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.)
