Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Hokulele]

Ever heard of Sherlock Holmes?

Yes, he is fictitious. Rather like your math.

 

[Heiwa]

OK, let's consider the case of a 500kg bomb dropping from 15,000 feet on the roof of a house. The bomb is accelerating at less than g because it will be approaching terminal velocity, but let's imagine that it is still accelerating at 1G. Since the roof of the house is easily capable of withstanding a force of mg, where m=500kg and g=9.81ms^-2, your assertion is equivalent to a statement that the bomb must fail to penetrate the roof of the house, and instead the pitch of the roof will cause it to fall outside the footprint of the building. Based on historical events circa 1939-1945, is this in general an accurate result?

Congratulations, Heiwa. You just debunked the Blitz.

Dave

Do you suggest that WTC1,2 were brought down by bombs? Start another thread about it. Here we discuss the Pizza Tower. No bombs dropping on it.

Re bomb dropping it seems a US candidate for the presidency is one such bomb dropper. But he dropped down himself, poor sod. Couldn't fly straight. Very incompetent. Stupid to be there in the first place. And even more stupid, he wrote a book about it - Faith of my Fathers where he describes himself as a hero! ??? He alleges he was tortured for six years after dropping down, while in fact the treatment he describes is US standard treatment at Guantanamo = not torture. Just a little waterboarding, etc. Normal stuff. On the other hand, the alleged torturers suggest the hero is lying. No, no torture US style took place, but yes, they talked abot many things, incl. peace, love and women, none of which the hero could have. So he probably mixed up - piece, love, women - he could not have it = torture. Sad story. But public opinion loves it. Same with WTC1,2. Just invent something and public opinion loves it. Blocks dropping down, etc. So watch out!

 

[phunk]

?? whatever force you apply to my head, my head apply the same force to what you apply. Newton's third law. Doesn't matter if static or dynamic.

Let me remind you what you said.

If a mass m with an acceleration g applies a force on another body it cannot be greater than mg.

That is clearly false. In fact if it were true, you would immediately lose this debate, as it would mean that once the upper block moved even an inch downward, it could not be stopped.

 

[HyJinX]

<snip> Here we discuss the Pizza Tower. <snip>

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ever heard of Sherlock Holmes? Much smarter than John Edgar Hoover and his later staff at FBI ... or NIST for that matter.

And just as fictitious as your grasp of dynamics.

Dave

 

[X]

??? Topic is supposed to be the Pizza Tower experiment where the upper block does not initiate a global collapse when dropping on the Pizza Tower. It stops at once at impact. Did you try it? You side track in various ways ... and I reply to every question. I like that.

Patience, young grasshopper. We will get to your Pizza Tower. But first I want to clear up your fundamental misunderstanding of physics.

There seems to be little point in diving right into a discussion of scaling and collapse mechanics until you understand why F1[/subb] would have to be greater than M₁g in order to bring the moving mass to a stop. One step at a time, Heiwa. One step at a time.

So, back to basics, why does the Pizza Tower stop the upper block dropping on it? The Pizza Tower is static! And a force is applied (upper block dropping on it). All is quite static! Pizza Tower is not flying away. Actually - any collapse is arrested before it is even initiated.

Since when is a falling object and impact considered a static scenario? Let me break this down for you: the upper section is falling. That means it is moving. By definition, a static system is one in which all parts of a system are at rest relative to an inertial frame of reference. Look it up. If the upper section is falling, the system can not, by definition, be static! Instead, it is dynamic. Look that term up, too. As I've said, I'm not discussing the rest of your model until this basic error is corrected. Why bother discussing a fatally flawed model? Instead, I will discuss the flaw.

And that's what should have happened at WTC1,2 on 9/11. If anything else happened ... it was caused by something else than gravity. Ever heard of Sherlock Holmes? Much smarter than John Edgar Hoover and his later staff at FBI ... or NIST for that matter.

Experiment time, Heiwa:

Imagine you have a 1 kilogram mass resting on a frictionless surface. You apply a 1 Newton force to this mass. What happens?​

According to your posts, the block will exert an equal and opposite force on you, and nothing will happen. And yes, Heiwa, this is exactly what you are saying, so save your protestations. Seems kind of ridiculous put that way, doesn't it? You seem to be suffering from a deeply flawed interpretation of Newton's Third Law. That law states: "For a force there is always an equal and opposite reaction." Note the word I bolded. Reaction. F is a force. Acceleration is the reaction. These two are linked via the equation F=ma. The 1 kg mass in the experiment has a force applied to it. The reaction is that the block accelerates. In order for the block not to move, a 1 N force would have to be applied in the exact opposite direction to the first one. Then he forces are balances, and no acceleration occurs. Your upper section is moving downwards, accelerating under the force due to gravity (M₁g). In order for the upper section to come to a rest, as you think it should (in this Pizza Tower experiment, in your patio table, in your "children's experiment (recently condemned, by the way, by my local fire department for being too dangerous)), then there must be a net force upwards to decelerate the falling mass. There has to be a net force. F=ma demands it. If there is no net force (i.e. F₁ = M₁g), then the upper section will retain whatever velocity it had when it came into contact with the lower section, and proceed downwards at that constant velocity. Which means that in order for the upper section to stop its descent, F₁ has to be greater than M₁g. I'm starting to lose count of the number of times I've said this. It really is stuff my 10 year old nephew understands. And yet it escapes you. And what you do not realize is that, as long as you insist that F₁ = M₁g, your argument that the upper section will stop falling is rendered meaningless. Because your own physics disprove your conclusion. It's like arguing that 1+1=3, on the basis that it can only ever equal 2.

 

[Zipster]

Since Heiwa truly believes that a moving object will hit a stationary object and be destroyed because the stationary object will impart the same force onto the moving object, I will throw up a challenge.

The moving object will be a full metal jacket bullet. The stationary object will be Heiwa himself. If he truly believes in Hewia Physics, where "materials don't matter" and the bullet "will be arrested" and "destroyed" by the force his skin imparts onto it, then he should have no problems standing in front of it.

If Heiwa Physics is true, then all the soldiers in the world can just throw away all that bulky kevlar and ceramic armor they're wearing! Their skin is enough protection against all enemy bullets! If they're wearing their BDUs, then even better!

If someone who's not on ignore could kindly paraphrase my above challenge to him or ask him why police and soldiers wear armor in the first place, I would appreciate it.

 

[HyJinX]

Since Heiwa truly believes that a moving object will hit a stationary object and be destroyed because the stationary object will impart the same force onto the moving object, I will throw up a challenge.

The moving object will be a full metal jacket bullet. The stationary object will be Heiwa himself. If he truly believes in Hewia Physics, where "materials don't matter" and the bullet "will be arrested" and "destroyed" by the force his skin imparts onto it, then he should have no problems standing in front of it.

If Heiwa Physics is true, then all the soldiers in the world can just throw away all that bulky kevlar and ceramic armor they're wearing! Their skin is enough protection against all enemy bullets! If they're wearing their BDUs, then even better!

If someone who's not on ignore could kindly paraphrase my above challenge to him or ask him why police and soldiers wear armor in the first place, I would appreciate it.

My pleasure.

Heiwa, your retort?

 

[beachnut]

Ever heard of Sherlock Holmes? Much smarter than John Edgar Hoover and his later staff at FBI ... or NIST for that matter.

And just as fictitious as your grasp of dynamics.

Dave

This is the plight of 9/11 truth believers; they live in a fantasy world where gravity does not exist, and Sherlock Holmes is real.

The Pizza box WTC model is correct because Sherlock Holmes is real?

 

[Minadin]

Ever heard of Sherlock Holmes? Much smarter than John Edgar Hoover and his later staff at FBI ... or NIST for that matter.

There's actually a CT that Sherlock Holmes was Professor Moriarty.

(no joke)

 

[NobbyNobbs]

You don't know much about structural damage analysis, do you?

At every action energy is consumed/absorbed.

You forgot...energy can also be released. There is an enormous amount of potential energy in the concrete, drywall, and steel floor of a building 1,000 feet tall.

?? whatever force you apply to my head, my head apply the same force to what you apply. Newton's third law. Doesn't matter if static or dynamic.

It's really not force that's the issue, but impulse and energy. Like the brick...balance it on your head, and there's no energy being transferred. No impulse, because there's no collision.

Drop it, and there's kinetic energy being transferred. The force of the brick is applied over a shorter period of time (impulse), causing damage that was not done in the static case.

It's why engineers install airbags and seat belts in cars. It's why dynamic physics is taught as an entirely different course than static physics. Sure, you're quoting Newton's 3rd law correctly...but your application of it is dead wrong.

"Doesn't matter if static or dynamic"??? And you're an engineer?

Go ahead. Pull the other one.

Do you suggest that WTC1,2 were brought down by bombs?

Did you totally miss the point of his post, or are you deliberately avoiding answering the scenario?

Either you are incredibly obtuse, or being evasive. Which is it?

 

[Heiwa]

You forgot...energy can also be released. There is an enormous amount of potential energy in the concrete, drywall, and steel floor of a building 1,000 feet tall.



It's really not force that's the issue, but impulse and energy. Like the brick...balance it on your head, and there's no energy being transferred. No impulse, because there's no collision.

Exactly - when the rubber ball hits the ground it applies a force on the ground and the ground applies an equal force on the ball. And then we have impulse and energy. At rubber ball impact, energy is absorbed in the rubber ball that is later released ... and the rubber ball bounces (a new force is also applied against the ground).

Unfortunately NIST and Bazant do not understand that a force is applied to the upper block at impact and energy is absorbed by the upper block. NIST and Bazant just assume that the force is only applied to the lower structure (the columns) and that all energy also goes that way. That is NWO physics.

On the other hand no collision upper solid block/lower structure is seen on any videos = no energy transfer. It seems the upper block is destroyed before that producing plenty of smoke to hide what really happens. You need plenty of energy to destroy a tower from top to bottom and the kinetic energy of the airy upper block and all its small parts is too small for that. That energy is split in 1000's of parts that cannot do much harm to the lower structure ... as explained in my papers.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Unfortunately Heiwa keeps demonstrating he hasn't even the slightest understanding of physics while at the same time claiming NIST (real engineers) don't understand physics. Why doesn't Heiwa do what real engineers do and write a paper in engineering terms about how the towers fell and get it published?

Or will he continue to simply repeat the same post over and over again as if each time it's brand new?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Exactly - when the rubber ball hits the ground it applies a force on the ground and the ground applies an equal force on the ball. And then we have impulse and energy. At rubber ball impact, energy is absorbed in the rubber ball that is later released ... and the rubber ball bounces (a new force is also applied against the ground).

Unfortunately NIST and Bazant do not understand that a force is applied to the upper block at impact and energy is absorbed by the upper block. NIST and Bazant just assume that the force is only applied to the lower structure (the columns) and that all energy also goes that way. That is NWO physics.

On the other hand no collision upper solid block/lower structure is seen on any videos = no energy transfer. It seems the upper block is destroyed before that producing plenty of smoke to hide what really happens. You need plenty of energy to destroy a tower from top to bottom and the kinetic energy of the airy upper block and all its small parts is too small for that. That energy is split in 1000's of parts that cannot do much harm to the lower structure ... as explained in my papers.

First of all, what's this "upper solid block" stuff? Weren't you berating people for that earlier?

Secondly, have you taken the time to figure out exactly what the kinetic energy of the upper floors was? I know someone on this forum did (Gravy?) and that it was tremendous.

Thirdly, you still seem to be under the impression that a large quantity of objects, each with kinetic energy, collectively have significantly less kinetic energy than one mass composed of those objects. Were you not aware that energy is additive?

 

[Heiwa]

First of all, what's this "upper solid block" stuff? Weren't you berating people for that earlier?

Secondly, have you taken the time to figure out exactly what the kinetic energy of the upper floors was? I know someone on this forum did (Gravy?) and that it was tremendous.

Thirdly, you still seem to be under the impression that a large quantity of objects, each with kinetic energy, collectively have significantly less kinetic energy than one mass composed of those objects. Were you not aware that energy is additive?

Bazant assumes that the upper solid block is rigid = indestructible. But it is just 280 columns + floors hanging on the columns = neither solid, nor rigid.

If the upper WTC1 block actually free falls 3.7 meters, it is easy to calculate the energy required to pull it up again. You need abt 41 litres of gasoil.

Evidently one mass m impacting anything causes more damage than if many small ms impact anything ... one after the other. Same energy may totally be applied but the difference is the timing.

Bazant assumes the upper block is rigid and that total energy (mv²/2) is applied to lower structure instantaneously at impact (and nothing happens to the upper block) - crush-down ensues. Not seen on any video though.

In my papers it is shown that upper block consists of many sub-masses, m1, m2, m3, etc. and that they apply forces and transmit energy to the lower structure over a longer time frame (and vice versa), the parts cannot simultaneously impact the lower structure everywhere, parts fail here and there (it takes time) ... and after a while the destruction is arrested. It is actually the standard way of structural damage analysis - to establish the path of failures. NIST forgot to do that. I just ask them to do it (for the sake of our children). It is not difficult. Otherwise our children will do it, when they grow up.

 

[funk de fino]

Bazant assumes that the upper solid block is rigid = indestructible. But it is just 280 columns + floors hanging on the columns = neither solid, nor rigid.

If the upper WTC1 block actually free falls 3.7 meters, it is easy to calculate the energy required to pull it up again. You need abt 41 litres of gasoil.

Evidently one mass m impacting anything causes more damage than if many small ms impact anything ... one after the other. Same energy may totally be applied but the difference is the timing.

Bazant assumes the upper block is rigid and that total energy (mv²/2) is applied to lower structure instantaneously at impact (and nothing happens to the upper block) - crush-down ensues. Not seen on any video though.

In my papers it is shown that upper block consists of many sub-masses, m1, m2, m3, etc. and that they apply forces and transmit energy to the lower structure over a longer time frame (and vice versa), the parts cannot simultaneously impact the lower structure everywhere, parts fail here and there (it takes time) ... and after a while the destruction is arrested. It is actually the standard way of structural damage analysis - to establish the path of failures. NIST forgot to do that. I just ask them to do it (for the sake of our children). It is not difficult. Otherwise our children will do it, when they grow up.

Please answer post # 446

 

[Heiwa]

Please answer post # 446

OK - I apply a force F 1 N on a mass m 1 kg on a frictionless surface.

Evidently the mass moves away (from me) at a = 1 m/s² because F = m*a, but only as long as I apply the force F 1 N on it. How do I do that? The mass m has disappeared. I could not run after it.

Evidently the mass m does not apply a force -F on me, in this case, as there is no contact.

Now to the static Pizza Tower. I put a mass 1 kg on it (three pizzas?) and and it applies a force F = 1g N on my Pizza Tower (gravity at work) and my Pizza Tower applies a force -F on the mass 1 kg (Newton's third law at work). Reason - because there is contact. Happens every time.

Now - drop the mass 1 kg on the Pizza Tower from a certain height h (meter).

At contact the mass 1 kg (now charged with energy E = g*h Nm) again applies a force, let's call it F2 on the Pizza Tower and again the Pizza Tower applies a force -F2 on the mass.

If the contact area is a point with area 0 m² there will be infinite high pressure at contact - applied to both bodies involved.

If the contact area is a WTC floor of 4000 m² the contact pressure between floors is F2/4000 Pa.

If the contact area is the sum of all WTC colums of 5.5 m² the contact pressure between columns is F2/5.5 Pa.

If the contact area is column against floor the pressure is same as for column.

Note that the contact pressure differs by a factor of 727.27 if contact is floor/floor or column/column. If a floor impacts a floor the pressure is low, if a column impacts a column the pressure is 727.27 times bigger!

Regardless what the pressure is, it is also applied to both bodies.

And then you have to go from there.

At WTC there is evidently many contacts columns/floors resulting in a very high local pressure applied to both bodies. As the floor is weaker than the column, the floor may be broken by the high pressure at contact with a column (and energy is consumed). Etc, etc.

According NIST and Bazant the pressure created at impact is only applied to the Pizza Tower as the 3 pizzas dropping down crushes my Pizza Tower.

My experiment was simply to show that it doesn't happen.

Hope you understand this at last?

 

[rwguinn]

ok--I admit it. I had to peek...


Eta:
It becomes increasingly obvious that this dude has never take even an elementary school science class, much less any Engineering study.

 

[nicepants]

OK - I apply a force F 1 N on a mass m 1 kg on a frictionless surface.

Evidently the mass moves away (from me) at a = 1 m/s² because F = m*a, but only as long as I apply the force F 1 N on it.

Please explain the bolded text above. Are you saying that the object would stop moving as soon as you stopped applying any force to it? (i.e. You apply the force for .1 seconds, thus the object moves away from you for .1 seconds?)

ETA: Italics

 

[X]

OK - I apply a force F 1 N on a mass m 1 kg on a frictionless surface.

Evidently the mass moves away (from me) at a = 1 m/s² because F = m*a, but only as long as I apply the force F 1 N on it.

Correct. The mass will accelerate away from you at a rate of 1 meter per second per second. As long as you apply the force, of course.

How do I do that? The mass m has disappeared. I could not run after it.

What the hell? The mass disappears?
I never said anything about a disappearing mass. In fact, if I recall correctly, that would violate the conservation of energy.

Just assume you can run along side the mass and continue applying a 1 Newton force for as long as you need to. And please don't quibble about being on a frictionless surface. You are not on the frictionless surface, only the 1 kilogram mass is.

Evidently the mass m does not apply a force -F on me, in this case, as there is no contact.

As long as you apply a force of 1 Newton on the block, you experience an equal reaction of 1 Newton ion the opposite direction. But we aren't looking at you, only the behaviour of the mass. I'm trying (again) to illustrate your error.

Now to the static Pizza Tower. I put a mass 1 kg on it (three pizzas?) and and it applies a force F = 1g N on my Pizza Tower (gravity at work) and my Pizza Tower applies a force -F on the mass 1 kg (Newton's third law at work). Reason - because there is contact. Happens every time.

The falling upper section IS NOT A STATIC SITUATION!!
Why can you not understand this?

<snip>

No no. We are not addressing the tower as a whole yet, because you don't understand your error yet. One step at a time. Tackling a whole boatload of issues all at once will only result in a confusing and erratic thread, allowing you to dodge and spin and switch topics at your convenience. No. Instead, I am pinning you to this one issue, which is central to your physical model. As such, it is related to the OP. I've just narrowed the scope a little for clarity.



Now, I have an addendum to the thought experiment I gave you previously. You more or less passed the previous thought experiment. I don't know why you think the mass disappeared, but at least you show that it will accelerate under imbalanced forces.


Here is the next experiment:

As before, you have a 1 kilogram mass resting on a frictionless surface (you are not on the frictionless surface).
You apply a continuous 1 Newton force to the mass.
You have already agreed that the mass will accelerate at 1 meter per second per second under the influence of this force.

However, after one second, a friend appears and applies a force of 12 Newton to the block, in the opposite direction to the 1 Newton force you are applying. You don't stop applying your force, neither does your friend. Instead, you both continue applying forces of 1 Newton in opposite directions to the mass.

What is the motion (velocity, acceleration and direction) of the mass?
Assume the direction you initially pushed the mass is positive.​