1. Gamolon

    Gamolon New Member


    Do you suppose you could use your model (https://www.metabunk.org/towards-a-...-the-collapse-of-the-wtc-towers-on-9-11.t7396) for the Heiwa challenge located here?:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2016
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Not exactly as is, but if it was re-shaped into 1 foot high sections with two floors (currently they are 2 feet high with three floors), then yes. I think I could make it 10 feet high, and take the top section, and drop it from some height onto the lower 9 feet. This would essentially just one side of my existing model.

    I don't think the €1Million is real, but it might be an interesting exercise.
  3. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Even if the money was there and you could actually win it, you should remember how quick you were to ban Heiwa when he showed up here.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why? Basically at the time I though he was a waste of time, a distraction that nobody took seriously - on either side of the argument. I still think pretty much the same, but the challenge does have some minor interest.
  5. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Would it somehow disqualify him?
  6. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Boy, the most cursory look into this Anders Björkman character makes clear that
    there isn't even a half-assed pretense of objectivity or even-handedness:
    A guy that types as he does will obviously never concede that anyone has met the terms
    of his fake "challenge"...can't believe any thinking person would think it's a legit offer...
  7. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    ...but no-one has ever attempted to meet his conditions, even in the spirit of scientific enquiry, [...]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 13, 2016
  8. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    If the money cannot be shown to be real, then even if a person has no interest in the money, it belies an underlying dishonesty by the challenger. So, why would anyone wish to respond?
  9. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    His conditions were reached twice on 9/11. If a model to collapse as he sets conditions is completed, he will not pay, the twin towers met his conditions. It is a fake contest. Simple math/physics models can meet the conditions without doing a model. UBL must of been laughing at the contest while hiding.
  10. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    The towers were not models designed to investigate the phenomenon of their collapse performance. To make such a suggestion is to troll the discussion into realms beyond stupidity. A model aircraft made for the purposes of investigating aerodynamics, for example, is not a means of transport for you.
  11. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    I wonder if he'd be willing to specify--in minute detail--precisely what would and would not meet
    his challenge (so objective observers could evaluate whether the criteria were worthwhile and achievable),
    then he could put the money in trust (I mean, participants need to know it exists), publicly, and agree, legally,
    to accept the ruling of an objective judge...a qualified, uninvested third party.

    I mean, let's be honest Cube: "no-one has ever attempted to meet his conditions" because
    no one believes for a moment that it's a legit "scientific enquiry" which he would ever pay up on.

    But--if he were actually serious, and not just looking for cheap attention, it would really be
    fairly simple to set up a real challenge, with a real, verifiable potential pay-off.
    Let's see if he does! :)
  12. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    If Mick hadn't immediately banned him when he showed up here, NoParty, you'd be able to ask him yourself instead of directing rhetorical questions at me.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    In post #6 I stated that I believed it to be a "fake" challenge.

    In post #11 I responded to your odd comment about no one seriously addressing the fake challenge, by pointing out that he could have set it up quite differently on the off-chance that it was a serious proposal.

    What "questions" do you imagine that I'm asking you, Cube?
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    To expose the challenge for the fraud we expect it is?

    If Mick model shows the criteria is followed and met in a verifiable and repeatable format, and the results of Micks experiment are independently released and publicized. Then when he refuses to accept the results he is only shooting himself down and debunking himself as a charlatan.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    Who would build a model of a plane after it crashed to investigate what was already known?

    The fact is the failure of the WTC towers due to impacts and fires is more than enough to earn the prize; in fact, no model unless it is full scale can be as accurate for the collapse of the towers, than the original towers. I can't think of a rational reason a model needs to built after seeing the collapse of the towers; but I have only been an engineer since May 10th 1974. To build something after we already understand the collapse modes, is total nonsense; except for being a hobby, or a neat demo. What is next, not believing a A-bomb works so we want to do a model, the full up model does not count; or two full up models don't count. And full up models of a item do count as full up models. The model for the 707 and KC/C-135 was the Dash 80, a kind of full up model to show off to industry to promote sales - as engineers we do build full up models to demo the system. The AFTI F-16/F-16XL/F-29 , were full up models, mode of transport and demo planes, full up models. Not sure why a full up model, the actual towers don't meet the guild-lines for a fake prize based on Heiwa's fantasy CD version of 9/11, and the indestructible WTC towers which can't fail in fire according to his fantasy.

    The prize if fake. However, nothing wrong with doing a model, it is not needed to prove it can happen, simple math or watching the video of the collapse is more than enough proof it can happen, it did.

    What about the full up 1/4 footprint (not its own footprint) scale model of the WTC towers in Texas, an actual building; 9/11 truth can buy it and do an experiment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOK_Tower - anyone have a billion dollars?

    The world witnessed two full up models take the lives of thousands on 9/11 due to the actions of 10 terrorists who faked hijacking two planes to use them as Kinetic Energy Weapons. Good luck with the models.
  16. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Let's be careful here - there are two distinct and separable issues:
    A) The technical challenge posed by Heiwa; AND
    B) The monetary aspects as to whether it is genuine.

    I'll set aside the IMO false nature of the monetary reward side of the challenge.

    With the technical aspect we need to take care that local loyalty to Mick's Model doesn't lead us to claiming more than it actually supports. I have consistently commended Mick's efforts - two that I am aware of - the first "Jenga Blocks" model and this later more sophisticated one. BUT neither of Mick's Models meet the technical challenge posed by Heiwa.

    That technical challenge is briefly introduced in the first paragraph of Heiwa's published explanation:
    Heiwa continues after that first paragraph to explain in words and graphics what he means by "crushes". His challenge is to prove his mechanism is a false one in the same style as R Gage's silly example with cardboard boxes and numerous other "truthers" who have posted similar claims.

    Heiwa's false mechanism has a smaller falling block which "crushes" the "much bigger" lower tower.

    That is not what happened in the real 9/11 WTC Twins collapse events NOR what Mick's model demonstrates.

    At a more serious level of discussion the confusion is widespread and seems to have mostly arisen from the Bazant and Zhou 2002 paper which clearly distinguished an abstract "limit case" mechanism from the more complicated "real event". I shouldn't need to elaborate on how that error has led to confusion and much controversial "discussion" where both "truthers" and "debunkers" have fallen for the trap. (In fact the confusion arose years before the "truthers" v "debunkers" terminology and associated binary polarisation came to dominate 9/11 CT discussion.)

    If we set aside the pedantic point that Heiwa calls for a "description" not a model - and that all bar two members here already had and understood the description of what Mick's model demonstrates - Mick's model does not meet Heiwa's "challenge".

    Two main reasons:
    1) Heiwa asks for proof of his model NOT explanation of the real event.
    2) Mick's Model demonstrates PART(s) of the real event. It does nothing for Heiwa's mechanism subject of the challenge. (It is a good and valid explanation of the OOS "outer tube" progression AND "perimeter peel off" - two of the three components of the real event mechanism. Plus it illustrates less comprehensibly - only one aspect of - the "initiation" stage.)
    Last edited: May 15, 2016
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    He defines "crush" like:
    This seems fairly reasonable, if you look at the rubble of the WTC towers, then the majority of elements (at the beam/column/slab scale) are disconnected at the joints.

    Now I don't have a 9:1 split in parts A to C, however in my model the end result is nearly 100 disconnection.

    So, assuming I did this:
    How would that not meet the challenge?
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I have unbanned @Heiwa, so that he might respond to questions. However I'd suggest from a legal point, the challenge should be based on what is written now as interpreted by an impartial judge, and not what heiwa later decides the words means.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    I am viewing it from a para-legal perspective. The key issue in a contentious pursuit of a claim would be conflict between Heiwa arguing that a claim did not meet his standard and a claimant arguing that it did. I don't know - we could not predict at this stage - the outcome to such a challenge in a legal process setting.

    BUT we would need to take care to avoid looking at "our" side through optimistic "rose coloured glasses".
  20. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Well, just based on your own reading of the challenge, do you think an impartial judge should award me the money for a structure like I described? (assuming it fully collapsed after I dropped part C on it from 3.7 meters).
    • Like Like x 1
  21. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Begging all the preliminary legal issues - jurisdiction - standing - basis of claim AND whether or not Heiwa's "challenge" is in law capable of pursuit.

    Purely on the technical issues - no.

    I'm pressed for time right now but if I was counsel for the defendant Heiwa IF the case got as far as considering the technical issues my first argument would be on "scope" - yours is not a complete model at this stage. I think you would get past prima facie - "is there a case to answer?" stage BUT would fail on incomplete technical scope. As defence counsel for Heiwa I would probably try "submit no case to answer" - and probably lose but....
    Last edited: May 15, 2016
  22. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Mick's model, as proposed, does not yet meet the following requirements:

    "3. The structure should be uniformly stressed at height=0 and height = H. It means that supporting elements are stronger at height=0."
    Heiwa pictures that columns get weaker towards the top. This is irrelevant to Mick's model, where column strength is practically "infinity" - it makes no difference if he makes the bottom columns even stronger - they never buckle anyway.

    "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 orjoints between elements cannot rely solely on friction."
    a) For Mick's model, if it were, say, 12 feet tall, lateral elastic deflection at the top must not exceed 1.44 inches (H/100). It looked in an earlier demonstration that Mick's tower can sway farther. Again, it is not clear why this criterion exists - why there is a maximum deflection. More flexibility helps a structure to survive, doesn't?
    b) The magnet connections rely solely on friction ;)

    Note that there is no requirement to drop from a height = 3.7 meters! Drop height can be less - and must be less, to fulfill requirement that the top part be 1/10 of full height; unless you want to build the model 37 meters high.
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And magnetic force, but he was probably thinking some actual mechanical connection.

    Legalistically you could add a simple mechanical connection with a tiny bit of Velcro.
  24. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Where is the distance between pats A and C specified?
  25. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Eh - wasn't it you who explained to me that the force that holds the floors is actually friction?! :p

    "9. Drop height of part C above part A is max 3.7 meter. Less drop height is permitted."

    I thought that Heiwa implies that you should not lift Part C higher than its location in the connected model - reading these points in conjunction:
    "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."
    "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."
    "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!"​
    This is not conclusive though. #9 seems to allow lifting Part C as much as 3.7 m above its static location.

    Of course you don't need to do that with your model. Just drop it from where it is, by minimum lateral offset ;)
  26. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Mostly friction. The magnet pulls in to the steel plate so the vertical force is largely the resultant friction. But there's also a small vertical component of magnetic force when the magnet is below the center of mass of the steel.
    • Agree Agree x 2