The Heiwa Challenge

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

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?

www.youtube.com...

psik

A small scale layman simulation can be performed by layering/stacking bricks with matchbox/variable stuff and drop another brick on it. Modify the layering as you like.Talk about cheap!

For near real life, there are finite element software to render it in rainbow colors. Understand the challenger constraint and find an engineering student.

The restrictive data/data constraint is already provided by the challenger.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by RainCloud]

Originally posted by RainCloud
A small scale layman simulation can be performed by layering/stacking bricks with matchbox/variable stuff and drop another brick on it. Modify the layering as you like.Talk about cheap!

For near real life, there are finite element software to render it in rainbow colors. Understand the challenger constraint and find an engineering student.

The restrictive data/data constraint is already provided by the challenger.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by RainCloud]

The joke is on you.

The layman simulation that you ridicule has mass even if the layman doesn't measure it. How it behaves will depend on the mass.

In real physics, even if done by a so called layman, still behaves like real physics. Mass and gravity can't tell who has a degree in what and is incapable of giving a damn.

Now when you use that computer simulation software that you imply requires some great intellect HAS TO HAVE DATA ENTERED INTO IT. What it does will change depending on that data. Who is this challenger, Heiwa?

So your attempt at ridicule is merely egotistically idiotic.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

weight distribution

Not steel vs. concrete, your favorite obsession.

I know where you are going with this. You don't think the impact of the plane transfered enough energy to the structure to cause it to both oscillate and damage the structural elements sufficiently to cause the collapse, ergo the collapse would then be proven to have been assisted by other means, CD.

Have fun with that. You have all the data you need to make those calculations and prove your point but instead of doing the actual work you insist on going down this accusatory path wherein all those who do not share your "theory" are, in fact, guilty of either monumental stupidity or mass murder.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The joke is on you.
...
So your attempt at ridicule is merely egotistically idiotic.

psik

I do not ridicule, I do not take side (yet), I'm just providing the tools for people who are interested in the challenge.

Calm down and read what hooper said below your "energetic" post.

On subject: I know and and can get the tools i mention, yet I didnt take the challenge. Because my layman physic tells me that it cannot happen. The challenger is actually trying to debunk what US government said by asking a proof of concept, it cannot be done, thats why he dare to provide prize.

The 911 pancake effect cannot happen alone, it can, but the energy (impact)required to make a pancake is far too high and unlikely will happen.
An asteroid falling straight down might make it, merely few story high is not enough. Normal failure of supporting pillar will only create a stump or half standing structure or it will fall sideways (all the same actually).

The building should fall in the direction of the first weakest point/failed pillar. You can see the effect in break bricks karate, see the impact required and yet it just break in the middle (least resistance).

For a pancake effect, all supporting pillar must break/fail at SAME TIME, which is a WOW effect.

My assumption on 911 is : incremental detonation of supporting pillars to simultaneously fail at same layer at same time is a must to create a pancake effect.

Forgot to add, another way for pancake is to fail at the first bottom layer. That will give you pancake for sure.

Now I revealed my side.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by RainCloud]

The structure is of course composite in any combination steel, concrete, wood, whatever. It does not matter the least as the top part C is as weak, strong, dense, fluffy as the bottom part A (that is slightly stronger as it carries C before the drama).
The drama is of course that aeroplanes crushing into and big fires of some floors between C and A cause C to drop on A.

Normally, when C drops on A, A stops C immediately because A is stronger than C and C cannot apply sufficient energy/force on A for any action.

Except in Hollywood! C crushes down A! Never seen before or after 911.

Soon after Condoleezza Rice announces that this Hollywood trick is produced by UBL! LOL! It only happens in Washington DC ... all the time.

Anyway, topic is my Challenge and anyone can wiin Euro 10 000 or US$ 13 000 by proving me wrong.

reply to post by Heiwa


Sorry, 9/11 proved you wrong. I guess its your turn to prove 9/11 didn't happen. Good luck with that, heard there were a few witnesses.

Originally posted by hooper
Not steel vs. concrete, your favorite obsession.

I know where you are going with this. You don't think the impact of the plane transfered enough energy to the structure to cause it to both oscillate and damage the structural elements sufficiently to cause the collapse, ergo the collapse would then be proven to have been assisted by other means, CD.

Plenty of people say the collapse did not occur because of structural damage. They say it was because of fire.

But there are THREE DIFFERENT REASONS for needing to know the steel and concrete on every level.

1. Impact Analysis

2. Fire, hot enough to weaken HOW MUCH STEEL in less then ONE or TWO hours.

3. Collapse analysis: how could the steel be strong enough to support the static load for 28 years but not slow the falling mass to make it take A LOT LONGER THEN 18 SECONDS even if it did not totally arrest the collapse?

So as long as we don't have the information the analysis IS NOT SCIENCE.

So why haven't the scientists on all sides been pointing that out for EIGHT YEARS?

psik

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

Sorry, 9/11 proved you wrong. I guess its your turn to prove 9/11 didn't happen. Good luck with that, heard there were a few witnesses.

Yeah, BELIEVERS in the 9/11 Religion don't need facts to explain the physics.

Could Isaac Newton be laughing his ass off?

psik

[edit on 28-7-2010 by psikeyhackr]

reply to post by psikeyhackr

Plenty of people say the collapse did not occur because of structural damage. They say it was because of fire.

No "they" say it was because of BOTH fire and damage. Both, together, at the same time.

But there are THREE DIFFERENT REASONS for needing to know the steel and concrete on every level.

No, there really aren't.

1. Impact Analysis

Really? Exactly what kind of "impact analysis" requires knowing the ratio of concrete to steel? Besides, what good would it do you? You are not capable of reading blueprints and making simple calculations then how are you going to understand the analysis?

2. Fire, hot enough to weaken HOW MUCH STEEL in less then ONE or TWO hours.

A lot.

3. Collapse analysis: how could the steel be strong enough to support the static load for 28 years but not slow the falling mass to make it take A LOT LONGER THEN 18 SECONDS even if it did not totally arrest the collapse?

Really? Again, based on your understanding of science you don't know why dropping one building on another doesn't have the same effect as attaching one building to another? You don't understand that if you slowly add another story to a one story home you can do that without damaging the first story, but you think that if you took all the building materials for the second story and dropped them on the first it would basically be the same thing?

So as long as we don't have the information the analysis IS NOT SCIENCE.

So why haven't the scientists on all sides been pointing that out for EIGHT YEARS?

I really think that's a question you have to ask yourself, and again there are basically two different answers:

a) All the scientist in the world are not as smart as you

or

b) All the scientist in the world are "in on it".

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Yeah, BELIEVERS in the 9/11 Religion don't need facts to explain the physics.

This is pretty ironic, coming from a guy who had to have what PE is explained to him over at Greg Urich's forum.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"From another thread:


psikeyhackr wrote:
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

Hilarity ensues after this, as psikeyhackr defends his views.

A stellar moment of trutherism......

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Yeah, BELIEVERS in the 9/11 Religion don't need facts to explain the physics.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

Wait.... what?

Wow. That's um... quite funny.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Six Sigma]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Yeah, BELIEVERS in the 9/11 Religion don't need facts to explain the physics.

This is pretty ironic, coming from a guy who had to have what PE is explained to him over at Greg Urich's forum.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"From another thread:


psikeyhackr wrote:
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

Hilarity ensues after this, as psikeyhackr defends his views.

A stellar moment of trutherism......

Yes, the equation for potential energy is weight times the height.

But the mass in question has to be able to MOVE the distance in question. Meaning it needs to be EMPTY SPACE. If it is not empty then multiplying by that height is NONSENSE.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Yeah, BELIEVERS in the 9/11 Religion don't need facts to explain the physics.

This is pretty ironic, coming from a guy who had to have what PE is explained to him over at Greg Urich's forum.

the911forum.freeforums.org...

"From another thread:


psikeyhackr wrote:
The potential energy of the WTC was ZERO because it could not fall down."

Hilarity ensues after this, as psikeyhackr defends his views.

A stellar moment of trutherism......

Yes, the equation for potential energy is weight times the height.

But the mass in question has to be able to MOVE the distance in question. Meaning it needs to be EMPTY SPACE. If it is not empty then multiplying by that height is NONSENSE.

psik

psik, you are right as usual but let's assume that the top weight (and its mass C) can drop a distance h (say 3.7 meters) and then that C collides with mass A below (same structure but A>9C) so that energy (from moving C) is applied to the collision between C and A.
Evidently the energy is applied to both C and A - actually 50/50 - so both C and A deform elastically to start with. And then elements may start to break up in C and A - logically the weakest elements subject to the biggest forces. You can be sure that some elements in C may break.
And then ? Well, usually the available energy has then been absorbed as elastic deformation and local failures and C is arrested and stops on top of A. It HAPPENS EVERY TIME.

reply to post by Heiwa

And then ? Well, usually the available energy has then been absorbed as elastic deformation and local failures and C is arrested and stops on top of A. It HAPPENS EVERY TIME.

Wait just a minute. What do you mean "usually"?

Do you realize that "usually" is a direct contradiction of "IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME"? Are you trying to give yourself a little wiggle room so when you end up in court being told to hand over the 10000 euros you have something to fall back on?

You do realize that means - not always, right? So, basically, you just proved your own challenge. Which means everyone else who met your challenge is, indeed correct.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

And then ? Well, usually the available energy has then been absorbed as elastic deformation and local failures and C is arrested and stops on top of A. It HAPPENS EVERY TIME.

Wait just a minute. What do you mean "usually"?

Do you realize that "usually" is a direct contradiction of "IT HAPPENS EVERY TIME"? Are you trying to give yourself a little wiggle room so when you end up in court being told to hand over the 10000 euros you have something to fall back on?

You do realize that means - not always, right? So, basically, you just proved your own challenge. Which means everyone else who met your challenge is, indeed correct.

Topic is my Heiwa Challenge and so far nobody has been able to describe a structure where small top C manages to crush down bigger bottom A by gravity to rubble B, i.e. nobody has been able to meet my Challenge.
This in spite of scientific reports by Bazant how it is possible and by NIST how to do it (C applies energy from above that A connot absorb = A collapses from top down). And a Euro 10 000:- reward!

Usually or customarily this non-event, i.e. nobody has met my Challenge, happens every time it is posted on various internet forums.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by Heiwa]

reply to post by Heiwa


No, no, don't sell yourself short - you just met your own challenge!

You proved that C can sometimes crush A! According to you the energy is sometimes insufficient, but at other times it may not be, so therefore there may be incidents (like on 9/11) wherein C can crush A!

So how are you going to spend your 10000 euros?

And again, a big "job well done" to you.

Originally posted by Heiwa
Topic is my Heiwa Challenge and so far nobody has been able to describe a structure where small top C manages to crush down bigger bottom A by gravity to rubble B, i.e. nobody has been able to meet my Challenge.
This in spite of scientific reports by Bazant how it is possible and by NIST how to do it (C applies energy from above that A connot absorb = A collapses from top down). And a Euro 10 000:- reward!

...and as already shown, it has been proven not only by numerous explanations here, but by the WTC collapse itself, so your not being able to understand how it happened in no way refutes the fact that it did happen. You tried to play this cute little game without thinking it all the way through, and you don't want to admit that it blew up in your face so you simply play pretend you're not being spanked here.

I said it before and I'll say it again- if someone needs to resort to playing children's games like this to defend his position, it's a de facto admission that he knows his position is wrong. Besides, you and I both know you're being a phony here and you've never actually read the NIST report.

You really have no credibility.

Originally posted by Heiwa

Normally, when C drops on A, A stops C immediately because A is stronger than C and C cannot apply sufficient energy/force on A for any action.

This statement is rubbish. A can only stop C if A can resist the force of C. A 600 ton object with a load capacity of 2400 tons cannot resist a force of 9000 tons regardless of how you manipulate the math. Otherwise, you'd be able to stop a bullet with a piece of paper.

You really have no credibility, Heiwa.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

You proved that C can sometimes crush A! According to you the energy is sometimes insufficient, but at other times it may not be, so therefore there may be incidents (like on 9/11) wherein C can crush A!

LOL! I proved that C can sometimes crush A?? Pls provide full details of such structure and show that C crushes A and I'll give you the Euro 10 000:- .

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

... A can only stop C if A can resist the force of C. A 600 ton object with a load capacity of 2400 tons cannot resist a force of 9000 tons regardless of how you manipulate the math. Otherwise, you'd be able to stop a bullet with a piece of paper.

You really have no credibility, Heiwa.

When C contacts A (the collision) evidently C applies force (or rather pressure) on A and A applies exactly the same force/pressure on C. You follow?
Now, the question is: Can C resist the pressure A applies on it? If C resists, C evidently stops on top of A.
Reason is that if C can resist the pressure A applies on it, A will of course resist the same pressure C applies on A (as A has same structure as C. C is no bullet and A is no paper!) Happens every time collisions occur between identical structures. The smaller participant C cannot ever crush the bigger opponent A.
I am quite pleased with my scientific article just published in ASCE's Journal of Engineering Mechanics; heiwaco.tripod.com...

It makes me a very credible source of scientific facts, I am happy to conclude.



[edit on 29-7-2010 by Heiwa]