If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

# [not spam] The Bjorkman challange - \$1,000,00 prize!

Options
• 10-10-2015 4:00pm
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

This guy is offering 1 million to anyone who can complete his 9/11 related challenge. I dont know if it has been done since but according to the website it hadnt been done from 2010 to 2014.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/chall.htm

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! 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!

• Options
#2
Registered Users Posts: 82,256 ✭✭✭✭

THATS what I'm talking about. It's a compelling argument!

Anywhere online that we have any serious blueprinting / CAD model for the towers? Further, how heavy were the inertia-dampers on the top of each tower?

• Options
#3
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Overheal wrote: »
THATS what I'm talking about. It's a compelling argument!

Anywhere online that we have any serious blueprinting / CAD model for the towers? Further, how heavy were the inertia-dampers on the top of each tower?

blueprints reproduced here

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

also thanks for the [not spam] on the header, i suspected the spam alarms would be wailing as soon as i posted it

could we be on the verge of an 'afterhours drinks' type situation? A CT engineers meet up & build off????

• Options
#4
Registered Users Posts: 82,256 ✭✭✭✭

they were but since it wasn't the Aardvark forum I took a moment :pac:

• Options
#5
Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭

No SPAM ???? .. I think at NIST h.q. It's banned

• Options
#6
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

Overheal wrote: »
THATS what I'm talking about. It's a compelling argument!

His challenge appears to be faulty, explanation below

Also it seems he is the assessor, it's up to him to decide to accept these explanations or not

This is a sample reply from Bjorkman on the issue
Hi Dave,

As I explained at my presentation you can fly as many planes you like into tops of skyscrapers and nothing will happen to the bottom of the skyscraper. Reason? Structures do not collapse from top down. They only collapse from bottom up.

If you really fly a plane into a skyscraper only local damages will be produced after elastic and plastic deformations have taken place. Loose parts may bounce against intact elements, etc, etc; It is like two ships colliding which I have studied. Or like hitting a tennis ball at 200 kms/h against a wall. The tennis ball bounces. A plane hitting

What was shown "live on TV" of WTC on 9-11 was just a pre-recorded Avatar type movie to confuse you and everybody. Not a very good movie! The 'collapses' of WTC1/2 with smoke and dust added are totally unrealistic, etc. as I explained. Structures cannot self-destroy like that. Hopefully your experiments will confirm that. I do it at the end of my presentation. Too little energy available.

WTC1/2 were simply destroyed from bottom up on 911 as per conventional controlled demolition methods + smoke, noise, etc added. This happened, while the movie was running "live on TV". The terrorist perps tried to be clever.

Also having a look around the site, he also believes atomic bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

and that no one traveled to the moon
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

• Options
#7
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
His challenge appears to be faulty, explanation below

Also it seems he is the assessor, it's up to him to decide to accept these explanations or not

This is a sample reply from Bjorkman on the issue

Also having a look around the site, he also believes atomic bombs weren't dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

and that no one traveled to the moon
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/moontravel.htm

Some guy on reddit brings up the gravity affect and disses the guys website. great stuff :rolleyes: i dont really care about the guys world views, world views dont change the experiment one bit. and of course he's the assessor, its his money/experiment.. anyway, i dont think he needs worry about putting his hand in his pocket anytime soon.

What reddit guy fails to mention is that newtons third law supercedes any natural gravitational force in this case. there wasnt enough power in the top portion that fell, to both destroy the building below and twist & cut the steel while hitting the ground in approx 9 secs & 12 secs.

you cannot have that kind of destruction and speed with a much larger structure below, unless you have a force pushing from above. if you are in or studied business, the concept looks like this:

in any situation there is (generally) only a given amount of energy, where it gets used doesnt matter. if you use it to do one thing, it will ease off doing something else.

you'd need to drop the top section from much higher to do anything near what they expect us to believe actually happened.

by the way, the scaling effects on gravity didnt stop mythbusters giving it their best debunking shot. but they failed to bring their own towers down without explosives.

even if you built a full scale model and flew 2 767s into them, i suspect you'll be left waiting.

also, im just wondering. we are talking about 1 tower here. we havent even asked how the top of the north tower managed to topple almost 30 degrees and yet still not land top first on the ground (attached pic). another fine slice of once off physics.

• Options
#8
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

Some guy on reddit brings up the gravity affect and disses the guys website. great stuff :rolleyes:

He's pointing out that the challenge is fatally flawed because Bjorkman doesn't factor in the scaling law

Here's a discussion with Bjorkman himself where it becomes painfully clear

• Options
#9
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
He's pointing out that the challenge is fatally flawed because Bjorkman doesn't factor in the scaling law

Here's a discussion with Bjorkman himself where it becomes painfully clear

that discussion is about bjorkmans own test models.

and i see a lot of people claiming how you cant compare the results to to the towers, we already know this. its completely missing the point of the experiment. you'd be doing fairly well to perform any scale experiment and get similiar results as those on 9/11.

the bjorkman test is only about proving a very simple scientific law that people seem to have forgotten about since 9/11.

if you scale the experiment up, you have different factors that come into play and will have an affect on the final outcome. but thats how we start an experimentation process. we tend to scale up as the work moves on and then the newer factors get put into the mix.

unfortunately the debunkers want an exact result 1st time round or else the findings have no meaning.

also just a heads up. intskeptics is the debunking version of the stormfront 9/11 forum (ie filled full of extreme views with no wiggle movement for any kind thought process.. everything is either black or white.)

• Options
#10
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

the bjorkman test is only about proving a very simple scientific law that people seem to have forgotten about since 9/11.

He is offering a million dollars for a seemingly faulty challenge. There appears to be no independent proof the cash is there, nor any agreement the criteria for the test with an independent body

A bit like me offering a billion dollars right now for someone to prove an iceberg sank the titanic by conveniently excluding certain laws of physics, with my own subjective arbitration on the matter.. and on top of that my personal view is that aliens sank it.

Few would take me seriously.

And if anyone did I'd probably be torn apart on it - which is pretty much the case here

• Options
#11
Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
He is offering a million dollars for a seemingly faulty challenge. There appears to be no independent proof the cash is there, nor any agreement the criteria for the test with an independent body

A bit like me offering a billion dollars right now for someone to prove an iceberg sank the titanic by conveniently excluding certain laws of physics, with my own subjective arbitration on the matter.. and on top of that my personal view is that aliens sank it.

Few would take me seriously.

And if anyone did I'd probably be torn apart on it - which is pretty much the case here

Regarding building 7 ... How can 58 columns give way simultaneously due to office fires ??...

• Options
#12
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
He is offering a million dollars for a seemingly faulty challenge. There appears to be no independent proof the cash is there, nor any agreement the criteria for the test with an independent body

A bit like me offering a billion dollars right now for someone to prove an iceberg sank the titanic by conveniently excluding certain laws of physics, with my own subjective arbitration on the matter.. and on top of that my personal view is that aliens sank it.

Few would take me seriously.

And if anyone did I'd probably be torn apart on it - which is pretty much the case here

how is the challange faulty? if you take it to be an exact reconstruction of how the towers fell then yes, of course its faulty.

if you take it as high school science (ie what it actually is), then you see its a simple experiment to prove newtons 3rd law. and it cannot be done without external force.

and the reason he's offering a mill (whether he has it or not), is because he knows he'll never have to pay it out. it cannot be done within the given parameters without external forces. thats his point.

• Options
#13
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

weisses wrote: »
Regarding building 7 ... How can 58 columns give way simultaneously due to office fires ??...

400 odd floor joints, all the way up the left side of the building, all gave way within milliseconds of each other. from an office fire....

perfectly explained by nsit by stopping their animation model BEFORE the the free fall portion and replacing it with words along the lines of "and then total collapse ensued".

in the immortal words of Kevin Ryan "That is not science".

• Options
#14
Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭

400 odd floor joints, all the way up the left side of the building, all gave way within milliseconds of each other. from an office fire....

perfectly explained by nsit by stopping their animation model BEFORE the the free fall portion and replacing it with words along the lines of "and then total collapse ensued".

in the immortal words of Kevin Ryan "That is not science".

Unbelievable isn't it that the official version is taken for gospel despite science saying it's not possible .... Occam's razor anyone ??

• Options
#15
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

how is the challange faulty?

He just seems to change it, change the goalposts and ignore people who provide him solutions and explanations

I mean just have a look at French technique of vérinage demolition

• Options
#16
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

weisses wrote: »
Unbelievable isn't it that the official version is taken for gospel despite science saying it's not possible .... Occam's razor anyone ??

"Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

That would require at least one competing hypothesis..

In this case of the Twin Towers collapsing.. what's the strongest competing hypothesis?

• Options
#17
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I mean just have a look at French technique of vérinage demolition

i probably dont have to tell you this but each building in that video was mechanically pulled at the centre point so that mutual destruction is guaranteed.

those buildings being demolished fall completely inline with newtons 3rd. infact they are perfect scientific examples of why the towers didnt come down that way.

you drop half the building and by the time the energy is run out destroying the other half, you have a perfect pile of rubble left right on the floor (exactly as the science suggests will happen).

at WTC, after the point of mutual destruction shown in the video you posted, there are still 90 odd floors left to destroy. if the top section has already destroyed itself and an equal amount from the opposing force.. where does the energy or mass come from to destroy the rest of the floors, frames, girders, concrete, people, furniture, fixings?

EDIT: ive never seen this type of demolition before so i looked it up and low and behold it only works on non steel framed buildings.

• Options
#18
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

you drop half the building and by the time the energy is run out destroying the other half, you have a perfect pile of rubble left right on the floor (exactly as the science suggests will happen).

It's not to do with halves. It's to do with the mass of the top floors crashing down on the floor below the weakened floor, and each subsequent floor (plus the increased mass)

It doesn't have to crush a specific portion of the building, just the floor below

• Options
#19
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
It's not to do with halves.

it is 100% to do with halves! read up on the demolition method you've just used as an example. it is science in action, newtons 3rd law... and it is not used on steel frame buildings for that very reason.

From Wiki:
The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse

if you take out a predetermined space from the middle section of the building, the force and mass of the falling section will destroy the lower section, while being destroyed in return (and in equal measure) by the non moving lower section, until all the energy has been spent and you are left with a static mass.

with equal and opposite force you can only have a symmetrical outcome (which is exactly what we see in your video). infact, looking at it again it could almost be used to prove some sort of demolition at WTC, since the top section of the north tower can be clearly seen crumbling away as it takes out an approx equal sized lower section (discounting explosives for arguments sake).

this science is not arguable, there are no lingering questions about newtons law. it is both observable and proven beyond doubt. the only argument is whether it is observable at the WTC on 9/11.

here it is with vehicles. 1 moving smaller section (car) smashes into stationery larger section (truck). the car can only do so much damage because all the energy is being used up in the destructive process that we can see happening. eventually the car runs out of energy and stops. this works on the vertical plane aswell as the horizontal.

It's to do with the mass of the top floors crashing down on the floor below the weakened floor, and each subsequent floor (plus the increased mass)

It doesn't have to crush a specific portion of the building, just the floor below

now you're back at the pancake theory which NSIT dismissed long ago. but for arguments sake.. how does falling concrete turn people to dust and cut steel? remember it is using its energy to crush floors and even more energy to keep this 'domino effect' of falling floors going (without slowing down amazingly!). how does it possibly manage to destroy everything else?

remember NSIT do not support the pancake theory now.

this is what a pancake collapse looks like, ground zero it is not.

• Options
#20
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

it is 100% to do with halves!

The below doesn't look 50/50 to me (go to 3:17)

This is just for the Bjorkman challenge, it's a smaller A crushing a larger C section
this is not arguable, there are no lingering questions about newtons law. it is both observable and proven beyond doubt.

Correct and Newton's laws of motion weren't broken on 911 either

"In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Which is what the building was as soon as it started to give way, a building made up of thousands and thousands of components

Ever collapse a tall house of cards from the top?

The physics of the WTC is a hell of a lot more complex, but essentially the same principle, the components of each floor below can't hold the momentum and combined mass of the components of the floors above - and gravity is moving in one direction

• Options
#21
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
The below doesn't look 50/50 to me (go to 3:17)

This is just for the Bjorkman challenge, it's a smaller A crushing a larger C section

I'll agree with you here. that looks about 35/65. but i would suggest that the top half is destroyed as a structure by about 3:42. we cannot see the rubble outcome unfortunately. that would make sense given that the theory behind verinage demo is to remove the central floors, as i pointed out earlier.

Correct and Newton's laws of motion weren't broken on 911 either

"In their original form, Newton's laws of motion are not adequate to characterize the motion of rigid bodies and deformable bodies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

as you are talking about pancaking below, ill assume that whatever you read was in relation to the pancake effect? and then yes, you are spot on. newtons 3rd law cannot apply.

if you are talking about the official report, again you are right.

If you're talking about my theory that the top half was destroyed pretty early on in the collapse, then we'll have to disagree. My own undertsanding of physics, what i perceived visually and the scientific research of others, backs my point up... BUT what i will say that i find very confusing (and partially the reason i love the debate on it), is that there are people equally convinced on the other side. maybe both sides are wrong? maybe something happened that day that we dont yet understand?

Which is what the building was as soon as it started to give way, a building made up of thousands and thousands of components

except only 15% of those components gave way (and proceeded to destroy the other 85%) according to the official story

The physics of the WTC is a hell of a lot more complex, but essentially the same principle, the components of each floor below can't hold the momentum and combined mass of the components of the floors above - and gravity is moving in one direction

you are claiming again something that the official report doesnt support.

NSIT state
The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers

are you arguing that NSIT are wrong and that it was a pancake collapse? because if not, im starting to get lost.

• Options
#22
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

I'll agree with you here. that looks about 35/65. but i would suggest that the top half is destroyed as a structure by about 3:42. we cannot see the rubble outcome unfortunately. that would make sense given that the theory behind verinage demo is to remove the central floors, as i pointed out earlier.

I'm trying to help someone win a million here

If you're talking about my theory that the top half was destroyed pretty early on in the collapse

Destroyed is a difficult word to use here. It was a dynamic mass that was increasing in mass as it fell (some material was ejected sideways, but most of it was falling only one way: down)

The building wasn't designed for that. To borrow an analogy, I could place a brick on a delicate drinking glass which can easily support it, but drop that brick from several feet up and it would be a different story

You make it sound like a smaller chunk and a larger chunk mutually and equally obliterating each other one floor at a time - it was the combined mass of 29 stories which was growing and gaining momentum, it was dynamic, steel columns were not just hitting other columns, they were misaligned (from being compromised laterally), they were hitting floor pans - which were in no way designed to take those kind of loads, puncturing through

Those floor pan's were not getting any stronger on the way down, and the mass was only increasing. If the majority wasn't going sideways, it meant it was going straight down, increasing in weight and density

• Options
#23
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Dohnjoe wrote: »
I'm trying to help someone win a million here

i cant see how that video could even be considered. its way outside the ratio parameters for top section vs lower.

Destroyed is a difficult word to use here. It was a dynamic mass that was increasing in mass as it fell (some material was ejected sideways, but most of it was falling only one way: down)

The building wasn't designed for that. To borrow an analogy, I could place a brick on a delicate drinking glass which can easily support it, but drop that brick from several feet up and it would be a different story

You make it sound like a smaller chunk and a larger chunk mutually and equally obliterating each other one floor at a time - it was the combined mass of 29 stories which was growing and gaining momentum, it was dynamic, steel columns were not just hitting other columns, they were misaligned (from being compromised laterally), they were hitting floor pans - which were in no way designed to take those kind of loads, puncturing through

Those floor pan's were not getting any stronger on the way down, and the mass was only increasing. If the majority wasn't going sideways, it meant it was going straight down, increasing in weight and density

ok, so you've basically given the current official theory there instead of the pancake theory you gave earlier. in that case there is no argument left. you agree with it, i dont. we are at an impass, so lets put a pin in it there's not much more that i can add without reiterating what ive already posted. after that im stepping outside my knowledge base so i could only add conjecture and supposition as the 2 tower collapses still baffle me and constantly make me question my ideas.

building 7 is a different story though :P

on a slight tangent: looking at the entire day objectively, would you agree that an independent investigation would only be a good thing for all concerned?

• Options
#24
Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭

Does any of the explanations above allow for free fall acceleration ?

• Options
#25
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

weisses wrote: »
Does any of the explanations above allow for free fall acceleration ?

the verinage demolition works on freefall. when you remove the centre sections the acceleration of the mass, powers the destruction underneath.

but on researching it, it is clear that a middle section of the building being removed (the section changes size in proportion to building size) is essential to it working properly.

in the one video where the demo starts over half way up (last demo on the reel dohnjoe posted), we cannot see the rubble pile at the end and i reckon the top half lost all structure by 3:52. this is pretty much what i see when tower 1 fell.

im searching for an example where there is something on the roof like an antenna, it would be interesting to see if it sits on top of the pile afterwards.

• Options
#26
Registered Users Posts: 82,256 ✭✭✭✭

I'm still trying to research the data on the mass-damper for the towers, given that the upper floors would essentially be top-heavy, add to the face that the exterior steel cage is made of steel tubing that gets progressively thinner/lighter how high up you go (ie. weaker the higher up you go). The floors were made from concrete slabs which were held with trusses that covered the inner 1/2 of their perimeter at couple feet intervals, meshed with rebar.

Once you get 1 floor to fail though, if it is failing under the weight of the material above it, you get that domino effect. It would probably have to be a central column failure I'd guess.

• Options
#27
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Overheal wrote: »
I'm still trying to research the data on the mass-damper for the towers, given that the upper floors would essentially be top-heavy, add to the face that the exterior steel cage is made of steel tubing that gets progressively thinner/lighter how high up you go (ie. weaker the higher up you go). The floors were made from concrete slabs which were held with trusses that covered the inner 1/2 of their perimeter at couple feet intervals, meshed with rebar.

Once you get 1 floor to fail though, if it is failing under the weight of the material above it, you get that domino effect. It would probably have to be a central column failure I'd guess.

on your point about the weaker top sections. from bottom level central columns to top level, the thickness was halved.

one one hand this can be looked at as an explanation for top collapse, on the other it adds more questions as to how the lower half was decimated in the way that we saw.

im still looking for the info on the dampners myself. plenty of post 2001 architecture papers reference them but not with specifics, only on design concepts.

• Options
#28
Registered Users Posts: 82,256 ✭✭✭✭

well the floor loads were essentially the same the higher you went up, even though the steel structure shed weight the higher up you went. The floors should have all been load-rated similarly to each other.

Theres a 1986 paper somewhere that is supposed to detail the mass-damper system used in the buildings. Its in the lib of congress but I can't remember exactly where I saw that a few days ago.

• Options
#29
Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭

Overheal wrote: »
well the floor loads were essentially the same the higher you went up, even though the steel structure shed weight the higher up you went. The floors should have all been load-rated similarly to each other.

but that again suggests the pancake collapse. which in turn doesnt answer the question of the cut steel.

911 is like a feckin mobius strip. every time you think you turn a corner you end up right back where you were 5 minutes ago

• Options
#30
Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭

i cant see how that video could even be considered. its way outside the ratio parameters for top section vs lower.

True, it has to be exactly one tenth to nine tenths.. in mass. I see he has changed it several times in the past.
ok, so you've basically given the current official theory there instead of the pancake theory you gave earlier.

I wouldn't call it "pancake". Structural failure that led to the initial collapse, followed by a total collapse
on a slight tangent: looking at the entire day objectively, would you agree that an independent investigation would only be a good thing for all concerned?

it would be great from a pure curiosity point of view, and especially to address some arguments that seem to have stuck around for awhile

The problem is, there will likely never be enough support to justify a re-investigation, so it's a bit of a pipe-dream, none of the major US associations of civil engineers, architects, aeronautics and astronautics, mechanical/electrical/chemical engineers as far as I know has called for another investigation and seem satisfied with the NIST