Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Panoply_Prefect]

It becomes increasingly obvious that this dude has never take even an elementary school science class, much less any Engineering study.

HyJinX has got a point here. Heiwa's arguments are so fundamentallly ridiculous that I can't see him not knowing that they're wrong. Even I, a complete non-engineer, understand the way [X], Dave Rodgers, Funk de Fino, etc. here (and in previous threads, folks like Architect and all the other engineers who posted) explained things. I simply can't see how a professional engineer cannot at least similarly if not better understand the flaws in his own argument. He's got to be intentionally pulling people's legs just to create argument. I think he less believes what he's saying and more believes that people not criticizing the US establishment via the 9/11 "Official Story" need poking.

Exactly ElMondo. He knows he wrong, yet knows enough to keep the charade alive and his personal beliefs in the limelight. It's either that...OR...he truly enjoys playing those who keep posting in rebuttal. Either way...it's a fruitless effort for all involved. I say we take Mark's suggestions at heart and let this one just go. It's potentially more embarrassing for those who appose him than it is for him.

Let me just jump in here ever so briefly just to clarify this. I know Heiwa from a swedish board. During our debate I've checked if the name Heiwa corresponds to the person behind the webpage, and if that person is what he claims to be.

Heiwa is indeed an engineer.
Furthermore he is using his company's homepage to publish texts about the sinking of Estonia and more recently 911.
As an engineer he has been interviewed several times in swedish media concerning the sinking of the Estonia (the recent year I've read articles about him in the swedish edition of Metro and the respected naval journal Svensk Sjöfartstidning [Swedish Naval Gazette). Both articles were about Estonia, not 911.

Links (in swedish):

http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/06/26/06/5553-22/index.xml
http://www.shipgaz.se/tidningen/nummer/2007/17/SST17_2007.pdf


He has also listed with several articles in the National Transportation Library:

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/search.do?new=&b1=9&f1=au&t1=Bjorkman%2C+A&d=tr


His design of a new hull for oiltankers, the Coulumbi Egg, has been approved by IMO (However the US maintains that double hull should be mandatory):

http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=105&doc_id=329
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex72002.htm
http://www.danshipweb.com/_sgg/m1m4_1.htm


Had he just been pulling the legs of 911-debunkers he would imho not have published 911 documents on the Heiwa Co homepage - since it would have risked his livelyhood. As far as I know, he does indeed stand by the views expressed on these boards.

/PP

 

[Dave Rogers]

In that case, if an opposing force F1 = 1 N is applied to the mass 1 kg after one second, when it has velocity 1 m/s due to force F = 1 N (mass started at zero velocity), the two forces added together becomes 0 = no force is acting on the mass, which continues at 1 m/s. Quite basic.

Let me jump in here, because I think I can see where [X] is going with this.

Suppose, now, that a piece of debris of mass m is falling through the support structure of one of the WTC towers. There is a force acting vertically downwards of mg due to gravity. There is an upward force due to friction and entanglement between the piece of falling debris and the support structure, and this force cannot be greater than mg (according to Heiwa, 2008, this thread).

Describe the motion of the piece of falling debris.

Dave

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Bazant assumes that the upper solid block is rigid = indestructible. But it is just 280 columns + floors hanging on the columns = neither solid, nor rigid.

If the upper WTC1 block actually free falls 3.7 meters, it is easy to calculate the energy required to pull it up again. You need abt 41 litres of gasoil.

Since it is easy to calculate this, could you please show your calculations?

Evidently one mass m impacting anything causes more damage than if many small ms impact anything ... one after the other. Same energy may totally be applied but the difference is the timing.

This is not evident to me. Could you please show mathematically why this is true?

Bazant assumes the upper block is rigid and that total energy (mv²/2) is applied to lower structure instantaneously at impact (and nothing happens to the upper block) - crush-down ensues. Not seen on any video though.

In my papers it is shown that upper block consists of many sub-masses, m1, m2, m3, etc. and that they apply forces and transmit energy to the lower structure over a longer time frame (and vice versa), the parts cannot simultaneously impact the lower structure everywhere, parts fail here and there (it takes time) ... and after a while the destruction is arrested. It is actually the standard way of structural damage analysis - to establish the path of failures. NIST forgot to do that. I just ask them to do it (for the sake of our children). It is not difficult. Otherwise our children will do it, when they grow up.

If I understand correctly, though, you are making the same mistake Bazant is, only applying it to the lower block. You seem to be assuming the lower block is rigid.

Now a static problem - the Pizza Tower.

Stop. This is exactly why your analogy doesn't work. The WTC was not a static problem. This has been pointed out over and over and over and over...

What happened at BANG kan be treated as a static problem. Energy/forces are applied during a certain (short) time - they were not there before BANG so we freeze the time and look what happens just after BANG and what happens. OK, there might be some deformations to the Pizza Tower and the top that dropped (a dynamic event) but we only look at the end result of the BANG. Maybe one part failed so there will be another BANG when something drops, but we can study it too, statically.

You can't take a dynamic problem, section it into freeze frames, call each frame a static problem, and use that to solve the problem.

If this were true, you could take a snapshot of a mid-air collision of two jets, each flying at 500mph, and call it a static problem.

Are you sure you're an engineer???

 

[Heiwa]

Let me jump in here, because I think I can see where [X] is going with this.

Suppose, now, that a piece of debris of mass m is falling through the support structure of one of the WTC towers. There is a force acting vertically downwards of mg due to gravity. There is an upward force due to friction and entanglement between the piece of falling debris and the support structure, and this force cannot be greater than mg (according to Heiwa, 2008, this thread).

Describe the motion of the piece of falling debris.

Dave

OK, the piece of debris m is falling on anything and friction between m and anything develops. The friction force (evidently <mg normally) slows down m, energy is consumed/absorbed = heat, and m stops. Other contact forces may change the direction of m, e.g. it drops outside the action or is pushed against other things = more friction (not necessarily in vertical direction).
Evidently the body applying the friction force on m is also subject to reaction forces on it equal to the friction force and may overload other locations. But generally the work of these reaction forces just produce elastic deformation and that's it.

Example from real life. Something (a crane actually) got loose on anything (an offshore structure actually) and dropped free fall, WOSH, and impacted, BANG, on a steel deck of anything, and then there was this SPLASH!

What happened after BANG? Well, the crane body made a big indent in the steel deck (local damage = energy absorbed), then there must have been a bounce (no crane seen in the indent! = energy consumed) and the crane was apparently catapulted into the sea, SPLASH. Bye, bye, crane.

Causes of accident? Crane was overloaded and badly fixed.

Quite similar to the WTC1 top part dropping. But the WTC1 top part never dropped on anything - just watch the videos or read my papers http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Do not automatically believe any authority. It may fool you.

 

[GreyICE]

example from real life. Something (a crane actually) got loose on anything (an offshore structure actually) and dropped free fall, wosh, and impacted, bang, on a steel deck of anything, and then there was this splash!

What happened after bang? Well, the crane body made a big indent in the steel deck (local damage = energy absorbed), then there must have been a bounce (no crane seen in the indent! = energy consumed) and the crane was apparently catapulted into the sea, splash. Bye, bye, crane.

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

 

[Grizzly Bear]

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:”........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\

Is Heiwa still arguing on the basis of a glass cup on a huge table? That's about as good as saying that the tower would be destroyed by falling on the ground... His comparison is like apples to planets....

 

[Heiwa]

His design of a new hull for oiltankers, the Coulumbi Egg, has been approved by IMO (However the US maintains that double hull should be mandatory):

http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=105&doc_id=329
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex72002.htm
http://www.danshipweb.com/_sgg/m1m4_1.htm


/PP

To clarify, IMO is the United Nations International Martime Organization and it made 1991 an amendment to a law (MARPOL) to the effect that equivalent or better structural designs than double hull tankers could be accepted to trade anywhere after due process in the IMO. Evidently such a design must spill less oil in accidents than double hull; simply provide better environmental protection and be safer than double hull.

The only design that was (and has been) proposed was the Coulombi Egg cirka 1994 and it was approved by IMO 1997 (all 140+ members) ... except by the US that objected. As all decisions according laws of IMO, in this case MARPOL, are unanimous, the US had to stop being party of MARPOL (and IMO) due to my little Coulombi Egg.

Actually US made it own law - quite similar to MARPOL - and the only difference was the non-acceptance/inclusion of the Coulombi Egg.

This strange situation has been subject to debates in the US Congress at several occasions. Public US servants suggest that the Coulombi Egg is not in accordance with the US Clean Water Act, etc.

But let's face it - the Coulombi Egg pollutes less than any double hull tanker and the latter are in accordance with the US Clean Water Act.

So why did the US object to the Coulombi Egg 1997? To make the US waters less safe against pollution? Or they didn't like me, the inventor? And if they didn't like me, why? Fascinating stuff? Not really. But I will not tell you more. Have to play tennis with my grandchildren, etc. More important.

 

[Dave Rogers]

OK, the piece of debris m is falling on anything and friction between m and anything develops. The friction force (evidently <mg normally) slows down m, energy is consumed/absorbed = heat, and m stops.

If the upward force is less than mg, and the downward force is mg, then the net force on the falling body is downwards. How does a net downward force stop a falling body?

Dave

 

[nicepants]

OK, the piece of debris m is falling on anything and friction between m and anything develops. The friction force (evidently <mg normally) slows down m, energy is consumed/absorbed = heat, and m stops.

If the "friction force" is <mg, then it would not be possible for said friction to stop the falling object. The object would continue to accelerate....the friction would simply lower the rate of acceleration.

ETA: Dave beat me to it

 

[X]

In that case, if an opposing force F1 = 1 N is applied to the mass 1 kg after one second, when it has velocity 1 m/s due to force F = 1 N (mass started at zero velocity), the two forces added together becomes 0 = no force is acting on the mass, which continues at 1 m/s. Quite basic.

BINGO!!


Which means your claim that the resistance force on the falling mass must equal the force due to gravity on that mass (F₁ = M₁g) is WRONG!


You have just acknowledged the fact that such a situation would result in the upper section continuing to move downwards at a constant velocity, exactly as Dave Rogers said.


Which means you were wrong when you told him he was wrong.


I think it's reasonable now to expect you to update you model to correct the error illustrated in these last few pages.

OK, the piece of debris m is falling on anything and friction between m and anything develops. The friction force (evidently <mg normally) slows down m, energy is consumed/absorbed = heat, and m stops. Other contact forces may change the direction of m, e.g. it drops outside the action or is pushed against other things = more friction (not necessarily in vertical direction).

Resistance force is now less than M₁g?

And that slows down the falling mass?

Are you sure you didn't mean to write "greater than" ( > ) instead of "less than" ( < )?

 

[rwguinn]

BINGO!!


Which means your claim that the resistance force on the falling mass must equal the force due to gravity on that mass (F₁ = M₁g) is WRONG!


You have just acknowledged the fact that such a situation would result in the upper section continuing to move downwards at a constant velocity, exactly as Dave Rogers said.


Which means you were wrong when you told him he was wrong.


I think it's reasonable now to expect you to update you model to correct the error illustrated in these last few pages.









Resistance force is now less than M₁g?

And that slows down the falling mass?

Are you sure you didn't mean to write "greater than" ( > ) instead of "less than" ( < )?

He's been engaging in politics--A reduction in the increase is a cut

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Let me just jump in here ever so briefly just to clarify this. I know Heiwa from a swedish board. During our debate I've checked if the name Heiwa corresponds to the person behind the webpage, and if that person is what he claims to be.

Heiwa is indeed an engineer.
Furthermore he is using his company's homepage to publish texts about the sinking of Estonia and more recently 911.
As an engineer he has been interviewed several times in swedish media concerning the sinking of the Estonia (the recent year I've read articles about him in the swedish edition of Metro and the respected naval journal Svensk Sjöfartstidning [Swedish Naval Gazette). Both articles were about Estonia, not 911.

Links (in swedish):

http://www.metro.se/se/article/2008/06/26/06/5553-22/index.xml
http://www.shipgaz.se/tidningen/nummer/2007/17/SST17_2007.pdf


He has also listed with several articles in the National Transportation Library:

http://ntlsearch.bts.gov/tris/search.do?new=&b1=9&f1=au&t1=Bjorkman,+A&d=tr


His design of a new hull for oiltankers, the Coulumbi Egg, has been approved by IMO (However the US maintains that double hull should be mandatory):

http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=105&doc_id=329
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/features/fex72002.htm
http://www.danshipweb.com/_sgg/m1m4_1.htm


Had he just been pulling the legs of 911-debunkers he would imho not have published 911 documents on the Heiwa Co homepage - since it would have risked his livelyhood. As far as I know, he does indeed stand by the views expressed on these boards.

/PP

Actually, that all is sort of my point about why I think he's pulling our legs. He's a working engineer, and while the Twin Towers work may have made some superficial sense at first, I can't see him still believing it after the plethora of misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and misrepresentations necessary for his argument to work were pointed out to him. I know he posts his WTC argument on his site - I've been to it - but that could simply mean he's not taken the time to pull them down yet. Pride, maybe? Or it's simply a very large, intricate joke?

I know full well that other alternatives exist: He could be deliberately delusional, or might truly be incompetent. But I'm choosing to be charitable here.

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

I know he posts his WTC argument on his site - I've been to it - but that could simply mean he's not taken the time to pull them down yet. Pride, maybe? Or it's simply a very large, intricate joke?

If so its a joke that has been planned and executed several years ago. Anders, Heiwa, while so far only posting on the internet regarding 911, has published books (some hardcopy, some on the internet), the first one afaik in 1997, regarding his belief in a conspiracy behind the sinking of the m/v Estonia. His article in the Swedish Naval Gazette, quoted above in swedish, actually got a rebuttal much like the one he has been given here...

 

[Lennart Hyland]

His article in the Swedish Naval Gazette, quoted above in swedish, actually got a rebuttal much like the one he has been given here...

Where can I read this rebuttal?

 

[TheDaver]

OK, the piece of debris m is falling on anything and friction between m and anything develops. The friction force (evidently <mg normally) slows down m, energy is consumed/absorbed = heat, and m stops.

Only if f > mg. When f < mg, timbeeeeer!

When you have a number of forces acting on a body, the body will accelerate in the direction of the vector sum of those forces.

Can I suggest a book to you?

 

[Heiwa]

If the upward force is less than mg, and the downward force is mg, then the net force on the falling body is downwards. How does a net downward force stop a falling body?

Dave

The upward, reaction forces - friction, further impacts against other sub-bodies, deformations at contacs of bodies involved, etc., against the dropping mass/body evidently slow it down, deform it, destroy it (plenty energy absorbed) ... and stop it. It is not just friction at work, the whole lower structure applies forces on the falling body or what is left of it. It takes a little time - dynamic events - but can be split into more or less static events that are easy to analyse and explain. And the result is destruction arrest.

Don't look just at the forces - look at their (the forces') displacements = energy consumed.

But I agree - can I apply a force of 1 N on the Earth, the whole Earth will accelerate out of the solar system and bye, bye all of us. Luckily I cannot do it.

You have not studied real physics, have you?

 

[Heiwa]

If so its a joke that has been planned and executed several years ago. Anders, Heiwa, while so far only posting on the internet regarding 911, has published books (some hardcopy, some on the internet), the first one afaik in 1997, regarding his belief in a conspiracy behind the sinking of the m/v Estonia. His article in the Swedish Naval Gazette, quoted above in swedish, actually got a rebuttal much like the one he has been given here...

Hm, the same clowns writing in the Swedish Shipping (pls note) Gazette were 2006 given SEK 10 millions to explain a simple ferry foundering and after two years they had to manipulate the model tests to do it; http://heiwaco.tripod.com/news.htm . Quite easy to fake model tests and full scale (?) computer simulations ... none of which tallies with reality.

BTW - Heiwa Co website is also publishing reports about the faked NIST/Bazant papers. Purpose is the same - better safety at sea ... and land. Heiwa Co does not hide anything.

 

[Heiwa]

Actually, that all is sort of my point about why I think he's pulling our legs. He's a working engineer, and while the Twin Towers work may have made some superficial sense at first, I can't see him still believing it after the plethora of misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, and misrepresentations necessary for his argument to work were pointed out to him. I know he posts his WTC argument on his site - I've been to it - but that could simply mean he's not taken the time to pull them down yet. Pride, maybe? Or it's simply a very large, intricate joke?

I know full well that other alternatives exist: He could be deliberately delusional, or might truly be incompetent. But I'm choosing to be charitable here.

Thank you. Pls report any errors on the Heiwa Co web site http://heiwaco.tripod.com and I will look into them. It seems there are none, but have a try.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Heiwa, have you sent your "findings" to Nist? Got any reply?

 

[Heiwa]

Only if f > mg. When f < mg, timbeeeeer!

When you have a number of forces acting on a body, the body will accelerate in the direction of the vector sum of those forces.

Can I suggest a book to you?

Pls recommend it to NIST and Bazant. They believe any falling body will impact/crush down anything (e.g. a (pizza) tower) and remain intact (sic) until it impacts something (the rubble of the (pizza) tower) else, when it is destroyed in a crush up. The Pizza Tower experiment proves them (and other NWO conspirators) wrong.

Thanks for your valuable comment.