talking about making American students competitive at science. ROFL

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


This applies ONLY to those who still think the WTC Towers were a controlled demolition event:

Now the scientists have to keep everyone from understanding Newtonian physics forever to maintain the belief in this nonsense.

MOST people here understand the reality of physics.

Only a few don't. The "Heiwa Challenge" is ridicuous, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. As its initial conditions are flawed in concept, thus it is irrelevant to the events at the WTC.

This is reinforced by the apparent efforts of the "challenger" himself, who inadvertently keeps making it worse, by missing the point entirely. AND, it appears, by continually "moving the goalposts" at a game that was improperly laid out to begin with.


The videos demonstrate, in at least three cases, the real effects of "Newtonian physics" involving those structures seen.

It doesn't take much of an intellectual leap to apply those same examples to the WTC Towers, when the full extent of the damage at the impact locations is comprehended. The results are unmistakable. As was seen.

reply to post by weedwhacker

This applies ONLY to those who still think the WTC Towers were a controlled demolition event:

This of course applies ONLY to those that support OS and NIST proven fraudulent report.
Science supports demolition of the WTC.
www.ae911truth.org...

When you can debunk these credible scientists with some real science and show your sources, you might be able to captivate my attention to change my mind, until then…
Your opinions mean nothing to people wanting to learn the truth when it comes to proven science.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
MOST people here understand the reality of physics.

Hey weedwhacker, I have a post here you ignored, that might as well be addressed to you:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There is not a single collapse theory for the WTC Towers that has any actual independent evidence backing it whatsoever. No theory has ever been tested or otherwise validated scientifically, as science requires theories to be put to the test by recreating the critical failure. This is not impossible, too complicated, or unreasonable to ask. NIST recreated everything they needed and put megawatt burners under it, and did not achieve their hypothesized failure. Never attempted any other physical tests, only computer simulations with parameters they admitted to adjusting until achieving their desired result. If you think that is "scientific" then you show your own intelligence.

This is the burden for any science. Always has been. The joke is on you.

According weedwhacker "The "Heiwa Challenge" is ridicuous, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. As its initial conditions are flawed in concept, thus it is irrelevant to the events at the WTC."

Anyway, describe any structure where top C one-way crushes-down bottom A, show it with a test (drop C on A) and you'll win Euro 10 000:-.

That shouldn't be too difficult? It would demonstrate that the WTC towers collapsed from top down by themselves and gravity.

However, so far nobody has been able to claim the Euro 10 000:-. Have a try instead of moaning and groaning.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Heiwa]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Heiwa]

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Heiwa]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

This applies ONLY to those who still think the WTC Towers were a controlled demolition event:

Now the scientists have to keep everyone from understanding Newtonian physics forever to maintain the belief in this nonsense.

MOST people here understand the reality of physics.

Only a few don't. The "Heiwa Challenge" is ridicuous, as has been repeatedly mentioned in this thread. As its initial conditions are flawed in concept, thus it is irrelevant to the events at the WTC.

This is reinforced by the apparent efforts of the "challenger" himself, who inadvertently keeps making it worse, by missing the point entirely. AND, it appears, by continually "moving the goalposts" at a game that was improperly laid out to begin with.


The videos demonstrate, in at least three cases, the real effects of "Newtonian physics" involving those structures seen.

It doesn't take much of an intellectual leap to apply those same examples to the WTC Towers, when the full extent of the damage at the impact locations is comprehended. The results are unmistakable. As was seen.

So why is it that these people who "understand physics" can't tell everyone the weight of a complete floor assembly and the NIST can't tell us the total amount of concrete in the towers?

Claiming to understand avoids the necessity of PROVING ANYTHING.

The videos don't demonstrate anything because the core cannot be seen in the collapse.

So build a model that can support its own weight but collapse itself with just its top 15%.

Talk is cheap. Physics is more complicated.

If physicists that talk about Black Holes and Big Bangs and String Theory can't build such a model then they proclaim themselves to be incompetents that should be ignored. They don't have to build physical models of Black Holes and Big Bangs so everyone has to accept that they know what they are talking about. But skyscrapers are a totally different matter. The Empire State Building was completed long before lots of sophisticated physics was developed. The neutron wasn't found until after the ESB was completed.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The Empire State Building was completed long before lots of sophisticated physics was developed.

Huh?

When do you think they built the Empire State Building, 850 B.C.?

It was completed in 1931. After Einstein published his Theory of Relativety. They may not have had sophisticated modern computing technology but I am pretty sure they knew a thing or two about physics.

reply to post by hooper


I believe he is referring to the difference between engineering/materials physics and theoretical physics. The ESB was built using engineering and materials physics, which is hands-on, tried-and-true, and must by its nature be extremely practical. Einstein's theory contributed to theoretical physics.

The science behind the WTC collapses should follow engineering and materials sciences, and fire science, which are all basic physical sciences whose principles could all be demonstrated in NIST's laboratories with basic equipment and verified. In other words the science behind the collapses should NOT be considered as if it were theoretical physics, and all we can do is wildly guess in the vacuum of technical data caused by the feds not releasing all of the necessary data for engineers to make all of their calculations without having to make more ASSUMPTIONS. This should be data that anyone can have access to and do technical research, and the hypothesized failure mechanism should have been so important to the engineering community after such a disaster -- twice in a row!! -- that NIST or FEMA or the ASCE or some university should have already put a recreated assembly together and recreated the failure mechanism by now.

It's a very specific mechanism according to NIST and it was the trusses separating from the exterior columns due to truss sagging. Materials and engineering science, NOT theoretical stuff that we have no way of verifying. Yet is has NEVER been verified! And this is the only part of the collapses that NIST even tried to analyze, the rest they just brushed off with a minimum of justification even though both collapses displayed similarities the whole way down, and thus common mechanisms the whole way down, not just at the initiation.

Where is all of this lab work?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
reply to post by hooper

 

Where is all of this lab work?

Well apparently it is sitting in a secure location seeing as releasing it has been deemed a threat to public safety.

You know VRTA, I couldn't agree with you more. It boggles the mind that there hasn't been complete transparency regarding the collapse evidence and study of it.

I ask myself how is it possible that there hasn't been a computer model of a exact copy of the towers built. Beam by beam, bolt by bolt, where you would be able to look at a beam flying through the air in the real collapse video and say ok that's beam 44 from the 48th floor. Or look at any of the beams stuck in the surrounding buildings and know exactly where it came from and even see it in the computer collapse model being launched into it's final resting place. A model that you could watch at any speed and see exactly how the building came apart, basically with out any of the dust and debris included, only the major columns, and anything used to hold the building together.

Is this really too much to ask for? It would seem this would answer a lot of questions. You also mean to tell me that with all of the millions of dollars NIST was given they couldn't produce this? You can bet if something like this doesn't already exist, that sometime in the future something as close to it will be made to try and answer any engineering questions.

reply to post by PersonalChoice

I ask myself how is it possible that there hasn't been a computer model of a exact copy of the towers built. Beam by beam, bolt by bolt, where you would be able to look at a beam flying through the air in the real collapse video and say ok that's beam 44 from the 48th floor. Or look at any of the beams stuck in the surrounding buildings and know exactly where it came from and even see it in the computer collapse model being launched into it's final resting place. A model that you could watch at any speed and see exactly how the building came apart, basically with out any of the dust and debris included, only the major columns, and anything used to hold the building together.

You know, I ask that question quite often and never get a satisfactory answer. My question, however, has a slight variant. Specifically: Why is it that the truth movement, with its supposed army of engineers, scientist, scholars and professionals have yet to produce anything of any value in their supposed search for the truth? You know, something like their own model of the building that shows how and where and what kind of explosives were set, how they were initiated, how they contributed to the collapse, how the explosives are accounted for in the videos of the collapse, etc.

Nope, all you get is cheap parlor tricks with boxes, endless youtube videos, people making asses of themselves in the streets and nutjobs talking about space beams and holograms.

The closest anyone has gotten is a couple of discredited college instructors conducting dubious experiments on dubious materials and payinng someone to publish their guesswork and conjectures and calling it "peer reviewed".

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PersonalChoice

 

Why is it that the truth movement, with its supposed army of engineers, scientist, scholars and professionals have yet to produce anything of any value in their supposed search for the truth?

Well, my articles on the Internet and in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics are quite popular and nobody has been able to debunk me. Evidently no skyscraper or structure can collapse from the top by local failures up top (planes flying into them) and small bits or complete top falling down on the bottom. In order to encourage debunkers of me I even pay them Euro 10 000:- to prove me wrong. I haven't seen your entry! You don't want Euro 10 000:-???? It is almost US$ 13 000:- that I give away if you prove me wrong.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by Heiwa]

reply to post by Heiwa

Well, my articles on the Internet and in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics are quite popular and nobody has been able to debunk me.

Well, except, of course, the Journal wherein they "debunked" ( and thats putting it kindly) your letter to the editor. And your "articles" on the Internet???? Cut me a break.

reply to post by hooper


So you also wonder why no modeling or other verification of these theories have been done, except you think "truthers" should do it before the government investigators who have all the data already? Is that SUPPOSED to not make any sense?

I don't have to elaborate, do I? Hopefully you can just re-read it a couple of times and let it sink in for a few minutes or something. Did you know those investigators were paid with our tax money to do all of this already? WHY DIDN'T/COULDN'T THEY DO IT, do you think?

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


There are a thousand-plus engineers and architects who could easily have a go at it.

Most of them have plenty of time on their hands, after all.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Well...? That sure was damned easy for you to post, but why hasn't anyone done it then? I'm not talking about "truthers," I'm talking about the people who were actually SUPPOSED to investigate the collapses, the people with all the data and money (my taxes) from the government.

They don't seem to have any interest in proving anything, or they would have done it while their investigation was still active. I don't know what thousands of engineers/architects you are talking about that have access to all the data NIST did. They are apparently content without proving anything, and just letting people like you take up for them, you know that? But you don't have a suit and a tie, let alone a college education in engineering, now do you friend? That's where their plan starts running short. At least people with degrees in engineering are smart enough to know when they're missing too much data to actually prove something.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Exactly what "data" are missing? The design of the building? Not top secret. The design of the plane? Not top secret. The speed and attitude of the aircraft as it hit the buildings? They reproduced it from observing the same videos you have access to.

The expertise to create failure analysis models? Well, there the truth movement is obviosuly lacking. Because if it wasn't they would have already created their own model to contradict the NIST's investigation findings.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

Exactly what "data" are missing? The design of the building? Not top secret. The design of the plane? Not top secret. The speed and attitude of the aircraft as it hit the buildings? They reproduced it from observing the same videos you have access to.

The expertise to create failure analysis models? Well, there the truth movement is obviosuly lacking. Because if it wasn't they would have already created their own model to contradict the NIST's investigation findings.

Why don't you try finding information on the beams in the core?

You know those horizontal steel components that kept columns from bending every 12 feet?

How may tons of steel was on each level for those beams? How many beams are there to connect 47 columns? I have never seen that mentioned anywhere.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Mentioned? I've seen the cross sections on the internet. You can go to the library and find books on the construction of the towers.

You just want someone to email them to you? No work? No REAL research? And I mean real reaserch, not google. It may take some effort. For all the time you've spent crying about how no one will TELL you these answers you could have calculated them yourself about 500 times.

Originally posted by hooper
Exactly what "data" are missing? The design of the building? Not top secret.

How old are you hooper? "Top secret" has nothing to do with public buildings.

You want to know what data is missing? Start with the data necessary to compute the amount of energy it would require to mechanically sever a single floor, as people assume in these theoretical "pancake" models. And forgive me for having to bring it to your attention, that you are extremely transparent: I know you have no idea how to even start to go about finding such a figure, and you're already formulating some comeback argument that relies purely on rhetoric. I'm sick of "discussing" with people like this.

This is why it matters to know what you're talking about. NIST released bits and pieces of structural information, but never the whole set, which means you still don't have the whole story. People who have relied on various forms of modeling have ALWAYS had to simplify things and make assumptions to finish their work, when the federal government should have made this all available for public study (and I welcome you to offer examples that defy this observation). There is no good reason not to release it all. There are only BAD reasons not to release it all. And I mean "assumptions" as in -- assuming dimensions, strengths, etc. when reliable data is missing. It just so happens that these same assumptions are where your favorite "experts" like to cram the WTC Towers' magical abilities to collapse on their own as witnessed on 9/11. But again I waste my time saying this to you because you only know how to argue, not calculate.

The expertise to create failure analysis models? Well, there the truth movement is obviosuly lacking. Because if it wasn't they would have already created their own model to contradict the NIST's investigation findings.

Based on what? Data that they make up, so you can criticize that too? You want your cake and to eat it too, don't you Louis?

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I know you have no idea how to even start to go about finding such a figure, and you're already formulating some comeback argument that relies purely on rhetoric. I'm sick of "discussing" with people like this.

Wow, a member for only 2 weeks and you're already tired of it.....

(BTW, Hi Brian)