• 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 bathroom scale experiment

Heiwa said:
YES!
Click to expand...

Heiwa, it's been asked in another thread, but I haven't seen an answer yet, and I'm quite concerned:

What ships have you designed? Are they passenger ships or cargo ships? Do you happen to know who owns them?

I really, really need to know. Thanks.
 
Heiwa said:
YES!
Click to expand...

The question that this "YES!" answers is "Does a bottle of water dropping a few feet have the same effect as a 10-story building dropping 15 feet?"

Heiwa--I think only one question is necessary to prove your answer wrong.....

Which one would you be willing to stand under?
 
Heiwa said:
????

Do you know anything about FPSOs?
Click to expand...

Yes, been on them before. It looks like you do not know a lot about some of the Ex rules for them though.

Do not attempt to deflect from your incorrect claims in this thread though. Childish stuff.
 
bio said:
Is there a difference, between a block, which falls from above down on another block (WTC), and two blocks, which collide at a flate (cars, ships)?
Click to expand...

phunk said:
Yes. Gravity exerts much more force than either a car or ship's engine, and it doesn't stop like an engine, and it doesn't slip like tires on a road or a cavitating prop, and it applies its force EVERYWHERE on both objects and any parts that break free.
Click to expand...

Heiwa said:
Please - I defeat gravity every day on the tennis court with the forces I apply with brains (or what's left of it) + body (legs on court but sometimes I jump and hit the ball with luck) + arm + racket (only the racket can apply the final, killing force) = force applied on ball. Gravity is just one other force on that ball and game. There are plenty other forces on that ball. I am not perfect. Sometimes the net (another force) arrests the ball. Sometimes the wind. Sometimes whatever.

But none produces global collapses of the tennis court. Luckily.

Ever played tennis? Very civilized. You only hit a ball. If you hit anything else it is not tennis. Hitting the opponent with racket is not allowed (even if it JREF allows it in cyberspace).

I used to play ice hockey 45 years ago and it was not tennis. But gravity was also playing ice hockey and never collapsed anything. Only local failures.

This Bazant clown has his origins from a country of great ice hockey players. I wonder how he missed the gravity part. Causing global collapses of WTC towers?????
Click to expand...

Heiwa, I was directly and acurately answering Bio's question, your nonsense was not required.
 
Wow how did I miss this thread. I hope someone has nominated the entire OP for a Stundie. I've never encountered such stupidity before. I'm not an expert in science by any measure, but I'm sufficiently familiar with a range of weight-measuring devices to know that dropping a weight from a height will not give you an accurate reading, any more than pushing your hand down on a kitchen scale will accurately tell you how much your hand weighs.

The stupid is impressive.
 
alexi_drago said:
Wow! I'm impressed, your balls must be beyond the moon.
Click to expand...

Pfft. Defeating gravity is easy - everytime I jump I overcome the entire gravitational force of the earth.

Of course, a new, less impressive battle begins once I reach the zenith...
 
gumboot said:
Wow how did I miss this thread. I hope someone has nominated the entire OP for a Stundie. I've never encountered such stupidity before. I'm not an expert in science by any measure, but I'm sufficiently familiar with a range of weight-measuring devices to know that dropping a weight from a height will not give you an accurate reading, any more than pushing your hand down on a kitchen scale will accurately tell you how much your hand weighs.

The stupid is impressive.
Click to expand...

Hands off. It is mine. Mine!!

My precious :mad:
 
Keep the thread on topic. Do not personalise the thread with comments about the member - respond to the argument only, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
phunk said:
Yes. Gravity exerts much more force than either a car or ship's engine, and it doesn't stop like an engine, and it doesn't slip like tires on a road or a cavitating prop, and it applies its force EVERYWHERE on both objects and any parts that break free.
Click to expand...

yes - but the point of Heiwa is (as I understand), that this gravity force affects also the "applier" (upper section of WTC). When I see the videos, I see, that is upper section is destroyed and pulverized.
 
bio said:
yes - but the point of Heiwa is (as I understand), that this gravity force affects also the "applier" (upper section of WTC). When I see the videos, I see, that is upper section is destroyed and pulverized.
Click to expand...


Watch the BBC WTC7 program there is a very good video of one of the towers collapsing in high quality where the top section definitely does not pulverise. You see it tip and you can still see it through the dust for a very large part of the drop and definitely after the bottom part is starting to be destroyed.

You have been fooled by incompetants (or poor eyesight)
 
PhantomWolf said:
:jaw-dropp

okay...

1) F=m.a
2) a=Δv/t
3) d=1/2Δv.t

Rearranging 3

4) t=2d/Δv

substituting 4 into 2

5) a=Δv2/2d

substituting 5 into 1

6) F=m.Δv2/2d

Now somone might want to check my work there, but to me that is saying that higher the change in velocity (Δv), then greater the Force (F) has to be when stopping stop the object in the same distance (d). How could anyone get past secondary school science without understanding that?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right. When there is no change in velocity v, F = 0.

So velocity v does not produce any force F. But to change velocity v = v1 to v = v2 a.k.a. acceleration requires some force. I have a feeling you mix up force (N) with energy (J or Nm or Ws)?
 
bio said:
yes - but the point of Heiwa is (as I understand), that this gravity force affects also the "applier" (upper section of WTC). When I see the videos, I see, that is upper section is destroyed and pulverized.
Click to expand...

If you look really careful, you see that the upper section is partly destroyed prior to any destruction of the lower structure, i.e. before starting the famous drop at near free fall through the initiation zone where all structure is supposed to have disappeared.

I cannot see the latter, but it is supposed to take 0 time so it is not recorded on any video. But you should be able to see the result - a 3.7 m void slice in the WTC - where the upper section can drop through. See it? It would take some time to close that empty slice of no structure. I can't.

I always wonder where all structure in the initiation zone went! Through the windows?
 
Heiwa:
I always wonder where all structure in the initiation zone went! Through the windows?
Click to expand...

Argh. Just aaargh.

After all the stuff you've written you've not read a single reply and taken it in have you.

Bananaman (once again speechless in the face of 9/11 troofer sheer bloody denseness).
 
bio said:
yes - but the point of Heiwa is (as I understand), that this gravity force affects also the "applier" (upper section of WTC). When I see the videos, I see, that is upper section is destroyed and pulverized.
Click to expand...

If that's his point, then he's hurting his own case. Gravity is absolutely affecting the upper section as it falls. It's adding additional kinetic energy to it, making it harder to stop.
 
Heiwa said:
If you look really careful, you see that the upper section is partly destroyed prior to any destruction of the lower structure, i.e. before starting the famous drop at near free fall through the initiation zone where all structure is supposed to have disappeared.
Click to expand...

Wrong. If you open your eyes, the first thing you see is the upper block moving. You don't see any destruction of the upper block, you see destruction of the initial collapse zone as the upper block falls through it. And the structure isn't "supposed to have disapeared", just collapsed.

I cannot see the latter, but it is supposed to take 0 time so it is not recorded on any video.
Click to expand...
NOTHING takes 0 time. I don't know what you're expecting to see but this next quote is a hell of a strawman.

But you should be able to see the result - a 3.7 m void slice in the WTC - where the upper section can drop through. See it? It would take some time to close that empty slice of no structure. I can't.
Click to expand...
Why would there be an empty void? That's not what Bazant or anyone else has ever claimed. The initiation zone lost it's structural integrity, and hense its load bearing capacity. It didn't literally disapear, it just lost the ability to provide any significant resistance to the upper block falling. That's why it's "near free fall" and not "free fall".
I always wonder where all structure in the initiation zone went! Through the windows?
Click to expand...

Through the windows? The only structure near the windows was the columns framing the windows. You can watch them buckle in the videos. The core was no where near the windows, there's no reason to expect to see it in the videos. So what structure are you wondering about?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom