• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

If someone can repost this post, since His Royal Arrogance has me on ignore.

You can't compare the structure of the WTC to a flag pole. The vertical frames are not a single piece structure all the way up. They are composed of many, many individual pieces bolted together.

If you take away the horizontal trusses and framework, the vertical pieces will collapse under its own weight (and from swaying back and forth in the wind).

The taller something is compared to the size of its cross-sectional footprint, the more unstable it is. Simple physics. Not Heiwa Physics, real-world physics.

Here's a very simple experiment for you, Heiwa. I'm sure you're familiar with LEGOs? Why don't you use a single sized brick (whatever size you want) and stack lots of them on top of each other to roughly 6 feet or so. Then give the top brick a perpendicular force. You'll find that it'll readily bend and eventually fall. And it doesn't require a large force either! Simple!

The reason is because the more weight you add to the tower, the more it'll act like a cantilever beam (but vertical). As long as it stands perfectly upright, it'll be fine. But once any force is applied perpendicularily, it'll become unstable. The higher it is, the proportionally smaller the force becomes.

Momenttimber = Fperpendicular x d. Where d is the height of the tower. Simple.
 
Heiwa said:
Wrong, when you remove the floors you also remove the loads transmitted to the columns and the stresses in the columns will become very small ... and they will stand up like flag poles.
Click to expand...

Can we please nominate this for some sort of award? Especially since a proposed definition of skyscraper is "Any structure where the wind load exceeds the weight load?" Or the fact that the columns are interlocked with the floors? Or the fact that they don't exactly run 100 story columns up and down...

So much sillyness
 
Last edited:
Some questions for Heiwa

Heiwa said:
But when you hit the ice berg, BANG, and the velocity suddenly becomes 0 (very rapid deceleration and anything loose on the ship will proceed with speed x forward), the propeller pushes the ship against it with force 1 N, the ice berg applies the force - 1 N only to the shaped bow of the ship. And that bow was not designed to resist a point load of -1 N. Local stresses in the structure will become very high. But the total force is still only - 1N.
Click to expand...

The deceleration you describe is instant. That would require WAY more than -1N...unless a positive force of 1N should cause the same effect in reverse. Does the 1N force from the propeller cause a "very rapid acceleration and anything loose on the ship to proceed with x speed backward"?

Heiwa said:
But believe me - the ice berg will stop the ship.
Click to expand...

In your example...we can cancel out the engine and the iceberg, since their net effect on the ship is 0, and the deceleration can be measured by the amount of water resistance. The iceberg cannot stop the ship without the help of the water resistance, and the water resistance cannot stop the ship without the help of the iceberg. (Unless the engine is turned off)


Please answer the following:

- How long does it take the propeller (applying a force of 1N) to accelerate the ship to cruising speed (x)?

- How long does it take an iceberg (applying a force of -1N) to decelerate the ship to 0?

- If the ship was moving forward at cruising speed, how long would it take for the propeller to bring the ship to a complete stop by applying it's full thrust (1N) in reverse?

- How much water resistance is there (in N) when the ship has decelerated to 1/2 of its cruising speed? 1/4 of its cruising speed? How will this affect the rate of deceleration?

- If there was no water resistance, how quickly would the iceberg in your example stop the ship?
 
Heiwa:
Just out of morbid curiosity, what stops the ship from accelerating the iceberg seeing that the propeller (gravity) will never stop? Does the iceberg also have a propeller pushing back or does the ships propeller stop (gravity). What stops the ship from moving the iceberg (*even you can understand this).

*I wrote it for children
 
Last edited:
I think it's interesting that Heiwa uses a ship and a iceberg as an example.

As far as I can figure he is correct as long as the following is true;

The ship is the upper block
The propeller is gravity
The water is the lower block
The iceberg is the bedrock at ground zero (immovable object)*


*remember the "propeller" keeps push after the "stuff" is on the ground (that's why we need cranes to pick it up).

Should we assume this is correct or are you just pulling our legs Heiwa? Anything other that that would suggest a tower structure far stronger then what was in New York on 9/11/01.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
But when you hit the ice berg, BANG, and the velocity suddenly becomes 0 (very rapid deceleration and anything loose on the ship will proceed with speed x forward), the propeller pushes the ship against it with force 1 N, the ice berg applies the force - 1 N only to the shaped bow of the ship. And that bow was not designed to resist a point load of -1 N. Local stresses in the structure will become very high. But the total force is still only - 1N.
Click to expand...


But for the ship to be slowed down requires a force greater than the propulsive force, yes?

What you are arguing is all well and good after the ship has slowed down, but you stated that a force equal to the driving force will slow it down!


In order for the moving mass to change velocity (like slowing to a stop), there HAS to be a net force on it.

This you cannot deny! In fact, you have agreed to it several time. Yet you have this bizarre and idiotic notion that it doesn't apply to impacts.


This is what I've been trying repeatedly to hammer into your thick head! In order to stop the moving mass, the resistance force MUST BE GREATER than the driving force!

You can look at the situation before the resistance force is applied, and you can look at the situation in a theoretical state after the mass has stopped.

But neither of these instances prove the mass has to stop.

You have claimed the tower can only provide a resistance force equal to the force of gravity on the upper section.

Now follow your claim through to its conclusion, as determined by physics.

Hint: The mass will keep moving at a constant velocity!


Plainly your are more interested in dodging the issue than you are in maintaining correct physics.
You are fooling only yourself, Heiwa.

Nobody else buys your model, because the physics is wrong!


You have discredited yourself severely here. I'm not taking this issue further, there is no point. You have demonstrated that all you will do is continue your dishonest evasions, and mindlessly claim your are right. And from now on, whenever you pretend to argue physics, I will show the person your are arguing with just how tenuous your grasp of reality is. I urge everyone else to do the same (ignore you, that is). There is no point in wasting time arguing physics with someone who does not understand the concept. Maybe by linking back to this we can prevent others from learning that the hard way, and save them the trouble.

I give up. Goodbye.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think he is implying that the iceberg is the lower portion of the WTC.
 
Force applied between impact and arrest

So you wonder what the force is between impact and arrest? So you have still not understood? It cannot be bigger than the force applied at impact and it remains the same all the time until arrest. 1 N in the layman's example with a ship colliding with an ice berg. mg in the case of WTC1.

If the propeller had applied a force of 10 N to the ship with mass 1 kg it would accelerate with a = 10 m/s² which is bigger than g, but the result would be the same at collision as described in earlier posts. This is basic physics.

Forget the Bazant NWO nonsense about the ship being rigid and the ice berg crushing into snow flakes due to a shock wave. Bazant is just a con man.

And please - if you apply a force on anything, you should know that anything cannot resist it with a bigger force. Basic statics!

At impact the contact surface area is very small so the pressure/stress on the bodies is enormous (and thus the local destruction there on both bodies depending on their structure is very serious - no body is rigid) but after a while (milliseconds) the contact area gets bigger and the pressure is reduced, while the local destruction of both bodies develop or the bodies slip off each other, etc. and after a while (less than a couple of seconds) arrest occurs with plenty of local failures as result.

The force is constant - all the time. And the energy absorbed or diverted between impact and arrest is exactly the same as the energy applied at impact. No more, no less. Basic.

Happens everytime.

But apparently difficult to understand. That's why I presented the Pizza Box Tower experiment. Every child understands it ... but JREF members, no.
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
I think it's interesting that Heiwa uses a ship and a iceberg as an example.

As far as I can figure he is correct as long as the following is true;

The ship is the upper block
The propeller is gravity
The water is the lower block
The iceberg is the bedrock at ground zero (immovable object)*


*remember the "propeller" keeps push after the "stuff" is on the ground (that's why we need cranes to pick it up).

Should we assume this is correct or are you just pulling our legs Heiwa? Anything other that that would suggest a tower structure far stronger then what was in New York on 9/11/01.
Click to expand...

The ship is the upper block! RIGHT.
The propeller thrust is like gravity providing the force! RIGHT
The iceberg is the lower structure.
The water, in which the iceberg floats, is the ground. SURPRISE? Most of the Earth surface is water anyway.

I am not pulling anybody's leg. I am just teaching you some basic physics.

PS - Evidently the force applied by the ship on the iceberg is in turn applied by the iceberg to the ground ... water, of course. But subject is only what happens between ship and iceberg.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa:
The "propeller" never stops pushing (never). That's the part you can't get past the adults (only misled children), you should be ashamed of yourself.
 
Heiwa said:
The ship is the upper block! RIGHT.
The propeller thrust is like gravity providing the force! RIGHT
The iceberg is the lower structure.
The water, in which the iceberg floats, is the ground. SURPRISE?
Click to expand...
So what stops the "ship" from pushing the "iceberg" through the "water"?

Please stop this nonsense, even the "children" are laughing at you.
 
DGM said:
Heiwa:
The "propeller" never stops pushing (never). That's the part you can't get past the adults (only misled children), you should be ashamed of yourself.
Click to expand...

After impact/arrest the propeller continues to provide 1 N force/kg (or 10 N force/kg if you like), right. It will do so until you you stop the engine. If the engine is gravity, it does not stop. But the collision is arrested anyway.

You still believe the iceberg is shaken into snow flakes?
 
DGM said:
So how does the "ship" move through the "water"? Did your "ship" hover? Did your"propeller" stop?
Click to expand...

Pls - the ship moves due to 1 N force as explained. You are silly.

Still believe that a 1 N force can produce a 2 N force when hitting anything?
 
Heiwa said:
After impact/arrest the propeller continues to provide 1 N force/kg (or 10 N force/kg if you like), right. It will do so until you you stop the engine. If the engine is gravity, it does not stop. But the collision is arrested anyway.

You still believe the iceberg is shaken into snow flakes?
Click to expand...
No!
What is pushing the iceberg back? The iceberg only slows it down unless it's force is GREATER than then the ship (plus the constant "propeller"). Please try to show this (as asked a thousand times)
 
Heiwa:
When the "ship" hits the "iceberg" it may only move it a small amount (this you can not deny) but it will move it. Unless the iceberg starts to push back (a force opposite gravity) or the "ship" stops it's "propeller" (gravity) the iceberg will continue to accelerate in the same direction as the ship. Isn't science grand.


ETA I'm referring (ship and icebergs reactions) to this in the vertical plain where gravity is a constant.
 
Last edited:
Again, DGM, what Heiwa needs to show is that the frictional force from the iceberg (and thus the WTC in his analogy) is greater than the force from the propellers.

He has yet to do so and avoids it at every turn.

And he is doing exactly what he accuses Bazant of doing. Since he's equating the iceberg to the lower portion of the WTC, he's essentially saying that it's a solid mass. Because last time I checked, an iceberg was not made up of structural frames and has large open spaces inside. His iceberg analogy was fundamentally flawed from the beginning (just like his experiment). Surprised? I'm not.

He uses analogies that make sense on the surface (to childen as you noted), but when the more educated and rational among us dig into it, we find all these faults.
 
Heiwa:

It appears that you are still having difficulty understanding the physics behind your example....please answer my questions in post #563
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom