A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

[Heiwa]

Oh-oh.....it looks like Bazant may be vindicated after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAcAgQgoY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/

And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m?

 

[Minadin]

Let's say that the engineers are wrong and your Factor of Safety calculations are correct. You believe that stacks of match boxes or lemons are valid analogs to the structures of the Twin Towers, and you propose experiments with these objects to prove that the towers could not have collapsed.

Other truthers have attempted to demonstrate the same concept by using, for example, empty aluminum soda cans to model the towers, neglecting to consider the fact that a soda can, unlike the towers, will support several thousand times its own weight. These amateur modelers do not understand scaling of materials and structures.

So, Heiwa, what are the factors of safety for your match box and lemon models?

This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity).

 

[Gravy]

This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity).

Remember the plastic office tray guy who posted here, and the medical doctor who arrived over a year later with an updated version of the same model, complete with videos and calculations? These guys, like Heiwa, are desperately ignorant of scaling. BTW, I can tell you that the empty aluminum cans I tested before doing a demo at TAM had a factor of safety for static load of at least 7,150.

So, Heiwa, we await your FOS figures for your boxes and fruit, to show how valid they are as models for these FOS = 2 or 3 towers.

 

[Heiwa]

This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity).

FoS of a lemon?
1. Put a lemon on the table. Put 1 lemon on top! Both deform at contact interface (if you look hard). Nothing else really happens.
2. Put a lemon on a table. Drop 1 lemon on table lemon. Both deform at contact interface and dropped lemon bounces. Note carefully that table lemon is not crushed.

What is reason for 2. Well, the lemon or its structure consists of various elements that make up the lemon, each of which can be tested and analysed. I like the lemon juice, FoS of which is of little importance and difficult to measure but adds taste to a G&T - the juice, not the FoS! To get lemon juice, cut lemon in two halves and compress them using thumb + fingers (or special tool). Note that gravity alone does not produce juice. No use abusing gravity for it.

Inside lemon are also fibres of various kind. You can test those and establish their FoS, if you are clever. Funny thing is that the juice appears to support the fibres, etc. This effect contributes to 1 and 2 above.

Suggest you start another thread about this interesting topic!

 

[Baylor]

Eurotrash.

 

[bill smith]

And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m?

Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose.

 

[funk de fino]

Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose.

pasta

 

[Dave Rogers]

And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m?

Although disjointed to the point of near-incomprehensibility, this rambling mess illustrates a point I've made before about the futility of trying to prove anything to the truth movement about the WTC collapses using scale models. Even if it were possible to take into account the scaling issues by adjusting the dimensions and/or material strengths of the support structure of the models, so that the behaviour of the model could be expected by an educated, competent and reasonable-minded engineer to replicate the behaviour of the full-size structure, its results would be rejected by the truth movement on the grounds that the very measures taken to address the scaling issues had biased the structure in favour of collapse. Sadly, "educated, competent and reasonable-minded" is not a description that can be applied to conspiracy theorists; many fail even to achieve two out of three.

Dave

 

[Heiwa]

Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose.

The sawdust-n-glue cubes model is developed by Benson, co-author of the BLGB paper with Bazant. Apparently a sawdust-n-glue cube fits the various differential equations there?

Mackay is apparently trying another approach - his 1 m model columns are getting too strong. He could try match sticks or wax tapers, though.

In all events, upper part C can never crush down lower part A due to drop + gravity. Upper part C always breaks up in the process. I wonder why they cannot understand that (or why they insist that part C must be rigid).

 

[bill smith]

pasta

If you used sbrought-to-scale pasta in a model with pressed glue and sawdust floors I think you might be close to a convincing model.With around three hundred pasta supports I doubt that the model would collapse when you dropped te top 10% a short distance on to the bottom 90%

 

[bill smith]

The sawdust-n-glue cubes model is developed by Benson, co-author of the BLGB paper with Bazant. Apparently a sawdust-n-glue cube fits the various differential equations there?

Mackay is apparently trying another approach - his 1 m model columns are getting too strong. He could try match sticks or wax tapers, though.

In all events, upper part C can never crush down lower part A due to drop + gravity. Upper part C always breaks up in the process. I wonder why they cannot understand that (or why they insist that part C must be rigid).

Hi Heiwa. This clip opens with what I think looks like a smoke machine which you may have seen mentioned here and there. Anyway what I wanted to show you is just after that you see a load of stuff fall off the upper block of WTC2. i think that that upper bock at least cannot be said to have been rigid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY All three Towers

 

[Gravy]

FoS of a lemon?

...Inside lemon are also fibres of various kind. You can test those and establish their FoS, if you are clever.

OK, you've established that you have no idea of the FoS of one of your models, which is supposed to behave structurally like a WTC tower, so we eliminate that as a valid model.

Remember that you cannot now claim this isn't important. Two days ago you said this:

Well, my pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c, models were just to show that you cannot crush a number of them by dropping a smaller number of them on them. Same applies to WTC 1 - drop a part C of it on the lower part A and only local failures would result, no crush down, &c!

Bolding mine.

You cannot simultaneously claim that the towers should have behaved structurally like your models but that your models need not behave structurally like the towers.

Now please answer the second part of my question, which you evaded above: what is the FoS of the match boxes? For your match box model to be a predictor of tower behavior it must have a similar FoS: about 3 for a static load, as you have calculated.

You can't say you don't have enough money to buy inexpensive match boxes to exceed a FoS of 3 or 10 or 50 for your model. After all, the other day you said you had a million dollars to give away.

So what's the FoS of the match boxes, Anders? 1.5? 3? 30? 500?

 

[twinstead]

[OT] I'd like Heiwa to comment on bill smith's smoke generators. Bill desperately wants some kind of acknowledgment. [/OT]

 

[bill smith]

[OT] I'd like Heiwa to comment on bill smith's smoke generators. Bill desperately wants some kind of acknowledgment. [/OT]

Not at all. It's just a curiousity after all. It may have it's uses at another point though.

 

[Heiwa]

Not at all. It's just a curiousity after all. It may have it's uses at another point though.

Gravity* does not produce smoke, so I have to pass on that one. To me WTC 1 & 2 look like volcanos erupting with gases, ashes, &c thrown out.

*Gravity is simply the attractive force between two bodies/masses. No smoke there!

 

[Gravy]

Heiwa? Cat got your tongue? Since it may take you a day to buy the match boxes, why not hazard a guess as to their FoS in the meantime? No one will hold you to it, but I'm just curious. Are you estimating a FoS of 3?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa? Cat got your tongue? Since it may take you a day to buy the match boxes, why not hazard a guess as to their FoS in the meantime? No one will hold you to it, but I'm just curious. Are you estimating a FoS of 3?

FoS of match box?

1. Put match box on table. Put another match box on table match box until you have put on n match boxes, when table match box is crushed. FoS = n or 1 match box could carry n boxes. n is probably not 3, but you never know. You have to try. Note only table match box is crushed. The other n boxes remain intact.

2. Put same match box on floor. Step on it! Floor match box is crushed. Why? You are too heavy! You have to slim down ... and then you can safely step on a match box. Good luck.

 

[Disbelief]

FoS of match box?

1. Put match box on table. Put another match box on table match box until you have put on n match boxes, when table match box is crushed. FoS = n or 1 match box could carry n boxes. n is probably not 3, but you never know. You have to try.

2. Put same match box on floor. Step on it! Floor match box is crushed. Why? You are too heavy! You have to slim down ... and then you can safely step on a match box. Good luck.

So, you can't answer the question. Big surprise.

 

[Sunstealer]

Answering questions is not a big priority in the truth movement. If you ask questions they claim it's a denial tactic or some other nonsense. The fact of the matter is they can't answer the questions put forward to them, because it would show they are wrong hence, the slithering to avoid direct answers.

 

[tfk]

Heiwa,

Factor of Safety for a damaged vs. undamaged structure.

I have a chair. It is rated to carry 200 lbs. From experiment, I find it will collapse if I put ~600 lbs on it.

FoS = 3.

Now, I chop off one leg.

Are you claiming that the FoS for my 3 legged chair is now 3/4 x 3 = 2.3?

Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to carry 450 lbs before it collapses?

Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to stand up at all?

All of the above is PRECISELY what you are doing when you apply the FoS generated for an intact building to a damaged one.

tom