Show that you are really smart and can destroy strong skyscrapers and similar structures by flying light aluminium planes into the tops. Do not try to fool me with fake animations 'live on TV'! And do not tell me you just (1st May 2011) killed a man that did it 9+ years ago! Both Obama and Osama have failed the Heiwa Challenge!
The Heiwa Challenge is very simple!
You are requested to describe a structure where a small top part C can crush the much bigger bottom part A from above, when top part C is dropped by gravity on bottom part A.
The structure with parts C and A can look like the structure right or below, e.g. a square block of any material/elements (e.g. steel or wood floors and pillars or whatever) connected together plus plenty of air between the elements! All elements and joints of the structure must evidently be weak and break easily! The total structure can have any mass or density, e.g. density 0.25 (kg/cm3) or 250 (kg/m3), i.e. light, like the WTC towers that were mostly air ... like a bale of cotton.
The top part C is the 1/10th top of the total structure! It has mass M kilograms (kg)! M can be 1 kg or 100 000 000 kg! It does not matter.
The drop height is max 3.7 meters!
The bottom part A is the 9/10th bottom of the total structure. It has mass 9 M kilograms. It means A is 9 times bigger than C!
When top part C with mass M impacts bottom part A from above after a free fall drop of 3.7 meters by gravity (g = 9.82 m/s²), it applies 36.334 M Joule energy to the (total) structure with mass 10 M.
Will bottom part A with mass 9 M be crushed into rubble by top part C with mass M? Can 3.63 Joule energy initiate a collapse destruction of 1 kilogram of A?
That's the Challenge! The Heiwa Challenge! According US authorities incl. US presidents of all kinds, security advisors, agencies, experts, universities and plenty idiots of all types it happens all the time! Little weak, top C (with density 0.25) crushes big strong, bottom A (with same density 0.25), i.e. the one layer C top part crushes, POUFF, POUFF, the nine layers of bottom A, one after the other, into rubble (with density 1)!
|
|
How to win the Heiwa Challenge!
One way to design a structure where the top C can crush bottom A is evidently by not following the professional, expertadvice in the February 2007 issue of Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progre ssive Collapse in Buildings (NISTIR 7396) by Bruce R. Ellingwood, Georgia Institute of Technology, Robert Smilowitz, Weidlinger Associates, Donald O. Dusenberry, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Dat Duthinh, H.S. Lew, National Institute of Standards and Technology Building and Fire Research Laboratory, Nicholas J. Carino, Consultant. None of the authors have won the Heiwa Challenge though! Professional experts on progressive collapse cannot describe a structure that collapses progressively from top down. For some reason it is always from bottom up.
Terrorists on the other hand use the effects of progressive top down collapse to destroy skyscrapers on 911 after flying planes into the tops! Amazing! A new (?) phenomenom used for the first time in history by terrorists surprised the US with its pants down! And GWB was also sleeping! In charge of a SUPERPOWER!
Is it only a matter of the joints of the load supporting elements? A joint breaks up top (due fire) and releases elements that break more joints that release more elements that break many more joints, etc? A chain reaction breaking joints from top down! But breaking joints require energy! Can gravity provide it pulling down top C?
Why doesn't weak little top part C just bounce on big strong bottom part A instead of breaking joints or fall besides part A? Wouldn't you expect THAT? It has always happened before!
1 000 000+ times! 3.63 Joule energy per kilogram structure is very little. Can it break a joint?
The basic question is of course: Can a big, strong skyscraper, e.g. WTC 1 or 2 at NY, collapse progressively from top down to ground by gravity into rubble due to local damages up top and create a Ground Zero? Strange 'planes' hit the weak tops of skyscrapers and make holes in them? Will the big bottom, much stronger parts of the skyscrapers below suddenly 'collapse'? From top? Down? To ground? Twice on same day?
|
|
Of course there are many web sites explaining that it is perfectly normal that weak tops of steel structures can crush the much stronger bottom parts and their joints by gravity from top down. Such web sites are simply made by terrorists!
It is assumed by US authorities and institutes of learning of many kinds and also by terrorists of other kind that a structure A will be crushed by gravity, if you drop a top piece C (C = 1/10th of A) of the same structure on A (after crashing an airplane into the top of A) and that it is quite normal - no conspiracy-that pieces fall down below, etc, etc and that nothing remains at the end except a heap of rubble. So here is
|
|
The Heiwa Challenge
Conditions:
1. The structure volume is supposed to have a certain uniform cross area (meter²) and height h (meter) and is fixed on the ground. The structure consists of an assembly of various connected elements inside the volume, e.g. columns (wall elements), beams (floor elements), brackets (to connect columns and beams), plates, etc, of any type or material joined together. It can be any size! The structure volume contains mostly air, of course. It can but need not look like the structure left (developed by NASA engineer Mackey)! It is VERY simple; 111 units of a horizontal beam/platform with mass m supported by/connected to two (or four ?) pillars (total 3 or 5 elements per unit) stacked/joined on top of each other (+ a mast on top). It looks like WTC1!! It also looks like a house of cards but note that the horizontal and vertical elements are connected with solid joints, so use weak supporting, vertical elements of fragile material (and more solid, heavy horizontal ones).
2. The structure should be more or less identical from height = 0 (ground) to height = H (top), e.g. uniform density, layout of internal elements, weights and joints, etc. Horizontal elements in structure should be identical. Vertical, load carrying elements should be similar and be uniformly stressed due to gravity, i.e. bottom vertical elements should be reinforced or made a little stronger, as required. Connections between similar elements should be similar throughout. In example left H = 111 h, where h is height of one unit.
3. The structure should be uniformly stressed at height=0 and height = H. It means that supporting elements are stronger at height=0.
4. 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 and to deflect elastically sideways less than H/100 at the top. Connections or joints between elements cannot rely solely on friction.
5. Before drop test top 1/10th of the structure is disconnected at the top at height = 0.9 H without damaging the structure/elements/joints more than required for disconnection.
6. The lower structure, 0.9 H high is then called part A. The top part, 0.1 H high, is called part C.
7. Mass of part C should be <1/9th of mass of part A.
8. Now drop part C on part A and crush bottom part A of structure into smaller pieces by top part C of the structure (if you can! That's the test). Film the test on video!
9. Drop height of part C above part A is max 3.7 meter. Less drop height is permitted. Thus the maximum energy (Joule) applied at collision C/A to initiate the crush-down progressive collapse is mass of C times gravity acceleration 9.82 m/sec² (i.e. the force acting on C) times height 3.7 m (i.e. distance the force is displaced).
10. Structure is only considered crushed, when >70% of the elements in part A are disconnected from each other at the joints or broken between joints after test, i.e. drop by part C on A from 3.7 m. Try to use elements and/or joints not producing smoke/dust at failures, so we can see the crush down action and failures of elements/joints on video. If all supporting, vertical elements are broken in part A of structure left, then 66.66% of all elements are broken, etc, etc.
Have a try! I look forward to your structures and videos!
Once you have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the structure. The first step in preparation is to clear any loose items out of the structure. The second step is to remove all non-load-bearing elements within the structure. This makes for a cleaner break of elements and joints at every level. If these elements were left intact, they would stiffen the structure, hindering its collapse. You should also weaken the supporting elements and their joints, so that they give way more easily.
The first person describing a structure fulfilling conditions 1-10 above and doing a successful drop test wins Euro 1.000.000:-.
Terrorists, Holocaust deniers (and demolition companies) are also welcome to participate in order to confirm their actions/ideas/services!
Send your entry (description of structure + verified result of test/video) to Anders Björkman, 6 rue Victor Hugo, F 06 240 Beausoleil, France, anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr
|
Read also Björkman about WTC 7, WTC 1, POUFF POUFFand WTC. And JEM and Bazant Closure!
Right I have added fake photos of some structures progressively collapsing from top down that do not fulfill above conditions:
Photo right (I have added C and A) that you find on the Internet is often used to illustrate a crush down global collapse of a skyscraper that allegedly took place twice on 9-11. Many similar photos exist. It is suggested that a small, structurally weak top part C with a big mast, hidden by the smoke, has got loose due to fire/local failures (plane making hole!) below C and is dropping down by gravity on the much bigger,stronger and intact structural bottom part A and that dust, debris - thousands of small pieces - and big, loose steel wall panels are ejected sideways in all directions and smoke is pushed upwards as a result, while bottom part A is crushed down into rubble B, also hidden by smoke. The picture, like all similar pictures or videos, is a fake! It is just a stupid animation created by terrorists using Photoshop or Blast Code or similar! The top part is simply erased and smoke (from a volcano!), dust and debris added Hollywood style in different layers - live on TV!
Easy to show and prove. The picture is really ridiculous.
I wonder why any US terrorism analysts like FBI cannot see that! Can't they distinguish a fake photo from a real one? I pay anybody €1 000 000:- to produce a real photo or video of a structure collapsing from the top!
Below are two more faked photos of the WTC destructions: You wonder why a big wall panel falling on side always is followed by a trail of smoke/dust. And why the smoke on top looks the same!
|
Small top C crushing big bottom A = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:- - (Note - photo is a fake! Smoke and debris are false.)
Why does weak, light top part C dropping by gravity produce smoke and dust, when crushing stronger, heavier, intact part A below into rubble B? What type of structure is part A that just becomes smoke and dust?
|
Answer: What you see on pictures and videos of the destruction is not top C destroying bottom A but an animation with copy/paste of various layers of smoke, dust, removed tower parts, etc! It is fantasy, Hollywood style, comics destruction. It is quite easy to produce in a photo lab!
Upper small part C crushing big A = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:- (Note - photos are faked! Smoke and debris are just added by Photoshop.)
To assist anybody to spot a trick, animated, US (propaganda) film you are invited to watch this. On a sunny day (1953?) a number of US warships are gathered at sea around a spot - ground zero! - to watch an atomic, nuclear bomb going off ... which happens suddenly: 50 kg of Uranium-235 is in very short time, nanoseconds, transformed into pure energy corresponding to 10 000 ton of TNT we are supposed to believe: the atmosphere is heated to 100 000°C and compressed to 100 000 bar producing a heat/pressure wave (apart from a dirty mushroom cloud) that progresses at 3 000 km/h! But the few clouds in the sky and the 10+ ships on the water are not affected at all !!! - reason being that the 'explosion' is fake - an early Hollywood animation.
Here is a plane colliding with WTC2. But in five different ways as shown live on TV! Poor animations!
Right is another photo of similar type, i.e. a fake (from the NIST reports) showing steel wall panels and debris falling from the top of the South Tower, WTC2, while the bottom part of WTC2 in the background is still intact. At the bottom of the photo you see a panel C that has been ripped off from 7-8 floors and adjacent walls and then rotated 90° while falling down
The picture is evidently a fake! It is just another stupid animation created by same terrorists and Photoshop! And dishonest photographers. Terrorists!
Imagine - there is a small fire up top in a skyscraper and suddenly the four solid perimeter walls - steel panels - are ripped off six floors apart, i.e. at two locations top/bottom and are pushed out and then fall down on the streets below followed by clouds of dust and a photographer (terrorist?) snaps a picture of it - just when the panels pass by ... while the bottom of the skyscraper is still intact!
Unbelievable in my view! It is of course impossible to snap such a picture. But there are people making fake pictures. They are of course terrorists! And FBI or any US authority does nothing about it. Amazing. FBI does not react!
|
Big parts - steel wall panels - dropping from skyskraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:- (Note - photo is evidently a fake!)
|
It is not strange that an identical (or slightly 'repaired' (!) upper right corner) steel wall panel pops up on another photo right attributed to alcoholic photograper Richard Drew, AP.
Ten years later 2011 Richard Drew lives with his wife in NY and took a shoot at DSK. I like DSK. I do not like Richard Drew, AP. He cannot explain how he managed to snap a falling wall steel panel at 100 mph. Has he a drinking problem?
Now the steel wall panel drops on the Marriott hotel in downtown NY and panel C shown above has disappeared! But it is just amateurish Photoshop! Like all terrorist photos of the 'collapses'. A skyscraper can only get destroyed from bottom up! A skyscraper can never collapse from top down!
Why is described below!
A false FEM description of a structural collapse is shown here. US authorities and terrorists believe that structural components like beams are just ripped apart ... by gravity ... and fly away! Sorry GWB and Condi - you do not fool me!
Bill Biggart is another photographer producing pictures, e.g. this (plane collides with WTC2) or this (debris and panels fall from WTC2).
|
Same part, repaired (sic), dropping from skyskraper on hotel = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:- (Note - photo is faked = photoshopped by Richard Drew, AP)
|
Another (faked!) photo, right, of a dropping wall panel of WTC2 is from a fake video by Christian Martin, NBC:
Doesn't people know that walls are not falling off tops of buildings and that filming such non-events is suspicious?
How a skyscraper destroys itself from top down (!) is described by US terrorists in Chapter 9 of NIST Report 1-6 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6.pdf) .
Every essential piece of information in that report is of course false. Imagine that! A US agency, NIST, publishes a report how a skyscraper destroys itself from top on 9-11 and everything is faked! NIST supports terrorism!
Doesn't the authors of the report know that no structure can destroy itself from top down by gravity? And why illustrate the report with fake photos of falling wall panels? Of course, it fools plenty of people but not the real experts.
If you believe above pictures/terrorists show reality, you have no problem to win Euro 1 000 000:-. Just read on!
|
Big part, ripped off wall panel again, dropping from skyscraper = ridiculous! Prove me wrong and win €1.000.000:- (Note - video is stupidly faked by Christian Martin, NBC!)
|
Why the above structure does not meet the Heiwa Challenge
In above structure a mass of 14 connected masses m (top C) drops 3.7 meters and applies 508.7m Joule energy to structural parts C and A at the impact. A and C evidently deform elastically at impact and, if A and C can absorb 508.7m Joule energy, nothing more happens - only elastic deformation (a bounce + arrest) takes place.
As the 508.7m Joule energy is split and absorbed 50/50 between C and A at contact and, because C is much smaller than A and therefore can elastically absorb much less energy than A, the result is always that C cannot apply energy on A without destroying itself first, if the energy applied was sufficiently large in the first place.
Furthermore, the initial impact cannot release more energy to maintain the crush-down process, i.e. one-way crush-down progressive collapse is not possible!
If 508.7m Joule energy cannot be absorbed elastically, one or more elements/joints will first deform plastically and then break apart. Part of the Challenge is to identify what elements/joints of the structure break first; is it (1) the top supporting elements of floor #97 of part A or (2) the bottom supporting elements of floor #99 in part C or some other supporting elements? Maybe (3) elements supporting floor #1 of part A break first? Or (4) some other elements? Maybe the mast will fall off?
NIST suggests without evidence that (1) the top supporting elements of floor #97 of part A break and that floor #97 fuses with and accelerates with top part C (requires energy) and that now 15 m drops 3.7 meters and applies 545.0m Joule energy on floor #96 of part A. Again at this second collision both C and A absorb energy elastically and if there is surplus energy some elements may break. NIST suggests again, without any evidence that it is the elements below floor #96 that break and that floor #96 fuses with floor #97 and is accelerated by top part C and floor #97. And so on another 95 times! It takes 12 seconds! Part A is destroyed by gravity according NIST: part A could not absorb the energy applied from above by part C so global collapse ensued.
|
After small top C has crushed big bottom A we are told that the result looks like above a few days later with smoke still pouring out. The bottom parts of the south and west walls of WTC2 are still standing with some wall panels debris inside (?) but no sight of 100+ floors stacked on top of each other also inside (! which you would expect).
The photo is a fake to impress people with images of the bottom parts of the walls still standing, etc.
|
It goes something like this according picture above.
Steps 1 - 5 = top C crushes A (with density 0.25) from above into rubble B (with density 1) by gravity. And then, step 5, part C (with density 0.25) collides with rubble B (what is left of A) that is on ground = top C becomes more rubble B by gravity = step 7, when the rubble B forms a pyramide by gravity. Step 8 - mast falls off by gravity = only roof of top C remains on top of all rubble B = POUFF, POUFF, POUFF! Actually the roof of top C should now punch a square hole by gravity in the Earth's crust but for unknown reasons it doesn't happen. The Earth was too strong.
As any child understands, the NIST explanation is criminal nonsense! First all elements deform elastically and, if anything breaks, it is always the supporting elements in top C that break first (as they are weaker in this case) and a smaller top part C (it has lost 1 m) may then drop 3.7 meters and produce a second collision, when smaller top part C is further damaged. This may continue until C is totally destroyed or just partially destroyed from below, i.e. when it cannot apply sufficient energy to produce more failures.
No structure of any kind collapses from top down!
It is always from bottom up, top C is damaged in this example. So to win the Challenge you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you € 1 000 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge though. Reason is simple!
Anders Björkman
Heiwa Co home page
|
Comment by Shallel Octavia on July 4, 2012 at 11:44am
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum