The Heiwa Challenge

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

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?

No, the whole thing will just remain a blistering sore on America's psyche until our real patriots make this country resemble Iraq. Which is fine with me, and you play your role with that well enough. You play so well here you might even get a knock on the door and some real life play, you never know! Other than that, there is no "we" to it because you're a nobody when it comes to 9/11 and the only thing you're an expert on is posting on ATS. Just another brown shirt in the peanut gallery.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

No, the whole thing will just remain a blistering sore on America's psyche

Really? You think? Because there is no "sore" there now.

....until our real patriots make this country resemble Iraq.

Predominanly Muslim?

Which is fine with me, and you play your role with that well enough.

Really into the role playing thing, huh?

You play so well here you might even get a knock on the door and some real life play, you never know!

Uh! Here we go with the "revolution" and all the "debunkers" are going to be up against the wall! Love this game.

Other than that, there is no "we" to it because you're a nobody when it comes to 9/11 and the only thing you're an expert on is posting on ATS. Just another brown shirt in the peanut gallery.

You know its over when they start playing the "nazi" card.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to realize that none of towers experienced any signs of controlled demolition. Plus, the fact that either:
A. There would have to be no explosives where the plane crashed
B. The explosives would have to able to withstand a plane crash

We all know B is unlikely, so it would have to be A, but how exactly would you be able to pull off a controlled demolition when one part of the building has no explosives in it whatsoever? If that was the case, then many demolition companies could save tons of money being able to cut down explosives and still get the same results. Also, in what controlled demolition, does the building erupt debris from the top to the bottom? And let's not forget the short timeframe that this would've been done in, plus the fact that it would take even longer given the fact that they had to this without anyone noticing. The controlled demolition idea just doesn't make any sense whatsoever other than to those who don't have a basic understanding of building implosions. When you think about it, people who believe it was a controlled demolition, are really no different than flat earthers (or birthers for that matter). Any evidence that disagrees with their irrational beliefs is immediately thrown out the window, and their sources are unreliable, granted there are any sources at all.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

No, the whole thing will just remain a blistering sore on America's psyche

Really? You think? Because there is no "sore" there now.

Right, no one is sore about 9/11, and everyone loves the war in Iraq too.

....until our real patriots make this country resemble Iraq.

Predominanly Muslim?

Try again.

Uh! Here we go with the "revolution" and all the "debunkers" are going to be up against the wall! Love this game.

The game you love playing is trying to make people mad on the internet. Grow up and get a new hobby besides trolling.

You know its over when they start playing the "nazi" card.

Right because that's when you shut off what little brain function you were already using and stop thinking completely. What, did Nazis not exist, or is it too painful of a comparison to make fairly? Maybe it's because you already realize both you and the SS share a sick fascination with trolling? It takes a certain kind of person after all.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to realize that none of towers experienced any signs of controlled demolition.

How would you know? I can already tell you haven't actually looked at any science here, let alone are you a rocket scientist yourself. Just another armchair expert and your reasoning is a baseless rant based on personal, layman opinion.

Let me draw your attention to posts I made earlier in this thread asking anyone for scientific evidence in favor of ANY THEORY as to why the towers came down. All you know how to do is ridicule others who share an "alternative" view, just for the fact that it's "alternative." You have no idea why so many people have problems with the government report and you don't seem to be able to comprehend that they even had the responsibility in the first place to show this. Show me their evidence and what they proved. Or shut up. Because You didn't pay me to do your investigation for you and neither did anyone else. Your tax money went to THEM, and what have you to show for it? NOTHING.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

reply to post by hooper


Have you ever reflected on the quality of information you post? Pretend you are a stranger reading the boards and trying to understand what people are arguing about. At least some people are reading and trying to understand where the facts really are. It doesn't make a good impression when some people are trying to make a discussion center around real science and reasoning and then... well like I asked, do you read your own posts?... I feel like I have stepped into a school cafeteria.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

 

It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to realize that none of towers experienced any signs of controlled demolition.

How would you know? I can already tell you haven't actually looked at any science here, let alone are you a rocket scientist yourself. Just another armchair expert and your reasoning is a baseless rant based on personal, layman opinion.

You don't need to look at any science to realize that the controlled demolition idea is not valid in anyway whatsoever, which says a lot about the people who subscribe to said idea. All you have to do is look up how an implosion is done, compare it to the collapse of the towers, and that's it. Come to to think of it, I guess the flat earthers aren't really that valid of a comparison. I would say controlled demolition believers are more like creationists:
1. Creationists will deny any proof that doesn't agree with their theory. In this case, you're denying the fact that the collapse of the buildings do not possess the signs of a controlled demolition.
2. Creationists try to prove that evolution is wrong in order to make their theory is more credible. Controlled Demolition believers try to prove that the NIST report is wrong to make their theory more credible.
3. Creationists favor the complex conclusion (creationism) over the simple one (evolution). Controlled demolition believers favor people sneaking into 3 buildings setting up explosives unnoticed, two to be hit by a plane, and one to be hit by debris from the other building, all while the explosives supposedly don't make any noises or show any flashes whatsoever, over the buildings simply collapsing due to a weakened structures by the fire.
4. Creationists often argue from ignorance, which is why they think the big bang is part of evolution, or that we evolved from monkeys. Controlled demolition believers believe that the steel melted, and that the buildings fell at free-fall speed.
5. Creationists will often appeal from authority. Controlled Demolition believers often do the same, mentioning that x controlled demolition expert is a truther, x architect is a trutherr, or how x scientist is a truther.
6. Creationists will often use unreliable sites to back up their evidence. Controlled Demolition believers will often use Youtube Videos or Loose Change as a source.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

[edit on 6-8-2010 by technical difficulties]

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


No, the whole thing will just remain a blistering sore on America's psyche until our real patriots make this country resemble Iraq. Which is fine with me, and you play your role with that well enough. You play so well here you might even get a knock on the door and some real life play, you never know! Other than that, there is no "we" to it because you're a nobody when it comes to 9/11 and the only thing you're an expert on is posting on ATS. Just another brown shirt in the peanut gallery.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by VirginiaRisesYetAgain]

Brilliant, I love you keyboard warriors. Always on the brink of a revolution. If you can just post a few more times on ATS, then whoosh - the balloon will go up and the "Patriots" will take over.

Brave boys like you, armed only with their Confederacy flags and PCs, storming the barricades and putting people like me against the wall.

Just in case threatening people with death is against the rules here, I'd just like to appeal to whoever might take offence at your post not to remove it. Because it's about the funniest thing I've read all year.

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.

Actually the Axiom is: A smaller part of an isotropic or composite 3-D structure, when dropped on and impacting a greater part of same structure by gravity from above, cannot one-way crush down the greater part of the structure.

Why it is true is explained at heiwaco.tripod.com...

reply to post by Heiwa


What do you mean the "axiom acutally is"? I was quoting you wherein you stated your so-called axiom.

Now its smaller and larger, yet I thought you proved that even if you lifted 90% of a structure 5 miles in the air and dropped it on the remaining 10% no damage would result.

So, in your axiomatic review, what constitutes smaller and larger? Does it apply to say a split of 50.00001% and 49.9999%? If you have an 80 story structure and lift off 39 stories and drop it on the remaining 41 stories are you saying the earthbpund 41 stories will simply repel the falling 39 stories?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

Now its smaller and larger, yet I thought you proved that even if you lifted 90% of a structure 5 miles in the air and dropped it on the remaining 10% no damage would result.

I remember reading the OP and seeing one of the conditions of the challange was that 1/10 (maybe 1/9) of the structure would be droped from a height no greater than 3.7 meters.

If it's possible then someone should be able to do it.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

Now its smaller and larger, yet I thought you proved that even if you lifted 90% of a structure 5 miles in the air and dropped it on the remaining 10% no damage would result.

I remember reading the OP and seeing one of the conditions of the challange was that 1/10 (maybe 1/9) of the structure would be droped from a height no greater than 3.7 meters.

If it's possible then someone should be able to do it.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by daskakik]

It was done, on Sepember 11, 2001. Billions of people all over the world witnessed live on TV, thousands witnessed live on the ground.

The problem with the so-called "axiom" is it is nonsensical. It pretends that you can use the word structure and then write a rule that will cover all possible permutations of man-made structures. The Great Pyramid at Giza is a structure, so is a lean-to made out of canvas and sticks, so is the Brooklyn Bridge and Sydney Opera House. Do you think you can write one rule that would perfectly predict how all those "structures" would react in a single circumstance? No, of course not.

Heiwa likes to throw around the word axiom a lot because he thinks it makes him sound intellectually superior, the matter of the fact is axioms are absolute, and the poster conditions his axiom. There is a word for a conditional axiom, it is called an "opinion".

reply to post by hooper


I keep seeing that 9/11 passed the challange but the whole point of the challange is that if it indeed happened on 9/11 then then just reproduce it with any kind of structure that sticks to the conditions set forth by the challange.

Maybe Heiwa is wrong. Then just build the model and prove him wrong. It doesn't matter if it proves or disproves 9/11 because most people have their mind made up anyway.

Also the vids of top down demolition on this thread don't really show how much of the structure was left standing or indicate if the structure had been weakened before the demo.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by daskakik

I remember reading the OP and seeing one of the conditions of the challange was that 1/10 (maybe 1/9) of the structure would be droped from a height no greater than 3.7 meters.

If it's possible then someone should be able to do it.

It's not economically feasible.

Truthers think that dropping it from 3.7 meters solves the scaling of gravity issue, but it only proves their ignorance when they think so.

1-The collapse progression depends on a distance of 3.7 meters between every story in order for the descending mass enough time/distance to accelerate between impacts.

2- connections fail after a certain amount of rotation, and with a small footprint, there is not enough space to achieve this rotation in a limited space.

3- etc......

This means a full sized structure of at least 10 stories.

You'd spend $100's of thousands to build it.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


So that is what all the back and forth is about? Heiwa says a model should be able to act this way if a real building does (or did on 9/11) and no one can prove him wrong. At least not without a larger prize. Seems like a dead end to me until someone actually decides to do something other than just the math.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by daskakik]

Originally posted by technical difficulties
You don't need to look at any science to realize that the controlled demolition idea is not valid in anyway whatsoever

You mean you don't need to look at any science to be a blind fool. Then you'd be correct.

All you have to do is compare the towers to commercial (legal) demolitions, and when you don't see a match, case closed, huh? Well damn, maybe if I rode the short bus I could "understand" that but since I didn't it looks like you just posted another worthless rant. Comparing me to a creationist is fine. I compare you to a Nazi brown shirt. Wanna call it even?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Brilliant, I love you keyboard warriors. Always on the brink of a revolution. If you can just post a few more times on ATS, then whoosh - the balloon will go up and the "Patriots" will take over.

Brave boys like you, armed only with their Confederacy flags and PCs, storming the barricades and putting people like me against the wall.

The Confederate Flag is our heritage, just like the Minuteman flag (Don't Tread on Me) and just like rednecks putting their lives at risk to vent anger at oppressive leaders. We've been in the business for about 400 years in this particular area, when others have been too apathetic or ignorant to do anything at all. You had history class about us, remember? This all happens to play out in real life and tens if not hundreds of thousands of men have already died at our fathers' hands, and you know they passed their guns down to us.

Let's have a little experiment. If you think none of the people you're talking to here exist in real life or have any impact upon the real world, let's see you post your full address here in your next post. Street, town, state, zip code. If you do, then you obviously believe what you say. If you don't... then we all know what kind of little man is sitting on the other side of your posts. If you perceive a threat and don't post your address then you must surely not believe what you say.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by hooper

 

I keep seeing that 9/11 passed the challange but the whole point of the challange is that if it indeed happened on 9/11 then then just reproduce it with any kind of structure that sticks to the conditions set forth by the challange.

The problem is the so-called challenge is nonsensical. Models are constructed in order to see how something will react in real life when you have no real world expamples. We do. Plenty. Plus there is no reason to believe that the so-called challenger will accept any model.

Maybe Heiwa is wrong. Then just build the model and prove him wrong. It doesn't matter if it proves or disproves 9/11 because most people have their mind made up anyway.

Also the vids of top down demolition on this thread don't really show how much of the structure was left standing or indicate if the structure had been weakened before the demo.

See your last statment there? That's why actaully responding to the "challenge" is purely futile. Even though a real life proof is put in front of you, you found someway to justify doubt, rational or not, in the validity of a perfect repsonse. In that case you suggest that maybe the underlying section of the building may have been weakened, and it probably was, however, the structure is still obviosuly self-supporting until the moment when the smaller upper portion of the building crushed the larger lower portion. Explain to me why that example does not satisfy the challenge? Call it a full scale model. Its been verified. Yet no 10,000 euros.

Originally posted by hooper
It was done, on Sepember 11, 2001. Billions of people all over the world witnessed live on TV, thousands witnessed live on the ground.

I don't know whether to laugh at you or put my face in my hand. Let's try to think about this for a second. Do you know what "circular reasoning" is? If not you might want to educate yourself because I'm not even going to bother explaining what that is or why it's wrong, as if you don't understand it already then I don't think there's any way I could possibly hope to explain it to you.

The point of this challenge is for someone to FINALLY recreate what happened on 9/11 and prove that we know why it happened. Your response is that it was already "recreated" on 9/11 by the buildings themselves. Which is equivalent to a Christian saying their interpretation of the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Of course the Bible may not say or especially prove any such thing. And similarly what the buildings did on 9/11 is being debated right here and you referring back to it as if it's a known example of ANYTHING is downright idiotic. And it's circular reasoning, but I can only hope that you even know what that means.

It's a funny thing, the way all of you jabber on with all this rhetoric like you really think you're accomplishing something. And all the while, you never had evidence for your own beliefs, not in the slightest. You all have faith. A very arrogant and ignorant, blind faith that you defend zealously. And really you just come here to mock and aggravate others. You have no intention of trying to make a real case to real people. Did you guys all come from 4chan? I think you may have, and this is all just a stupid joke.

The problem with the so-called "axiom" is it is nonsensical. It pretends that you can use the word structure and then write a rule that will cover all possible permutations of man-made structures. The Great Pyramid at Giza is a structure, so is a lean-to made out of canvas and sticks, so is the Brooklyn Bridge and Sydney Opera House. Do you think you can write one rule that would perfectly predict how all those "structures" would react in a single circumstance? No, of course not.

The point of giving you the full range of possibilities is to HELP you complete the challenge. You aren't limited to having to use the WTC structure to recreate the parts of their collapse in question. You could use ANY structure to demonstrate those things are possible without demolition. Why are you bitching about ADVANTAGES that the OP gave you?? Really I have to tell you I have absolutely no respect for your opinions or "insight" on these threads at all at this point hooper. I realize that's probably fine with you but honestly, you make me wish ATS had higher standards for being able to post here, besides having fingers and being able to navigate yourself to the site.

Heiwa likes to throw around the word axiom a lot because he thinks it makes him sound intellectually superior, the matter of the fact is axioms are absolute, and the poster conditions his axiom. There is a word for a conditional axiom, it is called an "opinion".

Axiom is not a complicated word. Maybe he comes across as "intellectually superior" to you because he actually is. Did you ever think of that one? Not every crayon is as sharp as the next after all, and that's no lie.

The way you describe the word axiom proves that you don't even understand what it means. Calculus and algebra are based on axioms, but so can any system of formal logic. No, they're not "absolute," they're assumed in order for the system to make use of logical operations. This was important historically around the 1920's and 30's when Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead tried to make mathematics essentially autonomous by axiomizing. Godel proved it to be impossible. Look all that up if you want to understand axioms.

Originally posted by hooper
See your last statment there? That's why actaully responding to the "challenge" is purely futile. Even though a real life proof is put in front of you, you found someway to justify doubt, rational or not, in the validity of a perfect repsonse. In that case you suggest that maybe the underlying section of the building may have been weakened, and it probably was, however, the structure is still obviosuly self-supporting until the moment when the smaller upper portion of the building crushed the larger lower portion. Explain to me why that example does not satisfy the challenge? Call it a full scale model. Its been verified. Yet no 10,000 euros.

The reason that I don't think it satisfies the challange is because I didn't see just how much was left standing. The camera pans away before the dust settles. It could have smashed it into rubble or maybe left a good portion of it standing. Can't tell from that vid.

If the lower structure had been weakened it would not be "more or less identical" (per condition 2) to the top of the structure and of course may not "withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart" according to condition number 4 of the challange.

Maybe if you could get a demo crew to do this type of take down within the conditions and everything gets properly filmed, you can split the 10,000 euros. If they are getting paid for it and it is possible then someone may just give it a go.

Everything else is just, my calcs are better than your calcs.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by daskakik]