• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

Heiwa said:
It seems I have not yet got to the depressive phase, I am glad to self-diagnose. I am happy, calm, sleeps well, eats only the best food (today homemade sushi) and drink the best wines (French), physically active though lost 2-6, 3-6 in a 3 hours tennis game today (plenty warming up), no loss of interest in you know what, no pains except muscular (being a part time house construction worker = periods of absense), no lack of motivation, FGS, I just invented the Pizza Tower and debunked NIST/Bazant, and no *.
Click to expand...

If it took you 3 hours to lose 2-6 3-6 - even with a good warmup - you must have been drinking the wine between games.

p.s. what makes you think the "best wines" these days are French ?
 
No response Heiwa?

Well, we'll see if you even understood what I wrote by noting if you ever bring that "F and -F" argument ever again.
 
GlennB said:
If it took you 3 hours to lose 2-6 3-6 - even with a good warmup - you must have been drinking the wine between games.

p.s. what makes you think the "best wines" these days are French ?
Click to expand...

17 games in 180 minutes is not bad, but there was a lunch break incl. wine and dessert after first set. No pizzas are served at the club. Very civilized. We were celebrating my debunking of NIST and Bazant using the Pizza Tower experiment. I am very greatful for all support at JREF incl. all these idiotic postings. So I improved http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .

Re 'best wines' start another thread if you have any doubts about it.
 
Mr.D said:
No response Heiwa?

Well, we'll see if you even understood what I wrote by noting if you ever bring that "F and -F" argument ever again.
Click to expand...

Is this some bipolar disorder matter? FFS, I was playing tennis ++. Anyway, hitting a tennis ball with force F doesn't cause global collapse of it. And dropping a tennis ball on the ground, doesn't cause global collapse of the ground. Reason is that the ball is not very rigid. Exactly like WTC1 upper block. Suggested reading at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm .
 
Two of the biggest problems:


1. I never saw a quote from Bazant that supported Heiwa's starting claim (this means an actual quote from the paper Heiwa).

2. The pizza boxs have a different buckling/stress profile then the WTC.
 
My suggestion to make this experiment more realistic is to cut out notches around the sides of the pizza boxes, thus more realistically representing the supporting columns.

In your website, you state that both the top and bottom are non-rigid structures. Even if you've removed the top, buy gluing together the pizza boxes, you've essentially created two rigid structures.
 
Mince said:
Heiwa's right. I stacked 94 pillows and dropped 15 other pillows onto that stack. No collapse. Sorry for doubting your expertise Heiwa.

Of course, to be valid, the results must be repeatable. So tomorrow I'm going to stack 95 balloons and drop 15 other balloons onto that stack. I'll report back with my findings.
Click to expand...

Ok, not only did the 15 balloons not collapse the other 95 balloons; they floated away!!!!

I guess I have to recalculate my figures, but guys, it appears Heiwa is right.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
Anyway, hitting a tennis ball with force F doesn't cause global collapse of it.
Click to expand...

Your failure to even dodge the question is duly noted.

(Do yourself a favor and stop mixing Newton's definition of Force with the layperson's - You may think it makes you sound smart but all it does is expose you as someone way out of his depth)
 
Sorry if this is quite basic but is Heiwa really trying to compare one floor of a building (WTC) which is made of lots of different materials of varying size, strength and cohesiveness (*) to a pizza box....... or is it a wind up? I know I don't post a lot here - mainly read whilst in a state of awe and incredulousness. Just wondered.

(*) Not really really an engineer myself. Scientific type, yes (ish) but i understand about forces, loads etc and that a box made of cardboard can't be compared to one floor of a building. And then Heiwa apparently creates a website based on this "data"???

No "socks" involved for a laugh???
 
Last edited:
Mr.D said:
Your failure to even dodge the question is duly noted.

(Do yourself a favor and stop mixing Newton's definition of Force with the layperson's - You may think it makes you sound smart but all it does is expose you as someone way out of his depth)
Click to expand...

You have missed the basic, as usual!

Newton's third law is a result of applying symmetry to situations where forces can be attributed to the presence of different objects. For any two objects (call them 1 (WTC lower structure) and 2 (WTC upper block), Newton's third law states that any force that is applied to object 1, the WTC lower structure, due to the action of object 2, WTC upper block dropping, is automatically accompanied by a force applied to object 2 due to the action of object 1.


This law implies that forces always occur in action-reaction pairs. If object 1 and object 2 are considered to be in the same system, then the net force on the system due to the interactions between objects 1 and 2 is zero.
 
PB2007 said:
Sorry if this is quite basic but is Heiwa really trying to compare one floor of a building (WTC) which is made of lots of different materials of varying size, strength and cohesiveness (*) to a pizza box....... or is it a wind up? I know I don't post a lot here - mainly read whilst in a state of awe and incredulousness. Just wondered.
Click to expand...

So far as we know, Heiwa is sincere. It's good to see that, to a reasonable minded person with no specific engineering background, his claims are too absurd to be taken seriously. That's the reason, as Pomeroo commented earlier in the thread, why those of us with a suitable technical background or a good layman's understanding (counting myself with the latter) simply don't bother trying to refute his nonsense any more.

Dave
 
Thanks Dave. I was a bit unsure because Heiwa's website http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm doesn't mention the Pizza Box theory so i figured it was just a bit of fun here to bait and gaod the "de-bunkers", whilst keeping his / her serious "conspiracy research" on his / her website.

Thanks again

Activating "Lurk and Laugh" Mode......3....2....1....
 
PB2007 said:
Sorry if this is quite basic but is Heiwa really trying to compare one floor of a building (WTC) which is made of lots of different materials of varying size, strength and cohesiveness (*) to a pizza box.......
Click to expand...

No he isn't.

But just go ahead and pretend he his. It's funnier that way.
 
Panoply_Prefect said:
Very well, by all means carry on then.
Click to expand...

This is the avatar right under yours.
avatar16450_1.gif



I suggest adopting it just to give people a heads up.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Where does Bezant claim that the upper block remained intact?
Click to expand...

In his papers! Upper rigid block crushing down non-rigid, lower structure. Upper block is assumed rigid, i.e. indestructible during crush-down, and remains intact then. It is not affected by any forces acting on it, e.g. by the lower structure. It is clearly shown in the text and the 2-D illustrations and reflected in the mathematical formulas of the paper, even if the latter assume an 1-D upper block/lower structure only. Regardless, the upper block cannot be compressed in any direction or damaged during crush-down according Bazant.

Evidently, under such wild assumptions the Bazant theory may be valid, but even then it cannot be verified in full- or model scale! Reason is that no rigid upper block can be found! It does not exist!

At end of crush-down the properties of the upper block changes to no-rigid and it is destroyed in a crush-up, i.e. Bazant changes the assumptions. Had the upper block remained rigid it would have crushed the Earth.

So it is very easy to debunk Bazant. His assumption about a rigid upper block is false.

Now I think it is time to end this thread. We have (again) jointly debunked Bazant! Please inform NIST!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom