Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Heiwa]

Error

 

[Heiwa]

Please quote your source for the above claim.

Bazant himself! A rigid body is always rigid. Rigid bodies that drop on anything evidently destroy everything. WTC1 upper block is assumed rigid by Bazant. If that were the case, it will destroy anything (but itself) when impacting anything. Rigidity is independet of scale. You cannot scale rigidity.
Based on that assumption, the Bazant hypothesis is applicable to any structure of any size that is impacted by a rigid body. Only problem is to find the rigid body! And WTC1 upper block was not rigid. It was mostly air.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Only problem is to find the rigid body! And WTC1 upper block was not rigid. It was mostly air.

The upper block of WTC 1 was about 100,000 tons of concrete and steel mass and that mass doesn't change significantly even when the upper block begins to break apart in the process. The mass of the floors does not instantaneously vanish when they break up, the same for parts of the exterior wall that remains within the footprint as the collapse progressed. That is the impression I got out of Bazant's paper.

But your pizza box comparison was shear hilariousness at its finest... It will never amount to anything more than a silly experiment that does nothing but wake up the local laughing Hyena

 

[Heiwa]

The upper block of WTC 1 was about 100,000 tons of concrete and steel mass and that mass doesn't change significantly even when the upper block begins to break apart in the process. The mass of the floors does not instantaneously vanish when they break up, the same for parts of the exterior wall that remains within the footprint as the collapse progressed. That is the impression I got out of Bazant's paper.

But your pizza box comparison was shear hilariousness at its finest... It will never amount to anything more than a silly experiment that does nothing but wake up the local laughing Hyena

Sorry, the upper block of WTC1 was only 33 000 tons of which, say, weight wise 85% were concrete, glass, gypsum, etc. Remainder was steel in floors and columns. Volume wise 94% of WTC1 upper block was air, 5% were concrete, etc, and say 1% was steel.

Evidently such a construction is not rigid or solid. It is density wise like a big bale of cotton. As I have explained many times before.

If such an airy contraption impacts anything, e.g. the lower structure of WTC1, it immediately breaks up into small pieces ... and does little harm except some local damages up top on WTC1.

Evidently the mass of the upper block does not disappear. It will drop outside or stop inside the lower structure. All explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

You thus got the wrong impression from the Bazant paper.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Bazant himself! A rigid body is always rigid. Rigid bodies that drop on anything evidently destroy everything. WTC1 upper block is assumed rigid by Bazant. If that were the case, it will destroy anything (but itself) when impacting anything. Rigidity is independet of scale. You cannot scale rigidity.

You're saying that mass was not a variable in his equations?

 

[doobiedoright]

The 3.5 m Pizza Tower and it 0.5 m Impactor are full scale. They are real. They are easy to build. And they are a wonderful tool to check, if the hypothesis of Prof., Bazant, PhD, is true or false. I like to keep things simple and having fun at the same time. It keeps you fit and happy. I am actually same age as GWB but as GWB looks and acts like a gray ghost lost in the fog, I am playing tennis in the sun close to the beach and have a good time. Life is not fair! Some are lying losers and some are truthful winners.

I'm no PHd but You seem to have left out something. Some of us call it FIRE! I will bet you a million bucs if you have you tower on fire for say 10 minutes,I can drop your impactor and demolish your little full scale tower! Care to take a chance?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I'm no PHd but You seem to have left out something.
Some of us call it FIRE!
I will bet you a million bucs if you have you tower on fire for say 10 minutes,I can drop your impactor and demolish your little full scale tower!
Care to take a chance?

That's because he's focusing on the collapse itself, not the collapse initiation, this time around. He's trying to argue that, regardless of what caused the towers to fail at the impact floors, they still should not have completely collapsed.

He's just arguing it in probably the most insane (or delicious) way possible...

 

[nicepants]

The Bazant hypothesis is independent of scale, material, structural arrangemets, etc.

Please cite your source for the above claim

Bazant himself!

Oh! in that case....haha

But seriously....if you're going to claim that Bazant said that, you'll need to point us to the specific place in his paper where he says that his calculations are unaffected by scale, material, or "structural arrangements".

A rigid body is always rigid. Rigid bodies that drop on anything evidently destroy everything.

Source, please.

 

[catbasket]

The 3.5 m Pizza Tower and it 0.5 m Impactor are full scale. They are real. They are easy to build. And they are a wonderful tool to check, if the hypothesis of Prof., Bazant, PhD, is true or false.

It's very impressive how you've managed to make so many erroneous statements in just two sentences.

Enjoy your pizza.

You quoted four sentences so what two are you thinking of? Or you can't count?

Yes, four sentences quoted. Sentences 2 & 3 are factually correct, sentences 1 & 4 contain the erroneous statements. If that's not enough clues for you -

The errors are with the phrases "full scale" and "wonderful tool".

 

[pomeroo]

I am having a hard time believing that you are for real and that your whole act isn't some sort of elaborate joke.

You do know that nobody takes you seriously, correct?

He has persuaded most of us that he is what he appears to be. For a similiar situation, check the archives for the breathtaking "Malcolm Kirkman" thread.

As you read on in wonderment, bear the following in mind: Heiwa not only believes that dropping the top thirty floors of a building onto the bottom eighty from a height of two miles will do no damage (crsuh-up equals crush-down--get it?), but that his spectacularly mad belief is consistent with Newton's laws.

Notice that I asked him in this thread to compare what happens when an ant falls a great distance to what happens when an elephant falls a short distance. It was certain that he would avoid the question. He really, truly, honest-to-God, has absolutely no idea why the result is different--assuming, of course, that he acknowledges that it is different. People here berate him for his staggering incompetence, but, frankly, incompetence doesn't begin to cover the problem.

 

[Zipster]

Sorry, the upper block of WTC1 was only 33 000 tons of which, say, weight wise 85% were concrete, glass, gypsum, etc. Remainder was steel in floors and columns. Volume wise 94% of WTC1 upper block was air, 5% were concrete, etc, and say 1% was steel.

Evidently such a construction is not rigid or solid. It is density wise like a big bale of cotton. As I have explained many times before.

If such an airy contraption impacts anything, e.g. the lower structure of WTC1, it immediately breaks up into small pieces ... and does little harm except some local damages up top on WTC1.

Evidently the mass of the upper block does not disappear. It will drop outside or stop inside the lower structure. All explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

You thus got the wrong impression from the Bazant paper.

First off, a bale of cotton? Seriously?

Secondly, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't the lower structure of the WTC be just as "airy" and thus will break up one floor at a time just like the upper structure? It was the same construction throughout the height, unless you're implying that the WTC was a fully solid mass up to the airplane impact floors.

 

[technoextreme]

No it isn't. The question is how someone who is supposedly a qualified engineer can possibly think a stack of cardboard boxes is valid model of a skyscraper, and how people who are apparently adults with educations and jobs can possibly take such claims seriously.

Of course, the really important question is whether you can make the pizza boxes airtight in order to keep the gravity out.

Wait this stupidity is coming from a supposed engineer???? No.... No...... No....... No engineer would be dumb enough to try and model a building with a material that turns into goop with a sprinkler hose.

 

[Hokulele]

Sorry, the upper block of WTC1 was only 33 000 tons of which, say, weight wise 85% were concrete, glass, gypsum, etc. Remainder was steel in floors and columns. Volume wise 94% of WTC1 upper block was air, 5% were concrete, etc, and say 1% was steel.

Evidently such a construction is not rigid or solid. It is density wise like a big bale of cotton. As I have explained many times before.

Right. Drop a 33,000 ton bale of cotton on your car and see what's left.

If such an airy contraption impacts anything, e.g. the lower structure of WTC1, it immediately breaks up into small pieces ... and does little harm except some local damages up top on WTC1.

Which has more potential energy, a kilo of concrete or a kilo of sand 10 meters above the ground? Drop each of those 5 meters and which has more kinetic energy?

Evidently the mass of the upper block does not disappear. It will drop outside or stop inside the lower structure. All explained at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm .

Wrong.

 

[A W Smith]

First off, a bale of cotton? Seriously?

Heiwa includes the air inside the upper block into his density calculations, I kid you not.

Wait this stupidity is coming from a supposed engineer???? No.... No...... No....... No engineer would be dumb enough to try and model a building with a material that turns into goop with a sprinkler hose.

Yup

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/cv.htm

 

[Heiwa]

First off, a bale of cotton? Seriously?

Secondly, unless I'm missing something, wouldn't the lower structure of the WTC be just as "airy" and thus will break up one floor at a time just like the upper structure? It was the same construction throughout the height, unless you're implying that the WTC was a fully solid mass up to the airplane impact floors.

Yes - WTC1 upper block has uniform density of a bale of cotton. Evidently the density is not uniform in WTC1, but that is one of Bazant's assumptions; upper bock is rigid of uniform density.

Yes, the lower structure has similar charachteristics of the upper block. When two such contraptions collide, evidently both are affected by the energy applied. According Bazant only the lower structure is affected, while the upper block remains intact, which has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Heiwa]

Heiwa includes the air inside the upper block into his density calculations, I kid you not.

Actually not. I calculate the density as the weight of all items in the upper block except the air divided by the volume of the upper block. If you add the weight of the air, the result is virtually the same.

 

[Heiwa]

What is a rigid body

Source, please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body

As Bazant assumes the upper, impactor block, but not the lower structure, is rigid, he can then conclude that it, the upper block, remains intact during crush down in his hypothesis and creates a crush front, etc. And then he adds his formulas, etc. The strange thing is that the upper block ceases to be rigid after crush down and is itself destroyed in a crush up. All this takes place in 1-D (the upper block is just a mathematical, moving point or vertical line that in turn impacts on another line (the lower structure) and shortens it. As everything takes place in 1-D the upper point/line cannot slip off the lower line, etc, etc. I really wonder how ASCE could have published that nosense in a scientific magazine, albeit with very small circulation.
There is no evidence that the Bazant paper was ever peer reviewed. It just popped up in the magazine.

 

[nicepants]

I asked you to source this claim:

A rigid body is always rigid. Rigid bodies that drop on anything evidently destroy everything.

and you provided this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body

Nothing in that wikipedia article supports your claim that "rigid bodies that drop on anything evidently destroy everything". The rest of your post was not citing a source. Try again.

The Bazant hypothesis is independent of scale, material, structural arrangemets, etc.

You still haven't sourced this except to claim that Bazant said it. Please cite the page/paragraph in Bazant's paper where he states that his calculations are "independent of scale, material and "structural arrangements".

 

[rwguinn]

Right. Drop a 33,000 ton bale of cotton on your car and see what's left.

[pedant mode] First off, a bale of cotton is 500lb. Standard weight[/pedant mode]

Which has more potential energy, a kilo of concrete or a kilo of sand 10 meters above the ground? Drop each of those 5 meters and which has more kinetic energy?




Wrong.

Why bother...
This post brought to you by the Dept. of Redundancy Dept. and ATM Machine makers of the world...

 

[Heiwa]

Rigid Body

In physics, a rigid body is an idealization of a solid body of finite size in which deformation is neglected. In other words, the distance between any two given points of a rigid body remains constant in time regardless of external forces exerted on it.

Bazant assumes that the WTC1 upper block is a rigid body. This is a false assumption and invalidates his hypothesis.

Even worse, Bazant then ignores the external forces acting in this rigid body except gravity when it crushes down anything in its way, e.g. the lower part of WTC1.

To stop the rigid body/WTC1 top block crushing the Earth down to its centre, Bazant then suggests that it becomes non-rigid and destroys itself.

I always wonder why Bazant published his paper only two days after 9/11 and the whole purpose of it. Is Bazant part of the CONSPIRACY or just a fool assisting the criminals behind it?

Actually, you do not need a Pizza Tower experiment to prove Bazant wrong. Just use common sense and clear thinking. Time to end this thread.

Bye, bye.