Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

 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.
 Tags safety factors , wtc

 18th March 2009, 11:18 PM #161 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by bill smith Oh-oh.....it looks like Bazant may be vindicated after all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAc...11blogger.com/ And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m?
 18th March 2009, 11:40 PM #162 Minadin Master Poster     Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 2,469 Originally Posted by Gravy Let's say that the engineers are wrong and your Factor of Safety calculations are correct. You believe that stacks of match boxes or lemons are valid analogs to the structures of the Twin Towers, and you propose experiments with these objects to prove that the towers could not have collapsed. Other truthers have attempted to demonstrate the same concept by using, for example, empty aluminum soda cans to model the towers, neglecting to consider the fact that a soda can, unlike the towers, will support several thousand times its own weight. These amateur modelers do not understand scaling of materials and structures. So, Heiwa, what are the factors of safety for your match box and lemon models? This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity).
 19th March 2009, 12:00 AM #163 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,077 Originally Posted by Minadin This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity). Remember the plastic office tray guy who posted here, and the medical doctor who arrived over a year later with an updated version of the same model, complete with videos and calculations? These guys, like Heiwa, are desperately ignorant of scaling. BTW, I can tell you that the empty aluminum cans I tested before doing a demo at TAM had a factor of safety for static load of at least 7,150. So, Heiwa, we await your FOS figures for your boxes and fruit, to show how valid they are as models for these FOS = 2 or 3 towers. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
 19th March 2009, 01:16 AM #164 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by Minadin This is an excellent question, given the subject of the thread. (the one I have bolded) What is the FoS for an aluminium can, a pizza box, or a lemon? I know that Heiwa has now decided to claim that the FoS is unimportant - I am not certain why anyone would say that - but he did propose some of these things as valid analogies to the structure in the Twin Towers, so I would be curious to hear his response (If I weren't certain that it would be comprised by bull-spit, hand-waving, denial, change of subject, more bad analogies, and utter stupidity). FoS of a lemon? 1. Put a lemon on the table. Put 1 lemon on top! Both deform at contact interface (if you look hard). Nothing else really happens. 2. Put a lemon on a table. Drop 1 lemon on table lemon. Both deform at contact interface and dropped lemon bounces. Note carefully that table lemon is not crushed. What is reason for 2. Well, the lemon or its structure consists of various elements that make up the lemon, each of which can be tested and analysed. I like the lemon juice, FoS of which is of little importance and difficult to measure but adds taste to a G&T - the juice, not the FoS! To get lemon juice, cut lemon in two halves and compress them using thumb + fingers (or special tool). Note that gravity alone does not produce juice. No use abusing gravity for it. Inside lemon are also fibres of various kind. You can test those and establish their FoS, if you are clever. Funny thing is that the juice appears to support the fibres, etc. This effect contributes to 1 and 2 above. Suggest you start another thread about this interesting topic!
 19th March 2009, 01:49 AM #165 Baylor Philosopher   Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 8,394 Eurotrash.
 19th March 2009, 01:54 AM #166 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by Heiwa And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m? Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose. __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 19th March 2009 at 01:55 AM. Reason: spelling
 19th March 2009, 02:11 AM #167 funk de fino Dreaming of unicorns     Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: UAE Posts: 11,938 Originally Posted by bill smith Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose. pasta __________________ Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
 19th March 2009, 02:27 AM #168 Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,755 Originally Posted by Heiwa And RyanMackay is in another thread trying to produce a 1 m tall model/structure showing it, i.e. how little part C crushes down big part A of same structure by gravity only. Ryan suggests that it really doesn't work in scale 1/1, but if you scale up the model 410 times to become 410x64x64 m, then it will! It seems that scale factor is a problem for Ryan. In scale 1/1 some structural items/elements/connections/particulars become too strong so that the model doesn't crush down but if you scale up 410 times apparently some items/elements/connections/particulars become weak and then ... halleluja ... upper part C crushes bigger part A. Ryan is going to show his work in a video soon. I wonder what kind of model he will show? The 1 m or the 410 m? Although disjointed to the point of near-incomprehensibility, this rambling mess illustrates a point I've made before about the futility of trying to prove anything to the truth movement about the WTC collapses using scale models. Even if it were possible to take into account the scaling issues by adjusting the dimensions and/or material strengths of the support structure of the models, so that the behaviour of the model could be expected by an educated, competent and reasonable-minded engineer to replicate the behaviour of the full-size structure, its results would be rejected by the truth movement on the grounds that the very measures taken to address the scaling issues had biased the structure in favour of collapse. Sadly, "educated, competent and reasonable-minded" is not a description that can be applied to conspiracy theorists; many fail even to achieve two out of three. Dave __________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
 19th March 2009, 03:02 AM #169 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by bill smith Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete constructions quite well. What will they use to replicate the core and perimeter columns ? Knitting needles I suppose. The sawdust-n-glue cubes model is developed by Benson, co-author of the BLGB paper with Bazant. Apparently a sawdust-n-glue cube fits the various differential equations there? Mackay is apparently trying another approach - his 1 m model columns are getting too strong. He could try match sticks or wax tapers, though. In all events, upper part C can never crush down lower part A due to drop + gravity. Upper part C always breaks up in the process. I wonder why they cannot understand that (or why they insist that part C must be rigid).
 19th March 2009, 03:13 AM #170 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by funk de fino pasta If you used sbrought-to-scale pasta in a model with pressed glue and sawdust floors I think you might be close to a convincing model.With around three hundred pasta supports I doubt that the model would collapse when you dropped te top 10% a short distance on to the bottom 90% __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 19th March 2009 at 03:18 AM. Reason: spelling
 19th March 2009, 03:29 AM #171 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by Heiwa The sawdust-n-glue cubes model is developed by Benson, co-author of the BLGB paper with Bazant. Apparently a sawdust-n-glue cube fits the various differential equations there? Mackay is apparently trying another approach - his 1 m model columns are getting too strong. He could try match sticks or wax tapers, though. In all events, upper part C can never crush down lower part A due to drop + gravity. Upper part C always breaks up in the process. I wonder why they cannot understand that (or why they insist that part C must be rigid). Hi Heiwa. This clip opens with what I think looks like a smoke machine which you may have seen mentioned here and there. Anyway what I wanted to show you is just after that you see a load of stuff fall off the upper block of WTC2. i think that that upper bock at least cannot be said to have been rigid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8lrTy5mrZY All three Towers __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 19th March 2009 at 04:10 AM. Reason: spelling
 19th March 2009, 03:42 AM #173 twinstead Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,374 [OT] I'd like Heiwa to comment on bill smith's smoke generators. Bill desperately wants some kind of acknowledgment. [/OT] __________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison Last edited by twinstead; 19th March 2009 at 03:43 AM.
 19th March 2009, 03:46 AM #174 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by twinstead [OT] I'd like Heiwa to comment on bill smith's smoke generators. Bill desperately wants some kind of acknowledgment. [/OT] Not at all. It's just a curiousity after all. It may have it's uses at another point though. __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
 19th March 2009, 04:10 AM #175 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by bill smith Not at all. It's just a curiousity after all. It may have it's uses at another point though. Gravity* does not produce smoke, so I have to pass on that one. To me WTC 1 & 2 look like volcanos erupting with gases, ashes, &c thrown out. *Gravity is simply the attractive force between two bodies/masses. No smoke there!
 19th March 2009, 05:10 AM #176 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,077 Heiwa? Cat got your tongue? Since it may take you a day to buy the match boxes, why not hazard a guess as to their FoS in the meantime? No one will hold you to it, but I'm just curious. Are you estimating a FoS of 3? __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
 19th March 2009, 07:10 AM #177 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by Gravy Heiwa? Cat got your tongue? Since it may take you a day to buy the match boxes, why not hazard a guess as to their FoS in the meantime? No one will hold you to it, but I'm just curious. Are you estimating a FoS of 3? FoS of match box? 1. Put match box on table. Put another match box on table match box until you have put on n match boxes, when table match box is crushed. FoS = n or 1 match box could carry n boxes. n is probably not 3, but you never know. You have to try. Note only table match box is crushed. The other n boxes remain intact. 2. Put same match box on floor. Step on it! Floor match box is crushed. Why? You are too heavy! You have to slim down ... and then you can safely step on a match box. Good luck. Last edited by Heiwa; 19th March 2009 at 07:12 AM.
 19th March 2009, 07:12 AM #178 Disbelief Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 2,890 Originally Posted by Heiwa FoS of match box? 1. Put match box on table. Put another match box on table match box until you have put on n match boxes, when table match box is crushed. FoS = n or 1 match box could carry n boxes. n is probably not 3, but you never know. You have to try. 2. Put same match box on floor. Step on it! Floor match box is crushed. Why? You are too heavy! You have to slim down ... and then you can safely step on a match box. Good luck. So, you can't answer the question. Big surprise. __________________ Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same? Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
 19th March 2009, 08:19 AM #179 Sunstealer Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128 Answering questions is not a big priority in the truth movement. If you ask questions they claim it's a denial tactic or some other nonsense. The fact of the matter is they can't answer the questions put forward to them, because it would show they are wrong hence, the slithering to avoid direct answers.
 19th March 2009, 08:28 AM #180 tfk Illuminator   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 3,454 Heiwa, Factor of Safety for a damaged vs. undamaged structure. I have a chair. It is rated to carry 200 lbs. From experiment, I find it will collapse if I put ~600 lbs on it. FoS = 3. Now, I chop off one leg. Are you claiming that the FoS for my 3 legged chair is now 3/4 x 3 = 2.3? Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to carry 450 lbs before it collapses? Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to stand up at all? All of the above is PRECISELY what you are doing when you apply the FoS generated for an intact building to a damaged one. tom
 19th March 2009, 09:54 AM #181 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by tfk Heiwa, Factor of Safety for a damaged vs. undamaged structure. I have a chair. It is rated to carry 200 lbs. From experiment, I find it will collapse if I put ~600 lbs on it. FoS = 3. Now, I chop off one leg. Are you claiming that the FoS for my 3 legged chair is now 3/4 x 3 = 2.3? Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to carry 450 lbs before it collapses? Are you claiming that my 3 legged chair should be able to stand up at all? All of the above is PRECISELY what you are doing when you apply the FoS generated for an intact building to a damaged one. tom But I just explained the FoS of a damaged matchbox versus n undamaged ones. FoS = n! As far as I am concerned match boxes do not have legs! I appreciate that you rate chairs to carry loads, US citizens getting heavier I am told - big bellows and fat legs, &c, but a four legger is different from a three legger, i.e. 3<4. Or 4>3! Anyway, I will be on the Hardfire show next week - I wonder who invited me - so I have to test my skis in the slopes before that.
 19th March 2009, 10:25 AM #182 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by jaydeehess ,,,,,,,, and still we wait for confirmation that this \$million challenge actually is more than huffing and puffing,,,,,,,,,,,, <> Heiwa, your new disciple, bill, was chomping at the bit to see this challenge go ahead.
 19th March 2009, 10:35 AM #183 KTB Scholar   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 100 Why are you Heiwa blabbering on about "part C crushing part A"? The collapses didn't happen that way. The floors were broken one at a time. Are you claiming the upper part couldn't break the first floor below? And after that of course the next, and the next etc. Eg. the beams didn't get crushed, they just broke apart when the structure broke with the floors. You make it sound as if somebody has claimed that when the upper part hit the whole lower structure suddenly failed. Which of course didn't happen. Compare eg. to dominoes. The first doesn't cursh the entire structure, but don goes all the pieces.
 19th March 2009, 11:19 AM #184 Architect Chief Punkah Wallah     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 9,749 Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP Originally Posted By Arquitect: I bet! Vaya vaya, so you're telling me you ignore people who you could embarrass so easilly with your CALCS and FIGURES? I know. It's great, isn't it? __________________ When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies. James Keir Hardie (1856 - 1915): Politician, Founder of Scottish Labour Party
 19th March 2009, 11:29 AM #185 Lennart Hyland Muse     Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 618 Originally Posted by Gravy Remember that you cannot now claim this isn't important. Two days ago you said this: Bolding mine. You cannot simultaneously claim that the towers should have behaved structurally like your models but that your models need not behave structurally like the towers. Any reply Heiwa? __________________ 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
 19th March 2009, 01:06 PM #186 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland Any reply Heiwa? I just repeat myself. A part C of a structure* A (C 1/10th of A) cannot crush down A, when dropping by gravity on A. C will be locally damaged as A (C may even bounce) and no crush down will take place. Quite basic! This rule apply to any structure at any scale, so you don't have to model it. If anybody can show me a structure where part C will crush down A of it, she/he will win a prize. *Just to prove it, I demonstrate this with ship blocks dropped during construction on other blocks, steel modules dropping on other modules, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, steel beam structures, wedding cakes, WTC 1, sawdust-n-glue cubes, all dropping on themselves, &c. They all behave as I predict. It has nothing to do with FoS of elements in them or similar. It is simply because equal type structures produce equal local damages on one another at collision contact (by gravity or horizontally by other forces - it does not matter). Therefore little C cannot crush big A.
 19th March 2009, 01:10 PM #187 stateofgrace Guest   Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,843 Originally Posted by KTB Why are you Heiwa blabbering on about "part C crushing part A"? The collapses didn't happen that way. The floors were broken one at a time. Are you claiming the upper part couldn't break the first floor below? And after that of course the next, and the next etc. Eg. the beams didn't get crushed, they just broke apart when the structure broke with the floors. You make it sound as if somebody has claimed that when the upper part hit the whole lower structure suddenly failed. Which of course didn't happen. Compare eg. to dominoes. The first doesn't cursh the entire structure, but don goes all the pieces. He knows this, it as been pointed out countless times by countless members. It is simply ignored and to be honest so is the insanity he babbles.
 19th March 2009, 01:15 PM #188 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by Heiwa I just repeat myself. A part C of a structure* A (C 1/10th of A) cannot crush down A, when dropping by gravity on A. C will be locally damaged as A (C may even bounce) and no crush down will take place. Quite basic! This rule apply to any structure at any scale, so you don't have to model it. If anybody can show me a structure where part C will crush down A of it, she/he will win a prize. *Just to prove it, I demonstrate this with ship blocks dropped during construction on other blocks, steel modules dropping on other modules, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, steel beam structures, wedding cakes, WTC 1, sawdust-n-glue cubes, all dropping on themselves, &c. They all behave as I predict. It has nothing to do with FoS of elements in them or similar. It is simply because equal type structures produce equal local damages on one another at collision contact (by gravity or horizontally by other forces - it does not matter). Therefore little C cannot crush big A. Heiwa, as a matter of interest, how significant would it be if Bazant is completely debunked ? What would it mean for the official account of 9/11 ? __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal' Last edited by bill smith; 19th March 2009 at 01:16 PM. Reason: spelling
 19th March 2009, 01:28 PM #189 Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 7,866 So can somebody update me on whether Heiwa has submitted his calculations concerning the FOS of the tower's design without attempting to inject pizza boxes, lemons, pillows, cherries, pepperoni sticks, wedding cakes, &b the like? I gather from what I see, what I'm hoping to expect from him is but a pipe dream... __________________ Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg
 19th March 2009, 01:30 PM #190 stateofgrace Guest   Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,843 Originally Posted by bill smith Heiwa, as a matter of interest, how significant would it be if Bazant is completely debunked ? What would it mean for the official account of 9/11 ? Good questions Please allow me to repeat them Quote: as a matter of interest, how significant would it be if Bazant is completely debunked ? Quote: What would it mean for the official account of 9/11 Well, Heiwa, how does the ideal scenario as described by Bazant, if proved incorrect impact of the so called "official story”? I await your expert opinion. Last edited by stateofgrace; 19th March 2009 at 01:49 PM.
 19th March 2009, 01:40 PM #191 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,077 Originally Posted by Heiwa FoS of match box? 1. Put match box on table. Put another match box on table match box until you have put on n match boxes, when table match box is crushed. FoS = n or 1 match box could carry n boxes. n is probably not 3, but you never know. You have to try. Note only table match box is crushed. The other n boxes remain intact. You don't think your proposed models would behave structurally like the towers and you don't intend to find out, despite that knowledge being easily attained. It isn't me who has to "try," it's you, and you need to do that to avoid making a fool of yourself as you have done here. Claiming that your models are valid analogs to the towers is a lie. Clear enough? __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard Last edited by Gravy; 19th March 2009 at 01:45 PM.
 19th March 2009, 01:48 PM #192 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,077 Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear So can somebody update me on whether Heiwa has submitted his calculations concerning the FOS of the tower's design without attempting to inject pizza boxes, lemons, pillows, cherries, pepperoni sticks, wedding cakes, &b the like? I gather from what I see, what I'm hoping to expect from him is but a pipe dream... He tried and came up with a number of 3. I've accepted that for the sake of argument and asked him to compare that to the FoS of his proposed models. His reply? "You do it." __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
19th March 2009, 02:03 PM   #193
A W Smith
Philosopher

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Modeling Scale using the femur

Originally Posted by Heiwa
I just repeat myself. A part C of a structure* A (C 1/10th of A) cannot crush down A, when dropping by gravity on A. C will be locally damaged as A (C may even bounce) and no crush down will take place. Quite basic!
This rule apply to any structure at any scale, so you don't have to model it.
If anybody can show me a structure where part C will crush down A of it, she/he will win a prize.

*Just to prove it, I demonstrate this with ship blocks dropped during construction on other blocks, steel modules dropping on other modules, pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, steel beam structures, wedding cakes, WTC 1, sawdust-n-glue cubes, all dropping on themselves, &c. They all behave as I predict. It has nothing to do with FoS of elements in them or similar. It is simply because equal type structures produce equal local damages on one another at collision contact (by gravity or horizontally by other forces - it does not matter). Therefore little C cannot crush big A.
No, You do not understand the argument of Scaling

 YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. I AGREE

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-...il/embed01.htm

Scroll ahead to 11:10 in the video above to where the Scaling Argument is addressed in the lecture

Here is the relevant part of the transcript from MIT professor Walter Lewins lecture.
Quote:
Galileo Galilei asked himself the question: Why are mammals as large as they are and not much larger? He had a very clever reasoning which I've never seen in print.
But it comes down to the fact that he argued that if the mammal becomes too massive that the bones will break and he thought that that was a limiting factor.
Even though I've never seen his reasoning in print I will try to reconstruct it what could have gone through his head.
Here is a mammal.
And this is one of the four legs of the mammal.
And this mammal has a size S.
And what I mean by that is a mouse is yay big and a cat is yay big.
That's what I mean by size--
very crudely defined.
The mass of the mammal is M and this mammal has a thigh bone which we call the femur, which is here.
And the femur of course carries the body, to a large extent.
And let's assume that the femur has a length l and has a thickness d.
Here is a femur.
This is what a femur approximately looks like.
So this will be the length of the femur...
and this will be the thickness, d and this will be the cross-sectional area A.
I'm now going to take you through what we call in physics a scaling argument.
I would argue that the length of the femur must be proportional to the size of the animal.
That's completely plausible.
If an animal is four times larger than another you would need four times longer legs.
And that's all this is saying.
It's very reasonable.
It is also very reasonable that the mass of an animal is proportional to the third power of the size because that's related to its volume.
And so if it's related to the third power of the size it must also be proportional to the third power of the length of the femur because of this relationship.
Okay, that's one.
Now comes the argument.
Pressure on the femur is proportional to the weight of the animal divided by the cross-section A of the femur.
That's what pressure is.
And that is the mass of the animal that's proportional to the mass of the animal divided by d squared because we want the area here, it's proportional to d squared.
If the pressure is higher than a certain level the bones will break.
Therefore, for an animal not to break its bones when the mass goes up by a certain factor let's say a factor of four in order for the bones not to break d squared must also go up by a factor of four.
That's a key argument in the scaling here.
You really have to think that through carefully.
Therefore, I would argue that the mass must be proportional to d squared.
This is the breaking argument.
Now compare these two.
The mass is proportional to the length of the femur to the power three and to the thickness of the femur to the power two.
Therefore, the thickness of the femur to the power two must be proportional to the length l and therefore the thickness of the femur must be proportional to l to the power three-halfs.
A very interesting result.
What is this result telling you? It tells you that if I have two animals and one is ten times larger than the other then S is ten times larger that the lengths of the legs are ten times larger but that the thickness of the femur is 30 times larger because it is l to the power three halves.
If I were to compare a mouse with an elephant an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size so the length of the femur of the elephant would be a hundred times larger than that of a mouse but the thickness of the femur would have to be 1,000 times larger.
And that may have convinced Galileo Galilei that that's the reason why the largest animals are as large as they are.
Because clearly, if you increase the mass there comes a time that the thickness of the bones is the same as the length of the bones.
You're all made of bones and that is biologically not feasible.
And so there is a limit somewhere set by this scaling law.
Well, I wanted to bring this to a test.
After all I brought my grandmother's statement to a test so why not bring Galileo Galilei's statement to a test? And so I went to Harvard where they have a beautiful collection of femurs and I asked them for the femur of a raccoon and a horse.
A raccoon is this big a horse is about four times bigger so the length of the femur of a horse must be about four times the length of the raccoon.
Close.
So I was not surprised.
Then I measured the thickness, and I said to myself, "Aha!" If the length is four times higher then the thickness has to be eight times higher if this holds.
And what I'm going to plot for you you will see that shortly is d divided by l, versus l and that, of course, must be proportional to l to the power one-half.
I bring one l here.
So, if I compare the horse and I compare the raccoon I would argue that the thickness divided by the length of the femur for the horse must be the square root of four, twice as much as that of the raccoon.
And so I was very anxious to plot that, and I did that and I'll show you the result.
Here is my first result.
So we see there, d over l.
I explained to you why I prefer that.
And here you see the length.
You see here the raccoon and you see the horse.
And if you look carefully, then the d over l for the horse is only about one and a half times larger than the raccoon.
Well, I wasn't too disappointed.
One and a half is not two, but it is in the right direction.
The horse clearly has a larger value for d over l than the raccoon.
I realized I needed more data, so I went back to Harvard.
I said, "Look, I need a smaller animal, an opossum maybe maybe a rat, maybe a mouse," and they said, "okay." They gave me three more bones.
They gave me an antelope which is actually a little larger than a raccoon and they gave me an opossum and they gave me a mouse.
Here is the bone of the antelope.
Here is the one of the raccoon.
Here is the one of the opossum.
And now you won't believe this.
This is so wonderful, so romantic.
There is the mouse.
( students laugh ) Isn't that beautiful? Teeny, weeny little mouse? That's only a teeny, weeny little femur.
And there it is.
I was very curious what that plot would look like.
And...
here it is.
Whew! I was shocked.
I was really shocked.
Because look--
the horse is 50 times larger in size than the mouse.
The difference in d over l is only a factor of two.
And I expected something more like a factor of seven.
And so, in d over l, where I expect a factor of seven I only see a factor of two.
So I said to myself, "Oh, my goodness. Why didn't I ask them for an elephant?" The real clincher would be the elephant because if that goes way off scale maybe we can still rescue the statement by Galileo Galilei and so I went back and they said "Okay, we'll give you the femur of an elephant."
They also gave me one of a moose, believe it or not.
I think they wanted to get rid of me by that time to be frank with you.
And here is the femur of an elephant.
And I measured it.
The length and the thickness.
And it is very heavy.
It weighs a ton.
I plotted it, I was full of expectation.
I couldn't sleep all night.
And there's the elephant.
There is no evidence whatsoever that d over l is really larger for the elephant than for the mouse.
These vertical bars indicate my uncertainty in measurements of thickness and the horizontal scale, which is a logarithmic scale...
the uncertainty of the length measurements is in the thickness of the red pen so there's no need for me to indicate that any further.
And here you have your measurements in case you want to check them.
And look again at the mouse and look at the elephant.
The mouse has indeed only one centimeter length of the femur and the elephant is, indeed, hundred times longer.
So the first scaling argument that S is proportional to l that is certainly what you would expect because an elephant is about a hundred times larger in size.
But when you go to d over l, you see it's all over.
The d over l for the mouse is really not all that different from the elephant and you would have expected that number to be with the square root of 100 so you expect it to be ten times larger instead of about the same.
So you see here, Anders Bjorkman, "Engineer". You must hand wave off the Scaling Argument to make any of your "modeling" appear valid. This is all very basic stuff. And If you truly do hold any degree in engineering. You already know this. But because your motives are agenda driven (the US rejection of your hull concept for example) You must play this game to the truther audience of fools, "children", and others who have an agenda driven axe to grind. You have been outed Anders.

What say you "Anders Bjorkman" to the argument of scale MIT professor Walter Lewin presents above?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 19th March 2009 at 03:38 PM.

 19th March 2009, 03:30 PM #194 jaydeehess Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 40 miles north of the border Posts: 20,843 Originally Posted by jaydeehess ,,,,,,,, and still we wait for confirmation that this \$million challenge actually is more than huffing and puffing,,,,,,,,,,,, still waiting,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, bill, Heiwa seems to be ignoring you. Must be tough on the pysche to be ignored by your hero.
 19th March 2009, 11:22 PM #195 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by A W Smith No, You do not understand the argument of Scaling What say you "Anders Bjorkman" to the argument of scale MIT professor Walter Lewin presents above? It does not apply to my axiom "A part C of a structure* A (C 1/10th of A) cannot crush down A, when dropping by gravity on A. C will be locally damaged as A (C may even bounce) and no crush down will take place". (* defined elsewhere) A big 400x64x64 m or small 4x0.64x0.64 structure with parts C and A of any kind behaves according this axiom as long as the structure in C and A is the same. I have learnt this from ship collisions. I have seen a 300 m long ship and a 30 m long ship being damaged in separate collisions (gravity force replaced by another, horizontal propulsion force), etc. So I, Anders Björkman, stand by my statement as described in my articles.
 19th March 2009, 11:27 PM #196 Heiwa Banned   Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,148 Originally Posted by bill smith Heiwa, as a matter of interest, how significant would it be if Bazant is completely debunked ? What would it mean for the official account of 9/11 ? Well, I sent an article to the ASCE Journal of Enginering Mechanics about it ... and they still seem to consider what to do. But I do not need ASCE acceptance. In my eyes Bazant and NIST are already completely and scientifically debunked. Now it is a political question. What is politically correct, &c, &c.? I am off skiing.
 19th March 2009, 11:27 PM #197 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17,077 Originally Posted by Heiwa So I, Anders Björkman, stand by my statement as described in my articles. Which is why you, Anders Björkman, will always be wrong. Deliberate ignorance is a terrible thing. Originally Posted by Heiwa I am off skiing. That's what you call it there? Interesting metaphor. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard Last edited by Gravy; 19th March 2009 at 11:29 PM.
 20th March 2009, 12:35 AM #198 dtugg Banned   Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 7,885 Originally Posted by Heiwa Well, I sent an article to the ASCE Journal of Enginering Mechanics about it ... and they still seem to consider what to do. But I do not need ASCE acceptance. In my eyes Bazant and NIST are already completely and scientifically debunked. Now it is a political question. What is politically correct, &c, &c.? I am off skiing. Remember when you told me there was a 100% chance that you would get that article published? Is that still your position? If (by if, I mean when) they don't publish you, are they now part of the coverup? I suppose you could always blame me for emailing them about you and your "Heiwa type experiments."
 20th March 2009, 12:51 AM #199 bill smith Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408 Originally Posted by Heiwa Well, I sent an article to the ASCE Journal of Enginering Mechanics about it ... and they still seem to consider what to do. But I do not need ASCE acceptance. In my eyes Bazant and NIST are already completely and scientifically debunked. Now it is a political question. What is politically correct, &c, &c.? I am off skiing. It sounds like NIST and Bazant are essentially 'dead men walking'. It's not a matter of ''if'.....it's a matter of 'when'. I hope Obama was passing on a coded message when he mentioned 'science being restored to it's rightful place' (or words to that effect). __________________ *Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together *A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
 20th March 2009, 01:35 AM #200 GlennB Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian     Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Pontnewynydd, Wales Posts: 26,945 Originally Posted by Heiwa It does not apply to my axiom "". "Axiom" meaning a self-evident truth ? Oh dear. The megalomania is strong with this one.

International Skeptics Forum