Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[matt.tansy]

As I understand it, his area of expertise is ship design and safety.

Oh god, please tell me he doesn't work on submarines.

 

[GreyICE]

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!

It's a fine assumption because the forces on the upper block are constant. Even if its busy collapsing there's a mass of concrete and steel with velocity X that is being acted on by gravity landing on the floor. It's perfectly valid to treat that upper block as a roughly 'block shaped' mass with characteristic velocity and mass for the purposes of modeling the impact.

Oh and P.S. You're not an engineer.

 

[DC]

It's a fine assumption because the forces on the upper block are constant. Even if its busy collapsing there's a mass of concrete and steel with velocity X that is being acted on by gravity landing on the floor. It's perfectly valid to treat that upper block as a roughly 'block shaped' mass with characteristic velocity and mass for the purposes of modeling the impact.

Oh and P.S. You're not an engineer.

It is a oversimplification, it is pseudoscience. It has not much to do with what really happened, it is a very simplificated method to prove that a tower like the WTC can collapse when a huge rigid block is dropped on it.

PS: how do you know, and you have evidence that he is not an engineer?

 

[Tomblvd]

Oh god, please tell me he doesn't work on submarines.

Yep.

He designs the screen doors.

 

[GreyICE]

It is a oversimplification, it is pseudoscience. It has not much to do with what really happened, it is a very simplificated method to prove that a tower like the WTC can collapse when a huge rigid block is dropped on it.

DC you wouldn't know pseudoscience if it walked up to you and slapped you in the face with a fish.

Please explain to me how modeling it as a rigid block for the purposes of determining how the tower would withstand the impact with regards to the forces involved is a bad assumption. Are you suggesting those forces somehow went somewhere that isn't explained in the rigid block? Perhaps pixies took the force and carried it off. Or the Enterprise used its tractor beams to absorb some of the force from the upper block.

PS: how do you know, and you have evidence that he is not an engineer?

Yes. He's vomiting it all over these forums.

 

[DC]

DC you wouldn't know pseudoscience if it walked up to you and slapped you in the face with a fish.

Please explain to me how modeling it as a rigid block for the purposes of determining how the tower would withstand the impact with regards to the forces involved is a bad assumption. Are you suggesting those forces somehow went somewhere that isn't explained in the rigid block? Perhaps pixies took the force and carried it off. Or the Enterprise used its tractor beams to absorb some of the force from the upper block.

Yes. He's vomiting it all over these forums.

you might have heard already, maybe not. to brake up a not so riggid upper tower part meeds energy


Be honest to yourself, would a truther present a so simpified model to prove a CD, you would laugh. But when it is from an expert, then one does not have to think or use skeptical thinking, just take theyr words as a fact.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Upper block is assumed rigid, i.e. indestructible during crush-down, and remains intact then.

Bazant stated this for simplicity!

How much mass do you assume the upper block lost during crush up/crush down?

100%?

You do understand that the mass of the upper block would stay relatively constant even if it was being demolished as the collapse progressed do you not?

You do understand that the mass of the collapse front increased as the collapse progressed do you not?

You haven't even come close to debunking Bazant sir...if anything you debunk yourself on an ongoing basis.

Pizza anyone?

 

[DC]

every video of the WTC Collapses debunks the Bazantsche fantasy, it clearly shows, what Bazant did, had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11.

PS: Does not mean the towers where a CD.

 

[DC]

How much mass do you assume the upper block lost during crush up/crush down?

100%?

after both phases???

 

[Porkpie Hat]

every video of the WTC Collapses debunks the Bazantsche fantasy, it clearly shows, what Bazant did, had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11.

PS: Does not mean the towers where a CD.

I honestly don't understand how you can read Bazant's paper and watch a youtube video and come to this conclusion.

Could you please explain it to me?

 

[DC]

I honestly don't understand how you can read Bazant's paper and watch a youtube video and come to this conclusion.

Could you please explain it to me?

dont take youtube, take the video with the best resolution and quality, and now search for Bazant's rigid block.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

after both phases???

Not sure what you're asking Dictator Cheney...

Both phases as in (1)crush up and (2)crush down?

 

[Porkpie Hat]

dont take youtube, take the video with the best resolution and quality, and now search for Bazant's rigid block.

But the fact that he states it remains rigid does not change the fact that the mass available was enough to cause catastrophic damage leading to global collapse...prove other wise using his formulas and we'll talk.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I honestly don't understand how you can read Bazant's paper and watch a youtube video and come to this conclusion.

Could you please explain it to me?

A lack of understanding for math and a pre-determined conclusion that there was a controlled demolition.
But to play along with Cheney's game:

All the videos of the WTC collapse clearly show that the buildings were brought down through dustification caused by space beams.

Let's all please stay on topic. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[DC]

Not sure what you're asking Dictator Cheney...

Both phases as in (1)crush up and (2)crush down?

Well, like it is described in Bazant's paper. Crush down first, followed by the crush up.

Even in Bazant's version of the collapses, the once rigid undestructable block is destructing itself in the crush up phase.

So one could indeed say during both phases the upper block is loosing 100% of its mas, because the block is not there, the mass is.

another question, how much did Bazant calculate the lost of mass of that upper block during the crush down phase?

 

[DC]

But the fact that he states it remains rigid does not change the fact that the mass available was enough to cause catastrophic damage leading to global collapse...prove other wise using his formulas and we'll talk.

who made that a fact? wasnt that an expert called Bazant?

 

[DC]

A lack of understanding for math and a pre-determined conclusion that there was a controlled demolition.
But to play along with Cheney's game:

All the videos of the WTC collapse clearly show that the buildings were brought down through dustification caused by space beams.

oh now i am one of those Woods folowers and here super exotice space stationed super beams machine. interesting....

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Well, like it is described in Bazant's paper. Crush down first, followed by the crush up.

Even in Bazant's version of the collapses, the once rigid undestructable block is destructing itself in the crush up phase.

So one could indeed say during both phases the upper block is loosing 100% of its mas, because the block is not there, the mass is.

another question, how much did Bazant calculate the lost of mass of that upper block during the crush down phase?

Again...Bazant's assumptions were made for simplicity. The assumption he made was that no mass was lost during the crush down phase. How much mass do you think needs to be lost over the side of the collapse front in order to arrest the collapse?

If you can prove him wrong mathematically please do so and I will listen.

If not you're just another naysayer with nothing really to say.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

A lack of understanding for math and a pre-determined conclusion that there was a controlled demolition.
But to play along with Cheney's game:

All the videos of the WTC collapse clearly show that the buildings were brought down through dustification caused by space beams.

It's those damned space elves again isn't it?

 

[DC]

Again...Bazant's assumptions were made for simplicity. The assumption he made was that no mass was lost during the crush down phase. How much mass do you think needs to be lost over the side of the collapse front in order to arrest the collapse?

If you can prove him wrong mathematically please do so and I will listen.

If not you're just another naysayer with nothing really to say.

such a simplification would never be accepted from a truther. thats the point.