Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Heiwa]

That's a lie. Steel columns fail in buckling, and break after a certain amount of plastic deformation. If the mass falling on them has enough kinetic energy to fracture them, it will continue falling. The destruction continues. Your statement is equivalent to a statement that it is impossible to collapse an elastic structure under any circumstances. That is only true of a structure with an infinite elastic limit, and such a structure doesn't occur in nature.
Dave

Hm, if a mass falling on a column has enough kinetic energy to fracture it, it will evidently continue falling ... but not on the column! The column is already broken ... only in one place though. The mass then falls beside the column. It cannot fall on the column again.
This goes for all structures consisting of columns and beams. Most of the structure is simply air between the columns and beams and it is there the falling mass drops.

But what is this falling mass? Aha, it is another structure of columns and beams mostly full of air. It is not very strong, actually, so it also gets damaged ... and the final result is that columns and beams get entangled into one another and destruction is arrested. Happens every time. Easy to confirm with model in any scale.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But what is this falling mass? Aha, it is another structure of columns and beams mostly full of air. It is not very strong, actually, so it also gets damaged ... and the final result is that columns and beams get entangled into one another and destruction is arrested. Happens every time. Easy to confirm with model in any scale.

You've made that assertion repeatedly, and repeatedly failed to justify it. And, in fact, it's impossible to confirm, with any model in any scale, because it will depend very strongly on the scale of the model. Repeating your unfounded assertion so many times and refusing to offer any calculations to support it is just another lie. There is no reason to suppose that entanglement will stop the collapse, simply because the lower structure is still required to absorb the full kinetic energy of the upper block in order to stop it, and there is no energy sink large enough in the specific case of the WTC towers.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Funnily enough, I didn't say anything about energy. Simple analysis of the forces on the lower block makes it clear that the columns reach the point of failure before the falling block has been arrested.

Oh, and the force calculation assumes a homogeneous column with no welds or bolt connections. In real life the perimeter columns were bolted together, and the core columns were welded. We've seen pictures. The welds and bolt connections are weak points where fracture will occur at a lower strain.

Dave

For a force F (Newton) to displace a mass distance d (meter) you require energy E = F*d (Newton meter).

Thanks for pointing out that the perimeter columns were only bolted together. This evidently also applies to the upper block columns and confirms that the upper block cannot be rigid as assumed by NIST and Bazant! A rigid body cannot be bolted together.

As the upper block, bolted together, is under less static load than the lower structure (also bolted together) and therefore is of weaker design, the logical conclusion is that it, the upper, weaker, block would be destroyed, when hitting the stronger, lower structure.

It cannot be the opposite.

 

[Smackety]

Even if the upper portion fell from a greater height? Say..... 2 miles?

 

[Heiwa]

Which is insane. If the upper columns miss the lower ones - as, in fact, they must have from the geometry of the collapse - they will strike the floors, which will collapse after slowing them down much less than the columns would have. At some point some kind of impact will occur between the upper and lower block columns, but by this time the falling block will be falling faster, increasing the force exerted on the lower columns; the lower columns will no longer be braced by the floors, leaving them vulnerable to lateral forces; and the forces of the impact will be largely lateral. Your suggestion that the two column trees would somehow miss each other completely and fall interlaced is a geometrical impossibility that would be obvious to the smallest child among the ones you claim you wrote your paper for, and your assertion that the collapse would be arrested by friction is unsupported by even the vaguest attempt at calculation. And you know all this, but refuse to acknowledge it.


Dave

Thanks for agreeing that the upper block column misses the lower columns and may hit the lower block top floor.

You seem to forget that this also implies that the lower columns will hit the upper block bottom floor and that the upper block is damaged, i.e. starts to disintegrate into smaller parts. NIST and Bazant ignore this phenomenom.

Re friction - it can be studied in any damaged structure subject to local failures, where total destruction has been arrested. Various damaged parts, lose or partially fixed, are resting on one another due friction and the situation is quite risky, as you do not know how strong the friction is. Remove one part, and another part will fall, etc.

You may ask how this arrest of structural destruction developed and the answer is that it ran out of energy and that part of that energy was simply absorbed by friction.

NIST and Bazant ignores friction in their analysises.

 

[Heiwa]

I have no answer. You lie every time you post on this forum, and you gain nothing from it. Your behaviour makes no sense to me whatsoever. That doesn't change the fact that you lie.

Dave

Question was not whether I lie or not. Question was why I would lie. Is the answer that I lie because I am stupid an ignorant? Then prove that first. No reason to accuse people of lying not knowing why.

 

[funk de fino]

Question was not whether I lie or not. Question was why I would lie. Is the answer that I lie because I am stupid an ignorant? Then prove that first. No reason to accuse people of lying not knowing why.

Your posts prove it as well as your paper. They are stupid and ignorant to physics.

You have been told many times you are wrong and shown to be wrong yet you repeat the same stupid and ignorant things. What does this say about you?

Even laymen laugh at your paper and your claims.

 

[Heiwa]

You've made that assertion repeatedly, and repeatedly failed to justify it. And, in fact, it's impossible to confirm, with any model in any scale, because it will depend very strongly on the scale of the model. Repeating your unfounded assertion so many times and refusing to offer any calculations to support it is just another lie. There is no reason to suppose that entanglement will stop the collapse, simply because the lower structure is still required to absorb the full kinetic energy of the upper block in order to stop it, and there is no energy sink large enough in the specific case of the WTC towers.

Dave

There are many reasons to suppose that entanglement of broken parts in a structure will stop the collapse (or rather further destruction) of the structure. One reason is that it normally happens, when all energy has been absorbed or lost due to deformations, failures, displacements of parts outside the structure, friction between parts, entanglement producing new equilbriums, etc, etc. There are 10 000's of examples of collapse arrests.

I find it strange that NIST does not investigate collapse arrest in its 10 000 pages report(s). NIST just assume the lower structure lacked strain energy to absorb kinetic energy released and applied to it without any calculations at all of these energies. And it definitely does not make me a lier.

 

[Heiwa]

Your posts prove it as well as your paper. They are stupid and ignorant to physics.

You have been told many times you are wrong and shown to be wrong yet you repeat the same stupid and ignorant things. What does this say about you?

Even laymen laugh at your paper and your claims.

Yes, I have heard that before but not seen any fact or info provided by me in my papers being wrong. Pls enlighten me.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This evidently also applies to the upper block columns and confirms that the upper block cannot be rigid as assumed by NIST and Bazant! A rigid body cannot be bolted together.

If your definition of "rigid" involves not having its parts joined together in any way, then NIST and Bazant did not assume that it is "rigid" in your strange, strange sense of the word.

 

[Dave Rogers]

NIST and Bazant ignores friction in their analysises.

So do you. Show me a single calculation you've presented to justify collapse arrest by friction. Just one.

Question was not whether I lie or not. Question was why I would lie.

To be honest, I don't care why you lie. It's obvious from your posts that you have the training and intelligence to be aware that your assertions are untrue. It mystifies me why you think everybody else in the world doesn't. Is this why you prefer to write for children?

Dave

 

[pomeroo]

Yes, I have heard that before but not seen any fact or info provided by me in my papers being wrong. Pls enlighten me.

It is impossible to enlighten you.

You have stated that dropping the top third of a building from a great height onto the bottom two-thirds (seriously, you must be tired of evading this subject) does no damage. You are wrong--ludicrously, fantastically wrong. The entire structure is--obviously--reduced to rubble.

Will you admit your absurd error?

 

[pomeroo]

Question was not whether I lie or not. Question was why I would lie. Is the answer that I lie because I am stupid an ignorant? Then prove that first. No reason to accuse people of lying not knowing why.

Speaking generally, conspiracists lie because their preposterous myths cannot be supported by evidence or science. But that doesn't necessarily explain you. I can't read minds, an admission I have made many times. You don't strike me as stupid, but you have some sort of impediment to processing information. You cling tenaciously, beyond reason, to serious misconceptions about basic physics. Highly qualified, extremely bright people have tried to show where you misunderstand, e.g., Newton's laws. You simply ignore everything they write. You have saddled yourself with absurd positions, such as your notion that counter-balancing forces prohibit any structure from collapsing. What would it take to persuade you that dropping the top third of a building onto the bottom two-thirds reduces the whole structure to rubble? What short-circuits your understanding?

 

[Lennart Hyland]

??? The force of upper block on lower block is only caused by gravity, actually gravity acting on the mass of the upper block. This force can either be static (upper block is fixed to the lower block) or dynamic (upper block is moving and impacting lower block).

The lower block always apply a reaction force on the upper block that equals that force. This is Newton's third law.

*Thud*

To understand how absurd this statement is, reword it slightly.

"The barstool always applies a reaction force to the elephant landing on it equal to the force of the Elephant's landing. This is Nuttown's third law."
*Blink*

So Heiwa...any respons too this?

 

[twinstead]

Now I get it. I always understand things better when bar stools are brought into the equation.

 

[Heiwa]

So do you. Show me a single calculation you've presented to justify collapse arrest by friction. Just one.

Dave

All is explained in my papers with a reference in the shorter one about collapse arrest. After initial failures have occured and damaged parts are in contact with one another, static or dynamic, and contact forces occur, then also friction forces develop. When you break your car it is due to friction in the brakes. The car is arrested. Quite basic really. Nothing to lie about.

 

[GreyICE]

All is explained in my papers with a reference in the shorter one about collapse arrest. After initial failures have occured and damaged parts are in contact with one another, static or dynamic, and contact forces occur, then also friction forces develop. When you break your car it is due to friction in the brakes. The car is arrested. Quite basic really. Nothing to lie about.

No, that's not an equation. You haven't presented any.

 

[Zipster]

All is explained in my papers with a reference in the shorter one about collapse arrest. After initial failures have occured and damaged parts are in contact with one another, static or dynamic, and contact forces occur, then also friction forces develop. When you break your car it is due to friction in the brakes. The car is arrested. Quite basic really. Nothing to lie about.

What you say about the car brakes is true. However, you cannot apply the clamping of the brakes to the WTC. Obviously, the car brake system is a active system that directly clamps to slow the car down.

No clamping system was present in the WTC towers (except for the elevators).

A more appropriate analogy, if you want to use a car, is trying to stop the car by putting things in front of it. Take those plastic road barrier drums you see on the highway. Put a row of them (50 or so) in the direction of travel of the car and weight them down with something. Get the car up to the speed required to have the same impact energy as the top 1/3 of the WTC falling and see how many drums it takes to stop the car.

I guarantee you that it won't be "arrested" within the first few.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

*Thud*

To understand how absurd this statement is, reword it slightly.

"The barstool always applies a reaction force to the elephant landing on it equal to the force of the Elephant's landing. This is Nuttown's third law."
*Blink*

Um..this is actually correct. Where people often go wrong is thinking that

a) the force on the barstool from the elephant falling is the same as is the elephant were just sitting there (actually, people don't generally get it wrong this way...Heiwa does, though)

b) the effect on the barstool is the same as the effect on the elephant. This is a case of people combining Newton's 3rd law with the 2nd law. It all depends on mass.

Or in other words...

Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the fly.

 

[GreyICE]

Um..this is actually correct. Where people often go wrong is thinking that

No, it's not. It's correct in some idealized wierdo world where the bar stool is made of a perfectly rigid material.

What actually happens is that the bar stool deforms so badly under the load of the elephant that it shatters into bits. The elephant than continues its fall reasonably uninterrupted until something stops it (probably the ground). The force the bar stool is facing is the full force of the elephant's fall - it has to absorb it to remain intact. It doesn't remain intact, it breaks, and fails to absorb that force.

The bar stool ends up absorbing the same amount of MOMENTUM that is imparted on it, but you're making the elementary mistake of equating force, momentum, and kinetic energy.