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: 7
10
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:09 PM

Yes, any of those would do as well.

Yep, every time the conspiracy people conjure up some new accusation off the top of their heads to keep their conspiracy stories alive, all it does is create more questions than it does answers. They claim that "all the eyewitnesses were paid off", so please, someone explain to me just how much money does it take to get someone to tell others (including their families) that the cruise missile they saw hit the Pentagon was really a passenger jet and have it on their conscience for the rest of their lives. \$100,000? A few million? I guarantee it wouldv've been a hell of a lot more than \$10 and a pack of free smokes.

So please, can one of you conspiracy people show the increase of purchases of Lamborghinis and private jets among the people around the Pentagon? It should be an easy thing to look up.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 12:44 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
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.

By floor do you mean the floor slab and supports outside of the core?

Let's see you provide a link confirming that 4000 tons.

The concrete slab was 206 ft square with a hole for the core 136 by 86.
Because of the corrugated pans it averaged 4.33 inches thick and was 110 lb per cubic foot. These figure give a total of 600 tons for just the floor slab but it contained a rebar mesh.

I have NEVER SEEN a figure for the weight in tons of those floor assemblies that people say did or did not pancake. I figure the total weight between 800 and 900 tons.

So you provide the link to support that 4000 ton figure and don't just throw something out and act like it is supposed to be believed.

Now if you are talking about an entire 12 foot level of the building including the core and the perimeter columns then you must specify where in the building because they must get heavier going down and we don't have trustworthy data on that either.

That is the problem with 9/11. Doing physics without data. All of the physics people should have been screaming about this for more than SEVEN YEARS. Why haven't they been?

psik

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:06 PM

That is the problem with 9/11. Doing physics without data. All of the physics people should have been screaming about this for more than SEVEN YEARS.

Well, it would seem there are two possible answers to your question, neither of which I suspect you are going to like

a) All the "physics people" are in on the conspiracy and therefore not talking about what you think is an essential set of data, or

b) All the "physics people" think you are wrong.

I, personally, am going to go with "b".

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:38 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
By floor do you mean the floor slab and supports outside of the core?

Let's see you provide a link confirming that 4000 tons.

You're missing the point. Whatever the actual weight of the floors may or may not have been, the first floor to feel the brunt of the collapse had at least fifteen times that amout of weight hit it...and that's static weight. That doesn't take into account the dynamic weight that actually hit that the laws of momentum says it was equivalent to. For your argument to be correct, you need to show that each floor had the ability to withstand at a very minimum fifteen times its own weight. The only source I've seen was that it had a maximum load of 4x its own weight, and that comes from your fellow conspircy people.

If you want to refute my weight estimate and instead declare it was only 600 tons, all right, fine, but the problem is still the same for you- the initial 600 ton floor had a maximum load bearing weight of 2400 tons but it was hit by over 9000 tons.

Now if you are talking about an entire 12 foot level of the building including the core and the perimeter columns then you must specify where in the building because they must get heavier going down and we don't have trustworthy data on that either.

It doesn't matter because the vertical beams were held up by the horizontal braces supporting the floors, so when the horizonatal braces went, the vertical beams went with it. There are enough photos of ground zero steel having been bent in ghastly shapes to prove that beyond a doubt.

That is the problem with 9/11. Doing physics without data. All of the physics people should have been screaming about this for more than SEVEN YEARS. Why haven't they been?

Mostly, becuase all the physics wind up saying the same thing- the floors simply couldn't hold up the weight that was coming down on them, and once the first floor was compromised, every other floor below it would necessarily be compromised too becuase every floor all had the exact same maximum weight load. The building didn't require controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, etc for it to fall the way it did so that takes the wind out of all the conspiracy theories' sails right there.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by hooper

That is the problem with 9/11. Doing physics without data. All of the physics people should have been screaming about this for more than SEVEN YEARS.

Well, it would seem there are two possible answers to your question, neither of which I suspect you are going to like

a) All the "physics people" are in on the conspiracy and therefore not talking about what you think is an essential set of data, or

b) All the "physics people" think you are wrong.

I, personally, am going to go with "b".

You left out C. Most of the physics people are too dumb to give a damn. They just went to school so they could get a job.

When I worked at IBM a fellow employee asked me why I wanted a computer at home. I had built a 2 mhz 8080 computer. I learned more from that than all of the classes IBM sent me too.

Most people really don't have much curiosity. They just take the path of least resistance.

psik

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:53 PM

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You're missing the point. Whatever the actual weight of the floors may or may not have been, the first floor to feel the brunt of the collapse had at least fifteen times that amout of weight hit it...and that's static weight. That doesn't take into account the dynamic weight that actually hit that the laws of momentum says it was equivalent to. For your argument to be correct, you need to show that each floor had the ability to withstand at a very minimum fifteen times its own weight. The only source I've seen was that it had a maximum load of 4x its own weight, and that comes from your fellow conspircy people.

No, the problem is you are not distinguishing between the FLOOR outside the CORE and what would be happening inside the core.

The resistance would be in the core and the perimeter columns not the floor. That is why I say LEVEL not floor.

The impact would result in at least two levels being crushed at once. The top of the stationary portion and the bottom of the falling portion. That would take energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling portion therefore it would SLOW DOWN. Then two more levels would be crushed requiring more energy then two more etc., etc.

But 15 falling levels hitting 84 stationary levels and the levels getting heavier and stronger all of the way down. Which one runs out first?

You can CLAIM I am missing the point all you want but you can't even come up with accurate data. The NIST didn't even provide the total for the concrete in the towers. They never talked about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. What about the deflection of the south tower and the four minute oscillation? How much of the planes kinetic energy did that require?

You people that need to scream CONSPIRACY to prove a point can't come up with data and physics worth a #.

So how much did a complete floor assembly weigh? Let's see you provide a link.

psik

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 02:54 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

That is the problem with 9/11. Doing physics without data. All of the physics people should have been screaming about this for more than SEVEN YEARS.

Well, it would seem there are two possible answers to your question, neither of which I suspect you are going to like

a) All the "physics people" are in on the conspiracy and therefore not talking about what you think is an essential set of data, or

b) All the "physics people" think you are wrong.

I, personally, am going to go with "b".

You left out C. Most of the physics people are too dumb to give a damn. They just went to school so they could get a job.

When I worked at IBM a fellow employee asked me why I wanted a computer at home. I had built a 2 mhz 8080 computer. I learned more from that than all of the classes IBM sent me too.

Most people really don't have much curiosity. They just take the path of least resistance.

psik

So, basically, you're kind of going with "a", except that all the other "physics people" aren't in on it, there all just a lot dumber than you. Now, do you really think that you are smarter than all the other "physics people" in the world?

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:12 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

You left out C. Most of the physics people are too dumb to give a damn. They just went to school so they could get a job.

When I worked at IBM a fellow employee asked me why I wanted a computer at home. I had built a 2 mhz 8080 computer. I learned more from that than all of the classes IBM sent me too.

Most people really don't have much curiosity. They just take the path of least resistance.

psik

Most physicists aren't stupid though. And if the towers' destruction was so self-evidently against the "laws of physics" don't you think that would be the common view in the physics community?

I mean, 9/11 was a pretty famous event.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
No, the problem is you are not distinguishing between the FLOOR outside the CORE and what would be happening inside the core.

You are right, I don't, becuase every report I've read on the collapse- the NIST report, the FEMA report, and even Eagar's problematic MIT report- all identify the horizontal support braces as the component that had the initial failure of structural integrity, not the core columns. The braces failing necessarily means the floors would collapse and hit the floor below it, so the argument necessarily is over whether the next floor would be able to withstand the impact. I have shown that it would not.

Likewise, we've seen many photos of the vertical columns of ground zero, and many of them were bend in ghastly angles, almost certainly by the collapsing support braces pulling them sideways and down I don't need to tell you the strenght of a support column is entirely vertical, not horizontal.

The impact would result in at least two levels being crushed at once. The top of the stationary portion and the bottom of the falling portion. That would take energy and the only source is the kinetic energy of the falling portion therefore it would SLOW DOWN. Then two more levels would be crushed requiring more energy then two more etc., etc.

That would be true if the floors had a box construction like the Empire State building and had additional supports within the interior, but it didn't- each floor was suspended in air by their horizontal braces. This necessarily means each floor had exactly the same load bearing capacity as every other floor, which in turn means that the further down along the building was in its collapse, the less likely each subsequent floor would be able to withstand the impact. If there was resistance, it was negligible.

Compare apples and oranges, much? This video doesn't even remotely compare to the actual design of the towers. The rings give support to the washers that the floors of the towers never had, and to be relevent the core would need to have been one solid continuous ring rather than individual vertical columns.

If you don't know the difference then you're not anyone to be lecturing people here on WTC physics.

So how much did a complete floor assembly weigh? Let's see you provide a link.

I made an estimated guess according to what I've looked at. If you wish me to retract it and go with your 600 tons instead, then by all means, I retract it, but the difference does nothing to prove your point, and it still proves mine.

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:00 PM

Most physicists aren't stupid though. And if the towers' destruction was so self-evidently against the "laws of physics" don't you think that would be the common view in the physics community?

I mean, 9/11 was a pretty famous event.

As far as I can tell most of them are saying NOTHING.

But regardless of what the cause was, analyzing physical phenomenon involves collecting accurate data. What are super-colliders and probes to Saturn for?

What was the total weight of a floor assembly?

I am not spending my time trying to figure out what is going on in physicists heads. This is even more an issue for structural engineers but where are they demanding info on the tons of steel and concrete on every level? I went to one of Richard Gage's seminars in 2008. I got in line to ask him about that after the show. He claimed the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blue prints.

How much computing power must his organization have now compared to what was available in the early 60s when the WTC was designed? Gravity hasn't changed since then. Experts like making their area of expertise appear complicated. So why don't we have something as simple as a table with the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level for the WTC.

But I have searched the internet and I can't find that info on any skyscraper. It's a guild secret.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There is of course another way of looking at it.

Imagine it is a few weeks after 9/11 and you are a physicist or structural engineer and YOU KNOW THERE IS NO WAY an airliner could do that. Then you also know that something else did and some people have the power to kill thousands of people and obviously don't give a damn about who they kill. You are going to do WHAT?

But then EIGHT YEARS go by and you haven't said anything about it. Are you going to bring up the subject and explain why you never did?

But there is a lot of silence from most of those physicists and structural engineers.

psik

[edit on 26-7-2010 by psikeyhackr]

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 04:26 PM

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
As far as I can tell most of them are saying NOTHING.

But regardless of what the cause was, analyzing physical phenomenon involves collecting accurate data. What are super-colliders and probes to Saturn for?

Earlier you contended that most physicists are stupid, and that's why they aren't asking pertinent questions re 9/11. You subsequently suggested that one only need have "grade school physics" to know that the traditional view of the collapses is incorrect. This doesn't make sense.

But I agree with you, most are saying nothing. Do you not think that if it was so self-evidently impossible for the towers to collapse as per the official account that physicists would be asking questions? Would be demanding data? That the entire community - or most of it - would be energised by something so obviously wrong?

This of course leads you to an inevitable conclusion...

There is of course another way of looking at it.

Imagine it is a few weeks after 9/11 and you are a physicist or structural engineer and YOU KNOW THERE IS NO WAY an airliner could do that. Then you also know that something else did and some people have the power to kill thousands of people and obviously don't give a damn about who they kill. You are going to do WHAT?

But then EIGHT YEARS go by and you haven't said anything about it. Are you going to bring up the subject and explain why you never did?

This is so implausible. You think that the entire physics community knows that 9/11 was an inside job, and not a single one has come forward? They are all quaking with fear, but carrying on as normal? Can you not see how massively unlikely that is?

Also, why aren't you dead? If the perpetrators can scare an entire layer of academia with their implied threat, it seems likely that they would have little trouble finding you. Or Gage.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:42 AM

Originally posted by hooperSo, basically, you're kind of going with "a", except that all the other "physics people" aren't in on it, there all just a lot dumber than you. Now, do you really think that you are smarter than all the other "physics people" in the world?

Why don't you just try doing some Newtonian physics for youself instead of converting everything into EGO GAMES?

Do we have to argue about whether or not skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?

Do we have to argue about whether or not designers of skyscrapers have to determine how much steel and concrete to put where?

You can do all the research you want on how many "physics people" have been asking about the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers over the last eight years.

The Laws of Physics don't give a damn about anybody's ego.

People pretend their area of expertise is more difficult to understand than it really is all the time. Almost all computers are von Neumann machines but I worked for IBM for years and never encountered the term. People hiding information and making things difficult piss me off.

Of course you can't explain von Neumann machines without talking about "address lines" and most supposed explanations don't mention that. Get The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill. See chapter 10 in the 2nd edition.

psik

[edit on 27-7-2010 by psikeyhackr]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 01:26 PM
Educate and simulate it yourself...

List of finite element software packages

these software will rip your pocketbook, but its what people use to send man to the moon. Cheaper way is to contact an engineering student.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:16 PM
You "debunkers" swarming to this thread to reinforce your sensitive worldviews are an embarrassment. Let explain why.

The challenge was presented as a method for replicating the collapse mechanism NIST hypothesized. Science is based on being able to reproduce a behavior after being able to predict it. That is how science is measured. NIST never tested, validated, reproduced, their hypothesis. In no way, no way. Never verified. Even though, as I said earlier, they had exactly what they needed to do so, even performed a similar test for computer calibration that resulted in none of the failures that, by their own theory, should have occurred.

Instead of addressing any of this that actually matters in a scientific sense, YOU ARE STILL ENGAGED IN PETTY BICKERING ABOUT WHAT PHYSICISTS ARE SMARTER AND LOBBING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INSULTS WHENEVER YOUR MASSIVE INTELLECTS ARE OFFENDED.

All I want to remind you is that SOME people are trying to talk about the science I just mentioned. If you're not (and none of you are), then you're ALREADY LOST. Why do you even come here? For THIS? WHY!?!?!

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 03:55 PM

Originally posted by RainCloud
Educate and simulate it yourself...

List of finite element software packages

these software will rip your pocketbook, but its what people use to send man to the moon. Cheaper way is to contact an engineering student.

How do you do a simulation without the data?

Try finding the weight of a complete floor assembly.

I have never seen it. You know those things they talked about pancaking?

psik

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 05:03 PM

You mean you can't figure this out for yourself?

The plans are on the internet including typical cross sections. Even though the information is irrelevant, the only way to come up with the figure is to sit down with the cross sections and do some very basic calculations.

Why do you insist on "finding" information that can be calculated from existing sources?

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 08:08 PM

Originally posted by hooper

You mean you can't figure this out for yourself?

The plans are on the internet including typical cross sections. Even though the information is irrelevant, the only way to come up with the figure is to sit down with the cross sections and do some very basic calculations.

Why do you insist on "finding" information that can be calculated from existing sources?

You think you are accomplishing something by trying to reverse the issue?

We were told those floor assemblies pancaked. Then we were told they didn't. The NIST took 3 years and \$20,000,000 to study this issue and they can't even tell us the total amount of concrete in the buildings though they tell us the weight of steel in three places.

I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report and burned it to DVD three years ago.

The information should have been there. So how have any so called physicists analyzed this event without that information? Why should anyone believe airliners could bring the buildings down without it? At best such missing information demonstrates incompetence.

Oh yeah, it's easier that way. It doesn't require any thinking.

The information is irrelevant you say? How about the plane impact deflecting the south tower horizontally and the building oscillating for four minutes? How do you compute the kinetic energy that produced that deflection and did not do structural damage without knowing the mass of the floor assemblies? Even the NIST admitted it was important in one report but then they didn't follow up.

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

wtc.nist.gov... page 74

Figure 2–15. Displacement of floor 70 of WTC 2 after impact based on video analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A).

The impact of the aircraft into WTC 2 caused the tower to sway back and forth for almost four minutes. The estimated period of oscillation was found to be nearly equal to the calculated first mode period of the undamaged structure, indicating that the overall lateral stiffness of the tower was not affected appreciably by the impact damage. The maximum deflection at the top of the tower was estimated to be more than 1/3 of the drift resulting from the original design wind loads (about 65 in. in the N–S direction) as calculated from the baseline analysis (see Chapter 4). Since the lateral stiffness of the building before and after impact was essentially the same, it can be concluded that the additional stresses in the columns due to this oscillation were roughly 1/3 of the column stresses resulting from the original design wind loads, assuming linear behavior and assuming that the oscillation mode shape and the static deflected shape under design wind loads were identical. The building demonstrated an ability to carry this additional load and therefore, still had reserve capacity. This was confirmed by the structural analysis of the damaged
towers reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-6.

So I guess all that matters is what you declare to be irrelevant in a message board debate.

That is what you call SCIENCE?

psik

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:06 PM

Hang on, you've no right to shut down the debate.

The contention in this thread - beyond the eccentric bloke's risible challenge - is that the physics that explains the collapses is self-evidently wrong. It is thus reasonable to ask why more physicists don't have a problem with it. It's called exploring the implications of your argument.

At the moment no one has explained this satisfactorily. The world's physicists are either all being frightened by shadowy forces - absolutely all of them - or they are (apparently) too stupid to see what a load of untrained conspiracy theorists can understand easily.

I don't find either notion at all persuasive.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:35 PM
No structure A of any type can be crushed down into rubble B by a little top piece C (of same structure). Reason is that C cannot apply sufficient energy on A to produce the crush down. A simple energy balance proves this, e.g. heiwaco.tripod.com... . Persons (Bazant, Seffen) and institutons (NIST) suggesting the opposite are simply wrong.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:47 PM

the physics that explains the collapses is self-evidently wrong. It is thus reasonable to ask why more physicists don't have a problem with it. It's called exploring the implications of your argument.

At the moment no one has explained this satisfactorily. The world's physicists are either all being frightened by shadowy forces - absolutely all of them - or they are (apparently) too stupid to see what a load of untrained conspiracy theorists can understand easily.

I don't find either notion at all persuasive.

I don't understand why you think Newtonian physics is so difficult to comprehend and just quit worrying about all of the physicists and concentrate on trying to understand this for yourself.

Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? Doesn't that mean every level must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all levels above? Doesn't that mean the designers had to figure out how much steel to put on every level before construction started since they must build from the ground up?

So even if the airliners did destroy the towers shouldn't the physicists need to know the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers? So why shouldn't EVERYBODY be given that information if we are supposed to go to war over this and have more Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan than were killed on 9/11?

When people say physics they think of atomic bombs and nuclear particles and black holes and big bangs. 9/11 is not the really complicated stuff. Yeah, this should be a walk in the park for any REAL Physicists. But are you sure our colleges turn out REAL PHYSICISTS most of the time? Do you think people that just memorize equations to pass tests are REAL PHYSICISTS?

Skyscrapers must withstand the sheer forces of the wind from any direction and do it for hours or even days. The towers were supposed to withstand 150 mph winds and just sway 3 feet at the top.

There had to be enough steel on the 81st floor of the south tower to support another 29 stories but we are supposed to believe and open air fire could weaken it to the point of collapse in less than ONE HOUR.

Then the top 12% of the building had to crush 87% and do it at more than 50% of the rate of gravitational acceleration.

And yet the NIST spent 3 year creating a 10,000 page report at a cost of \$20,000,000 that does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers.

Do you ever suppose that a lot of physicists don't want to be bothered with the aggravation of arguing with millions of people that have already chosen to believe something that does not make a bit of sense? Can you imagine how much flac they would get from how many different sources?

Watch a video:

Ignore the first 2 minutes, they're stupid.

psik

new topics

top topics

10