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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Well
.... thanks, I needed a chuckle.



First video? That goes into the vault when they create one for "Spectacular Fail of Concept Idea" category.

Or, the "He Just Doesn't Get It" sub-category.

(Sorry to be harsh...it IS your video, I realize; but it failed the applicability test. It has NO relevance to the Twin Towers' construction, it does not accurate re-create the dynamics...not even close as analogy...at all).


Second one (NOT yours, I hope?) is well off the mark, in so many ways....BUT, since it's on YouTube, it must be 110% 'true', right? Just 'cause some bloke says so? (Some bloke whose assumptions are flawed to begin with, therefore draws incorrect conclusions...)

The inanity of those people is astonishing.....


Tell that to the NASA scientist explaining modeling.

www.youtube.com...

So when are you or Mackey going to build a model that can collapse?

If a perfect 100th scale replica of the north tower was constructed of the exact same materials a 36 foot box column would become a part 4 inches long. The model would be 13.6 feet tall and a millionth the weight. But it would be 100 times as strong in relation to its weight as the original building. It could not possibly collapse.

So a physical model with a chance of collapse would have to be made of different materials. But the crushable supports must be strong enough to support the weight.

So what engineering school has built a physical model that CAN COLLAPSE.? If no one can deliberately build a model capable of collapsing then it is idiotic to think the towers could do it. We will just have to wait and see how long the 9/11 RELIGION lasts.

Of course a hell of a lot of people would have to admit they were COMPLETE IDIOTS for Eight Years and they hardly want to do that. But it sure is curious that they can't even tell us the weight of a complete floor assembly that some claim pancaked.

I won't hold my breath until you can build a collapsing model..

psik




posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr ...
So when are you or Mackey going to build a model that can collapse?

psik


It doesn't have to be a model that destroys itself to enter the Heiwa Challenge. Just a structure. Any structure! Any real structure. Of any material! Of any elements. Any connections between elements. Total structural freedom!

Freedom! Structural. Evidently a free structure cannot be crushed down by a little top bit of itself? Maybe Condoleezza Rice doesn't agree? But where she is? Gone?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heiwa
It doesn't have to be a model that destroys itself to enter the Heiwa Challenge. Just a structure. Any structure! Any real structure. Of any material! Of any elements. Any connections between elements. Total structural freedom!


What is the point of entering unless the intent is to win?

But I agree with you. It can't be done.

psik



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
What is the point of entering unless the intent is to win?

But I agree with you. It can't be done.



The point is for someone to TRY to accomplish the challenge, and thereby PROVE that the collapse mechanism of the WTC Towers is well-understood and scientifically reproducible.

For everyone to be unable to reproduce the specified features of the WTC Tower collapses despite being able to model or create any size, type and design of structure demonstrates that, despite it "apparently" happening twice in a row on the morning of 9/11, the gov-sponsored collapse theory is not reproducible or demonstrable in any known scientific way. That includes in the NIST report where they also failed to test or in any way verify their hypothesis scientifically. Saying "It's too complicated" does NOT amount to a scientific validation! It's a lame excuse from laymen idiots who perpetually demonstrate on the internet that they never understood the scientific method to begin with.



Agreed the challenge is impossible, because the gov-sponsored theory as to how the WTC Towers collapsed is actually impossible and will never be "reproduced" as it never happened anyway.


So apparently we are all in agreement that it is impossible to model or recreate the WTC Tower collapses, at least using government theories as to how the collapses happened.

Some people will need about 10 or 20 years for the significance of that to fully set in. Or the rest of their lifetimes. Or maybe nothing will ever be enough to shake them of their faith.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Boy....when you rant, it comes back to roost, huh?


...from laymen idiots who perpetually demonstrate on the internet that they never understood the scientific method to begin with.


You really shouldn't insult the "truthers" ike that...they might get mad. AND they might own guns...



For the rational people who dip into this thread, the implausibility, and irrelevance of this "challenge" is well evident.

The ONLY valid way to "recreate" the conditions is to build, full-size, an exact replica, smae materials.

The "scaling" doesn't work, because of the PHYSICS!!! This includes the acceleration due to gravity, mass, inertia and momentum.

And, the "truthers" really do NOT understand that....


Rest of the adults on this planet do get it, though.



One last-ditch effort to get through to somebody, ANYbody....Anders Bjorkman (the "challenger") is trained in shipbuilding engineering....

....SO, let's see if HE can devise a challenge that could "scale down" the Titanic, and recreate that disaster....EXACTLY.

OR, would he have to build a full-sized replica????



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Boy....when you rant, it comes back to roost, huh?


...from laymen idiots who perpetually demonstrate on the internet that they never understood the scientific method to begin with.


You really shouldn't insult the "truthers" ike that...they might get mad. AND they might own guns...


I'm sorry, when you're done exhibiting these brilliants comebacks, were you actually going to provide the scientific validation for the gub'mnt theories, or is that not your burden to prove either?


....SO, let's see if HE can devise a challenge that could "scale down" the Titanic, and recreate that disaster....EXACTLY.


How many pages have been discussing this and you're still exaggerating the challenge to make it sound like it has more limitations than it actually does. It doesn't have to be exact. It only has to fit certain technical criteria regarding relative dimensions that are laid out in the OP. It doesn't even have to be the same type of design, materials, size, any of that. The sky is the limit. And you still fail to prove the WTC collapse mechanism is reproducible. Science is reproducible. Quackery relies on rhetoric. Put up or shut up my friend. And yes I have guns.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
You are confusing them Anders.....your scientific approach really has them baffled..they have no idea how to respond so choose their childish playground name-calling en masse in a vain attempt to silence you...

When I see this tactic employed(just the same tactic unsuccessfully used against tiffany in LA...) I see it it as an obvious sign of desperation, attempting "character assassination" rather than disproving you, which would be the smart thing to do...

They clearly cannot reproduce the impossible physics witnessed on 9/11, so resort to belittlement in a hope of deflecting from the actual topic....

This is standard practice whenever they are in a corner and cannot disprove a fact of physics which unfortunately for them, are fixed and pure.

Obviously you are correct.....if you werent they wouldnt have sent the Attack Dogs out.....

Nice challenge...your money is safe Anders.....


Yeah, where is Tiffany? She had so much interesting stuff to say.

As for Anders, I'll give him a million quid if he can prove an inside job. Honestly, I will.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
As for Anders, I'll give him a million quid if he can prove an inside job. Honestly, I will.


I haven't even scrutinized the wording of the Heiwa's challenge this much, but you've made me curious. How would you define the phrase "inside job" here? What if it could be proven from open sources that even 1 US official did something, any trivial thing, knowingly, to actively contribute to or facilitate what happened? And that 1 official was in a key position to do this and had a conflict of interest to where he would benefit from the US response to 9/11? Does that qualify as an "inside job"?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Yes. If you can do it I'll give you a million pounds.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Well damn, call your lawyer and have him put that into legal writing. I'll even u2u you all my personal info if you want to put all of this into writing as you agreed to it above and can contact me with a lawyer. That's something like $2 million right? It's worth a go, or at least worth giving a shot at putting you into some nice debt.



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade


As for Anders, I'll give him a million quid if he can prove an inside job. Honestly, I will.


Thanks, pls confirm in writing to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F06240 Beausoleil, France, providing your full style + definition of inside job and I will revert. How are you getting on with topic, i.e. my Challenge? Difficulties with a structure that collapses from top down by itself?



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

One last-ditch effort to get through to somebody, ANYbody....Anders Bjorkman (the "challenger") is trained in shipbuilding engineering....

....SO, let's see if HE can devise a challenge that could "scale down" the Titanic, and recreate that disaster....EXACTLY.

OR, would he have to build a full-sized replica????


In this/My Challenge any structure of any material, with any elements and joints, in any size can be used! Reason is to verify the NIST hypothesis that a small top part C can apply sufficient energy/pressure from above to crush bottom part A. Bazant has presented a theory/model for it ... but that model/structure A does not even stand statically by itself prior 'crush down'. It is too weak + top C is made extra strong so A cannot ever carry C. So the Bazant model is just to confuse.
Actually to meet my Challenge is impossible as no structure collapses from top down! You can fly as many planes you like into tops of skyscrapers ... and the skyscrapers will never collapse.
It seems the terrorists knew that so the destructions were assisted. The planes were just for show!



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Boy....when you rant, it comes back to roost, huh?


...from laymen idiots who perpetually demonstrate on the internet that they never understood the scientific method to begin with.


You really shouldn't insult the "truthers" ike that...they might get mad. AND they might own guns...

For the rational people who dip into this thread, the implausibility, and irrelevance of this "challenge" is well evident.

The ONLY valid way to "recreate" the conditions is to build, full-size, an exact replica, smae materials.

The "scaling" doesn't work, because of the PHYSICS!!! This includes the acceleration due to gravity, mass, inertia and momentum.

And, the "truthers" really do NOT understand that....

Rest of the adults on this planet do get it, though.


The supports in my model are as weak as I can make them to support the weight. Dropping two washers from four inches crushes a single paper loop. Doubling and tripling the loops to make them support greater static loads means larger dynamic loads are required to CRUSH them. Why don't we have data on the amount of energy required to crush a level of the WTC and that energy would have to increase down the building because every skyscraper must progressivlely support more weight?

I guess that is the trouble with morons. They can't comprehend that they are stupid.

But people like Richard Gage want to propagandize people into BELIEVING[/]b instead of actually explaining.

psik



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey CanoliHow do you scale gravity?

How do you scale the ke gained from a drop of 1 story to fit the model? Less distance = less time to gather momentum = smaller impact energy = gravity can't be scaled.

This yet another reason truthers fail.

They have no idea just how uneducated they are.....


Since the models are smaller are you saying that gravity should be stronger or weaker?

If you want gravity stronger that just means mys supports would have to be stronger for the higher static load. But that would mean they could handle greater dynamic load. If gravity is weaker the reverse would be true. Scaling gravity is unnecessary.

How do you scale anything without accurate data?

So why don't you people that BELIEVE an airliner could destroy a skyscraper want accurate information on the steel and concrete on every level of the towers.

Is it that the FACTS will interfere with your beliefs.

Correct information is a threat to the 9/11 RELIGION!

I can test the amount of kinetic energy required to crush a paper loop. But the EXPERTS aren't telling us the amount of energy necessary to crush a level of the WTC. So you people BELIEVE things without data but object to any kind of testing.

psik

[edit on 26-7-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
 


Okay, but to show you're serious you have to cover my legal fees for drawing up the contract. Let's call it 800 dollars. You can U2U me for details.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Heiwa
 


It's alright, I can tell you what you need here in order to win the money. Simply a frank admission from an insider. Someone who planted the bombs, ideally.

Or someone involved in grounding the response jets. Or someone at airport security who was in on it. Or a graphics designer who faked the planes.

Or an engineer who retrofitted the planes to fly by remote. Someone who dug the hole at Shanksville or planted debris at the Pentagon. One of the people who faked the DNA evidence at either site. Someone who organised or participated in the voice morphing to fake the calls.

One of the dozens of paid witnesses. A network news room technician or editor who inserted the fake footage. Somebody who faked the black box data. Someone involved in the planning.

Or I'd take Dick Cheney.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 





Or I'd take Dick Cheney.


To paraphrase the late, great Henry Youngman:

"...and speaking of politics, take Dick Cheney......please."





posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

If a perfect 100th scale replica of the north tower was constructed of the exact same materials a 36 foot box column would become a part 4 inches long. The model would be 13.6 feet tall and a millionth the weight. But it would be 100 times as strong in relation to its weight as the original building. It could not possibly collapse.

So a physical model with a chance of collapse would have to be made of different materials. But the crushable supports must be strong enough to support the weight.


You wouldn't need to duplicate the materials or even the design. You need to duplicate the structural integrity.

Each floor of the WTC weighed approx 4000 tons, and it was supported in air by horizontal braces running from the central core to the perimeter columns. This means that each floor was completely independent from each other, so that each and every floor will have the same approx 16,000 ton load capacity. This differs from other box structures like the Empire State building, where the columns from the floor below are supporting the floor above.

The tower began collapsing around the ninety fifth floor, and the towers were 110 stories, meaning that the 95 floor was hit by the combined weight of the fifteen floors above it (approx 60,000 tons). Thus, to have a proper comparison, create a platform weighing X, with a load bearing capacity of 4X, and then drop a platform of the same width and length but weighing 15X onto it, and then see what happens.

I doubt this test or any other test for that matter will be enough to sway these conspiracy people. They've made up their mind some sinister secret plot is afoot regardless of what any of the facts show, becuase, hey, college kids making internet videos in their dorm room told them so so it must be true.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

It's alright, I can tell you what you need here in order to win the money. Simply a frank admission from an insider. Someone who planted the bombs, ideally.

Or someone involved in grounding the response jets. Or someone at airport security who was in on it. Or a graphics designer who faked the planes.


You wouldn't even need that. The guy who drove the truck carrying all the explosives to the WTC would do, as well as the guy who painted the cruise missile to look like a passenger jet. I'd also accept the testimony any of the technicians ordered to rig the black box to look like it came from flight 93. Heck, I would even accept evidence showing how everyone who was in a five mile radius of the Pentagon on 9/11 suddenly became spontaneously wealthy for no reason.

It's one thing to conjure up all sorts of fanciful accusations and secret plots, but it's another thing entirely to get them to work in the real world.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Yes, any of those would do as well.




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join