Heiwa's bathroom scale experiment

[Heiwa]

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.


NOTHING takes 0 time. I don't know what you're expecting to see but this next quote is a hell of a strawman.


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".


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?

??? For an upper body to 'free fall' and then impact anything, there cannot be parts below it, e.g. structure in the initiation zone!

If the structure in the initiation zone 'collapses' the famous F2 of the PBT thread is already then starting to act on the upper body = to decelerate it = no free fall = no impact.

Bazant clearly suggests in all his papers a perfect impact (or impacts) columns against columns after free fall (no structure in between/all columns cut in two locations, intermediate column parts removed (where?)) that would create his infamous 'shock wave' in the columns below (that shakes loose the floors in lower structure) but it is all nonsense.

I am just ironic when I ask where did the loose parts between columns end up. There are no such loose column parts before impact. The dynamic F2 should have started before free fall/impact if the upper block would displace downwards due collapse of columns in the initiation zone.

But if you look at any video, the lowest floor of the upper block above the initiation does not move at all, when the roof of the upper block has already displaced 25 meters down = the upper block implodes before collapse of the lower structure starts. It is quite evident.

But IF the upper block would really have dropped on the lower structure, it would have been arrested after a couple of floors had been damaged (by the columns) as described in my papers.

What we see on the videos is not a gravity driven collapse of a tower driven by an upper block. That's just propaganda! To avoid investigating the real cause of destruction.

Quite a depressing conclusion actually that incompetent and corrupt politicians and civil servants (and civil engineers!) do not like to hear. Like many JREF posters! But they are just cattle in the NWO! Blame it all on OBL! And forget basic physics.

 

[applecorped]

 

[funk de fino]

He is derailing again from his stupendously incorrect OP experiment. C'mon guys give him room for the admission he got something horrendously wrong.

If he continues to derail and evade it, it proves his dishonesty.

Lets see if he is man enough to take it back. If not i suggest ignoring the troll. Even the most skeptic of lurkers can try this experiment at home and see he is full of it. We should not need to convince them and there is no point trying to convince him.

 

[phunk]

??? For an upper body to 'free fall' and then impact anything, there cannot be parts below it, e.g. structure in the initiation zone!

If the structure in the initiation zone 'collapses' the famous F2 of the PBT thread is already then starting to act on the upper body = to decelerate it = no free fall = no impact.

NEAR free fall is referring to the speed of the fall. No one ever claimed ACTUAL free fall. Stop with the strawman nonsense.

Bazant clearly suggests in all his papers a perfect impact (or impacts) columns against columns after free fall (no structure in between/all columns cut in two locations, intermediate column parts removed (where?)) that would create his infamous 'shock wave' in the columns below (that shakes loose the floors in lower structure) but it is all nonsense.

That would be the ideal case for collapse arrest. Columns impacting floors has NO CHANCE to arrest collapse.

I am just ironic when I ask where did the loose parts between columns end up. There are no such loose column parts before impact. The dynamic F2 should have started before free fall/impact if the upper block would displace downwards due collapse of columns in the initiation zone.

But if you look at any video, the lowest floor of the upper block above the initiation does not move at all, when the roof of the upper block has already displaced 25 meters down = the upper block implodes before collapse of the lower structure starts. It is quite evident.

You're halucinating. Please take a couple screenshots of a video showing this and label them with the locations you just mentioned.

But IF the upper block would really have dropped on the lower structure, it would have been arrested after a couple of floors had been damaged (by the columns) as described in my papers.

Please give me a link to the paper that does the math proving this. Note: I said math, not handwaving about friction.

What we see on the videos is not a gravity driven collapse of a tower driven by an upper block. That's just propaganda! To avoid investigating the real cause of destruction.

You must be watching different videos than I am.

Quite a depressing conclusion actually that incompetent and corrupt politicians and civil servants (and civil engineers!) do not like to hear. Like many JREF posters! But they are just cattle in the NWO! Blame it all on OBL! And forget basic physics.

Depressing is the thought that any engineering school actually gave you a degree.

 

[jaydeehess]

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)?

You get yourself above the scale and then drop onto it.

You ARE moving in a downward direction when you contact the scale (wrt to the scale). Soon thereafter you no longer are moving downward (wrt to the scale).
Therefore your velocity has changed.
The downward force on your mass due to gravity remains constant at all times(unless your are starting from a significantly greater distance from the center of the Earth)
The force due to the change in velocity is independant of gravity.
The force on the scale during impact is the total of the force due to the change in velocity PLUS the force on your mass due to gravity.

Thus the scale registers a very large spike.

Even a very small 'drop' will cause the scale to spike. I just tried it myself. I stood on the scale and then used my arms on the bathroom counter to lift myself until the scale just registered zero. Basically I am then an infintessimal distance above the scale's zero height. I then stand straight and the scale jumped at least 50% higher than what it registers at equilibrium.


not that Heiwa will bother reading or responding to any of the above

 

[Heiwa]

You get yourself above the scale and then drop onto it.

You ARE moving in a downward direction when you contact the scale (wrt to the scale). Soon thereafter you no longer are moving downward (wrt to the scale).
Therefore your velocity has changed.
The downward force on your mass due to gravity remains constant at all times(unless your are starting from a significantly greater distance from the center of the Earth)
The force due to the change in velocity is independant of gravity.
The force on the scale during impact is the total of the force due to the change in velocity PLUS the force on your mass due to gravity.

Thus the scale registers a very large spike.

Even a very small 'drop' will cause the scale to spike. I just tried it myself. I stood on the scale and then used my arms on the bathroom counter to lift myself until the scale just registered zero. Basically I am then an infintessimal distance above the scale's zero height. I then stand straight and the scale jumped at least 50% higher than what it registers at equilibrium.


not that Heiwa will bother reading or responding to any of the above

Exactly - the scale will register a spike and that spike is felt in the falling body. The spike (which is just a force (F2 in the PBT thread), because the scale measures force) is applied to the the falling body and decelerated it. It could have, e.g. destroyed it. In this experiment it just arrested the falling body. QED

Same effect should have happened to WTC1 upper block.

 

[phunk]

That spike is also felt in the scale, and the floor.

 

[Travis]

Exactly - the scale will register a spike and that spike is felt in the falling body. The spike (which is just a force (F2 in the PBT thread), because the scale measures force) is applied to the the falling body and decelerated it. It could have, e.g. destroyed it. In this experiment it just arrested the falling body. QED

Same effect should have happened to WTC1 upper block.

So, in your world, bathroom scales, like skyscrapers, are indestructible. Must suck for the manufacturers of bathroom scales since all anybody ever needs to do is buy one and they last forever.

 

[applecorped]

Same effect should have happened to WTC1 upper block.

 

[uruk]

Apperently Hewia is still ignoring the stress the structures can withstand.

 

[Heiwa]

That spike is also felt in the scale, and the floor.

Of course. The scale records the spike that the floor applies to the upper, non-rigid, body that decelarets due to the spike. According Bazant this spike should not affect the upper body. According Bazant the upper body should pass through the scale and initiate global collapse of the floor below without deceleration = no spike should be recorded.

But the spike is there. According Bazant it should not be there.

 

[jaydeehess]

Of course. The scale records the spike that the floor applies to the upper, non-rigid, body that decelarets due to the spike. According Bazant this spike should not affect the upper body. According Bazant the upper body should pass through the scale and initiate global collapse of the floor below without deceleration = no spike should be recorded.

But the spike is there. According Bazant it should not be there.

The difference is in the construction under the scale. In the case of you jumping on the scale, yes, the force is impinged upon the floor via the scale and that force is also felt by the object that fell. However the floor would be very weak indeed if it failed due to someone jumping on it even from 12 feet up.

Frankly if anyone does try the 3.7 m drop onto the scale I would be very surprised if the scale survived. The house's floor may be designed to be able to take that but the scale certainly was not.

In the case of the towers the columns buckled or broke and the upper section came down. The columns are basically not lined up any more at the point where they have failed. The upper section could only be held up then by the walls and glass, which I am sure even you would agree are there only to stop wind from whistleing through the building or to separate office spaces. When the ceiling reaches the floor it will be the floor pan and the trussses that will have not only the mass of basically the entire upper section on it , but also the force of impact. This is many times more force than the floor pans/trusses were ever designed to take and they fail as quickly as a styrofoam cup does when stepped on.

The floors were designed to transfer the load that would typically be on a floorspace to the columns. Every floor is pretty much the same as the others but the columns must get heavier the lower down one is because they have to take the accumulated load of all the fooors above that level. It is an absolute certainty that no floor space was ever desgned with the idea that it would carry a load equivalent to that of ten or so stories which would have to be the case at the very minimum, even if one ignores the impact force.

The impact force will be the change in velocity of the upper section times the mass of the upper section and divided by the time during which it changed. That will be only as much as is required to fail the trusses and we already see that the force due to gravity alone will do that, therefore the time and the change in velocity are very small.

The columns, which normally take the gravity load of the upper block are not in play since such a small portion of the load of the upper block is going to be directed through them at this time.

Violent removal of one floor's trusses also removes the lateral support between core and perimeter at that level which means that columns are now more prone to buckling since the towers employed no diagonal bracing.

The upper block is also suffering a similar fate as it impacts the lower section. The upper section indeed is coming apart but the majority of its mass is still impacting the lower section and what does get thrown outward is replaced by the debris of the portion of the lower section that is now loose.

Now a typical floor in a house can easily support the mass of ten men say about 1 tonne. Therefore it can also support a 1000 kg block of concrete. (make it a hollow block and dimension it to spread the mass over the same number of trusses that the ten guys would take up)
Now take that concrete block up 8 feet to the ceiling (might as well not look for a house with 12 foot ceilings and let it drop. It will be in the basement and probably at least a little broken up.
Now that 1000 Kg block is significantly less massive than the walls and roof of the house. Try this again with a block the mass of the walls and roof and a square footage the same as the floor space. I am not sure you will even have to drop it, the trusses may well fail under the simple gravity load.

 

[EventHorizon]

Is this thread really happening?

 

[MIKILLINI]

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..repeat after Me..You can do it..Loss of structural integrity..did you say it? Loss of structural integrity..Can you immerse yourself with this concept without any trutherism twoof ambiguity?
Loss of structural integrity: What could happen if the integrity of a structure becomes compromised?

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa..repeat after Me..You can do it..Loss of structural integrity..did you say it? Loss of structural integrity..Can you immerse yourself with this concept without any trutherism twoof ambiguity?
Loss of structural integrity: What could happen if the integrity of a structure becomes compromised?

Local failures you mean? Cracks, deformations. Nasty things. I have seen plenty. And arrested them. Or they arrested themselves. Should have happened at WTC1 - see the PBT thread.

 

[Heiwa]

The upper block is also suffering a similar fate as it impacts the lower section. The upper section indeed is coming apart but the majority of its mass is still impacting the lower section and what does get thrown outward is replaced by the debris of the portion of the lower section that is now loose.

It is only the lowest floors of the upper block that is in contact with the lower section and you are right that they come apart - partly. According Bazant, that's not the case in his theory.
But no part of upper block is thrown out in my analysis at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . So mass of upper block remains constant and nothing is replaced and definitely not by loose parts of the lower section, e.g. locally damaged floors, as they are still attached to the columns there. And collapse is arrested after a while.
If there really were some completely loose parts, they may be deflected outside the structure by the force(s) involved arresting the destruction. They will not attach themselves to, e.g. the upper block. It does not work like that.

 

[WildCat]

Local failures you mean? Cracks, deformations. Nasty things. I have seen plenty. And arrested them. Or they arrested themselves. Should have happened at WTC1 - see the PBT thread.

So you are comparing a gravity-driven collision with a ship colliding with another object?

Really?

 

[jaydeehess]

It is only the lowest floors of the upper block that is in contact with the lower section and you are right that they come apart - partly. According Bazant, that's not the case in his theory.

Since it is nigh on impossible to model every detail of the failure Bazant is keeping the block intact as an approximation to event. This is valid and used in most analysis of just about anything with such a degree of complexity.

Yes the lower levels of the upper block come apart as they impact the lower section. This is a dynamic situation and basically the upper section is being ground up at the contact point.

Bazant concerned himself with failure of the first level after initial failure. Thus it is certainly valid to consider the upper block as one piece.

But no part of upper block is thrown out in my analysis at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm . So mass of upper block remains constant and nothing is replaced and definitely not by loose parts of the lower section, e.g. locally damaged floors, as they are still attached to the columns there. And collapse is arrested after a while.

,
1- So you also use an approximation then, so where's the beef? Some of the loose parts of the upper section will be ejected as will some of the loose parts of the lower section. Some of the loose parts from both will remian within the area of the tower, any loss of mass by the upper block then can be assumed to be significantly replaced by mass of the lower section that is now also loose and falling, thus loss of mass is a 'wash'. The biggest difference as the falling mass progresses will be the velocity of that mass. A little more on that later in this post.

2- "locally damaged floors" Can you not see that the damage would be quick and utter failure and destruction of the floor pans and trusses?

3-So you do expect that the floor pan/truss system can support the entire mass of ten stories plus the hat truss?

If there really were some completely loose parts, they may be deflected outside the structure by the force(s) involved arresting the destruction. They will not attach themselves to, e.g. the upper block. It does not work like that.

Why would they have to "attach themselves" to the upper block at all? They would have the same mass and would have their own velocity and thus would impact a force on whatever they fall onto. they would be falling with the block but that is not saying they would be attached to it. If one wishes to investigate details though there is one dominent manner by which loose debris within the tower could in effect be said to be "attached" to the intact portion of the falling upper block. Material that breaks loose from a floor pan that does not get bounced outward will be moving slower than the upper block. It is within the perimeter walls and thus will contact the underside of the falling block and thus could be thought of as being "attached" to the upper block as the upper block transfers some of its momentum to speed up the parts trapped under it. If you wish to look at that further it will also indicate a cushioning effect on the upper block by the loose debris which could slow the destruction of the upper block.

Seems that according to your statement a 500 Kg block of concrete somehow has less mass or less momentum than 500 Kg of rocks.

Bazant showed that the force imparted upon the first level impacted after initial failure was, IIRC, 30 times greater than the ability of the floor pan/truss system to resist it. This is due to the combination of the mass of the upper block and the impact force due to the velocity of the upper block.

The falling mass would therefore have an even greater velocity when it impacts the next floor ( the only way for it to have as little as the same velocity it would have to have come to a complete stop as it failed the first level ) and thus Bazant correctly concludes that this level has even less ability to halt the upper block.

The columns, as I stated earlier and on many occasions in the JREF forums, required the lateral support of the floor pan/truss system in order to resist buckling. Remove a floor or two and the building would be unstable. Do it violently with the columns also being horribly buffeted by the debris and they don't stand much of a chance of remaining intact let alone upright. The only core columns that survived where those of the so-called "spire". That in itself was a wonder but it could not support itself for long (not enough lateral support not to mention they were probably not in pristine, straight condidtion either) and buckled under its own weight (yes, weight. weight being a force not a mass as I pointed out previously).

 

[Heiwa]

Yes the lower levels of the upper block come apart as they impact the lower section. This is a dynamic situation and basically the upper section is being ground up at the contact point.

You are right! But Bazant suggests the 100% opposite. Bazant assumes that the complete upper block becomes rigid at contact/impact with lower structure and no lower levels of the upper block come apart or no upper (block) section is being ground up at the contact point.

That's why the (rigid) upper block can impose a shock wave in the lower structure.

But if the lower levels of upper block comes apart and are ground up, they evidently cannot impose a shock wave in the lower structure.

You agree?

 

[Heiwa]

Some of the loose parts of the upper section will be ejected as will some of the loose parts of the lower section. Some of the loose parts from both will remian within the area of the tower, any loss of mass by the upper block then can be assumed to be significantly replaced by mass of the lower section that is now also loose and falling, thus loss of mass is a 'wash'. The biggest difference as the falling mass progresses will be the velocity of that mass. A little more on that later in this post

According Bazant there are no loose parts of the upper section! It is rigid. Nothing can be ejected from the upper section.

So there is no loss of mass in the upper section.

And what loose parts of the lower section are you talking about? And why would they replace the loss of mass of the upper block?