Heiwa's Pizza Box Experiment

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by nicepants

Look it up

A piece of dry pasta is rigid....does that mean (according to you) it is indestructible?

Dry pasta - rigid? It is very flexible and cracks easily. Or you mean a steel rod? Same characteristics. Easy to bend.
Pizza boxes are also flexible and crack easily. But they flex before they crack. Not rigid, anyway.
So you still believe WTC1 upper block is rigid? Only while dropping, of course! Before and after dropping it was not rigid. So why assume it was rigid, while dropping?

[240-185]

Hey, Joe Schmoe, here's a dry macaroni, a rigid thing:



I'm wondering how do you manage to break it easily?
As for me, I can't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxIABr3zVI I need at least a hammer to break it.

[Dave Rogers]

This CD video was just mentioned over on the 9/11 forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE

Not sure why they did it this way, but the charges are set about half way up. Watch the intact upper block crush down through the lower block, Bazant-style. Now that is an observation.

Dave

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Dry pasta - rigid? It is very flexible and cracks easily. Or you mean a steel rod? Same characteristics. Easy to bend.

Do you know what pasta is?
Dry pasta is not "very flexible". (Cooked pasta is)

But if you disagree - give an example of an object which you consider to be "rigid".

Originally Posted by Heiwa

So you still believe WTC1 upper block is rigid?

What I believe is that you don't know what the word "Rigid" means.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by nicepants

Do you know what pasta is?
Dry pasta is not "very flexible". (Cooked pasta is)

But if you disagree - give an example of an object which you consider to be "rigid".

What I believe is that you don't know what the word "Rigid" means.

I thought Bazant meant by rigid is indestructible or at least stronger than the lower structure that apparently was not rigid. Some people think rigid means deficient in or devoid of flexibility and an object with such characteristics is indestructible. If it cannot flex, it cannot be changed. Indestructible. I agree.

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it. Just drop it on the floor.

Rigid objects do not exist in the real world.

But doing structural analysis you always apply a rigid support to the structure you study. Reason is to ensure that it doesn't fly away, when loads are applied. If all loads balance, there is no problem - the structure doesn't fly away - balance. If loads, by mistake, do not balance, you will see that a balance force develops at the rigid support to take accout of the imbalance. If you really look at the rigid support - which has 0 m² contact surface, you will see that the stress there is infinite; force divided by 0 m² becomes infinite stress!. A rigid support evidenty can withstand infinite stress - no flexibility - but using clear thinking you know that your analysis is incorrect.

I have done plenty of structural analysises and rule 1 is to ensure that there is balance of forces. I have even been a teacher of structural analysis and rule 1b is to check that the pupils models are in balance. Very often they are not.

The beauty with structural analysis is that in every problem all forces balance ... all the time.

Bazant is cheating in his analysis. He assumes that the upper block suddenly becomes rigid , i.e. will not flex due to forces applied to it (by the lower structure) at contact. It means that infinite stresses are applied to the upper block at contact ... but that the upper block remains intact. Only the lower structure is affected - shock waves, crush fronts, etc. and such nonsense.

In the real world such nonsense does not happen. Actually the first object to get affected is the moving upper block. It may bounce, get damaged, etc. It always ends in arrest!

Look again at the videos. You do not see any impact upper block/lower structure. Before impact the upper block implodes, horizontal forces are applied to it inwards and sucks down the roof + mast. Very strange.

Later you see a lot of structural parts being ejected horizontally outwards from the lower structure all the time (through the smoke screen) + air jets. Gravity is a vertical force. The horizontal ejections are caused by some other energy - applied in another direction. Don't invent that compressed air ejected parts 200 meters sideways.

And the amount of dust!! To produce dust particles, you must produce a lot of fractures in the structures involved ... and it consumes plenty of energy. Every fracture is molecules ripped away from one another in the structure and at the tip of the fracture temperature is very high ... to permit the molecules to separate. Requires plenty of energy to produce dust.

We know the max energy applied if the upper block dropped. 1.2 GJ or 41 litres of diesel oil. To produce the dust you see on the videos I estimate you need 1000X + that energy. And I wonder where it came from;

Of course, I also wonder why Bazant becomes a con man to fool you. A retired professor. Why on earth should he put his nose into this? Maybe he has financial problems or expensive habits. Con men usually have those.

Anyway - Bazant knows little about structural (damage) analysis. That's clear.

Thanks again for starting the thread. A good opportunity to improve your arguments to debunk Bazant ... and NIST. So just carry on.

PS - Many posters are on my ignore list due to stupid posts in the past so there is no answer from me. Send PM (+ excuse) and I will remove you from the ignore list. Maybe you get an answer then.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it. Just drop it on the floor.

Er, no.

Dry pasta is very inflexible. It breaks readily when you try to bend it. Perhaps you have an English language problem here?

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

an object with such characteristics is indestructible. If it cannot flex, it cannot be changed.

Rigid does not mean indestructible.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it.

Clearly we have a language or intelligence barrier.
Provide the source for your assertion that "cracking immediately when a force is applied to it" is a characteristic of "very flexible" objects.

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Rigid objects do not exist in the real world.

Source?

[Lennart Hyland]

Originally Posted by nicepants

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. Even though such an object cannot physically exist due to relativity, objects can normally be assumed to be perfectly rigid if they are not moving near the speed of light.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by nicepants

Rigid does not mean indestructible.





Clearly we have a language or intelligence barrier.
Provide the source for your assertion that "cracking immediately when a force is applied to it" is a characteristic of "very flexible" objects.



Source?

Re pasta - take a piece of pasta and hold it in your hand. Apply a force F on the pasta or impact pasta with energy E. Actually if you apply force F on the pasta and it deforms distance d, you have applied energy E = Fd on pasta.

What happens then?

1. The pasta transmits the force F to your hand and your hand transmits -F to pasta. Pasta is now under load.
2. When under load the pasta is deformed by F/-F in various ways - depending on how you apply the force, e.g. compressed distance d. If you cannot see any deformation, use glasses or microscope. But I assure you - pasta behaves elastic - like steel. Thus not rigid.
3. The pasta may be subject to local failure, e.g. break if F and slenderness ratio big.
4. Note that the pasta doesn't globally collapse in more than two pieces = one break point only.
5. Note that your hand does not globally collapse.
6. If pasta breaks, look where force F ends up. It is still applied to the broken pasta part not held by your hand and will accelerate it. Where does it end up?
7. After having broken all pasta objets and swept up some pieces from floor, put them in pot an boil for 5-8 minutes and have lunch. Bon appetite!

Maybe I should start a new thread Heiwa's Pasta Experiment?

[nicepants]

You missed this:

Originally Posted by nicepants

Provide the source for your assertion that "cracking immediately when a force is applied to it" is a characteristic of "very flexible" objects.

[HawksFan]

And round and round we go...

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it. Just drop it on the floor.

Stundied.

[catbasket]

In case I forget to vote, I vote for flexible pasta.

Thinking I may have fallen through a rift in the space/time continuum I Asked Oxford

Originally Posted by Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English

flexible

• adjective 1 capable of bending easily without breaking.

Pah! Bleedin' OED, what do they know about English words?

[twinstead]

All you need is a little boiling water, and presto, you have flexible pasta. Oh, a little marinara and some garlic bread completes the experiment.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by twinstead

All you need is a little boiling water, and presto, you have flexible pasta. Oh, a little marinara and some garlic bread completes the experiment.

Look, we're still trying to figure out how pizza fits into all this, don't go bringing Garlic Bread into it!

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by nicepants

You missed this:

Did I? Question remains if the upper block is rigid as assumed by Bazant or non-rigid as suggested by me. A rigid block according Bazant is not damaged when in contact with a lower structure. Then it causes crush down of lower structure and remains undamaged, i.e. it is indestructible. However, the same upper, rigid block is damaged when it lands on a heap of soft rubble after crush down according Bazant. Then the rigid upper block is destroyed by a crush up caused by the soft rubble below.

As the lower structure is stronger than a heap of rubble of the same lower structure, I would expect crush up of the upper block - rigid or not - to commence when it contacts the lower structure ... and not 15 seconds later in contact with a heap of rubble.

Reason why crush up occurs is that upper block is flexible and deforms when forces are applied on it. If the forces are great enough, they will not just cause flexible, elastic deformations of parts of the upper block but also failures; flexible, elastic parts will bend and when they bend to much they fail, e.g. fracture, crack. This happens to non-rigid structures.

A structure cannot be rigid one moment and non-rigid another moment but this is what Bazant assumes. Typical con man trick.

[nicepants]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Did I?

Yes.

Please answer the question which you have now ignored 2x:

Originally Posted by nicepants

Provide the source for your assertion that "cracking immediately when a force is applied to it" is a characteristic of "very flexible" objects.

[catbasket]

Heiwa, I'm feeling generous today so rather than assuming that you have less intelligence than my stupid cat I will instead assume you don't believe a single word of what you post about your "experiments".

[240-185]

Quote:

Dry pasta is very flexible - it cracks immediately when a force is applied to it. Just drop it on the floor.

I've just done that with my dry macaroni. It didn't break. Must I conclude that this macaroni is a NWO pasta?

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Snow

Heiwa, I'm feeling generous today so rather than assuming that you have less intelligence than my stupid cat I will instead assume you don't believe a single word of what you post about your "experiments".

This 'hotpants' or whatever started the thread about the PBT experiment.

BTW - an experiment is, e.g. 'a test or trial carried out carefully in order to study what happens and gain new knowledge'.

So, I believe in experiments ... to gain new knowledge. And the PBT experiment doesn't cost much if you eat the pizzas afterwards. BUT - no need for pizzas in the boxes. Costs less. Bazant and NIST are too poor to experiment.

Why do a PBT experiment? Well, you can remain sleepy in front of the TV and just accept the nonsense there. Or experiment.

Re cats ... do not underestimate yours. He/she is not stupid. But friendly. To keep you happy ... and off TV. Look out for tigers, though.

[Jonnyclueless]

Has anyone addressed what happens when you fill the pizza boxes with explosives?

[Toke]

Can a fuelfire heat a pizzabox to meltingpoint?

[TheDaver]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

BTW - an experiment is, e.g. 'a test or trial carried out carefully in order to study what happens and gain new knowledge'.

So, I believe in experiments ... to gain new knowledge. And the PBT experiment doesn't cost much if you eat the pizzas afterwards. BUT - no need for pizzas in the boxes.

But, the PBT “experiment” fails completely in the areas of carefully and gains new knowledge.

Quote:

Costs less. Bazant and NIST are too poor to experiment.

Yeah, of course. They were too poor to scrape together a couple of pizza boxes so they settled for hundreds of hours of research and professional computer simulations instead.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Has anyone addressed what happens when you fill the pizza boxes with explosives?

of course, we'll need to scale them down. Maybe use lady fingers.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by TheDaver

But, the PBT “experiment” fails completely in the areas of carefully and gains new knowledge.


Yeah, of course. They were too poor to scrape together a couple of pizza boxes so they settled for hundreds of hours of research and professional computer simulations instead.

The PBT experiment provides new knowledge to those who don't know what an impact is. Observation is also required before you do research and computer simulations.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_Gc...eature=related

[rwguinn]

As Mythbusters proved last night, the Pepperoni Pizza (in its box and "Hot" carrier), in stacks of as few as 5 pizzas, will stop a bullet.
Therefore, Pizza and boxes are biased toward non-collapse...

[catbasket]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

<snip>

Look out for tigers, though.

Thank you. You've finally posted something I can agree with.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Has anyone addressed what happens when you fill the pizza boxes with explosives?

Why don't you try it? Why don't you try anything?

[Zipster]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Why don't you try it? Why don't you try anything?

Do you really need someone to actually blow up a stack of pizza boxes to prove that explosives will blow up a stack of pizza boxes?

How about we do it in your back yard so you can readily see the results? Just give us your address and we'll proceed to carry out the experiment in front of your eyes.

The police, fire, and medical personnel that show up as a result of the explosions will be your responsibility.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Zipster

Do you really need someone to actually blow up a stack of pizza boxes to prove that explosives will blow up a stack of pizza boxes?

How about we do it in your back yard so you can readily see the results? Just give us your address and we'll proceed to carry out the experiment in front of your eyes.

The police, fire, and medical personnel that show up as a result of the explosions will be your responsibility.

The PBT experiment is quite safe if you follow instructions. The upper part - the impactor - will just bounce on the PBT! And that's what should have happened on 9/11. What you see on all videos is just an exotic CD that Bazant and Nist later blame on a little flexible, low weight upper part consisting of some columns, a few floors ... and plenty of air.

I am still very curious how this exotic CD was arranged. Any ideas?

[Toke]

How long is the stack to burn before impact?

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Toke

How long is the stack to burn before impact?

Nothing is burning in the PBT experiment! Just drop the PBT impactor and note how it bounces on the PBT. Same thing should have happen with the WTC1 upper part impactor!
You don't believe still the Bazant/NIST global collapse ensues propagande, do you?

[Smackety]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

Nothing is burning in the PBT experiment! Just drop the PBT impactor and note how it bounces on the PBT. Same thing should have happen with the WTC1 upper part impactor!
You don't believe still the Bazant/NIST global collapse ensues propagande, do you?

The WTC1 impactor should have bounced? Do you think you might have a slight scaling error?

[Toke]

You got the experiment wrong, the towers were burning before collapsing.
So of course the pbt has to burn as well for some time before impact.

The problem is how to scale the burning time.

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Toke

You got the experiment wrong, the towers were burning before collapsing.
So of course the pbt has to burn as well for some time before impact.

The problem is how to scale the burning time.

No, the PBT experiment starts when the upper part - the impactor - is dropped. No burning. Only the impactor effect on the intact (not burned) lower structure is studied. And it bounces every time.

[Toke]

How can that be relevant?
The towers were burning.

[Homeland Insurgency]

Has anyone here made a better experiment yet?

[Jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Has anyone here made a better experiment yet?

Breaking wind would be a better experiment. To ask if anyone has made a better experiment in regards to an invalid experiment is a bit silly don't you think? What are you hoping for? Someone maybe moving up to a beer keg experiment?

[Homeland Insurgency]

Originally Posted by Jonnyclueless

Breaking wind would be a better experiment. To ask if anyone has made a better experiment in regards to an invalid experiment is a bit silly don't you think? What are you hoping for? Someone maybe moving up to a beer keg experiment?

Anything besides empty ridicule would be a change.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency

Anything besides empty ridicule would be a change.