Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[nicepants]

Is 1 + 1 = 1? Yes, in NWO mathematics! But I get it to at least two masses! And then three.

Yes....and the weight of those masses is X + Y + Z = total mass

OK - so I drop three objects on something. Pls explain how they can impact something = 4th object at exactly the same time.

If they are dropped at the same time from the same distance, negating air resistance, they will hit the 4th object at the same time. However this isn't necessary. If the combined weight of the 3 objects is greater than the weight at which object #4 will fail, they need not arrive at the same time to cause the failure of object #4.

 

[Heiwa]

Yes....and the weight of those masses is X + Y + Z = total mass



If they are dropped at the same time from the same distance, negating air resistance, they will hit the 4th object at the same time. However this isn't necessary. If the combined weight of the 3 objects is greater than the weight at which object #4 will fail, they need not arrive at the same time to cause the failure of object #4.

How can three objects, X, Y and Z, hit something, say W (no, that W), at the same time? Say that something, W, is a nail (or a column top and not a dumb head in DC) and the three objects are hammers or other lose objects. How do you hit a nail with three hammers at the same time?

And please, it is not weight that matters, it is the three energies of the three objects that matters.

It is only Bazant that assumes that three loose objects are glued together after impact and then jointy transmit their energies to something instantaneously. In the real world it does not happen; there the three objects contact different parts of something at different times ... and just cause local failures incl. the three objects being hammered.

 

[PB2007]

Say that something, W, is a nail (or a column top

How about a horizontal beam? Could three falling objects hit that at the same time?

And please, it is not weight that matters, it is the three energies of the three objects that matters.

Well surely it does if the weight exceeds the weight at which W will fail?

 

[240-185]

Say that something, W, is a nail (or a column top and not a dumb head in DC) and the three objects are hammers or other lose objects. How do you hit a nail with three hammers at the same time?

The only thing who hit the nail will be taken in consideration, Joe Schmoe.
Ground Zero is MUCH bigger than a nail.

 

[Heiwa]

The only thing who hit the nail will be taken in consideration, Joe Schmoe.
Ground Zero is MUCH bigger than a nail.

So what hit Ground Zero? Two rigid upper blocks? So where are the blocks?

 

[TheDaver]

So what hit Ground Zero? Two rigid upper blocks? So where are the blocks?

Landfill and scrap yards now. In an impact between the ground and the rigid upper block of a building, the ground usually wins.

 

[Heiwa]

Landfill and scrap yards now. In an impact between the ground and the rigid upper block of a building, the ground usually wins.

Sorry, a soft ground has no chance against a rigid upper block - by definition. Actually, nobody, incl. you can, can destroy a rigid upper block. So where did these two upper blocks end up? Scrap yard? Lower Manhattan?

Thanks for your post. It proves that there are still some NWO fanatics still around.

But why not just accept that you live in a rotten world (if in USA) and change your mind? Learn some basic physics to start with.

 

[240-185]

So where did these two upper blocks end up? Scrap yard? Lower Manhattan?

Learn some basic physics to start with

As for you, just *learn*. If you think that the upper blocks of both towers went down in one piece, I'll just tell you to stop watching cartoons. And no, NWO is not related to physics. Bazant isn't a NWO agent.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

This video suggests that much of the upper block fell to the side. If this straight edge seen falling is not a large portion of the upper structure claimed to have crushed the lower part of the building then what is it?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This video suggests that much of the upper block fell to the side. If this straight edge seen falling is not a large portion of the upper structure claimed to have crushed the lower part of the building then what is it?

It would be a large section from one face of the perimeter columns that broke free in mid collapse. It does not include floor slabs located on the interior footprint or the mass of the structure which had continued to fall nearer to the main collapsing section. By the time it becomes visible the collapse was already well underway and beyond any capability of arrest

 

[nicepants]

How can three objects, X, Y and Z, hit something, say W (no, that W), at the same time? Say that something, W, is a nail (or a column top and not a dumb head in DC) and the three objects are hammers or other lose objects. How do you hit a nail with three hammers at the same time?

And please, it is not weight that matters, it is the three energies of the three objects that matters.

The weight (and speed) determines the energy.

As I said before...if the amount of weight required to make W fail is less than X+Y+Z then it doesn't matter how far apart they hit, or how quickly or slowly they hit, the sum of their weight will cause W to fail.

The surface area of the tops of the columns is VERY SMALL compared to the surface area of, say, a floor span, which is designed only to carry its live load (probably in the neighborhood of 250lbs/sqft). When 10 floors worth of floor pans, columns, office furniture, plane debris, people, etc come crashing into a floor that isn't designed to support that much weight then yes, the weight does matter.

As I said, they don't all have to hit at the same time if the weight is great enough. Do you really fail to understand this or is this just an act?

I suggest you speak with a structural engineer on the subject.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

It would be a large section from one face of the perimeter columns that broke free in mid collapse. It does not include floor slabs located on the interior footprint or the mass of the structure which had continued to fall nearer to the main collapsing section. By the time it becomes visible the collapse was already well underway and beyond any capability of arrest

No. What is shown is clearly more then just one side. Look at the 40 second mark and stop it. It's an entire corner if not more.

In any case even one side does not support the speculation of a falling block crushing the lower part of the building. How many sides does a block have? In addition your claim of the "floor slabs located on the interior footprint or the mass of the structure" as if all of that would still be intact with even just one exterior wall the size shown falling that far outside the building is ridiculous.

Still again it's clearly more then just one face of perimeter columns.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

In any case even one side does not support the speculation of a falling block crushing the lower part of the building. How many sides does a block have? In addition your claim of the "floor slabs located on the interior footprint or the mass of the structure" as if all of that would still be intact with even just one exterior wall the size shown falling that far outside the building is ridiculous.

I'm speaking of all the mass which the floors inside the building make up, whether intact or not, initiating failure at the collapse front. The floors individually had sufficient strength to sustain the weight of 5 additional floors under a dynamic load. it started with 15 floors, and increased the further the collapse proceeded.

Still again it's clearly more then just one face of perimeter columns.

All I can gather from the video is that the section you're seeing is a significant section of the exterior column face peeling off the structure long after collapse initiation. With the collapse already well underway it would not have been arrested, there was sufficient mass to initiate collapse, and there was sufficient mass to continue it.

 

[Horatius]

Hey, Heiwa, explain this using pizza boxes:


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

 

[A W Smith]

hey Anders, hows that peer reviewed paper coming along

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed personal attack

Time to leave you children and your fantasy at romper room and show us adults your peer reviewed papers. I need a good laugh.


Anders
four Buoys you just repaired just sunk in the North Sea, Better brush up on your welding.

 

[Heiwa]

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg[/qimg]


As for you, just *learn*. If you think that the upper blocks of both towers went down in one piece, I'll just tell you to stop watching cartoons. And no, NWO is not related to physics. Bazant isn't a NWO agent.

According Bazant (and NIST) only possibility for global collapse to ensue due to gravity only is that the upper blocks remain intact in one piece.
If the upper blocks are permitted to flex and be subject to local failures, global collapse due to gravity only cannot ensue. It is as simple as that. KIS.

 

[Heiwa]

The weight (and speed) determines the energy.

As I said before...if the amount of weight required to make W fail is less than X+Y+Z then it doesn't matter how far apart they hit, or how quickly or slowly they hit, the sum of their weight will cause W to fail.

The surface area of the tops of the columns is VERY SMALL compared to the surface area of, say, a floor span, which is designed only to carry its live load (probably in the neighborhood of 250lbs/sqft). When 10 floors worth of floor pans, columns, office furniture, plane debris, people, etc come crashing into a floor that isn't designed to support that much weight then yes, the weight does matter.

As I said, they don't all have to hit at the same time if the weight is great enough. Do you really fail to understand this or is this just an act?

I suggest you speak with a structural engineer on the subject.

But we never see 10 floors come crashing down, do we?

And Bazant never talks about 10 floors come crushing down. 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.

So the question is - how come one floor is superstrong and the others are not?

 

[Quad4_72]

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.

 

[240-185]

I think you're right.
I think that Heiwa's main problem is that things are torn in pieces when they fall in the ground (like breaking a plate on the floor), and I'm quite sure I'm oversimplifying with this metaphore.

 

[WildCat]

Sorry, a soft ground has no chance against a rigid upper block - by definition. Actually, nobody, incl. you can, can destroy a rigid upper block.

Impossible according to Heiwa: