Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment

[Lennart Hyland]

Wow he is just excusing his lack of engineering, calculations and demonstrations with claiming his paper is for children.

 

[240-185]

CC. No, I do that. Laymen's terms so that children understands are essential.

No.
At a certain moment, you must use scientific terms that children don't understand. Physics aren't aimed at every child. If you keep using babbling words, you're not a scientist. You'll spread lies by oversimplifying.

BTW, even scientific shows for children teach how to have a scientific way of thinking.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

CC. No, I do that. Laymen's terms so that children understands are essential.

There are people here that actually know a thing or two about the topic you choose to rape. I'm not one of them, but I'm certainly not going to be offended if you choose to write for them.

If all you do is write like a child, even amongst other professionals in the field, then how does that really make you look? Think about that...

 

[Heiwa]

No.
At a certain moment, you must use scientific terms that children don't understand. Physics aren't aimed at every child. If you keep using babbling words, you're not a scientist. You'll spread lies by oversimplifying.

BTW, even scientific shows for children teach how to have a scientific way of thinking.

But let's start with clear thinking and common sense. Do you believe that the WTC1 upper block is of uniform density and rigid (indestructible)?

These are the babbling assumptions of Bazant! Scientific?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"But let's start with clear thinking and common sense."

 

[240-185]

Do you believe that the WTC1 upper block is of uniform density and rigid (indestructible)?

No, as it was made of steel, computers, people, etc...
And "rigid" != "indestructible"

 

[TheDaver]

Heiwa thinks that he’s the rational one, and Bazant is the babbling idiot?

All the laughing dogs in the world wouldn’t do that one justice!

 

[Hokulele]

AA. The upper block structure is as flexible as the lower structure.

Hint, what role did the hat truss play in the upper structure?

You cannot as Bazant assume that the upper block structure is of uniform density, rigid, indestructible and everything else is not. Only a con man makes such assumptions. The math afterwards is of no value at all.

And you cannot assume that the entire lower structure acted as a single unit in your calculations. The failures should be calculated on a floor by floor basis, or on a per connection basis. So in that sense, treating the upper block as a single unit (for the purposes of energy calculations) is far more accurate than your treatment of the lower block as a single unit (for the purposes of calculating stress loads and buckling).

If you believe otherwise, show your math.

 

[MIKILLINI]

<Snip>

But the Bathroom Scale experiment shows that Bazant is wrong on all accounts.

Since this is the foundation for your arguments, you are fighting a losing battle.

 

[Mel Odious]

AA. The upper block structure is as flexible as the lower structure. You cannot as Bazant assume that the upper block structure is of uniform density, rigid, indestructible and everything else is not. Only a con man makes such assumptions. The math afterwards is of no value at all.

BB. I show several examples starting with a rubber ball (falling object - non rigid) bouncing against a non-rigid surface (lower structure). Only if the rubber ball was rigid, it would punch a hole in the surface. This is what Bazant suggests.

CC. No, I do that. Laymen's terms so that children understands are essential.

DD. I think I make my points very clear. I am not a con man.

Wow, am I glad Heiwa wasn't involved in the Columbia shuttle disaster investigation.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

.

DD. I think I make my points very clear. I am not a con man.

Oh no? Lets see, you claim to be a working, qualified engineer.

So you think that dropping a bottle of water a few feet should have the same effect as dropping a 10 story building 15 feet?

YES!

You are either a liar, a hack or Sweden (? ) has TERRIBLE expectations of it's engineers, and will let anyone through.

I haven't studied physics in 5 years and I got a (high) C in it (I got a B in bio and an A in Chemistry, so I'm actually alright at science) and yet I know that is not only wrong but an idiotic claim.

You are a liar and a fraud.

 

[roger]

Come on people, it is clear that dropping the building would not cause a spike in the scale.

After all, we have all the seismic recordings from Lamont Doherty showing no spikes whatsoever.

 

[Heiwa]

Come on people, it is clear that dropping the building would not cause a spike in the scale.

After all, we have all the seismic recordings from Lamont Doherty showing no spikes whatsoever.

Thanks, good observation actually. No spike, no upper block dropping vertically on lower structure. Everyting was just locally destroyed in the horizontal direction. Explains the fountain of rubble, air jets, columns cut off like spaghetti, etc.

 

[applecorped]

Must of been DEW.

 

[jaydeehess]

AA. The upper block structure is as flexible as the lower structure. You cannot as Bazant assume that the upper block structure is of uniform density, rigid, indestructible and everything else is not. Only a con man makes such assumptions. The math afterwards is of no value at all.

With the lower structure as flexible, at the contact point, as the lower structure then the most that one can state is that the upper structure would come apart at the same rate as the lower structure. The mass remains the same, the downward movement remains the same, the forces remain the same until one moves towards increasing the amount of complexity one wishes to introduce to the analysis. You claim that the approximations amde by Bazant nullify his work yet you steadfastly refuse to actually show any work that illustrates this.

Your entire arguement comes down to you saying "because I say so".

BB. I show several examples starting with a rubber ball (falling object - non rigid) bouncing against a non-rigid surface (lower structure). Only if the rubber ball was rigid, it would punch a hole in the surface. This is what Bazant suggests.

There are many examples of non-rigid or less rigid objects punching through more rigid objects.
One that immediatly comes to mind is a lead bullet punching through a concrete block or plate of steel. Your assumption is false.

CC. No, I do that. Laymen's terms so that children understands are essential.

Your underlying assumptions being incorrect you do a disservice to laymen and children over the world by propigating nonsense wrapped up to look good.

DD. I think I make my points very clear. I am not a con man.

You made no valid engineering points at all. You waved your hands and said "because I say so".
You are claiming to have refuted a technical paper by a man qualified to write such a technical paper. the only way to refute such a technical paper is to show, demonstrate, illustrate , with valid technical calculations that go beyond the approximations that Bazant made, that the original paper errs.

To put it in literary terms Bazant wrote a Pulitzer prize level novel and you wrote a screen play for a children's cartoon.

If you are not actually trying to garner fame or fortune by this then you would not be a con man. Congradulations, that only leaves incompetant or delusional as far as I am concerned.

 

[Heiwa]

AA. With the lower structure as flexible, at the contact point, as the lower structure then the most that one can state is that the upper structure would come apart at the same rate as the lower structure. The mass remains the same, the downward movement remains the same, the forces remain the same until one moves towards increasing the amount of complexity one wishes to introduce to the analysis. You claim that the approximations amde by Bazant nullify his work yet you steadfastly refuse to actually show any work that illustrates this.

Your entire arguement comes down to you saying "because I say so".

BB. There are many examples of non-rigid or less rigid objects punching through more rigid objects.
One that immediatly comes to mind is a lead bullet punching through a concrete block or plate of steel. Your assumption is false.

Your underlying assumptions being incorrect you do a disservice to laymen and children over the world by propigating nonsense wrapped up to look good.

CC. You made no valid engineering points at all. You waved your hands and said "because I say so".
You are claiming to have refuted a technical paper by a man qualified to write such a technical paper. the only way to refute such a technical paper is to show, demonstrate, illustrate , with valid technical calculations that go beyond the approximations that Bazant made, that the original paper errs.

DD. To put it in literary terms Bazant wrote a Pulitzer prize level novel and you wrote a screen play for a children's cartoon.

If you are not actually trying to garner fame or fortune by this then you would not be a con man. Congradulations, that only leaves incompetant or delusional as far as I am concerned.

AA. Immediately after contact local failures develop and they consume energy. Plenty of energy. Just to produce a small fracture in any structural part consumes energy. And there are plenty of fractures. Because no part is rigid. And all avaible energy should have been consumed; as fractures, as friction, etc. Arrest is the only result.

BB. So what happens to the lead bullet? Still flying around?

CC. I just make a case for collapse arrest in my papers. It happens everytime and is so common that most people take it for granted. Except Bazant! He invents a new theory based on false assumptions ... just a few days after 9/11. Very suspect in my opinion.

DD. You are right - my audience is simple people. So I work for them.

 

[applecorped]

You are right - my audience is simple people. So I work for on them.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Mobyseven]

People, lets face facts here. Either Heiwa is an exceptional troll, and we're taking the bait, or he truly has something wrong upstairs in which case keeping up this attempt to draw evidence from him is futile.

 

[Hokulele]

People, lets face facts here. Either Heiwa is an exceptional troll, and we're taking the bait, or he truly has something wrong upstairs in which case keeping up this attempt to draw evidence from him is futile.

I am extremely tempted to make a comment along the lines of the upstairs having the density of a bale of wool, but I will refrain.



Oh, wait. Damn.

 

[jaydeehess]

AA. Immediately after contact local failures develop and they consume energy. Plenty of energy. Just to produce a small fracture in any structural part consumes energy. And there are plenty of fractures. Because no part is rigid. And all avaible energy should have been consumed; as fractures, as friction, etc. Arrest is the only result.

more hand waving, more "because-I-say-so" arguement. That might work on children and simple people who don't know any better but you have an audience here that requires you actually prove what you claim by showing the math involved.
Let's see your calculations as to exactly how much energy is dissapated (energy actually never gets 'consumed') by fracturing of both the upper and lower structure. Then tell us what the effect of the mass of the rubble on the lower structure floor spans will be. A ton of gravel will have the same load due to gravity as will a ton of solid(rigid) steel.

BB. So what happens to the lead bullet? Still flying around?

Passes right through and keeps going albeit at a lower velocity having transfered some of its energy to heating the impacted object, fracturing the impacted object, deformation of the bullet and heating of the bullet. Still an AK-47 for example, can fire a bullet right through a concrete block and keep going with enough velocity enough to seriously injure or kill a person on the other side of that block.

CC. I just make a case for collapse arrest in my papers. It happens everytime and is so common that most people take it for granted.

They take for granted that a building undergoing a collapse will see that collapse arrest??!! That's a hell of a claim there H. Care to back that up with any quotes from experienced fire fighters or similar? You know, anyone who would be in the habit of making sure there is a safety perimeter around a building in danger of collapse.

Except Bazant! He invents a new theory based on false assumptions ... just a few days after 9/11. Very suspect in my opinion

In your opinion is one thing. You have made claims that require that you show Bazant's approximations to be grossly in error as to the conclusions arrived at. You have done no more than say it is so with absolutly none of the requisite work needed.

DD. You are right - my audience is simple people. So I work for them.

I have seen many children's cartoons in which people and animals fly. In Peter Pan we are told that you can fly if you just believe. Your fairy tale is not much better.

I said that I agreed that you may not be a con man, but that still leaves two other choices. I am torn between them, though Moby does make a case for an alternative, that of a practical joker.