• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

Homeland Insurgency said:
Why?
Two identical towers hit by airplanes at different points fell almost exactly the same way. If this could happen twice within an hour how hard could it be to get it to happen on a smaller scale a third time?
Click to expand...

I highlighted some major points which make your suspicions rather rhetorical...
  • the towers were built almost identically, meaning the two were as close to an exact comparison as one could get in construction.
  • They were both damaged similarly, therefore the outcome was very similar
  • The differences in height of the impact zones affected how much load the remaining structural members had to support after the impacts. This is reflected in the order the towers fell, the south tower for example held roughly double the loads of the North tower in the impact region, and unsurprisingly it was the first to collapse

    As we go back to scale, I once explained the problem of scale to you in fact, and neither you nor Heiwa ever did bother to comment on it really... This is also the same reason why scaled down physical representations are so difficult to get reliable accuracy with, and especially why his assumptions are completely warped:
    LINK
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Why can't critical support structures be compromised on a smaller scale?
Click to expand...
They can be.

Homeland Insurgency said:
Compensate? Build it to scale. Put extra weight on the top if you like and see if it fails all the way down to the bottom from damage just at the top.
Click to expand...
How do you scale the material strengths? Somewhere in this thread, a poster with some engineering expertise talks about how scaling changes the dynamics of the structure in non-proportional ways. I'll see if I can find that post (or maybe someone else can chime in.)

ETA: see Grizzly's post above. Thanks, GB -- good timing!

Homeland Insurgency said:
What different direction would it fall in on a different scale?
Click to expand...
I don't know that it would. You seem surprised that it would fall "straight down," though. (Although "straight down" is certainly a misrepresentation of what happened.)

Homeland Insurgency said:
Again we are talking about something that is said to have happened three times in one day but now all of a sudden it's impossible to reproduce. How convenient.
Click to expand...
Which something was said to have happened three times in one day? Buildings falling down? And who is claiming it is impossible to reproduce? Watch those strawmen...
 
Last edited:
Homeland Insurgency said:
Why can't critical support structures be compromised on a smaller scale?



Compensate? Build it to scale. Put extra weight on the top if you like and see if it fails all the way down to the bottom from damage just at the top.



What different direction would it fall in on a different scale?

Again we are talking about something that is said to have happened three times in one day but now all of a sudden it's impossible to reproduce. How convenient.
Click to expand...

If you were to make a small scale replica of the WTC complex, everything would not be balanced to the full scale version.

1: Small scale means less load bearing down on structure.
2: It would be possible to recreate the fire damage to the trusses. (NIST has done that)
3: The direction would fall different than the real world scenerio if it were on a small scale.
4: It can be reproduced in a computer but in the real world if you put something on paper it would never come out as planned on paper.
 
HawksFan said:
Heiwa, here's an experiment you can try.

Rent a very large crane. Pick up your house and drop it on the neighbor's house. Let us know the results.

Simple!
Click to expand...


But that's the problem in a nutshell. He insists that nothing happens: crush-up equals crush down--a new equilibrium is established. He says this over and over without ever receiving a warning tingle in his antennae.
He argues, in effect, that no structure can collapse and he doesn't suspect that anything might be wrong with his comprehension of basic physics.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Why don't all the self appointed experts here who think they know better just make a more relevant model?
Click to expand...


Gee, maybe if we were real nice, some government agency, perhaps one tasked with determining why structures fail, would publish ten thousand pages of graphs, photos, diagrams, computer simulations, materials analyses, calculations, and commentaries on the subject. Wouldn't that be swell?
 
Heiwa said:
So what happens then? Well, it might be 1, 2 or 4, of course, but also 3. But at every 3) energy is consumed and less and less destruction will follow. Collapse arrest has started and will soon be arrived at. A new equilibrium will be achieved.
Click to expand...

Ah, this must explain why avalanches always start off big and get smaller and smaller, eventually coming to a halt, instead of the other way around.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
Why don't all the self appointed experts here who think they know better just make a more relevant model?
Click to expand...


Heiwa claims to believe that dropping the top third of a building from a height of two miles onto the bottom two-thirds does not destroy the whole structure. He states that a "new equilbrium" will be reached.

Is his position tenable, or is it as totally insane as it sounds? As a conspiracy liar, you will feel compelled to ignore this question as it strikes at the heart of your fantasy, but you do get the idea that the buck stops here.

So, which is it? Is Heiwa as absurdly wrong as the real engineers say he is, or has he overturned everything physicists thought they knew?

Wait! You're running away! Don't go! Please try to answer... Hello?
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
Gee, maybe if we were real nice, some government agency, perhaps one tasked with determining why structures fail, would publish ten thousand pages of graphs, photos, diagrams, computer simulations, materials analyses, calculations, and commentaries on the subject. Wouldn't that be swell?
Click to expand...

They have yet to replicate anything that was witnessed on 9/11.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I didn't run.

But I will admit if I were to run into you down at groundzero I might cross the street.

I don't carry any spare change.
Click to expand...


Yes, it's certainly true that you wouldn't dare to face me, but we all knew that. Your clumsy, craven evasion has been noted. Although you are a particularly uninformed liar, we'll give you credit for understanding that no defense of Heiwa's lunacy is possible.
 
pomeroo said:
Yes, it's certainly true that you wouldn't dare to face me, but we all knew that. Your clumsy, craven evasion has been noted. Although you are a particularly uninformed liar, we'll give you credit for understanding that no defense of Heiwa's lunacy is possible.
Click to expand...

I swear I'm not lying. I don't have any change.

Get a job.
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I swear I'm not lying. I don't have any change.

Get a job.
Click to expand...


Of course you don't have change--you don't have a job! That may be the only thing you've ever posted here that isn't a lie.

Congratulations on the most intellectually honest defense of Heiwa's idiocy ever produced by a conspiracy liar.
 
Not that I dislike watching these lovely theatrics and insults... but HI, if you would... is there anything you'd like to comment on regarding what I brought up here. It seems to have faded into the background with the distraction...
 
pomeroo said:
Of course you don't have change--you don't have a job! That may be the only thing you've ever posted here that isn't a lie.

Congratulations on the most intellectually honest defense of Heiwa's idiocy ever produced by a conspiracy liar.
Click to expand...

See how angry voting for Republicans has made you Ron?

If you vote for Obama maybe you will be able to afford some new threads for your next groundbreaking video that the masses will never see. But then again what does it matter how you look if hardly anyone ever sees it?


Is that why you're angry?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
I swear I'm not lying. I don't have any change.

Get a job.
Click to expand...


Just so we're clear on what has happened here: I asked you if Heiwa's ludicrous claim about the effects of dropping a third of a tall structure onto the other two-thirds could be defended. I predicted that you would not dream of attempting to defend it. You responded with an infantile insult and proved my prediction correct.

This is your idea of fighting back? And it's better than acknowledging that your evil, mindless movement is dead because...?
 
Homeland Insurgency said:
See how angry voting for Republicans has made you Ron?

If you vote for Obama maybe you will be able to afford some new threads for your next groundbreaking video that the masses will never see. But then again what does it matter how you look if hardly anyone ever sees it?


Is that why you're angry?
Click to expand...


I wonder why I laugh so hard when I'm angry. Now, getting back to your carefully-reasoned defense to Heiwa's mad contention...

Oh, you don't want to get back to Hiewa? Who would have guessed?

You liars are s-o-o tricky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom