The Heiwa Challenge

Originally posted by Heiwa

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.

Enough with the charade too SS, his description of the contests rules doesn't include a controlled demo. You act AS IF that crush down CD you showed us wasn't severely weakened, emptied, and everything else that goes part in parcel with any CD. Which the crush down technique undoubtedly is.

Originally posted by Heiwa
?? 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.

You said this:

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.

The video I showed PROVES what you are asking for. I have a PayPal account if you are uncomfortable sending cash.

Oh, and I am quite polite... as long as you don't welch on your little wager.

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Enough with the charade too SS, his description of the contests rules doesn't include a controlled demo. You act AS IF that crush down CD you showed us wasn't severely weakened, emptied, and everything else that goes part in parcel with any CD. Which the crush down technique undoubtedly is.

Read my above post. No charade here. I want my money! (I am prepared to share my winnings with all other Government Loyalists that are members here at ATS!)

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


Good...because this was my entire point, and it shows immediately to ME (and to about 99% of everyone else) how ludicrous this "challenge" is:

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

For the moment, since it's so much more complicated, let's ignore some physics equations that are applicable ( F = MA ... don't forget you can solve for ANY variable in that equation algebraically, depending on the value you wish to derive. )

BUT, since we CANNOT 'scale' our force of gravity on this planet (and, thus, the "A" in the above equation) we will ignore, for simplicity's sake.


You mentioned rebuilding "exactly to scale".

I'm not convinced most people contributing to this thread, and in this forum over-all understand this concept...we are NOT merely talking about a scale model.

In order to re-create the structure to "scale" for the purposes of this "challenge" it would require scaling down EVERY PIECE AND COMPONENT!!

IOW....hypothetical project, for an example to "scale down" ---

Build a box out of steel I-beams that are made two cm thick, flanges 20 cm wide, and ribbon (part between flanges) 30 cm wide. (Just hypothetical, remember).

They will be attached together at appropriate joints with bolts/rivets that are one cm thick. (Using simple numbers, for easier math).

NOW...you could build a "tower" using this simple box design, if you wish. But, that's not the point...(and it is NOT analogous to the WTC Towers, either...so don't get stuck on the wrong track, here...)

BUT, in order to properly "scale" that down, you must "scale" down each piece you used --- each and every separate piece, in EVERY WAY!

Say you want to build at 1/10 scale...do the maths. Simple math...did you notice something?? The thickness of the RIVETS/BOLTS?? Instead of one cm, they now become one-tenth cm thick.

Oh, and one more thing.....the tensile strength of the STEEL ITSELF must be "scaled down" as well....otherwise the entire "challenge" is total bunk...

...because it IS! A simple test of logic shows this to be true.


I wonder if some people never had the opportunity to play with an "Erector Set", or some such similar toy, as a child --- in order to develop spatial relationship skills, and build cognizance of physical relationships, and properties of structures???

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
Enough with the charade too SS, his description of the contests rules doesn't include a controlled demo. You act AS IF that crush down CD you showed us wasn't severely weakened, emptied, and everything else that goes part in parcel with any CD. Which the crush down technique undoubtedly is.

Read my above post. No charade here. I want my money! (I am prepared to share my winnings with all other Government Loyalists that are members here at ATS!)

That's very fair of you, can we discuss this further in Vegas?

The video I showed PROVES what you are asking for. I have a PayPal account if you are uncomfortable sending cash.

Oh, and I am quite polite... as long as you don't welch on your little wager.

Videos? You have to follow the simple rules of my Challenge; describe structure, do test, verify and report result ... to me. Anybody can falsify a video! And the US government can manipulate live TV reporting of anything.

BTW - you do not seem to be the polite type. No problem for me.

Originally posted by Heiwa

Videos? You have to follow the simple rules of my Challenge; describe structure, do test, verify and report result ... to me. Anybody can falsify a video! And the US government can manipulate live TV reporting of anything.

ole!!

Who knew that Anders was, besides being a ship welder, a professional matador.

That's the only way to explain his adeptness at dodging.

ole!!

Who knew that Anders was, besides being a ship welder, a professional matador.

That's the only way to explain his adeptness at dodging.

Sorry, what did your structure look like and when did you do the test and when was it submitted to the Challenge?

reply to post by Heiwa

Sorry, what did your structure look like

Look at the video. That's what it looked like.

and when did you do the test

February 2003.

and when was it submitted to the Challenge?

7/21/2010

Double post.

[edit on 22-7-2010 by GoodOlDave]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What a load of bollocks!!

You take this seriously? Anyone who does doesn't understand physics, mass, inertia, momentum...scaling it down isn't a valid comparison...

Yep, the conditions show right away it's engineered to never be able to be proven. Condition 4 states the structure has to be stable, and not even the 9/11 conspiracy people will deny the towers were damaged by the plane impacts. It's like demanding that someone prove a ship as well designed as the Titanic could actually sink, with the condition that you can't use an iceberg to prove it.

This reminds me of the stunt the neo-Nazis pulled a few years back when they made an open challenge to have anyone prove the holocaust actually occurred for one million dollars. In the fine print it said that no supporters of Israel could apply, and of course if you could prove the Holocaust occurred you were to them by definition a supporter of Israel. If the 9/11 conspiracy people need to rely on trickery like this to keep their conspiracy stories alive then they might as well go find another conspiracy to wallow in right now.

The depths of depravity and inanity they go to in order to mock is vile and disrespectful --- as are most of the so-called "truth movement:.

This!!! It's like the entire 9/11 attack is just one big plaything for these people.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
[
Who knew that Anders was, besides being a ship welder, a professional matador.

That's the only way to explain his adeptness at dodging.

Ship welder? Ships are >90% welded by robots today. But in 1966 I was welding on ships (did we meet then?) in order to become a reputable structural designer and analyst in order to analyse the WTC destructions (planned demolition) 2001 as no structure collapses from top down by a little top pece getting loose. You can in fact fly in as many planes you like in tops of skyscrapers and they will never collapse. Easy to prove! That's my challenge.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

Sorry, what did your structure look like

Look at the video. That's what it looked like.

and when did you do the test

February 2003.

and when was it submitted to the Challenge?

7/21/2010

Sorry, you are another loser!

You have to describe the structure! Not just show a picture of the outside.
You then have to detach the top and drop it 3.7 meters on the bottom part and then verify the result, i.e. that >70 joints are detached or elements are damaged.
Pls try to follow the rules of the Challenge.

Originally posted by Heiwa



Videos? You have to follow the simple rules of my Challenge;

describe structure,

Um, well, it's white, lots of windows, some hard stuff that held it together. No drapes in the winodws however... it would have been much more lovely with drapes.

do test,

Test completed!

verify and report result ... to me.

Anders, I'm reporting to you that I have verified the results and they all passed the test!

Anybody can falsify a video! And the US government can manipulate live TV reporting of anything.

yeah yeah yeah.... that's all hooey and nothing to do with the million clams you owe me!

BTW - you do not seem to be the polite type. No problem for me.

Anders, I am very nice and don't appreciate this remark. What's fair is fair. Please send me my mullah!

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

[edit on 22-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I understand that if the structure is not the same size as the Twin Towers, then it must be to some scale besides 1:1. I thought that was given, and had assumed in all of my posts already. Maybe the real communication trouble is you assume everyone you are talking to has the intellectual abilities of a 2 year old, and so you feel you must take massive posts explaining the obvious when I am already apparently talking over your head?

Materials strengths CAN be scaled down to fit in relation to the actual size and loads of a structure, to compare to a WTC Tower. However you are ALL thinking way too inside of the box -- models of the WTC Towers are not even required. You could come up with another structure specifically intended for nothing but accomplishing the challenge.

I wonder if some people never had the opportunity to play with an "Erector Set", or some such similar toy, as a child --- in order to develop spatial relationship skills, and build cognizance of physical relationships, and properties of structures???

Honestly I have personally wondered the same thing ever since I saw the Twin Towers and especially WTC7 collapsed. And I ask people how in the hell they think these things could have happened, and they give me simplistic answers like "too much KE" that always have nothing to do with the mechanics of how it could happen, which they invariably say are too complicated and thus can never be recreated to ANY degree of comparison, ever. So that shows the extent of their mechanical as well as scientific reasoning, that they think it is literally impossible to recreate to any degree of comparison the WTC Tower collapses even though TWO of them happened in a freaking row supposedly that day. That suggests to me that there is a HIGHLY repeatable mechanism at work. But the "science" offered by the government, and apologized for everyday by people such as yourself, does not offer ANY mechanism to be tested scientifically. There have been no tests to validate the failure mechanism theories, even though NIST had everything it needed to recreate their truss failure hypothesis in the lab. In fact other calibration tests they did with truss and perimeter column set-ups heated the trusses with controlled megawatt gas burners and were UNABLE to recreate the sagging and breaking at 700-800C that they were suggesting must have happened on a large scale, in both buildings, twice in a row. And yet their theories are somehow scientific? Someone show me where the actual science is in all of this. I don't know how much more obvious you can get. I don't think you people really know what "science" even means anymore, with your Google educations.

Yes, I believe many people never did have a good opportunity to play with "building blocks" as we called them. Hell I even built stuff out of real cinderblock and brick, or couch cushions, or whatever was around. I loved building things as a kid, and that's still with me.

reply to post by Heiwa


Per your own challenge its 3.7 meters OR LESS! You should read your specifications a little closer.

reply to post by Heiwa

Sorry, you are another loser!

Not so fast!

You have to describe the structure!

Rectangular, with widnow openings. Done.

You then have to detach the top and drop it 3.7 meters on the bottom part

Or less! The top section fell less than 3.7m.

and then verify the result, i.e. that >70 joints are detached or elements are damaged.

I count 71 plus blocks detached. Prove me wrong! Just call it the OS challenge!

Pls try to follow the rules of the Challenge.

You first!

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Anders, I'm reporting to you that I have verified the results and they all passed the test!

Good - pls advise full style (name/address/tel.no./e-mail, etc,) and I will report you to the police for fraud.

You see, my Challenge is impossible to win, as no structure A of any kind can be crushed into rubble B by a small part C of A. It is physically impossible. I have shown it and explained why on my website (but I was taught it at university already around 1968).

Anyone suggesting the opposite, like Bazant & Co, are worse than Holocaust deniers and similar bigots.

reply to post by Heiwa

You see, my Challenge is impossible to win.....

Glad that you finally admit that. The requirements of the challenge have, of course, been met and exceeded in spades, but you have finally admitted, no one is ever going to win!

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

You see, my Challenge is impossible to win.....

Glad that you finally admit that. The requirements of the challenge have, of course, been met and exceeded in spades, but you have finally admitted, no one is ever going to win!

So another Holocaust denier and worse is showing up! And that is the whole purpose of the Heiwa Challenge. Anyone suggesting that he or she has won the Challenge is a fraud, a supporter of terrorism and worse than any Holocaust denier. It is a pity that FBI or CIA has not caught on this simple way to catch terrorists.