The Heiwa Challenge

1. Because the chance that this person would pay up are about the same as the WTC towers were taken down by super secret controlled demolition - zero.

2. 9/11 proves the challenge. It is up to him/her he/she it/they to prove that there were something other than a building severly damaged by fire and explosive impact that caused the collapse of the tower(s).

1. I have the money! It is up to you to collect it.
2. 9/11 proves nothing re my Challenge.

Originally posted by Heiwa


1. I have the money! It is up to you to collect it.

I showed you a video where a smaller section crushed a larger section. now.....

Pay Up! U2U me for my address. Cash only please.

reply to post by Six Sigma


You'll have to give him time to create some odd explanation of why that isn't a valid example or change one his rules so anything you say will not fit the criteria he set out.

reply to post by Heiwa

1. I have the money! It is up to you to collect it.

That's the real challenge, isn't it?

2. 9/11 proves nothing re my Challenge.

Which of the ten points does it not adhere to?

Never mind.

The fact is it either satisfies all ten points or, if it doesn't it proves that your "challenge" has nothing to do with 9/11. You can't have it both ways.

reply to post by hooper


I see that he pulled this stunt at the JREF for a while until he was banned.

What a surprise.



[edit on 21-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Six Sigma
reply to post by hooper

 

I see that he puled this stunt at the JREF for a while until he was banned.

What a surprise.

Except I think the (imaginery) reward was higher. Maybe a million? He was recently embarrassed in a respected journal that printed one of his "letters to the editor". I think the editor used phrases like "nonsensical" and 'delusional". Still a lot of fun though.

Originally posted by hooper


Except I think the (imaginery) reward was higher. Maybe a million? He was recently embarrassed in a respected journal that printed one of his "letters to the editor". I think the editor used phrases like "nonsensical" and 'delusional". Still a lot of fun though.

Yes it was 1Million... then he said it was a bill from 1947... something like that.

Here is the link to the response to the letter he wrote to Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson :

www.flashback.org...

Yes, he was obviously laughed at by these professionals.... as expected..just a few words about Hewia's letter:

no meaningful mechanics
..groundless
..absurd
..erroneous
..a delusion
.. unrealistic
..his point is meaningless

reply to post by Six Sigma

Yes it was 1Million... then he said it was a bill from 1947... something like that.

Seriously? Oh dear, oh dear....oh, my stars! ROFL.

That is the funniest thing I've seen all day, thanks!


I suppose it's possible that someone not familiar enough with U.S. currency wouldn't realize immediately how fake that entire assertion is...and it goes to the credibility factor, doesn't it? (As if we needed more proof of idiocy?)

The Question:
Is there a million dollar bill? If so, whose picture is on it?

The Answer:
Sorry to disappoint you, but the largest bill ever printed by the U.S. mint is the $100,000 bill, which carries Woodrow Wilson's portrait.

www.infoplease.com...

Honestly, the schemes these people can come up with! :shk:


OH, and this little snippet...priceless, hours of amusement!!

Although they are still technically legal tender in the United States, high-denomination bills were last printed in 1945 and officially discontinued on July 14, 1969, by the Federal Reserve System.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dudly

 

What a load of bollocks!!

Wow. Not only do I agree with you, I'm also impressed with your use of the word 'bollocks'. And, at the risk of repetitiveness...

What a load of old bollocks.

Do Not Reply To This Post

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY... ALL MEMBERS PLEASE READ


This forum is on "Strict Terms and Conditions of Use ENFORCEMENT" until further notice.

"Strict Enforcement" means:

Any Member lowering themselves to name calling, no matter how innocuous, will be red tag warned on the spot, no questions asked.

Any Member who, after receiving a red tag warn in this forum, commits another breach of the TAC will be post banned on the spot, no questions asked.

One warning is all you get before being post banned.

Any posts, replies or new threads, that are about Member personalities instead of the issues will be red tag warned and deleted.

Sauron
Moderator

Originally posted by weedwhacker
dear benoni....

THINK about it!!

EVERY SINGLE ASPECT of every component and every piece and part would ALL have to be EXACTLY "scaled" down...

"Bollocks."

He said any scale. That means you could rebuild the towers exactly to scale if you wanted.

The challenge also says nothing about exact scale replicas of the WTC Towers being required.

Look at yourself. You post things like this, as if you're actually doing some critical thinking, and then you junk up the thread with a bunch of ego-stroking posts with your JREF buddies. Some technical expert you're making out to be.


And it didn't slip my attention that you totally ignored my earlier post. I still haven't received any intelligible response, but what's new?

[edit on 21-7-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

I'm gonna send this to the mythbusters.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

He said any scale. That means you could rebuild the towers exactly to scale if you wanted.

The challenge also says nothing about exact scale replicas of the WTC Towers being required.

...Scale matters.

reply to post by wylekat


Ask them if scale matters.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Wanna REALLY try to simulate all the dynamics of the collapse??? Find a valild engineer with actual training and degrees, and assign a team of computer modelling experts, and THEY can work together to compose a program that would be able, through the magic digital 1's and 0's, have a better chance of actually re-creating the more accurate "model" than any physically built one.







[edit on 21 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

But Weedwhacker isn't this exactly what we paid millions of dollars to NIST to do? Don't you think it's odd in the slightest bit that they won't release this "model" that is now somehow a danger to the public? Seriously, Debunkers never touch this question, why is that? Where does someone draw the line at some point and go against the group dynamic?

I know all the boys go starring JC talking about my supposed "problems" that are the cause of my "alarm bells" going off, but seriously do you guys even possess "alarm bells"? Do they ever go off?

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Seriously? Oh dear, oh dear....oh, my stars! ROFL.

That is the funniest thing I've seen all day, thanks!

I suppose it's possible that someone not familiar enough with U.S. currency wouldn't realize immediately how fake that entire assertion is...and it goes to the credibility factor, doesn't it? (As if we needed more proof of idiocy?)

Hi Weed.... here is his statement:

I am prepared to offer $1M to anybody that can produce a structure with two parts C and A of similar/identical structural composition, where, initially part A, fixed to ground, carries part C on top, and later by dropping part C on part A, gravity will then assist part C to crush down part A completely. Maybe JREF will sponsor this program like the other paranormal study? Similar rules will apply.

forums.randi.org...

Then he went with this:

It is assumed by US authorities and institutes of learning of many kinds that a structure A will be crushed by gravity, if you drop a piece C (C = 1/10th of A) of the same structure on it and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy. So here is the challenge: Prove it ... and win Euro 10 000:-!

heiwaco.tripod.com...


Changes the rules and changes the prize... either way...this dude owes me some serious coin!

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Whyhi
...Scale matters.

Scale matters only because material strengths don't scale linearly. That doesn't mean every other scale than 1:1 is automatically unable to reproduce the "collapse mechanism." That just means you have to take consideration of these things when selecting materials and designing a model. Don't take a layman understanding of what the "problem" is with scale and start making wild generalizations.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
I notice that you felt the best way to address the content of the challenge would be to ridicule the individual who came up with it personally, insults and all.

So you think that all those examples makes him legit?

You're trying to discredit the challenge by insulting the author instead of addressing problems with the challenge itself. These other guys keep parroting "scale matters" without understanding the physics of the scaling issue they're talking about. But they are addressing the challenge itself.

Being a no planer sats nothing?

About the challenge? No, it doesn't. Do you have any scientific studies showing that "no planers" are automatically unable to produce anything logical, so your argument can have some meat to it, instead of just being lowly mudslinging?

This is the first post of yours that I remember reading, and it's clear that you, like every other truther, doesn't understand the real root of Ander's idiocy.

To whit-nobody cares what challenge any truther sets out.

YOU have already lost the debate. YOU are not getting any new investigation. YOU must show that there needs to be one.

Therefore, it is YOU that needs to bring strong enough evidence that convinces enough people to believe what you are saying about 9/11.

Almost 9 years of fail. When will you get something right?

This is the first time I've encountered you and yet I feel like I've already known hundreds of you in my life already.

To wit, if you are going to use the vocabulary and tone of an 18th century English intellectual, you might want to invest more time in learning correct spelling. Otherwise the whole English snob thing just falls flat.

You don't have the authority to announce who "won" any "debate." You don't have the authority to approve or deny new investigations. You don't get to say what all the people themselves think or want. And I owe nothing to you personally.

I have brought no evidence of my own, yet I've seen plenty enough to convince me along with apparently millions of other Americans and people worldwide, and more people are always catching on to what you still play ego-denial games with. What do you have going for you and your government-manufactured fiction? You spend your time online arguing with people in a pseudo-intellectual tone while making the most basic logical fallacies and having all your skill in avoiding admitting ever doing so.

9 years of "fail." Right. Nine years starting with virtually no conspiracy talk whatsoever, all flag-waving, to gradually increasing dissent to official explanations up until today and still going. From virtually nothing, to more marches, conferences, public debates, and other events than I can even remember hearing about, except that they have all been in multiplicities for years. How long something takes to be born out does not tarnish the ultimate truth of it. And what have you been doing the past 9 years? Arguing with people online, totally in vain? Don't tell me you have too much pride to put 2 and 2 together and realize anything from that?


That's the first and last rant of yours I'll respond to in detail like that. From now on I'm ignoring them because I'm over that kind of petty exchange.

I am still waiting for someone to invalidate the challenge, based on the requirements of the challenge itself.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

You don't have the authority to announce who "won" any "debate."

It's self evident.

There is no new investigation in the works.

This means that you have lost.

Changes the rules and changes the prize... either way...this dude owes me some serious coin!

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

?? You have to describe your structure, carry out the test (drop C on A from 3.7 m), verify the result (structure >70% damaged) and report to me first. And pls, try to be polite.