|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#761 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#762 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
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. |
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#763 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,074
|
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 |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#764 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
![]() |
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#765 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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 mē contact surface, you will see that the stress there is infinite; force divided by 0 mē 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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#766 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 30,352
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#767 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
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? |
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#768 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 766
|
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. |
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#769 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#770 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
You missed this:
Originally Posted by nicepants
|
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#771 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Posts: 549
|
And round and round we go...
|
__________________
"Oh that's right, you're an irrational, UNREASONABLE, piece of <radio edit> who hides behind his computer screen and expects action..." - Aldo |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#772 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 437
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#773 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
|
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
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#774 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
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.
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#775 |
NWO Kitty Wrangler
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 29,690
|
|
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#776 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#777 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,723
|
|
__________________
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#778 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
|
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".
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#779 |
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
|
Quote:
|
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh* My 9/11 Crackpot Index |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#780 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#781 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Has anyone addressed what happens when you fill the pizza boxes with explosives?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#782 |
Godless Socialist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,171
|
Can a fuelfire heat a pizzabox to meltingpoint?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#783 |
hairy farting brute
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 970
|
But, the PBT experiment fails completely in the areas of carefully and gains new knowledge.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#784 |
NWO Master Conspirator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
|
|
__________________
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#785 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#786 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
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... |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#787 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#788 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#789 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 178
|
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 fire commander was not a memeber of the FDNY at that time, he was in charge of all the units there. That means police, rescue, contractors, demo. -ULTIMA1 ![]() Last time i checked the FDR is not a part from the plane. -ULTIMA1 ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#790 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#791 |
Godless Socialist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,171
|
How long is the stack to burn before impact?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#792 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#793 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,161
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#794 |
Godless Socialist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,171
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#795 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#796 |
Godless Socialist
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,171
|
How can that be relevant?
The towers were burning. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#797 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
Has anyone here made a better experiment yet?
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#798 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#799 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#800 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|