Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[rwguinn]

To clarify: The bolded section in the quote above is the one in my thought experiment for Heiwa, and the case to which I believe Nicepants is referring.

I.m sure it was, but the way it was worded left some wiggle room.. just wanted to make sure the problem was clear..

 

[Heiwa]

Everyone understands that, what you don't understand is WHY it doesn't punch a hole in the ground, and what is different about the buildings vs the rubber ball.

The rubber ball exerts a force GREATER THAN mg when it bounces. The upper part of the building exerts a force GREATER THAN mg when it impacts the lower part. And it doesn't matter if it's in 1 piece or 10000, each individual collision will exert a force much greater than mg, and if it isn't a collision with a part that can withstand that force, it's going to keep going, only now with more mass and more room to accelerate. And if a part is slowed, the parts above it will then catch up and add more force to the equation.

The only way the collapse could be arrested is if it is as rigid a structure as bazant & co modeled. Breaking apart as you keep insisting only makes the problem WORSE, as it drops the loads off the columns and onto the floors that can't even remotely support it, then the floors fail, then the columns are unsupported and fail too.

Re rubber ball - the bounce is a combination of force applied by ground on the ball and energy released that was previously absorbed at impact by ground and ball. Anyway - the rubber ball was arrested soon after impact (and then it bounced). Re the force the ball applies on the ground (and the ground on the ball) - it is evidently not constant but a function of time during contact. Same goes for the pressure between ball/ground. So anybody believing that the force or forces are constant should review their posts.

Similar would happen to the WTC1 upper block at impact. A force is applied to it, it is evidently variable with time, and the result should be deceleration (not observed on any video). Pressure between upper block and lower structure at contact points develops and causes overload of various parts. Energy should be absorbed/consumed when structural parts fail (not observed on any video). Arrest should have occurred soon after that. Of course the alleged impact goes so fast that it is not even recorded on any video, so you wonder if an impact took place at all!

On all videos I have seen, the top part implodes and becomes 30% shorter and creates a smoke screen before anything at all happens to the structure below. What happens then - global collapse - does not conform to any laws of physics and requires more energy than available by gravity alone.

Friction (includes here all forces that absorb energy at and after impact) is conveniently forgotten.

You are 100% wrong when you suggest that if the upper part was rigid, arrest is possible. Then the upper part is indestructible = no energy absorbed due friction that includes deformation and structural failures. But why would the upper part be rigid, when the lower structure is not? Why assume that? Why not assume what is real - both objects are not rigid.

Breaking apart and structural failures (result of friction) are significant factors of collapse arrest.

 

[funk de fino]

It's your opinion. Sorry that you cannot understand the engineering analysis in my papers. What age do you have? 5?

No, I never said that I had been offshore to an oil rig. But I have been offshore many times and inspected various offshore structures (not rigs, though), found defects and have specified and excuted repairs, etc. I am a highly appreciated professional in that field.
Part of the job is to analyse the cause of the defect/local failure - actually the most important part. Do not repair anything unless you know the real cause. Luckily all structural failures I have detected were arrested after a while although sometimes some parts were really hanging loose. Very risky.

In conclusion and to end this thread. Nobody has debunked anything I have said and NIST and Bazant has produced incorrect engineering analysis results.

See you at another thread.

Which structures?

 

[funk de fino]

On all videos I have seen, the top part implodes and becomes 30% shorter and creates a smoke screen before anything at all happens to the structure below.

This is a complete and utter lie.

 

[Baylor]

So where the hell were the explosives? If they were in the perimeter columns, they would've been easily visible, and couldn't have survived the fires/impact. If they were in the core, the top part wouldn't have tilted like that, and couldn't have survived the fires/impact.

 

[Heiwa]

This is a complete and utter lie.

No, it is clearly seen on all videos. Read my papers! WTC1 upper part, floor, 98-110, becomes >30% shorter during 2-3 seconds = not very rigid ... and nothing happens to the structure below floor 94. It is still intact.

According NIST and Bazant the destruction starts when floor 94 is supposed to be crushed but it is never seen. Too much smoke, then.

 

[funk de fino]

No, it is clearly seen on all videos. Read my papers! WTC1 upper part, floor, 98-110, becomes >30% shorter during 2-3 seconds = not very rigid ... and nothing happens to the structure below floor 94. It is still intact.

According NIST and Bazant the destruction starts when floor 94 is supposed to be crushed but it is never seen. Too much smoke, then.

You are lying about this and it is easy for anyone to see in the videos.

 

[twinstead]

One shouldn't lie about things anybody can see with their own eyes.

 

[Heiwa]

You are lying about this and it is easy for anyone to see in the videos.

If you study my paper at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm there are some extracts of videos showing the WTC1 upper block at 1 second intervals prior to any destruction of structure below floor 94. It is quite clear that the WTC1 upper block implodes - shortens itself - >30% prior anything happens below floor 94. The upper block is not rigid at all. All the videos from all directions show the same thing. Why would I lie about that? Just watch it yourself.

Why would the upper block implode? What forces are producing that? Nothing is dropping on the upper block! Core columns collapsing? OK, it seems to destroy the upper block!

This implosion produces an outflow of smoke that then covers the alleged 'impact area' at floor 94 and below.

And then the destruction of the lower structure apparently starts. How? Floors dropping on it?

The upper block has at that time disappeared completely. It cannot possibly drop on the structure below. And if it did ... collapse arrest would follow ... as explained in the Pizza Box Tower experiment.

Bazant assumes the upper block is intact all the time during the destruction, crush down, of the lower structure that takes >10 seconds. Does anybody believe that today?

 

[X]

Easy - in the first case you suggest there is no friction involved so the mass(es) just move along at constant velocity when the forces are removed (it must be somewhere in outer space where g = 0); in the second case friction and gravity is a work decelarating the object(s) until arrest and equilibrium is reached.

You said "the upwards forces are equal to mg". Your words.

That would be an inclusive statement. All the upward forces. Which would include friction.

Are you now changing your mind, and agreeing the the sum of the upward forces (F₁) must be greater than the sum of the downward forces (M₁g) for the upper section to decelerate?

If so, you admit Dave Rogers, myself, and all the others who chimed in were correct and that you were wrong when you said:

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

Still waiting, Heiwa.

 

[phunk]

Re rubber ball - the bounce is a combination of force applied by ground on the ball and energy released that was previously absorbed at impact by ground and ball. Anyway - the rubber ball was arrested soon after impact (and then it bounced). Re the force the ball applies on the ground (and the ground on the ball) - it is evidently not constant but a function of time during contact. Same goes for the pressure between ball/ground. So anybody believing that the force or forces are constant should review their posts.

Did someone say it was constant?

The reason the ball's descent is arrested is because the ground is able to hold up much more than the small force of the rubber ball at impact. Try to bounce the ball off a taut sheet of tissue paper and the results will be different, because the impact force will be greater than the breaking force for the paper. But if you placed the ball gently on the paper, it would be fine. This is what happens with the towers, the force of the impact is an order of magnitude more than the static load the lower part is normally able to support.

Similar would happen to the WTC1 upper block at impact. A force is applied to it, it is evidently variable with time, and the result should be deceleration (not observed on any video).

See below.

Pressure between upper block and lower structure at contact points develops and causes overload of various parts. Energy should be absorbed/consumed when structural parts fail (not observed on any video). Arrest should have occurred soon after that.

You're ignoring half of the equation, and not even trying to make up numbers for the half you're discussing. You're only talking about energy being lost, and ignoring the fact that energy also is being added to the system as the upper block descends. If you want to show that the collapse will arrest, you have to show that the energy is lost to friction and damage faster than it is being converted from gravitational potential to kinetic energy.

Of course the alleged impact goes so fast that it is not even recorded on any video, so you wonder if an impact took place at all!

It's not like every column landed on top of the column below it simultaneously. In reality, the upper block was tilted, the impact was spread out over time, and it would appear in the video as the upper block descending at less than g. There won't be a sudden moment where the whole lower surface of the upper section impacts the lower section all at once.

On all videos I have seen, the top part implodes and becomes 30% shorter and creates a smoke screen before anything at all happens to the structure below.

In reality, there's the upper section, the lower section, and the initial collapse zone, and no well defined boundry between them. You're just including the collapse zone in your definition of the upper block, so of course the upper block gets shorter in that view.

What happens then - global collapse - does not conform to any laws of physics and requires more energy than available by gravity alone.

You still haven't given us ANY numbers to back that up.

Friction (includes here all forces that absorb energy at and after impact) is conveniently forgotten.

In order for there to be enough friction to decelerate the upper block, the columns holding up all of the parts that would cause friction have to be able to hold up that much load. All load leads back to the columns, you can't apply friction to the upper block without that same amount of force transferring to the columns of the lower block. That's what bazant showed, that the dynamic load of the descending upper block was more than enough to overwhelm the column's load bearing capacity. It doesn't matter what path it took to get there.

You are 100% wrong when you suggest that if the upper part was rigid, arrest is possible. Then the upper part is indestructible = no energy absorbed due friction that includes deformation and structural failures. But why would the upper part be rigid, when the lower structure is not? Why assume that? Why not assume what is real - both objects are not rigid.

I didn't say the lower part wasn't. And rigid in this context does not mean it can't deform, just that the pieces stay connected.

Breaking apart and structural failures (result of friction) are significant factors of collapse arrest.

Breaking apart and structural failures cause collapse, they don't stop collapse.

 

[Heiwa]

Still waiting, Heiwa.

So you have still not understood? A falling body drops on anyting BANG and an impact force (variable in time) is applied on anything and anything applies an equal force on the falling body according Newton (but not NIST/Bazant). This force cannot be bigger or smaller than the impact force. What happens then? CRUNCH! The forces applied on the two bodies affect them. They may deform elastically or plastically, parts may fail, etc. Energy is consumed! The only energy available at impact was the kinetic energy of the falling body. Anything was static and fixed to a very big body - Mother Earth. According NIST/Bazant only anything is crunched or crashed at BANG/CRUNCH. The falling body is assumed rigid and remains unaffected by the impact ... and continues dropping through anything in direction of Mother Earth! This is not possible. The falling body is not rigid. So after impact and initial destruction and deceleration of the falling body less energy is available but what remains is still there. Let's say it consists of parts of the falling body that was not rigid and has now broken up in smaller parts and are still dropping. Total mass is the same but split up in different parts, where some may have stopped. The moving parts may drop further and impact anything again in various places (anything consists of many parts and surfaces) or bounce outside. But at every impact energy is consumed/absorbed and after a while there is no energy left. Destruction is arrested.

In real time arrest may happen within a second of first impact. Arrest develops quickly. I have met many witnesses of structural collapse arrests: they all said there was a big BANG and then they found the structure partly demolished in various ways - multiple local failures - but still holding together. Checking backwards through these failures you may find the proximate cause that initiated them, maybe an impact, overload, design or manufacturing fault, fatigue, etc. Parts may have broken loose and dropped away ... to the ground not impacting anything anymore.

Read my papers why collapse arrest should have taken place at WTC1.

Your moving, rigid mass in outer space flying around hitting things without friction has nothing to with this event - collapse arrest - that only takes place where gravity and friction are available.

Pls note that NIST/Bazant ignore friction* in their analysises. That's why there is no collapse arrest possible in their analysises.

*including deformation and failures due to friction or simply contact between bodies where force is transmitted which is also friction (inside the material).

I think it is time to end this thread. The Pizza Box Tower is still standing firm after everything that has been dropped on it.

Thanks for your participation. Sorry I cannot say that to other participants as they are on my ignore list, where you end up due stupid posts.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Stupid posts?

I made about 4-5 posts in here, while two of them were questions about the model and the other three or two posts where bumbs. And I'm on ignore?

Very professional of you.

EDIT: I thought real engineers used calculations to support their claims. But you dont use it to often do you?

EDIT: Ah well I'm on ignore so whats the use of this post?

 

[uruk]

Heiwa wherein your calculations are the forces the columns can withstand?

When the upper floors go into motion due to gravity, the floor imediatly below the moving mass must be able to withstand the mass plus the momentum if it is to arrest the upper floors. Since you are quoting Newton you should be aware of his law of momentum. "an object in motion will remain in motion untill acted upon by a force."

Remember the upper floors may be coming appart but the aggregate mass of the all the debris will still be there. For example, a shot gun shell is composed of many small pellets but when the pellets are all in motion and relatively in close proximity of each other they can still impart a sizable force on an object as if all the pellets were one single, solid mass.

The moving mass of the upper floors will impact with the floor below the mass and the floor below will impart a certain amount of force against the moving mass. Now the million dollar question here is will the structures of the floor below the moving mass be able to remain intact due to the forces acting upon it? Obviously not. The column structures below the upper floors no longer have the structural support of the structures in floors above it and will come apart under the forces involved.

That is why an egg cannot remain intact when my hand comes down hard upon the egg. There will be an equal but opposite force applied back to my hand but the structure of the egg will not survive the forces involved.

To continue, the mass of the destroyed lower floor will add its mass to the moving upper section and continue to smash it's way down through each floor with increasing force (due to the increasing mass) untill it finally stoped by a structure that can withdstand and dissipate the forces involved in the process, e.g. the Earth.

 

[Heiwa]

AA. Did someone say it was constant?

BB. The reason the ball's descent is arrested is because the ground is able to hold up much more than the small force of the rubber ball at impact. Try to bounce the ball off a taut sheet of tissue paper and the results will be different, because the impact force will be greater than the breaking force for the paper. But if you placed the ball gently on the paper, it would be fine. This is what happens with the towers, the force of the impact is an order of magnitude more than the static load the lower part is normally able to support.


See below.

CC. You're ignoring half of the equation, and not even trying to make up numbers for the half you're discussing. You're only talking about energy being lost, and ignoring the fact that energy also is being added to the system as the upper block descends. If you want to show that the collapse will arrest, you have to show that the energy is lost to friction and damage faster than it is being converted from gravitational potential to kinetic energy.

DD. It's not like every column landed on top of the column below it simultaneously. In reality, the upper block was tilted, the impact was spread out over time, and it would appear in the video as the upper block descending at less than g. There won't be a sudden moment where the whole lower surface of the upper section impacts the lower section all at once.

EE. In reality, there's the upper section, the lower section, and the initial collapse zone, and no well defined boundry between them. You're just including the collapse zone in your definition of the upper block, so of course the upper block gets shorter in that view.


You still haven't given us ANY numbers to back that up.

FF. In order for there to be enough friction to decelerate the upper block, the columns holding up all of the parts that would cause friction have to be able to hold up that much load. All load leads back to the columns, you can't apply friction to the upper block without that same amount of force transferring to the columns of the lower block. That's what bazant showed, that the dynamic load of the descending upper block was more than enough to overwhelm the column's load bearing capacity. It doesn't matter what path it took to get there.

I didn't say the lower part wasn't. And rigid in this context does not mean it can't deform, just that the pieces stay connected.

GG.Breaking apart and structural failures cause collapse, they don't stop collapse.

AA. Apparently. So I clarified the matter.

BB. Thanks for agreeing that when something drops on anything it may be arrested.

CC. No, evidently parts of something that were not arrested at first impact may continue to drop (energy added) to create second impacts. It is clearly described in my papers. Pls note that something now is severly damaged and broken up and that some parts of something have already been arrested, e.g. a very weak part of something that impacted a very strong part of anything.

DD. Yes, the upper block must tilt just after impact as shown in my papers and the part of something tilting outside anything will not impact anything after that. Plenty of energy lost that way.

EE. Collapse zone? Sorry. There is an upper block, an initiation/fire zone and lower structure. All structure in the initiation/fire zone is assumed lost (it disappeared!) and it is further assumed that the upper block drops free fall through this initiation zone (it is nothing there) and impacts the lower structure. BANG. Not seen on any videos. Upper block implodes above initiation/fire zone and lower structure before that. Look again.

FF. Sorry again. Read my papers again. Most friction* (* see previous post for definition) are damaged floors getting entangled into one another. The columns slice up the floors. No upper block columns contact any lower structure columns.

GG. You do not know what you are talking about. When something drops on anything causing local failures and a mess of anything (and something) it is in fact all these local failures and displaced parts of everything that arrest something or what's left of it. I have seen it many times. That's why I was surprised to see (on videos much later) WTCs collapsing like house of cards. Didn't look real to me.
After initiation the upper blocks or what would remain after 'impact' or contact would have remained up top. Explanations of NIST and Bazant to the contrary are nonsense. But it is official policy and US is at war. To query official policy is treason in US. Luckily I live in a really free country.

Merci et au revoir!

 

[HawksFan]

I gotta hand it to Heiwa for sticking to his story like a pitbull on a rope toy. If only he would put that tenacity to use towards good instead of nonsense.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Someone please ask him if he sent his findings to NIST or any other engineering community or something like that...

 

[uruk]

I don't know, but anybody who thinks that a stack of pizza boxes accuratly or even remotely resembles the structure of a buildining could never, ever be mistaken for an engineer.

 

[X]

Your moving, rigid mass in outer space flying around hitting things without friction has nothing to with this event - collapse arrest - that only takes place where gravity and friction are available.

My example has everything to do with this event.


Let's run through this again:

There is a 1 kilogram mass on a frictionless plane. A 1 Newton force is applied to this mass, and is not removed. After 1 second, a 1 Newton force is applied to the mass in the exact opposite direction of the first force.

You agree that the mass accelerates in the first second (a = F_{1[/sub[/m), but after one second it no longer accelerates(a = (F1 - F2)/m = 0, since F1 = F2). Now let's re-phrase it slightly: There is a 1 kilogram mass on a frictionless plane. A 1 Newton force is applied to this mass, and is not removed. After 1 second, the mass has reached a plane that has friction. The force of kinetic friction is equal to exactly 1 Newton (coefficient of friction is therefore equal to 1/mg). What is the direction, velocity and acceleration of the mass at time > 1 second?}

 

[phunk]

Good god Heiwa, you are completely lost.

Let me repeat. For friction to stop the top of the tower, it has to create a force F that's much greater than mg, that is enough to decelerate the top of the tower to 0. That entire force F must be supported by the columns, unless you're postulating that the floors could magically levitate. Bazant showed that the momentum of the moving upper block was too much for the columns to support. It's really that simple.