It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Heiwa Challenge

page: 2
10
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

Scaling is not the point of the contest. The point is to prove that something can indeed happen. The point is to prove it can indeed happen at any scale. The point is that they are saying it cannot happen, NO MATTER WHAT THE SCALE. So, the point is to prove that it can. If you wanted to go 1:1 scale, there are no rules against that. Stop arguing nonsense and collect your winnings.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
How do you scale gravity?

It's just mathematics. One would construct a model with parts held together with strengths corresponding to the strengths of the WTC, but scaled down, and then drop the top portion from a height that would cause an impact of the same proportional ke on the lower portion of the tower.

People of different weights "scale gravity" when they step on a bathroom scale. The little ones scale it down and the big ones scale it up.

Joey. Gravity is directly proportional to the masses of the bodies involved and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Gravity is measured as a ratio. It is inherently scalable.

Joey. Have some canelloni.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by ipsedixit]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by evil incarnate

He is saying 1/10th of the total mass that was dropped should crush 9/10th's of the structure. He even tried this:

Yes, of course. Several times with various structures. Result is always as expected. Part C cannot crush part A. C (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges...)

Of course, the 1/10 is not just obliterating the 9/10's, it's taking it out one floor at a time. As shown in his own paper under the section Just Drop Anything:

Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed and contacts something else below, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.

If the floor is not strong enough. Is a single floor of going to resist the falling 1/10th? After that, when the steel ball falls through the floor, it WILL gain energy from the fall to hit the next floor, no? Or has gravity stopped working after the initial impact?

tl;dr version:

Riddle me this, where do you think that ship on top is going to go?

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Whyhi]

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Heiwa is insane...

There's more, but you all get the drift.

He is staggeringly incompetent.

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. It's amazing what you can sometimes tell about a person just from a single internet post.

How do you scale gravity?

The challenge does not require you to "scale gravity." Re-read the requirements for the challenge to be met. Explain why exactly you think it would be necessary to change the acceleration of gravity to meet those requirements. (And you are the one making the claim so please spare me immature "why wouldn't it?"-like responses if you feel tempted.)

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:57 PM

Originally posted by Whyhi
Of course, the 1/10 is not just obliterating the 9/10's, it's taking it out one floor at a time.

"One floor at a time" -- pancake theory. Debunked for years now.

So do you have any credible (technical) sources discussing how this "one floor at a time" collapse could have occurred? Also, have you ever studied the structure of the buildings? Are you aware that the structure did not revolve around the floors and that the floors were NOT the part of the structure holding the building up? And that the floors were not even single discrete units that could be 'taken out' in a single instant anyway, but consisted of many independent trusses and beams strung between different columns?

It's unfortunate that people get so wrapped up in trying to dispel myths that others believe, they stop looking to dispel the myths they still believe themselves.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:19 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:08 PM

Originally posted by ipsedixit

It's just mathematics. One would construct a model with parts held together with strengths corresponding to the strengths of the WTC, but scaled down, and then drop the top portion from a height that would cause an impact of the same proportional ke on the lower portion of the tower.

That wouldn't meet the pre condition criteria he's set out.

You really need to study that a bit before you presume to lecture someone.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:15 PM

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?

Being a no planer sats nothing?

It's amazing what you can sometimes tell about a person just from a single internet post.

Yep.

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?

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:19 PM
Lots of belittlement and ZERO factual, physics based arguments.....

Once again, a lot of bluster and nothing else....

With 10,000 Euros there for the taking, it makes me wonder why joey, weedy, hooper and Co. arent feverishly building their scale models...???

We ALL know why....they cant.

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:27 PM

Why doesn't he build one...?

Yes, of course. Several times with various structures. Result is always as expected. Part C cannot crush part A. C (pizza boxes, lemons, sponges...)

If only he had more lemons and pizza boxes...

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Whyhi]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 02:54 AM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

The level of organization from all of you "Debunkers" is amazing.

I swear when I'm reading posts, that they have been copy and pasted or are word for word repetitions of previous posts.

You pop up here with a list of quotes from the poor guy, from other forums, listed with links and all. Attempting to paint him as a nutcase, so thoughtful you are.

I wonder sometimes if you guys all have rss feeds on every thread and this forum. Monitoring it constantly.

Considering the Posts story the other day on the so called "fourth branch" of government I have to seriously consider that most. if not all of you, are part of the GWOT's intelligence apparatus. Or let me guess Dana Priest and William Arkin are some tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.

Edit: BTW, I see you have a new team member, welcome to the Forum Whyhi

[edit on 21-7-2010 by PersonalChoice]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:09 AM
The CIA spends billions annually on Cyberwarfare.....the New Frontier....

Makes you wonder doesn't it???

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:11 AM
I see the same old typical debunkers debunking nothing. It is obvious the only thing I read in this thread, is their agenda of smearing most Truthers.
I have yet to see them post anything interesting concerning the OP. I know I cannot debunk the OP questions, because we all know, it is true, real math does not hold water for the OS. It is very sad that our government think they can fool the American people by playing on our intelligent. Anyone with common sense watching all the videos of the WTC exploding into billions of pieces, and watching all the concrete being pulverized in mid air, seeing hundreds of tons of steel beams being hurled up into the air over 500 feet away into nearby buildings, knows their eyes are not lying to them.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by impressme]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:37 AM

Haiwa Challenge: Drop a small part C of a structure on same, but bigger, part A, of same structure, so that C destroys A.

Okay.... here we go:

Thank you!

S.S.

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

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by impressme
It is very sad that our government think they can fool the American people by playing on our intelligent.

Amazing that they think they could do that.

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:34 AM

dear benoni....

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

Every "rivet"

Every "bolt"

Every "piece of re-bar" embedded in the "concrete" (YES, even the "concrete" would have to be "scaled"

Every "steel I-beam" (the tensile strength would have to precisely match...any metallurgists in the audience? how easy is that?)

Every "steel truss"

Every "piece of exterior aluminum cladding"

>>>....getting it yet???

When you talk about scaling, and engineering design, they are NOT "designing" to mimic failures!

(Just about ALL modern design planning is done with computers, now anyways. THAT would be a better challenge, not this ridiculous "build it, I dare ya!" nonsense).

Actually, the computer modelling to examine the effects of the airplane impacts WAS done...right?? "Truthers" like to hand-wave away the Purdue study.

Sad, because it doesn't fit their fantasy, they prefer to ignore....but, it's par for the course, in their fantasy paradigm world views.

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.

Tough cookies if a team has to share the 10,000 Euros, though!

WHAT a joke, too!! Only 10,000 Euros!!
Pikers!!!

BTW...the "challenge" said "any scale"...remember?? It said that "any scale" was valid.

THAT is why I laughed....I was picturing something the size of a flea. Or even "nano"-sized...

These guys are bloody idiots. Afraid critical reasoning skills fail for those who cannot see why....

[edit on 21 July 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:59 AM

Originally posted by evil incarnate
The point is to prove it can indeed happen at any scale.

What if it can't happen at any scale?

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 08:59 AM

Originally posted by PersonalChoice

The level of organization from all of you "Debunkers" is amazing.

I swear when I'm reading posts, that they have been copy and pasted or are word for word repetitions of previous posts.

If it looks staged or rehearsed, it's only because truthers haven't come up with anything new for about 5 years. 5 years of fail. 5 years of zero. 5 years of spinning in circles. 5 years of proclaiming that this "latest smoking gun" (which was discussed 5 years ago and is not new) will bring about the new investigation.

So it is in fact sheer repetition that makes it look "suspicious" to you. And your alarm bells have been lowered to almost zero due to your "problems".

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:02 AM

Originally posted by silent thunder
Could one use Jenga blocks?

It says that "Before drop test (see 8.) the structure shall be stable, i.e. carry itself and withstand a small lateral impact at top without falling apart. Connections or joints between elements cannot rely solely on friction."

"Small lateral impact" is a pretty subjective term, and as far as I know, connections between elements in a Jenga tower rely on gravity and the normal force rather than friction. Maybe with a good lawyer you could snag the prize on this basis, although the legal fees might eat up most of your winnings...

[edit on 7/20/10 by silent thunder]

Yes Jenga blocks are allowed as basic structural elements - but you have connect/join them with, e.g. glue, screws or similar to make a real structure bottom of which shall later be destroyed by the top + gravity.

If your structure has no joints between elements and you drop a top of unconnected elements on a bottom of unconnected elements, evidently no joints will fail ... as they do not exist. If you think that the elements, the Jenga elements, will break by themselves when dropped on other Jenga elements, I suggest you test it by a simple drop.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by Heiwa]

posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:20 AM

With 10,000 Euros there for the taking, it makes me wonder why joey, weedy, hooper and Co. arent feverishly building their scale models...???

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.

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).

top topics

10