It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Heiwa Challenge

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by PersonalChoice
 



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?






Oh I couldn't agree more with you there, Hooper. Although, I think the answer to your question is a little easier to come by, than the one for mine.


Edit: I should be more specific , but when I say I couldn't agree more I am referring to the fact that it also makes no sense to me that the so called truth movement has never produced a model like the one I referred to. I do think the truth movement has definitely "produced" a lot of valuable evidence that probably still wouldn't have been released to the public due to FOIA's and good investigative reporting.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by PersonalChoice]




posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Again, none of the data is top secret. Build your own model, make your own assumptions. Prove your own point.

Saying someone else is wrong doesn't prove you're right, not by a long shot.

You want to play games and pretend I was talking literally about government security classifications when I used "top secret" then go right ahead. At least that lets you continue to avoid the obvious - that you have absolutely no intention ot do your own research, build your own model, prove your own point.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
It is very simple.

No structure of any kind can be crushed down by a piece of itself dropping on it! It is also known as Björkmans Axiom. Quite famous.

Structures are only crushed up by colliding with stronger/denser/more solid other structures (e.g. ground).

It means that if you fly planes into tops of skyscrapers, the skyscrapers will never collapse down.

As I told FBI and CIA ... and Condoleezza! It is very simple. Just listen to me!

But they didn't. Poor Condoleezza. Now out of job and trying out as pianist.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Again, none of the data is top secret. Build your own model, make your own assumptions. Prove your own point.

Saying someone else is wrong doesn't prove you're right, not by a long shot.


I just told you what was missing, what can't be calculated because of missing data, and you completely ignored me to just repeat the same nonsense.

Saying someone else is wrong doesn't prove you're right? Take your own advice. You just keep repeating the same nonsense regardless of being refuted, because you have no idea what in the HELL you're talking about and your solution is apparently to keep denying the obvious since you don't know any better anyway.


You want to play games and pretend I was talking literally about government security classifications when I used "top secret"


That's where that phrase is actually used. Not public building plans. It really is like an 8-year old wandered onto here and started arguing with people. You use the wrong terminology and you don't know anything about finite element analysis.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Heiwa
 



No structure of any kind can be crushed down by a piece of itself dropping on it! It is also known as Björkmans Axiom. Quite famous.


Yes, I "googled" it. Verrrrrrry famous. In that very special universe where you live.

But I am sure by now it is fairly represented in every engineering and architectual reference book.

What if I disconnect 90% of a structure, lifted it up, say five miles and dropped it on the remaining 10% resting on the ground. According to your axiom the 90% would, what, bounce off? blow up? dance the jig?

Just curious.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Listen, I can know a dodge when I see one. You have everything that is neeeded for an independent preparation of an analysis of the events of 9/11. You know that the only way to achieve your desired results would be to fudge figures and the cat would reallllly be out of the bag then.

Like they say in academia, "publish or perish".



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Listen, I can know a dodge when I see one. You have everything that is neeeded for an independent preparation of an analysis of the events of 9/11. You know that the only way to achieve your desired results would be to fudge figures and the cat would reallllly be out of the bag then.



You are correct there hooper, care to show your papers ? , preferably with demonstration or simulation to support it.

psyhacker shown his demo vid, how about you ?


Like they say in academia, "publish or perish".



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   


Yes, I "googled" it. Verrrrrrry famous. In that very special universe where you live.

But I am sure by now it is fairly represented in every engineering and architectual reference book.

What if I disconnect 90% of a structure, lifted it up, say five miles and dropped it on the remaining 10% resting on the ground. According to your axiom the 90% would, what, bounce off? blow up? dance the jig?

Just curious.




Easy - structure X with mass m (kg) is cut in a top part C that is 0.9X/0.9m and is lifted five miles and is dropped on a bottom part A that is 0.1X/0.1m. What happens?
Let's assume it happens in vaccum and that gravity is provided by a very big mass M below X that attracts m (and m attracts M)..
Thus C free falls five miles and achieves a velocity terminal v (meter/second) when it contacts A. The energy applied at contact C/A is 0.45mv² Joule .
The energy applied at collision contact C/A is evidently applied 50% on C and 50% on A.
As A is 1/9C in this case, we have to study smaller A. If small A can absorb 0.225mv² Joule energy as elastic deformation, I assure you that big C bounces on small A below. It happens when the structure X can elastically absorb plenty of energy.

However, in the Axiom case, where A is 9C, i.e. much bigger than C, then C ALWAYS bounces on A (the actual capability to absorb energy elastically doesn't matter the least).

Happy? Ready to accept Newtonian physics?



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Heiwa
 


Wow, this is so disconnected from reality its hard to even know where to start. Lets take this littel tidbit:


If small A can absorb 0.225mv² Joule energy as elastic deformation, I assure you that big C bounces on small A below. It happens when the structure X can elastically absorb plenty of energy.


Thats one big if. And IF "A" is, in fact, a structure (and not a planetary object) that is made up of a multitude of connected elements then you really believe all those elements and all their connections are completely resistant to the force of 90% of its original consist dropping on it from near the top of Mt. Everest? Or, basically, if A has limits on its elasticity (like most objects in reality) then your whole "axiom" is basically, well, meaningless.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainCloud

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Listen, I can know a dodge when I see one. You have everything that is neeeded for an independent preparation of an analysis of the events of 9/11. You know that the only way to achieve your desired results would be to fudge figures and the cat would reallllly be out of the bag then.



You are correct there hooper, care to show your papers ? , preferably with demonstration or simulation to support it.

psyhacker shown his demo vid, how about you ?


Like they say in academia, "publish or perish".



Hey, you're the one saying 9/11 couldn't happen without the aid of controlled demolition, not me. I have no evidence of any explosion other than the plane itself. Show your work.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RainCloud

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Listen, I can know a dodge when I see one. You have everything that is neeeded for an independent preparation of an analysis of the events of 9/11. You know that the only way to achieve your desired results would be to fudge figures and the cat would reallllly be out of the bag then.



You are correct there hooper, care to show your papers ? , preferably with demonstration or simulation to support it.

psyhacker shown his demo vid, how about you ?


Like they say in academia, "publish or perish".



Hey, you're the one saying 9/11 couldn't happen without the aid of controlled demolition, not me. I have no evidence of any explosion other than the plane itself. Show your work.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
Hey, you're the one saying 9/11 couldn't happen without the aid of controlled demolition, not me. I have no evidence of any explosion other than the plane itself. Show your work.


This thread is for YOU to actually prove something for once. And you are failing miserably.

You have opinions about what happened to the towers too, and you can't support them with scientific evidence. You can't even accept the idea of proving something yourself.

It's like you can't even comprehend the idea that we owe nothing to you, and the government is who was supposed to have proven this already. You try to defend the government, but don't think you have to prove anything. Wrong. Try again.



posted on Aug, 4 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa
 


Wow, this is so disconnected from reality its hard to even know where to start. Lets take this littel tidbit:


If small A can absorb 0.225mv² Joule energy as elastic deformation, I assure you that big C bounces on small A below. It happens when the structure X can elastically absorb plenty of energy.


Thats one big if. And IF "A" is, in fact, a structure (and not a planetary object) that is made up of a multitude of connected elements then you really believe all those elements and all their connections are completely resistant to the force of 90% of its original consist dropping on it from near the top of Mt. Everest? Or, basically, if A has limits on its elasticity (like most objects in reality) then your whole "axiom" is basically, well, meaningless.


No, in my Axiom top part C is assumed to be much smaller than bottom part A so either C bounces on A or C is destroyed in contact with A. In no case C can one-way crush-down A as NIST suggets happened with WTC1 on 911. So NIST is 100% wrong and the terrorists flying a plane into the top of WTC1 didn't understand basic physics. However, the terrorists were lucky - someone had arranged WTC1 for a planned destruction from top down one hour after plane impact.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Heiwa]



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by hooper
Hey, you're the one saying 9/11 couldn't happen without the aid of controlled demolition, not me. I have no evidence of any explosion other than the plane itself. Show your work.


This thread is for YOU to actually prove something for once. And you are failing miserably.

You have opinions about what happened to the towers too, and you can't support them with scientific evidence. You can't even accept the idea of proving something yourself.

It's like you can't even comprehend the idea that we owe nothing to you, and the government is who was supposed to have proven this already. You try to defend the government, but don't think you have to prove anything. Wrong. Try again.
So is this your way of trying to tell us that you have no proof whatsoever that the towers underwent controlled demolition?



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


It's like you can't even comprehend the idea that we owe nothing to you, and the government is who was supposed to have proven this already. You try to defend the government, but don't think you have to prove anything. Wrong. Try again.


What if we don't? Will there automatically be an investigation?

You see, the world is how it is. You might want it to be different. But shouting at people to prove a series of events that the vast majority concur with is not going to upset the status quo.

If I sit here and do nothing then nothing happens. No investigation, things carry on pretty much as they were, except you get annoyed. Which, with the greatest of respect, I doubt is going to spur the US govt towards an independent study of 9/11.

If you carry on doing nothing - except shouting at people like me - then the same thing happens. No win for you.

So you're exactly wrong. The ball's very much in your court.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Heiwa
 




No, in my Axiom top part C is assumed to be much smaller than bottom part A so either C bounces on A or C is destroyed in contact with A. In no case C can one-way crush-down A as NIST suggets happened with WTC1 on 911. So NIST is 100% wrong and the terrorists flying a plane into the top of WTC1 didn't understand basic physics. However, the terrorists were lucky - someone had arranged WTC1 for a planned destruction from top down one hour after plane impact.


Nope, sorry your wrong. Here is your "axiom":

"No structure of any kind can be crushed down by a piece of itself dropping on it! It is also known as Björkmans Axiom."

Nothing in there about ratios, sizes, assumptions, no "ifs" no pre-conditions. You stated no matter what portion of the subject strructure I separate, no matter how far I drop it, it can not damage the remainder. Seems pretty absolute to me. Do you want a chance to rethink your "axiom" now, and then we can talk about transferring the 10,000 euros to me.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa
 




No, in my Axiom top part C is assumed to be much smaller than bottom part A so either C bounces on A or C is destroyed in contact with A. In no case C can one-way crush-down A as NIST suggets happened with WTC1 on 911. So NIST is 100% wrong and the terrorists flying a plane into the top of WTC1 didn't understand basic physics. However, the terrorists were lucky - someone had arranged WTC1 for a planned destruction from top down one hour after plane impact.


Nope, sorry your wrong. Here is your "axiom":

"No structure of any kind can be crushed down by a piece of itself dropping on it! It is also known as Björkmans Axiom."

Nothing in there about ratios, sizes, assumptions, no "ifs" no pre-conditions. You stated no matter what portion of the subject strructure I separate, no matter how far I drop it, it can not damage the remainder. Seems pretty absolute to me. Do you want a chance to rethink your "axiom" now, and then we can talk about transferring the 10,000 euros to me.


Sorry, you have misunderstood or not understood or cannot read what the Björkman Axiom is all about. Try again.
Try also to describe a structure, any structure, where small top C can crush down bigger bottom part A without C damaging itself (one-way crush-down) and, if you manage that, Euro 10 000:- are yours.
Ask NIST and Bazant how to do it! They say it is possible ... but haven't collected the BIG PRIZE of the HEIWA CHALLENGE Euro 10 000:- .
I wonder why? I have asked Patrick Gallagher, NIST #1, several times and it seems he cannot do it ... national security, you know. Terrorists might start dropping small Cs on big As and USA is destroyed.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Heiwa
 



Sorry, you have misunderstood or not understood or cannot read what the Björkman Axiom is all about. Try again.


What part am I not understanding?

"No structure of any kind can be crushed down by a piece of itself dropping on it! It is also known as Björkmans Axiom."

You say, without equivocation, that under no circumstances, can any portion of any structure be crsuhed by itself. Then you go and use the word "if". Sorry that contradcits and thoroughly disproves your own axiom because you conceded that "if" the lesser part sitting on the ground does not have sufficient qualities of elasticity then it will not be able to resist the crushing force of the accelterated or dropping greater portion. Based on your own presentation then your axiom should really read:

"Some structures may at sometime and under certain condtions be crushed by a segment of itself".



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa
 



Sorry, you have misunderstood or not understood or cannot read what the Björkman Axiom is all about. Try again.


What part am I not understanding?



Pls study heiwaco.tripod.com... again. And why not watch www.richplanet.net... . Interesting stuff.



posted on Aug, 5 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
It's like you can't even comprehend the idea that we owe nothing to you, and the government is who was supposed to have proven this already. You try to defend the government, but don't think you have to prove anything. Wrong. Try again.
So is this your way of trying to tell us that you have no proof whatsoever that the towers underwent controlled demolition?


No again. It's your back-of-the-envelope way of demonstrating that you can't prove that they weren't demolitions, by being unable to prove it was anything else that the government tells you it was. When you have no case, I love how you try to twist it around to make that mean that I have no case. Instead of just facing the fact that you really have NO grounds to pretend you know why they collapsed. Stop mirroring your own confusion and uncertainty onto me and be a man about it. Every time I ask for science to prove what YOU nazis believe in, you just give me the run around like you're too good for that. Yes, you're too good for my questions, Nazis, too good.

So how come none of you can prove how the towers collapsed if you're all so brilliant as to know they weren't demolished? Because you're not really brilliant? You come on here to yank your own chains?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join