The Heiwa Challenge

reply to post by hooper


Who verified that the towers came down the way you are claiming they did?

That must really be a new low. You're trying to prove that the towers came down without demolition and your proof of that is "it already happened on 9/11"? Are you serious?!?

Needs no further comment... people are asking for evidence and you say just look at 9/11... It really is worse than a religious nut.

Originally posted by OverrunThePerimeter
reply to post by hooper

 

Who verified that the towers came down the way you are claiming they did?

That must really be a new low. You're trying to prove that the towers came down without demolition and your proof of that is "it already happened on 9/11"? Are you serious?!?

Needs no further comment... people are asking for evidence and you say just look at 9/11... It really is worse than a religious nut.

Lets review:

On my side -

Saw a plane crash into a building a explode.

Saw a building burn and collapse.

Building collapsed because of burning, crash and explosion.

On your side -

Saw a plane crash into a building a explode.

Saw a building burn and collapse.

Building collapsed because of explosives that there is no evidence for, that no one saw, that no one has any idea about.

Now who is the religious nut?

reply to post by daskakik

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.

This is why the so-called challenge proves nothing and is futile. Tell you what, here are tonights winning lottery numbers:

41 33 44 02 09 23 17 35

more or less

Originally posted by hooper
Building collapsed because of explosives that there is no evidence for, that no one saw, that no one has any idea about.

Now who is the religious nut?

Still you. Tons of people heard explosions all over the buildings, remember? Explosives make explosions, remember? What do you think we're supposed to have, put the bombs back together from dust? durrrr

And you still can't actually prove they came down just from the planes and fires, and they didn't even LOOK like they did! You just say they did cause you don't know any better. Remember about the whole not being able to prove yourself either? I can see for myself, and I don't need to put together the bombs from dust to see it either.

reply to post by OverrunThePerimeter

I can see for myself, and I don't need to put together the bombs from dust to see it either.

Yes, those are called "visions" and are quite common among truly zealous believers.

reply to post by hooper


Fine by me. Like I said he has a theory and you can't disprove it. No matter how much math or logic you throw at it if you can't reproduce what your numbers say in a real world test then his theory stands. And you don't get the loot.

You say 9/11 is proof that controlled demo is not needed. He says his theory is proof that 9/11 was a controlled demo. He says prove it to me and I'll pay. You say you can't do it the way he set it up. Round and round you go but this is where I get off.

reply to post by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
Well I'm sorry for being logical and comparing the collapse of the towers to actual demolitions in order to prove whether or not it is an actual demolition. I guess I'am a blind fool for not believing that supersecret silent explosives were planted all over two 110 story buildings that leave no trace behind, with no empirical evidence to back it up, only the word of others. The comparison to Nazis is just downright idiotic, and the fact that you've addressed none of my posts with any valid arguments whatsoever just proves my point. I was once like you, ignorant, but then I realized how irrational the CD idea truly was. Maybe one day you'll listen to reason.

Originally posted by hooper
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?

You have to read more carefully. Yes 49.9 is smaller than 50.1 and if you drop the smaller part on the bigger one (of same structure) no one-way crush-down of the bigger part will take place.

But you can of course try and drop the bigger, 50.1, part on the smaller one and again ... no one-way crush down of the smaller part will take place!!!!

Reason is of course, as I explain in easy terms in my scientific papers, that always all sub-elements in contact in both parts are affected at the collision (e.g. deformation) and that the weakest/highest loaded sub-elements in both parts will break first. The NIST suggestion that only elements in the lower part break or deform is wrong. Is NIST a National Institute in Support of Terrorism?

That makes two 911 one-way crush-downs from top to bottom of the WTC-towers initiated by planes/fires up top impossible so you have to look for another cause of the sudden destructions of the towers. Any ideas what proximate cause could have produced the destruction of the towers from top down.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Heiwa]

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Heiwa]

reply to post by Heiwa

The NIST suggestion that only elements in the lower part break or deform is wrong

Glad you cleared that up. Anymore unsubstatniated irrelevant generalities you would like to add? Should we forget that when a moving object and a fixed object come in contact, no matter how similar that may be in construction they do not the react the same?

Sorry, there is a reason no one is buying the stuff you are trying to sell, and its not because everyone else is stupid or in on it either.

Please tell me exactly how much of the towers were "crushed"? I saw the towers come apart and I saw a lot of the tower elements break, but how much was actually crushed? There's a reason why we talk about the towers "collapsing" and not that the towers were crushed.

Also, if you get a minute, please explain how something can be "identical more or less"?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

The NIST suggestion that only elements in the lower part break or deform is wrong

Glad you cleared that up. Anymore unsubstatniated irrelevant generalities you would like to add? Should we forget that when a moving object and a fixed object come in contact, no matter how similar that may be in construction they do not the react the same?

When a moving object C collides with, or is dropped on, a fixed object A of identical structure/composition/material, you can be sure that they, C and A, react 100% the same. Reason is that exacly the same pressure/energy is applied on C and A.
It doesn't matter that A is fixed to ground at the other end or that C is not fixed to anything. At collision interface C/A C and A react 100% the same.

What happens later? Does C remain intact and A is one-way crushed-down by C.
If you think so, join the Heiwa Challenge and win 10 000:- Euro! (13 000 $US!). But you have to describe a structure A where top C destroys A. Come on. Nobody in the UNIVERSE has managed it so far. You can become #1! So far you are only one of 10000000000000000 0s! Sorry!

reply to post by Heiwa


A) Ever hear of a point load?

B) What is "more or less identical"?

C) Do you think the towers were "crushed"?

reply to post by hooper


In the late 1960s I had one of my favorite toys....learned a LOT from it.

Been scouring the Interwebs, and I think I've found it, because my memory of the maker was vague.

Originally produced by Kenner Toys, a very similar type design is now marketed (altered, but much the same) by "TekTon".

I guess, with all the small pieces, nowadays it's too "dangerous", choking hazards, lawsuits, etc...

But, man...did I have fun! Checking eBay, to see if any are still floating around out there in the world.....

Here's a brief description of what I mean:

Development of Girder and Panel Sets

Full Wiki article here.


Point is: Although, by design, these recreated the more traditional methods of skyscraper construction, common in the 1930s onward....the "boxy" shapes, the vertical/horizontal I-beams all equally spaced, etc....still, the concept of all the individual pieces and components has stuck with me.

I fear many just can't comprehend the way the Towers were constructed...piece by piece...it seems some people try to compare them to ocean-going vessels' hulls!!!

Couldn't be more different, in design, and function, and capacity for load bearing resistance, in various ways.

~~~~~

Found a website for fans of the toy, apparently....lots of pictures so everyone can see what I'm describing:

users.rcn.com...

(This toy should be required for ALL kids in the future!! What a great way to improve spatial reasoning and tactile skills!)





[edit on 7 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Are you talking about the toy where you had little I-beams where you could snap the ends together than they had these plastic panels with window sections painted on them?

I didn't have it, but a good friend of mine did, we spent hours putting buildings together and then breaking them apart.

reply to post by hooper


Yes! See the pictures in link above.....red polyethelyne plastic for the girders and columns, green masonite pegboard bases...and those pesky plast vaccu-form panels that kept breaking around the holes!

I had a whole BUNCH of them....( handed down from my older, very spoiled cousin...guess makes me spoiled a little too, huh? )

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes, went back and looked at the links - those are the ones, loved them! Made me want to be an architect. Instead I am a construcion manager, still like to get dirty. Some people don't understand that the real world isn't made up of object "A" and object "C".

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain


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?

No, I didn't. I live in the UK, and no one really cares about your history here.

Most people think of America as a bloated, slightly wacko country whose global hegemony is drawing to a close. Of Americans themselves, most consider you to be generally well meaning but fearfully ignorant.

I must say, visiting this forum doesn't really dispel that notion.

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.

And their genes.

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.

I don't have a state or a zip code. I don't even really know what the latter is.

But let me get this straight - you're asking me to post my address, and if I don't then I must be frightened of you? There's about a hundred reasons why I wouldn't put my address up here, and none of them has anything to do with being scared of blustering fools.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


you can scale gravity in a centrifuge.

Originally posted by hooper

I can see for myself, and I don't need to put together the bombs from dust to see it either.

Yes, those are called "visions" and are quite common among truly zealous believers.

Oh wow, amazing comeback. Didn't even acknowledge the obvious that I pointed out in my post, of course.

Is this how you "debunk" everything?


And three stars for it too. Great minds must think alike.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by OverrunThePerimeter]

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Haha, how surprising you talk crap about keyboard cowboys or whatever cute name you came up with (actually I doubt you came up with it), then show your true colors living in another country and STILL being afraid to man up to what VA asked. And surprise surprise those colors are a union jack. In UK you can't even own a gun so I would be scared to put my address on the internet too!!!

You live in the UK and don't care about our history? You at least care about the part where we kicked your asses out of here right?

No offense to Brits with more sense but this guy is talking like he's got his nose up to us already. All I'm saying is we don't think as much of you as you must think we do.

That's all I personally care about you knowing about us.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by OverrunThePerimeter]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Heiwa

 

A) Ever hear of a point load?

B) What is "more or less identical"?

C) Do you think the towers were "crushed"?

A. Of course! Cannot crush anything if it slides off!
B. Almost identical or identical.
C. According NIST, the US National Institute of Support of Terrorism upper part C applied energy on lower part A that A could not absorb and global collapse followed = C crushed A. Only terrorists believe it ... with support of NIST!