Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Porkpie Hat]

such a simplification would never be accepted from a truther. thats the point.

Bazant wasn't addressing the truthers.

That's the point.

 

[GreyICE]

you might have heard already, maybe not. to brake up a not so riggid upper tower part meeds energy

This makes no sense. What are you even trying to say here? Ignoring the absurd typos it STILL makes absolutely no sense.

Be honest to yourself, would a truther present a so simpified model to prove a CD, you would laugh. But when it is from an expert, then one does not have to think or use skeptical thinking, just take theyr words as a fact.

Any truther presented any model of anything yet? Perhaps modeled what it would look like if you had columns rigged with explosives in the building? Hint: It wouldn't look like what happened.

 

[DC]

Bazant wasn't addressing the truthers.

That's the point.

who was adressed?
his expert collegues?
then he could have gone far more into highly technical details and calculations. Would expect that from someone that says no experianced structural engineer expected the collapses.

 

[Myriad]

The purpose of the Pizza Tower experiment is to verify the Bazant fustian hypothesis, BFH. BFH is independent of scale, material and type of construction, so if WTC1 inevitably collapses acccording to Bazant, the Pizza Tower should also.

It does collapse, if you model it correctly.

Once you have the pizza boxes adjusted with the correct elasticity and the correct ratio of initial static load to strength, they will progressively collapse... as long as you use the correct height values as well. The height is a variable independent of the ratio of the initial static load (proportional to mass) to the total available load carrying capacity, so of course to follow Bazant's analysis you have to use the same values as he did. (This height value is the variable h in Bazant and Zhou equation (1), u in Bazant and Verdure equations (3) and (4), etc. Which of course shows that Bazant's model is not independent of scale at all.)

So, if you build your pizza box tower with each pizza box about 2.5 meters above the next, expect it to progressively collapse just as Bazant's equations predict.

Or, you can use your 2.5-meter pizza box tower and compensate for the 100-fold reduction in height by reducing the mass of the "pizza" loads by a factor of 100, and conducting the experiment at 100 G. (You might find that at 100 G it's rather difficult to get the pizza box stack to stand up in the first place even without pizzas; adding a frame of steel columns should solve that problem though.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[uruk]

who was adressed?
his expert collegues?
then he could have gone far more into highly technical details and calculations. Would expect that from someone that says no experianced structural engineer expected the collapses.

His expert collegues would have already known or assumend much of the details implied in his papers.

When you are talking to other people who know about the science you are using you don't need to go into all the detail and explinations.

When I am talking electronic theories or circuits to other electronic instructors, I don't have to explain Ohm's law or Kerchoff's law to them, they already know the laws. I can use a short hand or simplification with them and they get the gist.

 

[Mince]

to brake up a not so riggid upper tower part meeds energy

This makes no sense. What are you even trying to say here? Ignoring the absurd typos it STILL makes absolutely no sense.

I speak Dictator Cheney. Let me Englishize his statement, then translate (changes highlighted).

To break up a not so rigid upper tower part needs energy.

Of course, he said you need energy to destroy the top of the WTC towers. As far as the reason for this obvious statement...

 

[Porkpie Hat]

who was adressed?
his expert collegues?
then he could have gone far more into highly technical details and calculations.

His peers and the engineering/architectural community were addressed with his paper. Why?

Maybe you could point out what technical details are lacking and why it's important to his conclusions.

Would expect that from someone that says no experianced structural engineer expected the collapses.

In what context did he make this statement. I'm sure no structural engineers expected a fully fueled airliner to slam into the towers at high speeds either.

 

[Mr.D]

This law implies that forces always occur in action-reaction pairs. If object 1 and object 2 are considered to be in the same system, then the net force on the system due to the interactions between objects 1 and 2 is zero.

No such thing as friction. Gotcha.

So what are you doing posting here? You should be designing that perpetual motion machine stat!

 

[WildCat]

So one could indeed say during both phases the upper block is loosing 100% of its mas, because the block is not there, the mass is.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

I see your and raise you a .

 

[Mince]

I see your and raise you a .

I'm all in.

 

[pomeroo]

No such thing as friction. Gotcha.

So what are you doing posting here? You should be designing that perpetual motion machine stat!

People here are still tiptoeing around Heiwa's contention that nothing can collapse. He believes that dropping the top third of a building from a great height onto the bottom two-thirds will do no damage. Why address side issues when he has never backed off his staggering blunder? If you ask him why the whole structure isn't reduced to rubble, he will babble muddle-headed nonsense about Newton. Press him and see what happens.

 

[rwguinn]

I'm all in.

I call

 

[ElMondoHummus]

(*Shakes head*) Jokers playing poker.

 

[Heiwa]

It does collapse, if you model it correctly.

Once you have the pizza boxes adjusted with the correct elasticity and the correct ratio of initial static load to strength, they will progressively collapse... as long as you use the correct height values as well. The height is a variable independent of the ratio of the initial static load (proportional to mass) to the total available load carrying capacity, so of course to follow Bazant's analysis you have to use the same values as he did. (This height value is the variable h in Bazant and Zhou equation (1), u in Bazant and Verdure equations (3) and (4), etc. Which of course shows that Bazant's model is not independent of scale at all.)

So, if you build your pizza box tower with each pizza box about 2.5 meters above the next, expect it to progressively collapse just as Bazant's equations predict.

Or, you can use your 2.5-meter pizza box tower and compensate for the 100-fold reduction in height by reducing the mass of the "pizza" loads by a factor of 100, and conducting the experiment at 100 G. (You might find that at 100 G it's rather difficult to get the pizza box stack to stand up in the first place even without pizzas; adding a frame of steel columns should solve that problem though.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Does it? So it is just a matter of scale? But Bazant's hypothesis is independent of scale. Reason why the Pizza Tower impactor does not crush down the Pizza Tower is, simply, that the impactor is not rigid. It is impossible to design a rigid impactor in any scale.

Assuming, like Bazant and NIST, that the impactor (WTC1 upper block) is rigid and one solid block with one mass concentrated somewhere (the Bazant model is 1-D!) is unscientific and invalidates any further conclusions. Bazant's model only works in an one-dimensional environment with a rigid impactor (non-elastic and indestructible) and a non-rigid, weak, elastic object being impacted. It has nothing to do with reality. In any scale.

As shown in the MAS tray experiment and discussed in the Pizza Tower model experiment, any 3-D impactor, a very flexible structure full of air, is subject to Newton's third law, i.e. forces are applied to the impactor parts at contact with another object; retarding their movements, deforming their structure and, if the forces are great enough, destroying the structural parts of the impactor. No magic about that! Should have happened to WTC1 upper block, too.

Note in Bazant's paper that no forces are acting on the impactor (WTC1 upper block) except gravity (represented by a big arrow pointing down). When the impactor is released, it is assumed to crush anything in its way; nothing can stop it. Evidently it has nothing to do with the real world!

I have described it at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm and http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist3.htm and presented it to NIST and nobody has debunked the observations there and the conclusion that development of local failures should soon be arrested when all released energy is absorbed as described.

Thanks for your interest in this matter.

 

[DC]

His expert collegues would have already known or assumend much of the details implied in his papers.

When you are talking to other people who know about the science you are using you don't need to go into all the detail and explinations.

When I am talking electronic theories or circuits to other electronic instructors, I don't have to explain Ohm's law or Kerchoff's law to them, they already know the laws. I can use a short hand or simplification with them and they get the gist.

Back then when Mr. Ohm presented his findings, the first time, he had to go into details.
Mr. Bazant not, he simplified it extremly.

 

[DC]

His peers and the engineering/architectural community were addressed with his paper. Why?

Maybe you could point out what technical details are lacking and why it's important to his conclusions.

In what context did he make this statement. I'm sure no structural engineers expected a fully fueled airliner to slam into the towers at high speeds either.

maybe one day you should read his papers, then you can spot the context......

 

[Dave Rogers]

such a simplification would never be accepted from a truther. thats the point.

I think actually that's true, and there's a reason. Bazant is starting from the assumption that the collapse happened, and is presenting a formalism for understanding the gross features of the collapse. He's not setting out to prove that the collapse must have happened in a certain way, and advancing his results as proof. Quite specifically, he is not, in Bazant and Zhou, attempting to debunk any theories about controlled demolition. Truthers who attempt to cast doubt on the collapse times of the WTC towers are, on the other hand, trying to prove that the collapse must have happened as a result of explosives; in the absence of credible positive evidence for explosives, they are therefore attempting to prove that the collapse could not have happened in any other way. They are therefore claiming to understand all possible aspects of every possible collapse mechanism in sufficient detail to be able to eliminate all non-explosive hypotheses. Therefore, there is a very onerous burden of proof on the truthers, which doesn't and shouldn't apply to Bazant's analysis.

Dave

 

[DC]

I think actually that's true, and there's a reason. Bazant is starting from the assumption that the collapse happened, and is presenting a formalism for understanding the gross features of the collapse. He's not setting out to prove that the collapse must have happened in a certain way, and advancing his results as proof. Quite specifically, he is not, in Bazant and Zhou, attempting to debunk any theories about controlled demolition. Truthers who attempt to cast doubt on the collapse times of the WTC towers are, on the other hand, trying to prove that the collapse must have happened as a result of explosives; in the absence of credible positive evidence for explosives, they are therefore attempting to prove that the collapse could not have happened in any other way. They are therefore claiming to understand all possible aspects of every possible collapse mechanism in sufficient detail to be able to eliminate all non-explosive hypotheses. Therefore, there is a very onerous burden of proof on the truthers, which doesn't and shouldn't apply to Bazant's analysis.

Dave

Thanks, a good answer i think

 

[Dr Adequate]

In his papers! Upper rigid block crushing down non-rigid, lower structure. Upper block is assumed rigid, i.e. indestructible during crush-down, and remains intact then. It is not affected by any forces acting on it, e.g. by the lower structure. It is clearly shown in the text and the 2-D illustrations and reflected in the mathematical formulas of the paper, even if the latter assume an 1-D upper block/lower structure only. Regardless, the upper block cannot be compressed in any direction or damaged during crush-down according Bazant.

Evidently, under such wild assumptions the Bazant theory may be valid, but even then it cannot be verified in full- or model scale! Reason is that no rigid upper block can be found! It does not exist!

At end of crush-down the properties of the upper block changes to no-rigid and it is destroyed in a crush-up, i.e. Bazant changes the assumptions. Had the upper block remained rigid it would have crushed the Earth.

So it is very easy to debunk Bazant. His assumption about a rigid upper block is false.

Now I think it is time to end this thread. We have (again) jointly debunked Bazant! Please inform NIST!

Please answer the question.

Where does Bazant claim that the upper block remained intact?