Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[A W Smith]

Heiwa,, four words


Attempt to publish it

Seriously


Tell me what happens afterward
because I really need the laugh

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Heiwa,, four words


Attempt to publish it

Seriously


Tell me what happens afterward
because I really need the laugh

That's five.

Yikes!!...

Cripes! When'd levity become illegal??!!... I mean, I could've included everything and said "that's sixteen", but... YEOOOOWWWW!!!!

 

[A W Smith]

That's five.

Yikes!!...

Cripes! When'd levity become illegal??!!... I mean, I could've included everything and said "that's sixteen", but... YEOOOOWWWW!!!!

Thats what happens when i edit a post three times and add something like "and furthermore!!"

 

[Heiwa]

It is quite simple to learn what happens at impacts! You do not really have to perform the Pizza Tower experiment.

Just drop anything on anything.

Start with a solid rubber ball and drop it on the floor. The ball normally bounces. The ball was not rigid and deformed upon contact with the floor. Why, the floor applied a force on the solid rubber ball, so that it deformed, absorbed some of the kinetic energy involved and then released it and bounced up. Evidently the ball also applied a force on the floor that also deformed, absorbed the remainder of the energy involved; maybe the floor vibrated a little. This is Newton's third law at work.

Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.

Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on anything. Now apply this knowledge to WTC1 (as I have done in my papers).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OMG!!!!!!!! That's the funniest thing I ever read. You're joking about being an engineer right? Seriously, that's a joke is it not?

Congrats, you just topped the pizza box experiment for the most absurd understanding of engineering.

 

[PB2007]

And you think either of those analogies are a good comparison to WTC?

Let me get this right.

In your "model" you compare a large mass made from lots of different materials joined by lots of different joints with various strengths and weaknesses (top part of WTC) to a steel ball?

And then you compare the lower part of the WTC (another structure made from lots of different materials etc) to your floorboards?

Tell me. When car manufacturers crash test cars why do they use real, full size cars made with the original materials? Why not children's toy cars? Why not egg boxes or bricks?

Whilst i realise a full scale model of the WTC could ever be constructed outside of a computer, i do see why your "models" are about as useful as throwing a chicken against the wall and saying "See. Planes couldn't penetrate the WTC"

 

[PB2007]

You're joking about being an engineer right? Seriously, that's a joke is it not?

Professor of Made-Up Engineering at the University of Heiwa's House.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Let's make this nice and clear.

There is a falling mass, which we can call M₁. Your claim is that the falling mass will become entangled with the lower structure, and friction will arrest its fall without bringing about column failures in the lower structure. You also claim to have proved this in your papers.

For the falling mass to be arrested, the force due to entanglement and friction, which we can call F₁, must be greater than M₁g. For the friction and entaglement forces not to bring about column failures in the lower structure, then the product of the critical strain S and the total column area A must be greater than F₁. Therefore, using these definitions, your claim is that you have proven the inequalities:

A*S > F₁ > M₁g

for all possible physical systems.

Please present either a valid proof of these inequalities, for all possible systems or specifically for the WTC towers, or a link to such a proof. Anything else posted by you in this thread will constitute an admission that your claim is a lie.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Let's make this nice and clear.

There is a falling mass, which we can call M₁. Your claim is that the falling mass will become entangled with the lower structure, and friction will arrest its fall without bringing about column failures in the lower structure. You also claim to have proved this in your papers.

For the falling mass to be arrested, the force due to entanglement and friction, which we can call F₁, must be greater than M₁g. For the friction and entaglement forces not to bring about column failures in the lower structure, then the product of the critical strain S and the total column area A must be greater than F₁. Therefore, using these definitions, your claim is that you have proven the inequalities:

A*S > F₁ > M₁g

for all possible physical systems.

Please present either a valid proof of these inequalities, for all possible systems or specifically for the WTC towers, or a link to such a proof. Anything else posted by you in this thread will constitute an admission that your claim is a lie.

Dave

Let's have a falling mass dropping on something. What happens at impact? Well, many things may occur! I am not lying, BTW. Just read carefully.

1. The dropping mass may bounce on something. It happens often. I have explained why earlier. Rubber ball dropping on floor.

2. The dropping mass may get damaged on something. It also happens often. I have described that, too. Crystal glass dropping om marble table top.

3. The dropping mass may damage something. It also happens. The solid steel sphere dropping on the floor.

You agree, so far? Good. NIST and Bazant forget to consider 1) and 2) and I wonder why. Haven't they heard of Newton's third law?

Let's consider 3.

The dropping mass initially just damages something at the point of contact. The rest of something remains intact. It is quite obvious, n'est pas?

So what is the point of contact in WTC1? Is it 280+ points of contact - the upper columns hitting the lower columns? According Bazant, it is.

I have explained that, too. The upper columns, will miss or slip off the lower columns. So we have a fourth possibility.

4. At impact the dropping mass slips off the impacted body.

Back to 3.

3. The dropping mass may damage something.

So what is it damaging? A lower column! OK, the lower columns is then elastically compressed, it is overloaded and plastically deformed and fails - buckles. What happens then? Does the dropping mass slip off (alternative 4. above)? Probably.

But the dropping mass may then contact something else. We are back to alternative 3. with a difference - else is added to something. Thus

5. At impact the dropping mass may contact something else.

And else is not another column that makes up only 0.13% of the impact area.

So what happens then? Well, it might be 1, 2 or 4, of course, but also 3. But at every 3) energy is consumed and less and less destruction will follow. Collapse arrest has started and will soon be arrived at. A new equilibrium will be achieved.

Back to the question. Is A*S > F₁ > M₁g ?

Of course it is. A*S is the total load/force (N) that the Tower can carry. M₁g is the original force of the upper block on the intact lower structure before impact. As shown in my paper M₁g = 0.3 A*S < A*S. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com.nist0.htm#3 .

F₁ is evidently = M₁g .

Thanks for asking a polite question to a person you accuse of lying.

 

[Zipster]

It is quite simple to learn what happens at impacts! You do not really have to perform the Pizza Tower experiment.

Just drop anything on anything.

Start with a solid rubber ball and drop it on the floor. The ball normally bounces. The ball was not rigid and deformed upon contact with the floor. Why, the floor applied a force on the solid rubber ball, so that it deformed, absorbed some of the kinetic energy involved and then released it and bounced up. Evidently the ball also applied a force on the floor that also deformed, absorbed the remainder of the energy involved; maybe the floor vibrated a little. This is Newton's third law at work.

Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.

Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on anything. Now apply this knowledge to WTC1 (as I have done in my papers).

So under your own admission, if the mass of the steel sphere was large enough, it'll break through the floor and continue to do so until it hits the ground, while taking damage itself.

Sounds oddly like what happened at the WTC doesn't it?

 

[JimBenArm]

Everyone. Please quit replying to his nonsense. Attention is all he's seeking (and as an attention whore, I know of what I speak). Quit giving it to him, and he'll go away.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Let's have a falling mass dropping on something. What happens at impact? Well, many things may occur! I am not lying, BTW. Just read carefully.

I'm reading....

1. The dropping mass may bounce on something. It happens often. I have explained why earlier. Rubber ball dropping on floor.

3. The dropping mass may damage something. It also happens. The solid steel sphere dropping on the floor.

To both of these:
These materials have completely different properties to begin with... this is obvious... but it doesn't seem like you made any effort to connect this to the comparison you're making for the buildings. And if anything they are insignificant to the sort of comparison you're attempting to draw.

2. The dropping mass may get damaged on something. It also happens often. I have described that, too. Crystal glass dropping om marble table top.

How about dropping crystal on another crystal? Surely you realize that your comparison is an apples vs orange set up when place in the context of the towers.

You agree, so far? Good. NIST and Bazant forget to consider 1) and 2) and I wonder why. Haven't they heard of Newton's third law?

Newton's 3rd law always applies, the question is do the materials have sufficient strength to withstand the forces applied to them? Is the mass uniform? Is the mass an assembly of pieces, DO the connections have sufficient strength to transfer forces before they reach their capacity? You don't answer any of these questions period.

The dropping mass initially just damages something at the point of contact. The rest of something remains intact. It is quite obvious, n'est pas?

Your comparisons are absolutely irrelevant to the point you're trying to make because they are extraordinarily weak analogies. Sorry but in the context of comparing these to the towers your examples fail.

I have explained that, too. The upper columns, will miss or slip off the lower columns. So we have a fourth possibility.

4. At impact the dropping mass slips off the impacted body.

This assumes that individual floors of the structure have sufficient capacity to withstand the dynamic loading conditions. You're treating this like the towers are truly a solid continuous mass.

So what is it damaging? A lower column! OK, the lower columns is then elastically compressed, it is overloaded and plastically deformed and fails - buckles.

Then the upper floors accelerate and fall onto the next floor, and when the stresses exceed the elastic limits of the supports on the next floor it too fails, and the process repeats.

What happens then? Does the dropping mass slip off (alternative 4. above)? Probably.

erm.... no

Back to the question. Is A*S > F₁ > M₁g ?

Of course it is. A*S is the total load/force (N) that the Tower can carry. M₁g is the original force of the upper block on the intact lower structure before impact. As shown in my paper M₁g = 0.3 A*S < A*S. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com.nist0.htm#3 .

You can determine the load capacity of individual columns if you have the properties of the column type you're calculating for and the surface area of the column. I however do not have my reference materials with me currently. I have to wait until I get home to do anything. I will however point out that Mg is the force acting on the structure under a static load, it does not take into account the dynamic loading when the entire mass is in motion and comes into contact with the structure. In short, you're making very elementary mistakes that a person can spot even without technical knowledge in engineering....

 

[HawksFan]

Heiwa, here's an experiment you can try.

Rent a very large crane. Pick up your house and drop it on the neighbor's house. Let us know the results.

Simple!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Let's consider 3.

The dropping mass initially just damages something at the point of contact. The rest of something remains intact. It is quite obvious, n'est pas?

Stand a steel cylinder on a glass table. Drop a brick on the steel cylinder. Nothing will be damaged at the point of contact, because the steel is strong enough to resist the dynamic load. What shape's the glass table in?

Obvious, n'est'ce pas?

Back to the question. Is A*S > F₁ > M₁g ?

Of course it is. A*S is the total load/force (N) that the Tower can carry. M₁g is the original force of the upper block on the intact lower structure before impact. As shown in my paper M₁g = 0.3 A*S < A*S. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com.nist0.htm#3 .

F₁ is evidently = M₁g .

Thanks for asking a polite question to a person you accuse of lying.

You've demonstrated that A*S > M₁g, which was never in doubt. You've made no attempt to determine F₁, and you've asserted that it's equal to M₁g. If that were the case, the falling block would fall all the way to the ground at constant speed, therefore the collapse wouldn't arrest. Clearly you have no idea what the magnitude of the friction and entanglement force is, so you have no grounds for claiming it would necessarily arrest the collapse.

Thank you for admitting that you were lying all along.

As for politeness, rest assured I would never accuse you of any failings in that area.

Dave

 

[doobiedoright]

Does it? So it is just a matter of scale? But Bazant's hypothesis is independent of scale. Reason why the Pizza Tower impactor does not crush down the Pizza Tower is, simply, that the impactor is not rigid. It is impossible to design a rigid impactor in any scale.

Assuming, like Bazant and NIST, that the impactor (WTC1 upper block) is rigid and one solid block with one mass concentrated somewhere (the Bazant model is 1-D!) is unscientific and invalidates any further conclusions. Bazant's model only works in an one-dimensional environment with a rigid impactor (non-elastic and indestructible) and a non-rigid, weak, elastic object being impacted. It has nothing to do with reality. In any scale.

As shown in the MAS tray experiment and discussed in the Pizza Tower model experiment, any 3-D impactor, a very flexible structure full of air, is subject to Newton's third law, i.e. forces are applied to the impactor parts at contact with another object; retarding their movements, deforming their structure and, if the forces are great enough, destroying the structural parts of the impactor. No magic about that! Should have happened to WTC1 upper block, too.

Note in Bazant's paper that no forces are acting on the impactor (WTC1 upper block) except gravity (represented by a big arrow pointing down). When the impactor is released, it is assumed to crush anything in its way; nothing can stop it. Evidently it has nothing to do with the real world!

I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and presented it to NIST and nobody has debunked the observations there and the conclusion that development of local failures should soon be arrested when all released energy is absorbed as described.

Thanks for your interest in this matter.

Have you set it on fire yet?
Not very scientific of you!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think it's pretty obvious that Heiwa has been lying about being an engineer. That's pretty much a given. But what is it about 9/11 deniars that they can't seem to get past their concept of the top and bottom of the towers being two solid objects instead of large bodies of smaller objects? It's like there's some kind of gene involved here.

 

[Heiwa]

Stand a steel cylinder on a glass table. Drop a brick on the steel cylinder. Nothing will be damaged at the point of contact, because the steel is strong enough to resist the dynamic load. What shape's the glass table in?

Obvious, n'est'ce pas?



You've demonstrated that A*S > M₁g, which was never in doubt. You've made no attempt to determine F₁, and you've asserted that it's equal to M₁g. If that were the case, the falling block would fall all the way to the ground at constant speed, therefore the collapse wouldn't arrest. Clearly you have no idea what the magnitude of the friction and entanglement force is, so you have no grounds for claiming it would necessarily arrest the collapse.

Thank you for admitting that you were lying all along.

As for politeness, rest assured I would never accuse you of any failings in that area.

Dave

Sorry, F₁ cannot be bigger than M₁g, because then the latter would fly up into the sky.

Actually it is M₁g that creates F₁ due to friction and displacements/relocations/new equilibriums of various parts of the upper part.

If you have read carefully my papers and previous posts, you should now know that A*S with S just yield stress is 3.33 times bigger than M₁g. Allowing S to include plastic deformations and setting it at the breaking stress maybe S is 5 times bigger than M₁g.

What does it mean? Simply that the lower structure is very strong and could carry 5 times M₁g before it starts to locally fail.

Question is what happens when the lowest part of M₁ contacts the lower structure at a certain velocity that cannot be very big as M₁ has just dropped only 3.7 metres.

Does M₁ bounce/decelerate?

Is the lowest part of M₁ locally damaged?

Does M₁ damage the structure below?

The answer is that M₁ will bounce/decelerate, be locally damaged and locally damages the top part of the structure below. None seen on any videos of the WTC1 destruction though.

The answer is not that global collapse of the lower structure ensues as per NIST.

For that you need much more energy than M₁ dropping 3.7 metres. As shown by calculation in my papers.

Re my alleged lying it is interesting to note that NIST and Bazant ignore energy lost/absorbed at these three events; they cannot even admit that the two first ones will take place at all.

But thank you for your comments (except that one about me lying). JREF is just a friendly exchange of ideas and there is no need to be nasty.

 

[Heiwa]

If A W Smith, applecorped, bje, Cl1mh4224rd, defaultdotxbe, GreyIC,E HawksFan, Hokulele, HyJinX, JimBenArm, Jonnyclueless, Lennart Hyland, Mr.D Pardalis, PB2007, pomeroo, twinstead, van_dutch, WildCat and Zipster wonder why I do not reply to their posts, reason is I put them on my ignore list. Wonderful tool.

Heiwa

 

[applecorped]

If A W Smith, applecorped, bje, Cl1mh4224rd, defaultdotxbe, GreyIC,E HawksFan, Hokulele, HyJinX, JimBenArm, Jonnyclueless, Lennart Hyland, Mr.D Pardalis, PB2007, pomeroo, twinstead, van_dutch, WildCat and Zipster wonder why I do not reply to their posts, reason is I put them on my ignore list. Wonderful tool.

Heiwa

Didn't wonder, didn't care and yes you are a wonderful tool.

 

[GreyICE]

If A W Smith, applecorped, bje, Cl1mh4224rd, defaultdotxbe, GreyIC,E HawksFan, Hokulele, HyJinX, JimBenArm, Jonnyclueless, Lennart Hyland, Mr.D Pardalis, PB2007, pomeroo, twinstead, van_dutch, WildCat and Zipster wonder why I do not reply to their posts, reason is I put them on my ignore list. Wonderful tool.

Heiwa

Well we did wonder how the truthers soldiered on in the face of the fact that they're clueless nincompoops. Now we know - the entire forum is on ignore.

This is not quite as much fun for me as when SunniMan put me on ignore, but I consider myself very amused.