• 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

Quad4_72 said:
I think its time everyone stops conversing with Heiwa. He is simply not an intelligent person and lacks the ability to comprehend even the most basic concepts of physics. He gets off on the attention.
Click to expand...

Actually you are included in my audience. And nobody seems to be able to debunk the observations, calculations and conclusions in my papers and simple experiements. But I get some good feed back to improve on them.
 
And nobody seems to be able to debunk the observations, calculations and conclusions in my papers and simple experiements.
Click to expand...
If nobody debunks your "observations", it's because these "observations" debunk themselves, as they are complete rubbish. Once you've learned why modelizing WTC1 or 2 with pizza boxes is laughable, we'll have made a great progress.
 
Last edited:
Heiwa said:
But we never see 10 floors come crashing down, do we?

And Bazant never talks about 10 floors come crushing down.
Click to expand...
This is an irrelevant appeal Heiwa, unless you don't think there's any need for a building to be occupied giving planners unlimited freedom in how build the structure.


Heiwa said:
The upper block, 15 floors, is assumed to remain intact. The whole upper block is rigid.

According Bazant the lowest (of 15) floor of the upper block is superstrong! Nothing can destroy it. It compresses anything below it.
Click to expand...
It's called simplification, whereby complex variables in a physics based calculation are simplified to streamline the calculations. Such simplifications are never intended to be taken literally as you have decided to do. Of course if you feel that Bazant's calculations are incorrect, you're always free to present the relevant math to demonstrate this. You've yet to do so and hand wave every opportunity to do so that you are given.
 
And nobody seems to be able to debunk the observations, calculations and conclusions in my papers and simple experiements.
Click to expand...

Ignoring what people are telling you does not equal failure to debunk.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
It's called simplification (that the upper block remains intact), whereby complex variables in a physics based calculation are simplified to streamline the calculations. Such simplifications are never intended to be taken literally as you have decided to do. Of course if you feel that Bazant's calculations are incorrect, you're always free to present the relevant math to demonstrate this. You've yet to do so and hand wave every opportunity to do so that you are given.
Click to expand...

I call this simplification a con trick. To just assume the upper block remains intact with a superstrong bottom causing global collapse! It then crushes the lower structure, causes air jets blowing out debris 200 meters in all directions, etc, etc. Global collapse! But, when this upper block finally lands on a heap of loose rubble - it crushes up - and is destroyed. Suddenly the assumption is no longer valid! Just valid during crush down.

Complex variables = at start complete WTC tower is flexible. Then there is a fire. The upper block above the fire suddenly becomes rigid and indestructible = non-flexible. Then this superstrong upper block suddenly free falls through the fire zone and impacts lower structure. Lower structure collapses. Upper block lands on the rubble of the lower structure. Upper block is destroyed.

Sorry - just fools believe that.
 
Horatius said:
Simplifying assumptions are incredibly common in any science, and any engineer who doesn't know that is either incompetent or lying.

Or both.
Click to expand...

We use simplifying assumptions is structural analysis all the time; beams are replaced by lines that deform in various ways, etc. But we do not assume that certain parts (except certain support points) are rigid and other not.

If I assume that the complete WTC1 lower structure is rigid and something non-rigid drops on it, the WTC1 Tower will stand (and something will get damaged).

If I assume that both the WTC1 lower structure (and the ground) and the upper block are rigid, guess what happens when the upper block contacts the lower structure? The upper block will come to rest on top. Nothing gets damaged.

Why assume that one structure is rigid and another not? The WTC1 upper block is as non-rigid as the lower structure. And it is very easy to show what happens when you drop the upper block on the lower structure. Both bodies suffer local damages ... and after that the destruction is arrested.

Only by assuming that the upper block is rigid, the result will be 'global collapse'. So any doctor, h.c., or professor that assumes that the upper block is rigid - for simplicity of analysis - is simply a con man.

Why is he trying to fool his audience?
 
Last edited:
Ridiculous Claim Alert

Heiwa said:
If I assume that both the WTC1 lower structure (and the ground) and the upper block are rigid, guess what happens when the upper block contacts the lower structure? The upper block will come to rest on top. Nothing gets damaged.
Click to expand...

Rigid != Indestructible

Please show how "nothing gets damaged". I would love to know what happens to all of that energy.

ETA: You can answer that after you've modeled the following collapse with pizza boxes:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=566_1225555224
 
Last edited:
nicepants said:
Rigid != Indestructible

Please show how "nothing gets damaged". I would love to know what happens to all of that energy.
Click to expand...

When two rigid bodies contact each other (one body contains enormous energy, the other is static) they just bounce against one another and any energy transmitted does not cause any damages to the bodies. And after that the two bodies part with their energies. You cannot destroy a rigid - indestructible - body, incl. its energy. Nothing gets damaged!

Bazant, the con man, assumes abt WTC/0/11 - to simplify - that only one body is rigid - the small, weak, upper block/body; result - the other body is totally destroyed by the energy transmitted. Of course - it is the only possible result. BUT - the upper block/body would not stop its destruction there. It should destroy anything else ... the rubble below the lower structure, the ground below the rubble, the earth below the ground. Etc., etc. But the con man assumes that suddenly - at contact with the rubble - the upper block is not rigid anymore. The con man changes his assumptions to suit his evil purpose. To fool you.

Question remains why Bazant does this stupid con trick?

Thanks for starting this thread. More and more people understand that they have been fooled.
 
nicepants said:
Rigid != Indestructible

Please show how "nothing gets damaged". I would love to know what happens to all of that energy.

ETA: You can answer that after you've modeled the following collapse with pizza boxes:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=566_1225555224
Click to expand...

It hurts watching that one, why didn´t they lie it down as usual.
There are bricks falling falling to the sides hitting other stuff.
Who are the fools cheering?
 
Heiwa said:
When two rigid bodies contact each other (one body contains enormous energy, the other is static) they just bounce against one another and any energy transmitted does not cause any damages to the bodies. And after that the two bodies part with their energies. You cannot destroy a rigid - indestructible - body, incl. its energy. Nothing gets damaged!
Click to expand...

Is there a language barrier here? Rigid does not mean indestructible.
 
Heiwa said:
nicepants said:
Rigid != Indestructible

Please show how "nothing gets damaged". I would love to know what happens to all of that energy.
Click to expand...

When two rigid bodies contact each other (one body contains enormous energy, the other is static) they just bounce against one another and any energy transmitted does not cause any damages to the bodies. And after that the two bodies part with their energies. You cannot destroy a rigid - indestructible - body, incl. its energy. Nothing gets damaged!

Bazant, the con man, assumes abt WTC/0/11 - to simplify - that only one body is rigid - the small, weak, upper block/body; result - the other body is totally destroyed by the energy transmitted. Of course - it is the only possible result. BUT - the upper block/body would not stop its destruction there. It should destroy anything else ... the rubble below the lower structure, the ground below the rubble, the earth below the ground. Etc., etc. But the con man assumes that suddenly - at contact with the rubble - the upper block is not rigid anymore. The con man changes his assumptions to suit his evil purpose. To fool you.

Question remains why Bazant does this stupid con trick?

Thanks for starting this thread. More and more people understand that they have been fooled.
Click to expand...



Isn't it interesting that Heiwa completely ignored the video nicepants linked to?

I mean, it was easy to ignore that video when I linked to it, but in this case, Heiwa obviously has read nicepants' post, and yet still ignored the video.

It's almost as if Heiwa doesn't want to address the video. I wonder why that might be?

Any insights, Heiwa?
 
nicepants said:
Is there a language barrier here? Rigid does not mean indestructible.
Click to expand...

Oh yes. What else does it mean? Stiff, inflexible, unbeding, cannot be bent, cannot be deformed by force acting on it? Same thing.

That's why in Bazant's 'theory' the upper block is not destroyed at contact with the lower structure so that global collapse will take place according to this 'theory'.

But it is not a scientific 'theory'. It is nonsense by a con man.

Thanks again for starting this thread so that it was clarified. It seems to be quite easy to fool the US public. The PBT experiment however debunks Bazant 100% and should be used at schools, etc.
 
I'm beginning to think that it is a language barrier/misinterpretation problem and it's led to 19 pages of thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom