Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Heiwa]

Let's see if I understand this. In simple terms, in order for collapse to arrest, the velocity after applying all accelerating (gravity) and decelerating (friction) forces has to be smaller than it was before.

velocity + accelerating force - decelerating force < velocity

Heiwa claims that the decelerating forces at most equal the accelerating forces. Let's assume the decelerating forces are at maximum.

accelerating force - decelerating force = 0

velocity + 0 < velocity

velocity < velocity

Heiwa, what have I gotten wrong about your analysis?

All of it, I am sorry to say. To start with keep uniform units in your formulas and then type correctly. Do not mix apples and oranges or elephants and ants (or forces and velocities).

You know that 3 ants are smaller than 1 elephant? But is 3 < 1?

Back to the drawing board, ihaunter. If you are a serious NWO mathematician you can do better than that!

 

[Myriad]

The WTC1 case is described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm but let's summarize:

Assumptions:

Upper block weighs m = 33 000 000 kgs and free falls h = 3.7 m due to g = 9.82 m/s² on the lower structure. The force it applies on the lower structure at contact is 0.3241 gN and the available energy is 1.199 GJ. The lower structure applies the same force on the upper block.

The velocity v of the upper block at contact is quite low - 8.52 m/s.

Hi Heiwa,

I realize these questions may seem repetitious, but I want to make sure I'm reading and understanding your case clearly. Are you saying that the maximum force that the upper block can apply to the lower structure is equal to the weight of the upper block? (Your .32 gN figure is m*g, which of course is the weight of the upper block.)

If so, are you also claiming that there is a general principle here -- that is, the maximum force applied by any falling object in earth's gravity on whatever it lands on cannot exceed its weight? For instance, does it also apply to falling pizza boxes? Or is there some particular characteristic of the wtc upper blocks and lower structures that makes this limitation (max force of impact <= weight) apply in those particular cases? (If so, please clarify what that key characteristic is.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[ihaunter]

All of it, I am sorry to say. To start with keep uniform units in your formulas and then type correctly. Do not mix apples and oranges or elephants and ants (or forces and velocities).

You know that 3 ants are smaller than 1 elephant? But is 3 < 1?

Back to the drawing board, ihaunter. If you are a serious NWO mathematician you can do better than that!

OK, So I went too simple.

I hold a ball bearing over the edge of a cliff and let go. At time 0 seconds the ball has a velocity of 0 m/s. Gravity applies a constant acceleration of 9.806 m/s². At time 1 sec, the ball has a velocity of 9.806 m/s. Also at time 1 sec it comes into contact with a frictional force that will decelerate it by 9.806 m/s²(Equal to the accelerating force of gravity, which is still acting on the ball). What is the velocity at 2 sec? 9.806 m/s. At what time will the ball stop falling? It won't, until it encounters a decelerating force greater than the accelerating force, such as the ground.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So what Heiwa is saying is that each floor of the building was a single solid piece like a pizzabox is one single piece of cardboard?

 

[Quad4_72]

?? I created the Pizza Box Tower experiment and according to some lunatics on this thread some extra pizza boxes should crush it, if dropped on the tower, and the Pizza Box Tower should globally collapse into 1000's of pieces of pizza boxes. They produce strange theories of this; m dropping here and force F applied there, that the experiment is not to scale or that the material is funny, etc, etc. But in reality they could never explain their magic theories how to globally collapse a Pizza Box Tower ... or WTC1 for that matter.

Or they could! But then they had to mentally cheat. Assume extra pizza boxes dropping are rigid. That F is only applied on the PBT but not on the extra boxes dropping. That there is no friction. That impact takes 0 time. Etc, etc.

So they are living in a (NWO) fantasy world. But it is not a crime to do so. Like infidelity in marriage. No crime. But it is quite stupid to talk about it openly. Real gangsters never do that.

While I could debunk all of that nonsense, I am not going to. It has been done countless times in this thread already. I believe you are on par with the no planers.

 

[Corsair 115]

So what Heiwa is saying is that each floor of the building was a single solid piece like a pizzabox is one single piece of cardboard?

I, for one, would love to know just how big a pizza would have to be to cover one floor of the WTC towers. How many slices would it have, and how many people could it feed? (Let's leave aside the delivery issues for the moment.)

 

[Heiwa]

Hi Heiwa,

I realize these questions may seem repetitious, but I want to make sure I'm reading and understanding your case clearly. Are you saying that the maximum force that the upper block can apply to the lower structure is equal to the weight of the upper block? (Your .32 gN figure is m*g, which of course is the weight of the upper block.)

If so, are you also claiming that there is a general principle here -- that is, the maximum force applied by any falling object in earth's gravity on whatever it lands on cannot exceed its weight? For instance, does it also apply to falling pizza boxes? Or is there some particular characteristic of the wtc upper blocks and lower structures that makes this limitation (max force of impact <= weight) apply in those particular cases? (If so, please clarify what that key characteristic is.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Hi, Myriad!

OK, let's start in outer space, where mass m is floating in universe at zero velocity. Now we (don't ask me how) apply a force F on this mass m so that it accelerates at 9.82 m/s² that happens to be the acceleration g of gravity on Earth. Thus F = mg.

The force F is equal to a mass m accelerating at g. This force (or mass m accelerating at g) in the universe happens to contact with something that also is floating in universe - at zero velocity.

When force F contacts this something in universe, something will apply a force -F to the mass m hitting it. No more, no less. There is no other F around to contact with something. And something applies -F to m. Don't ask me why! It seems to be basic physics. But according to Bazant force F (or mg) just penetrates something and slices through something and something is pulverized into pieces of something. And F (or mg) continues to accelarate happily in the universe as an indestructible force, while something has become a cloud of pieces of something.

Look at the Moon. Plenty of ms at various gs have collided with the Moon. Do you sea holes in the Moon. Or craters where ms ended up?

On Earth it is quite easy to apply a force F on a mass m; just drop it. The Earth provides free of charge g, so that F = mg. And when this m (let's say a pile of pizza boxes) collides with something (i.e. the now famous PBT also of similar boxes), it applies F on PBT. And PBT applies -F on the dropping pile of pizza boxes. Like in the universe. Happens everywhere.

No more, no less.

But the PBT is not something. It is just a tower of pizza boxes and when it applies -F on m, things happens - as I have described several times - and m suffers local failures (and also PBT) and what I call 'collapse arrest' takes place.

Happens every time.

You could argue, as many on JREF does, that 'collapse arrest' will not be completed until PBT is completely destroyed by m, but for that to happen m must be rigid, which it is not.

Anybody, like Bazant or NIST, that assumes that m is rigid (a very particular characteristic) is a con man. As every con man they have to fool you twice (at least). So where did this rigid m end up after destroying PBT?

If it penetrated (globally collapsed) the PBT (standing on Earth), it would evidently also penetrate Earth afterwards? But no, the con men then says that m stopped being rigid (????) when contacting Earth (rigid?), and that Earth destroyed m. Crush-up!

The PBT experiment demonstrates clearly the two false assumptions by Bazant and NIST.

kind regards

Heiwa

 

[Heiwa]

While I could debunk all of that nonsense, I am not going to. It has been done countless times in this thread already. I believe you are on par with the no planers.

Has it? I haven't noticed. You are up against good old Newton and very senior Arkimedes! I am just playing their music, so do not blame me for the music. My performance is of course personal but all the notes are there. Beautiful music!

And my execution of it is not bad either.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again Heiwa is treating this as if it's two solid objects interacting with each other. Have him build a model out of wooden sticks, take a few of them out to simulate the impact damage, then start a fire and see if this model remains standing.

Pizza boxes? What absolute stupidity. I'd like to see him publish a paper in an engineering journal with that nonsense.

 

[Myriad]

Hi, Myriad!

OK, let's start in outer space, where mass m is floating in universe at zero velocity.

Begging your pardon, but no, let's not start in outer space. I am asking specifically about the relationship between an object's weight in earth's gravitational field near sea level (which is the force earth's gravity experts on it, and which is equal to mg), and the force with which that object, if it falls, applies to something it lands on.

...And when this m (let's say a pile of pizza boxes) collides with something (i.e. the now famous PBT also of similar boxes) it applies F on PBT. And PBT applies -F on the dropping pile of pizza boxes.

No more, no less.

It appears that you're saying that the force a falling object (at earth's surface) applies to an object it lands on is exactly (no more and no less than) the object's weight.

But it's not clear that that's what you're claiming, because you talk of "force F" which in an earlier paragraph you state is equal to mg, but it's not clear whether the "force F" in the above-quoted paragraph is supposed to be the same force, mg, the object's weight in earth's gravity.

I'm asking you to please answer with clarity. Does a falling object (near earth's surface) apply a force equal to its weight, on whatever it falls onto? Can it apply less force than that? Can it apply more force than that? If possible, please answer yes or no to each of those three questions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Heiwa]

I'm asking you to please answer with clarity. Does a falling object (near earth's surface) apply a force equal to its weight, on whatever it falls onto? Can it apply less force than that? Can it apply more force than that? If possible, please answer yes or no to each of those three questions.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I thought I had explained it in laymen's terms. I'll try again!

When any object (falling or moving or dancing or whatever) contacts another object (in unverse or on Earth or anywhere) and applies force F on it, the other object applies force -F on the falling, moving, dancing, whatever object. Newton's third law. Arkimedes explained it 2000 years earlier, e.g. why ships float in water as an example.

Drop a ship into water - the ship doesn't punch a hole into the water. There is a splash - and just another variation of collapse arrest.

If the ship has mass m and the acceleration is g, the force F = mg of the ship is applied to the water - SPLASH. Reason, water applies -F on ship. SPLASH.

According NWO there is no splash and all ships sink. The whole world drops into a black NWO hole.

Please ask intelligent questions. For basic ones consult Wikipedia.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

So Heiwa means that if something drops on something it is always arrested? So if I drop a stone on a piece of glas the glas will apply a force that is equal to the force the stone applys on the glas?

 

[Heiwa]

It appears that you're saying that the force a falling object (at earth's surface) applies to an object it lands on is exactly (no more and no less than) the object's weight.

Respectfully,
Myriad

It seems you mix up force with weight (mass?). Two different matters as far as I am concerned. I am only discussing forces of a body applied to other bodies producing reaction forces and, e.g. stresses which are forces/contact area in the bodies concerned. These stresses can produce havock to any mass.

But OK, lot's of people assume that weight is a force (?) with which a body tends towards the centre of earth or represents how heavy (?) this thing is, quite confusing. There are plenty of other forces that are not weights or bodies attracted by earth, e.g. the force applied by earth on everything on it, i.e. exactly the opposite to weight. Con men like Bazant uses this limited understanding to confuse you and the NWO fellowship.

Read his paper about the big, big, big, strong, strong, strong, heavy, heavy, heavy upper block impacting - at enormous speed - the weak, weak, bla, bla, bla, lower structure of WTC1 causing a global collapse for the second time that day and in world history. Twice in a day and never before - normal NWO event.

It seems that 80% of the posts on this thread suggest that I am stupid, etc. without any real arguments except the Bazant nonsense. It shows how easy it is to con people in general.

 

[Quad4_72]

It seems that 80% of the posts on this thread suggest that I am stupid, etc. without any real arguments except the Bazant nonsense. It shows how easy it is to con people in general.

An incredibly complex event such as the collapse of the WTC cannot be explained in terms of pizza boxes. Everyone seems to understand this concept except for you. Why do you suppose that is Heiwa? Are you just that much smarter than us? Or for one minute could you assume that maybe what you are saying is completely bogus.

 

[beachnut]

Drop a ship into water - the ship doesn't punch a hole into the water. There is a splash - and just another variation of collapse arrest.

I can drop a ship into water, and it sinks! I can drop a ship into water and it is destroyed. Your lack of rational thought is exposed by your fantasy ideas on 9/11. It all depends on initial conditions.

You inability to calculate the forces involved on 9/11 are your failure. Your kids can't jump high enough, nor are they heavy enough of you to gain the experience you need to understand the real world on a scale of 1 acre, replicated 110 times to 1300 feet of steel building. Your lack of expertise in structural engineering is exposed. The fact is the person who did the structural engineering on the WTC proves your ideas are hogwash.

You need to stop showing the world you lack the knowledge, experience and skills to understand 9/11.

For ships that have special steel and special F=ma qualities, call http://heiwaco.tripod.com/ and of course your ship will be built CT proof!

The fact you may want to investigate is the total pounds one floor of the WTC can hold. BTW, it is just over 22 Floors of WTC, just the floors, not the core, or how many pounds can a WTC floor hold before the WTC floor fails and hits the floor below? Then what happens when a floor fails with the weight at failure and it hits the floor below? Your 40 years of experience fails since you have zero insight into high rise buildings like the WTC. Your experience is worthless when it comes to the WTC. What a waste.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm

The writer is naval architect with 40 years experience of steel structural design including structural damage analysis. The writer has investigated the structural destructions of many ship collisions. The WTC1 destruction is in many respects similar to a collision between two steel ships! Heiwa Co

If people want ships that can't sink or be destroyed because kids jumping in beds do not break the beds, you want Heiwa to build your ship of fantasy; where steel does not weaken, and F=ma is how you want it to be, not how it is.

Massive failure to understand reality is due to what bias? What is making your fantasy a reality to yourself. Why did the towers fall Heiwa shipbuilding expert with kids jumping on bed?

Why did the towers fail expert ship jumping kids on bed person?

The upper block and it's mass above - 80% concrete and glass and lose furniture, etc - is not rigid or solid and immediately breaks up in small pieces and cannot put any big load on the steel structure below as the velocity is too small and should be arrested or just fall straight down outside the building.
Anders Björkman, M.Sc. Heiwa Co, Beausoleil, France - October 17 (last update), 2008
A more detailed analysis of same sort is by Mark H Gaffney and recommended for the advanced reader.

It could be failure to model the WTC correctly, or making up stupid ideas on how you think things work. Your work is special, very special! Why did you fail to garner the Pulitzer Prize on this work! I for one know you have a lock on the fiction award.

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist1.htm#10
In the writer's view the picture above looks as if a bomb has hit the tower with enormous energy, structural joints vaporize and mass murder is committed (but that is beside the topic of this article). And where did the upper block go? More ...

Wrong, no bombs, try again! 7 years of failed ideas on 9/11. What next?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It seems you mix up force with weight (mass?). Two different matters as far as I am concerned. I am only discussing forces of a body applied to other bodies producing reaction forces and, e.g. stresses which are forces/contact area in the bodies concerned. These stresses can produce havock to any mass.

Heiwa---

Are you aware that weight is a direct measurement of a force, namely, the force of gravity?

Are you further aware that mass and weight are not the same? The above quote implies you are not aware of either of these facts. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Further, please reply to posts 483 and 582. You seem to have neglected them.

I, for one, would love to know just how big a pizza would have to be to cover one floor of the WTC towers. How many slices would it have, and how many people could it feed? (Let's leave aside the delivery issues for the moment.)

I love this sort of thing.

A large pizza has a diameter of 16 inches. The area of such a pizza is about 201 square inches. Assuming this feeds 3 hungry people, that comes to 67 square inches per person. Also assuming it is cut into 8 slices, it comes to 25 square inches per slice.

Each WTC tower had a square base, I think, of 207 feet to a side. Inscribing a circle in there gives us a pizza with a diameter of 207 feet, or an area of 484,285,096 square inches. At 25 square inches per slice, this is 193,746 slices, and should feed 72,293 people.

By my estimate, the pizza would need 36,000 pounds of dough, 12,000 pounds of cheese, and 24,000 cups of sauce. You'd top it with 6,000 pounds of pepperoni, or, if you prefer the vegetarian option, a quarter of a million mushrooms.

Mind you, this is just one floor of one building.

Oh, and you'd have to tip the delivery person $120,000, unless you're really cheap.

 

[DGM]

It seems that 80% of the posts on this thread suggest that I am stupid, etc. without any real arguments except the Bazant nonsense. It shows how easy it is to con people in general.

Actually it doesn't. Or do you actually think you've convinced anyone here? We're not buying and your only digging your hole deeper.

With all due respect, you suck as a con artist (maybe that's why your articles target children).

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa---

Are you aware that weight is a direct measurement of a force, namely, the force of gravity?

Are you further aware that mass and weight are not the same? The above quote implies you are not aware of either of these facts. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Mass is measured in kilograms (kg) and force is measured in Newton (N) and I do not know your weight or shoe size or age, but assumes the latter is 7. I have just started a new thread about how (not) to measure your weight.

 

[Hokulele]

I love this sort of thing.

A large pizza has a diameter of 16 inches. The area of such a pizza is about 201 square inches. Assuming this feeds 3 hungry people, that comes to 67 square inches per person. Also assuming it is cut into 8 slices, it comes to 25 square inches per slice.

Each WTC tower had a square base, I think, of 207 feet to a side. Inscribing a circle in there gives us a pizza with a diameter of 207 feet, or an area of 484,285,096 square inches. At 25 square inches per slice, this is 193,746 slices, and should feed 72,293 people.

By my estimate, the pizza would need 36,000 pounds of dough, 12,000 pounds of cheese, and 24,000 cups of sauce. You'd top it with 6,000 pounds of pepperoni, or, if you prefer the vegetarian option, a quarter of a million mushrooms.

Mind you, this is just one floor of one building.

Oh, and you'd have to tip the delivery person $120,000, unless you're really cheap.

OK, now the thread is fun again.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

You had originally written:

It seems you mix up force with weight (mass?). Two different matters as far as I am concerned. I am only discussing forces of a body applied to other bodies producing reaction forces and, e.g. stresses which are forces/contact area in the bodies concerned. These stresses can produce havock to any mass.

But OK, lot's of people assume that weight is a force (?) with which a body tends towards the centre of earth or represents how heavy (?) this thing is, quite confusing.

From this, particularly noting the question mark after "mass", the fact that "force" and "weight" are two different matters as far as you are concerned, and the fact that you are confused by the (more or less correct) assumption that weight is a force with which a body tends towards the center of earth or represents how heavy a thing is, I attempted to clarify the issue. To which you responded:

Mass is measured in kilograms (kg) and force is measured in Newton (N) and I do not know your weight or shoe size or age, but assumes the latter is 7. I have just started a new thread about how (not) to measure your weight.

Fortunately, you have your units right. By the way, weight is also measured in Newtons, and is therefore a force, namely that of gravity on an object.

My weight is 824 Newtons. My shoe size is 9 1/2. My age is 37. If there's anything else I can clear up, feel free to ask.