Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment
- Thread starter nicepants
- Start date
No plane hits the Pizza Tower from the side! Only the upper Pizza Tower Impactor hits it from above. The Impactor is much much bigger, stronger and heavier than any plane.
But if you want to have fun you can fly a (model) plane through the Pizza Tower. The result will be a hole in the Pizza Tower and pizza flying out (while the plane apparently lands inside the Tower and eats pizza.
Last edited:
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?
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.
Megalodon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Messages
- 3,228
And some are just too stupid to understand their own language... or trolls...
Your model is not to scale. You cannot easily build a scale model of the wtc for the purpose of your "experiment". I told this in the post you quoted, and expanded on it thanks to dtugg's questions. Live with it.
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
It's very impressive how you've managed to make so many erroneous statements in just two sentences.
Enjoy your pizza.
CurtC
Illuminator
Heiwa, that section you quoted from Bazant doesn't at all imply that a pizza box tower would progressively collapse.
Did you notice the part up front with the calculations? Troothers don't seem to like calculations, so you may have missed that part, but he calculated that the kinetic energy gained from falling one story would be much much greater than the energy absorbed in breaking stuff below, therefore it leads to a progressive collapse.
If you did this calculation for pizza boxes, and found that the kinetic energy of falling one box-height would be much much greater than the energy required to destroy the box below, then yes, your pizza box tower would also progressively collapse. But without that critical calculation, your analogy is worthless.
Did you notice the part up front with the calculations? Troothers don't seem to like calculations, so you may have missed that part, but he calculated that the kinetic energy gained from falling one story would be much much greater than the energy absorbed in breaking stuff below, therefore it leads to a progressive collapse.
If you did this calculation for pizza boxes, and found that the kinetic energy of falling one box-height would be much much greater than the energy required to destroy the box below, then yes, your pizza box tower would also progressively collapse. But without that critical calculation, your analogy is worthless.
Lennart Hyland
Muse
Bumb for heiwa.
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
I think the CT section has been Punk'd.
CurtC
Illuminator
I think Heiwa's point is NOT that he actually thinks the tower of pizza boxes would collapse, but that he thinks Bazant somehow says that it would. Heiwa doesn't think either would.
That's why my post #109 above points out that Bazant does NOT imply this about pizza boxes. I hope Heiwa responds to my post.
You are wrong! Read the experiment description. Evidently you have to adjust drop height x so that it provides sufficient kinetic energy K(x) to crush-down one pizza box (or eight boxes for that matter) to initiate the global collapse as per Bazant. To crush-down one pizza box you require energy Wc and you can do the experiment K(x) = Wc or K(x) = 8 Wc.
It is very easy to obtain x for one box or 8 boxes. Drop the 15 impactor boxes on one box or 8 boxes and see at what x they are collapsing.
At this initial test you will find that the 15 impactor boxes are also affected/damaged so already at this stage the Bazant hypothesis is proven wrong.
It does not matter what x you use in the final test, because the impactor is always affected one way or another (as it is not rigid, as assumed by Bazant).
If you can find a really rigid impactor, then you might be able to crush down the Pizza Tower, but 15 pizza boxes will not do. Same for WTC1 - the upper block is too small, weak and flexible to crush down a complete structure below, when dropped say 3.7 m in the WTC1 case. After dropping max another 55 metres (the absolute worst case) the upper block would have been completely destroyed ... and the collapse arrested.
This is the Björkman, M.Sc., hypothesis. You can read about it on my web site soon. Thanks for providing valuable input to my scientific research.
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,474
you are aware that kinetic energy is based on mass, right?
and that one of, if not THE most basic law of physics states that mass cannot be destroyed
in conclusion, your argument fails, regardless of how much damage is taken by the upper block its mass remains the same, this is even addressed in the addendum to bazants paper, had you bothered to read it
Sorry, I thought I did in a post above. The pizza box wall side must of course crush (buckle) when it is loaded (impacted) by the 15 pizza box impactor unit when dropping from height x. So you have to do a little initial testing before and get the right pizza box. Re floor (pizza box bottom) it is only the connection to the wall side that is of importance. You adjust the thickness of the bottom cardboard at the wall with a carpet cutter (really sick!) so that no bending moment can be transmitted. The weights of the pizzas are adjusted so that the compressive stresses in the cardboard walls are 0.3 times the buckling/crush-down stress). Those weights are of course transmitted to the wall via the partly cut 'floors'.
Not too difficult.
BUT - you have to do exactly the same for the 15 pizza box impactor that will drop down later (from distance x). It is evidently the original top part of the complete Pizza Tower. The impactor is quite educational. You notice, e.g. that it is not very rigid or solid (as assumed by Bazant) but the pizza impactor is quite similar to the upper block of WTC1 (mostly air - uniform density 0.18 simlar to cotton). If you check, you should get abt. the same uniform density of the pizza impactor, i.e. 0.18.
If you get uniform density 7.8 of the pizza impactor something is wrong! Then it is a solid block of iron, but neither WTC1 upper block or the pizza impactor is so heavy.
Good luck with your Pizza Tower.
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 6,990
Yes, yes! Potential energy P (Joule) is mgh and kinetic energy K (Joule) is mv²/2, where m is the mass (kg), g is gravity acceleration (m/s²), h a heigt (meter) and v is velocity (meter/second) ; I have no problems with that.
And when a mass m is affected by a force F (Newton) it accelerates a (meter/(second)²) with a = F/m .
Where Bazant goes wrong is that he assumes that the upper block mass m is rigid and keeps itself together during the crush down/global collapse. But it is not true! The upper block m consists of many smaller part masses and they will be disconnected from one another at impact and during crush down, i.e. the upper block breaks up, the famous 'crush front' of Bazant (assuming one solid mass) will disappear. This happens latest after a drop of distance h, where h is the original height of the upper block (assuming identical structures of upper block/lower structure). Then the whole upper block has disintegrated.
The reason why the upper block is destroyed is that each part mass m will be subject to a force F at impact and subject to an acceleration (actually retardation) of F/m . It is those forces F acting on every part mass that will disconnect the part masses from one another (and destroy the upper block).
According Bazant no forces F are acting on the upper block at impact or after so the upper block accelerates at free fall during crush down, etc.
It is a pity that Bazant is not aware of a = F/m .
BTW - what you see on video of the WTC1 destruction is not a gravity only driven 'collapse' like a snow avalanche, where an increasing mass (snow kept together) is pushing and compressing another mass (more snow) below.
Read http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm for more info.
You quoted four sentences so what two are you thinking of? Or you can't count?
nicepants
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 1,723
Please quote your source for the above claim.