The Heiwa Challenge

reply to post by Heiwa

I am quite pleased with my scientific article just published in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics; heiwaco.tripod.com...

It makes me a very credible source of scientific facts, I am happy to conclude.

You mean your letter to the editor wherein the editor responded with such respectable phrases as "delusion"?

It seems as though Anders has been aware of scholarly work that refutes his "axiom" for nearly a year now.

So, did you ever get a reply to your email?



the911forum.freeforums.org...

by Dr. G on Mon Oct 26, 2009 5:59 pm

Might I suggest that everyone take a look at the thesis by A.G. Vlassis entitled:

"Progressive Collapse Assessment of Tall Buildings"

Available on-line at:

eprints.imperial.ac.uk...

See especially Chapter 6.

Most of this material has also been published as a paper entitled "Progressive Collapse of Multi-Storey Buildings due to Failed Floor Impact" in Engineering Structures 31, 1522, (2009)

A quote from this paper is very pertinent to the present discussion:

"It can be concluded that in the event of a failure and subsequent impact of a single floor plate onto the floor plate below , the lower impacted system is highly unlikely to possess sufficient dynamic load carrying capacity to resist the imposed dynamic loads and prevent progressive collapse. .... This is particularly true when the falling floor completely disintegrates and falls as debris without retaining any residual strength or spanning capability




by OneWhiteEye on Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:44 pm

Quote from the paper:


Progressive collapse may be initiated by a range of extreme loading hazards that can be either man-made or accidental. As already noted, most of these hazards have a low probability of occurrence and thus either they are not considered in structural design for economic reasons or they are indirectly accounted for through passive protection measures rather than explicit structural calculations.

Earlier, I said:


Architects and engineers spend a great deal of time and effort to calculate loads and moments in an attempt to create a structure that will remain intact in the normal expected environment. If they spend any time at all in calculating the performance under suboptimal conditions, it's an attempt to box in the boundaries of a good design, not to see what the mechanics of failure are.

And, by mechanics of failure, I meant continuation specifically, as opposed to initiation and should have specified. The statement referenced above seems to agree.




by Heiwa on Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:31 pm

Link never worked for me but Dr. Vlassis was kind enough to send a copy by e-mail. Interesting stuff!

The main purpose of the (Vlassis' PhD-thesis) is to introduce simple design-oriented methods for the progressive collapse assessment of high-rise multi-storey buildings.

So I have just sent below e-mail to Vlassis:

Originally posted by Heiwa
When C contacts A (the collision) evidently C applies force (or rather pressure) on A and A applies exactly the same force/pressure on C. You follow?
Now, the question is: Can C resist the pressure A applies on it? If C resists, C evidently stops on top of A.
Reason is that if C can resist the pressure A applies on it, A will of course resist the same pressure C applies on A (as A has same structure as C. C is no bullet and A is no paper!) Happens every time collisions occur between identical structures. The smaller participant C cannot ever crush the bigger opponent A.

Good grief, so now you're resorting to redesigning the WTC to your liking in order to keep your conspiracy agenda alive. C was a fifteen floor section of building, while A was a one floor section of building, so you're literally trying to argue that a one floor section rated to resist a four floor section really should be able to withstand a fifteen floor section by some mathematical "two plus two really equals five" trickery. Dude, physics have to apply to your delusions just as they have to apply to everyone else, and the condemnation of "delusion" isn't coming from me. To wit-

It makes me a very credible source of scientific facts, I am happy to conclude.

The original author responded that your discussion, "presents no meaningful mechanics argument against the gravity progressive collapse model" and that your conclusions are "a delusion". Your publically being spanked in front of every subscriber to this journal is something you're genuinely happy about...?

I said it before and I'l say it again- you conspiracy people really do only see what you want to see.

reply to post by Heiwa

And another Holocaust denier. Who pays you? They must be rich ... and STUPID.

Its official now....game over.

Originally posted by Heiwa

 

 

Hm, topic is my Challenge and most posts are 100% off ... and very badly off denying established Truths. Why can't they present a structure where top C destroys bottom A of same structure?
It is not possible! Why deny it? Why support terrorists/criminals like Bazant & Co? I am amazed at the stupidity of many Americans. Can't you read?

Originally posted by Heiwa

Originally posted by Heiwa

 

 

Hm, topic is my Challenge and most posts are 100% off ... and very badly off denying established Truths. Why can't they present a structure where top C destroys bottom A of same structure?
It is not possible! Why deny it? Why support terrorists/criminals like Bazant & Co? I am amazed at the stupidity of many Americans. Can't you read?

So, Z P Bazant is a "terrorist/criminal" now. What a desperate comment ? !

Fact is Z P Brazant is a Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering. Why should we prefer your ship-building based views over Prof. Bazant ?

Hi everyone,

I would like this message to be taken in the spirit of which it is meant, for me it is clear that the OP challenge cannot be met, with all the consequences that entails but for one side to call out others as, off all things Holocaust deniers is in MHO completely reprehensible. These people who defend the OP are at the worst mis-guided, wrongly informed or have to present a certain argument in order to provide for their family. But its way out there to suggest they are deniers of any kind - its just different people have different opinions.

This challenge has been interesting but by making silly accusations and not keeping patient it makes one lose their side of the debate. I hope that sounds alright because ATS really is a place of balanced non-sensational discussions. The "Truth" always becomes more self-evident over time as more data comes in.

Peace

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Heiwa

Originally posted by Heiwa

 

 

Hm, topic is my Challenge and most posts are 100% off ... and very badly off denying established Truths. Why can't they present a structure where top C destroys bottom A of same structure?
It is not possible! Why deny it? Why support terrorists/criminals like Bazant & Co? I am amazed at the stupidity of many Americans. Can't you read?

So, Z P Bazant is a "terrorist/criminal" now. What a desperate comment ? !

Fact is Z P Brazant is a Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering. Why should we prefer your ship-building based views over Prof. Bazant ?

Well, study heiwaco.tripod.com... and heiwaco.tripod.com... and reflect a little. Clarely ZP Bazant is assisting the terrorists!

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Hi everyone,

I would like this message to be taken in the spirit of which it is meant, for me it is clear that the OP challenge cannot be met, with all the consequences that entails but for one side to call out others as, off all things Holocaust deniers is in MHO completely reprehensible. These people who defend the OP are at the worst mis-guided, wrongly informed or have to present a certain argument in order to provide for their family. But its way out there to suggest they are deniers of any kind - its just different people have different opinions.

This challenge has been interesting but by making silly accusations and not keeping patient it makes one lose their side of the debate. I hope that sounds alright because ATS really is a place of balanced non-sensational discussions. The "Truth" always becomes more self-evident over time as more data comes in.

Peace

Unfortunately some posters compare me and my Challenge with a Holocaust denier and a generally antisemitic bigot. I wonder why? I consider on the other hand anyone denying the fact that the WTC towers were completely destroyed by planned demolition, as worse than all Holocaust deniers.
No structure/skyscraper can be crushed down by a small top part of same structure! Suggesting the opposite is criminal.

Originally posted by Heiwa
Why support terrorists/criminals like Bazant & Co? I am amazed at the stupidity of many Americans. Can't you read?

This is an interesting statement. Heiwa, this sounds like sour grapes. Perhaps since, as stated above, you were laughed at in a published paper. Not one single person in the scientific community has supported your letter. Remember, it was not a scientific article you got published, it was a letter.

Can I read? I can read fine. Please read this:

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Heiwa
Why support terrorists/criminals like Bazant & Co? I am amazed at the stupidity of many Americans. Can't you read?

This is an interesting statement. Heiwa, this sounds like sour grapes. Perhaps since, as stated above, you were laughed at in a published paper. Not one single person in the scientific community has supported your letter. Remember, it was not a scientific article you got published, it was a letter.

Can I read? I can read fine. Please read this:

Yes, criminals may have academic merits, so what?

Topic is my Challenge and Bazant has failed to submit a structure where top C crushes bottom A. I have offered Bazant Euro 10 000:- to do it. He hasn't done it. Too difficult? According Bazant any structure selfdestructs.

So why cannot this criminal Bazant show me such a structure?

Originally posted by Heiwa

Unfortunately some posters compare me and my Challenge with a Holocaust denier and a generally antisemitic bigot. I wonder why? I consider on the other hand anyone denying the fact that the WTC towers were completely destroyed by planned demolition, as worse than all Holocaust deniers.
No structure/skyscraper can be crushed down by a small top part of same structure! Suggesting the opposite is criminal.

So here we have the genuine motive of the OP. It's obvious from the artificial conditions of the challenge that it was intentionally engineered so it could never be met, becuase the goal was never to document how the towers collapsed. It was meant as a tool to fulfill the OPs own ax grinding against people who disagree with his own personal view of things. These conspiracy people WANT to believe these secret conspiracies are true despite what the evidence shows and they're frustrated they can't get others to want to believe they're true as well.

I don't need to point out this isn't research. This is the mark of blind zealotry to an ulterior personal ideology, hiding behind a facade of scientific debate to give it false credibility. Heiwa tried to play this game in that technology journal and it blew up in his face, so he came in here playing this game again hoping to be vindicated and he can't accept the fact that it blew up in his face yet again. Once he started labelling the people who disagree with his dogma as "criminals", it's a red flag warning that further conversation is pointless.

I will waste no more time on this childishness, and I would politely suggest that other refrain from feeding this troll as well.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


I will waste no more time on this childishness, and I would politely suggest that other refrain from feeding this troll as well.

Great point Dave. This will be my last post in here as well. In closing, I will suppply readers with the spanking, I mean "closure" Heiwa received at the hands of Zdeněk P. Bažant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, and David B. Benson.

in part:

The discusser’s interest is appreciated. However, he presents no meaningful mechanics argument against the gravity driven progressive collapse model of our paper. His claim that “the authors’ theory is wrong” is groundless.

The discusser claims that the progressive collapse model we developed in the paper does not consider the energy required to compress the rubble. This claim is absurd.

The discusser further claims that, for the continuation of the crush-down phase, the columns in the part C (upper part) must be assumed to be in contact with the columns of part A (lower part). This claim is erroneous

Observation of the upper margin of the cloud of dust and smoke in the videos somehow makes the discusser conclude that the tower top motion is caused by “part C becoming shorter while part A remains intact.” This is a delusion.


Based on the profile of the rubble pile shown in Fig. 3(b) of the paper, the discusser estimates the rubble density to have an unrealistic value (3.075 t/m³). Since this figure is only schematic, his point is meaningless.

For the complete closure... please go here:
www.flashback.org...

I'm surprised no one offered a challenge to truthers to (then again I didn't read the entire thread):
1. Set up a building with the minimum amount of explosive to pull off a controlled demolition within a two week (two weeks, right?) timeframe without being noticed
2. Detonate said building without leaving any indication (noises, flashes, explosive debris, etc.) that it was detonated at all
3. Fly a plane into the aforementioned building without setting off any explosives (or in the case of Building 7, falling debris)
4. Cause debris to erupt from the tops of the buildings

I won't offer any money though; the fact that you guys would've exposed one of the biggest conspiracies ever and revered as heroes for it should be reward enough. Face it, the only talking point you truthers really have left is the pentagon tapes, so why not just go with that instead peddling nonsensical things such as this?

It's amazing how just about every active government apologist on the 9/11 forums seem to have flocked to this thread to engage in masturbatory celebrations of idiocy and the ritual starring of each others' posts. While responding to valid issues with the same typical nonsense and insults.

I interjected this earlier and no one responded to me. Because you all know what I say makes sense.

What do I say that makes sense? That REAL SCIENCE is based on being able to reproduce physical behaviors and predict what's going to happen using a theory.

There has NEVER BEEN a reproducible theory as to what happened to the WTC Towers. You guys come up with the sorriest excuses to cover your own asses when faced with this uncomfortable fact that nothing has been proven to this day, but this fact does not change, your inability to provide the evidence speaks for itself, and it means exactly what you think it does. You have no evidence for your theory. I have been looking for that evidence for years, and all I can find instead is a bunch of sheep idiots looking the other way and expecting "alternative" evidence from civilians instead of looking for any god damned evidence at all from the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO DO THE INVESTIGATIONS. You don't look for proof of anything from officials who were responsible for it, do you? DO YOU? This kind of ignorance of whose burden it was originally to prove ANYTHING is typical of the quality of reasoning you will find here from "debunkers" (the "truthers" are being the real "debunkers" here).


The point of the challenge is for someone to demonstrate that the WTC Tower collapse hypothesis is reproducible and therefore scientific.

None of you can show anything remotely equivalent. And what does that mean to you all? NOTHING, apparently. Nothing at all!!! Yet you hypocritically demand the same from anyone else who dares tell you the damned fact that YOU have no evidence. What more needs to be said of ANY of you??

If key features of both collapses can't be reproduced with your collapse theories, THEN YOUR THEORIES ARE WORTHLESS!! What do you think theories are for, wasting paper??

Here you aren't even limited to modeling the WTC Towers themselves, YOU CAN BUILD ANY KIND OF MODEL OF ANY STRUCTURE YOU LIKE, TO RECREATE THE COLLAPSE FEATURES OBSERVED.

It isn't "TOO COMPLICATED" or "TOO COMPLEX" because THE SAME COLLAPSE FEATURES HAPPENED TWICE IN A ROW THAT MORNING SO UNLESS YOU ARE COMPLETELY BRAIN DEAD THERE IS A FREAKING PATTERN HERE.

You know why I'm coming across so emphatically? Because I can't believe the STUPIDITY I'm reading here and it's making me ANGRY. This is nothing but a clusterfork of arrogant stupidity and none of you have any response to the SCIENTIFIC problem except to sling more insults. I'm convinced this is all that 90% of you are capable of.


If NONE of you can demonstrate where any of your WTC theories have been demonstrated scientifically, then NONE of you have ANY room to be talking so much crap, being so arrogant, like no one ever showed you enough love as children and you have too much free time on the internet to strut your shallow egos. You people are disgusting and still ignorant.

SHOW WHERE ANY WTC COLLAPSE THEORY HAS BEEN PROVEN. PLEASE.

And god forbid I have to keep explaining what logical fallacies are to all the high schoolers here and why they are important to avoid if you are trying to make some kind of argument.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Heiwa

Unfortunately some posters compare me and my Challenge with a Holocaust denier and a generally antisemitic bigot. I wonder why? I consider on the other hand anyone denying the fact that the WTC towers were completely destroyed by planned demolition, as worse than all Holocaust deniers.
No structure/skyscraper can be crushed down by a small top part of same structure! Suggesting the opposite is criminal.

So here we have the genuine motive of the OP.

Yes, it is criminal to suggest that the WTC towers collapsed from top down, top C crushing bottom A into rubble B (in less than 13-18 seconds), because no structure of any kind behaves like that. As my Challenge proves! But it is still open! Earn Euro 10 000;- proving me wrong.
Bazant and Le have not managed that! They suggest: "Observation of the upper margin of the cloud of dust and smoke in the videos somehow makes the discusser conclude that the tower top motion is caused by "part C becoming shorter while part A remains intact." This is a delusion. Part A remaining intact would violate the principles of conservation of momentum and of energy. The writers' analysis of the initial two-way collapse shows that the columns of part C get plastically squashed by only 1% of their original length and afterward the collapse proceeds in a one-way crush-down mode (Bažant and Le 2008).
The compacted layer cannot be expected to be seen in the video record. Similar to construction demolitions, it is not, and cannot be, located just under the upper margin of the cloud because the rapidly ejected air and dust spreads both downward and upward [Fig. 3(a) in the paper]."
So it is a dilusion to point out that C becomes shorter while A remains intact! But it can be seen on any video. And no compacted rubble layer B is then being formed to accelerate down pushed by C! See figures 1.1.3.1,2 in heiwaco.tripod.com... .
But what do Bazant and Le say? The compacted layer cannot be expected to be seen in the video record. LOL! Only Bazant and Le can see through the dust! Anyway - build a structure that collapses by itself without producing any dust and I'll give you Euro 10 000:-

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Heiwa]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Heiwa]

reply to post by Heiwa


Although it is sometimes best to "not feed trolls", it seems important to address this (intentional, or simply ignorant?) lie:

...top C crushing bottom A into rubble B (in less than 13-18 seconds), because no structure of any kind behaves like that.

In fact, there ARE examples of just such "behavior"...am wondering how someone who purports to be so knowledgable is not aware??

Not hard to find video examples:





Should take the time to read the text note, inside this next video:







It just seems that the claims, by OP, are unfounded. AND, this "challenge" is improperly conceived, based on incorrect assumptions and poor understandings.



[edit on 31 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

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!