https://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2014/09/wtc-torneja-ei-rajaytetty

"
WTC-TORNEJA EI RÄJÄYTETTY "

https://hameemmias.vuodatus.net/lue/2015/09/wtc-tower-were-not-demolished-with-explosives

World Trade Center towers were not demolished with explosives
10 / 09 / 2011 "

Äijän, Anders Björkmanin jutut ja keskustelut niistä, joissa minäkin kumosin hölmöy-det moneen kertaan, on huolellisesti poistettu netistä. Nyt onnistuin kuitenkun haulla "WTC Heiwa" löytämään yhden: tällaisen (kansainvälinen skeptikkoliike, vaikka onkin antipavlovistiliike, tekee joskus yksittäisissä asioissa yksittäisiä hyviäkin töitä):

AB2013.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4481512&postcount=1851

3rd March 2009, 06:11 AM   #1851

Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by Architect View Post
" With respect, this is just plain wrong.

Firstly - as has been pointed out to you many, many times - the towers employed a compiste structural system wherein the outer envelope, floors, inner core, and hat trusses acted together to ensure overall stability. A failure of any one of these there-fore affects the stability of the overall structure.Your model assumes that each section is structurally stable (barring the fall itself and the immediate crush zone), which is patently not the case.

Secondly, and very closely linked to this, you continually refer to intact sections out-with the collapse and crush zones without ever demonstrating that the columns and beams - for this is what you focus on - are capable of accepting the loads without further failure.

Thirdly, you have been challenged numerous times to produce competent structural calculations in the face of what is best described as scathing criticism of your genera-lisations. You have failed to do so. That does not qualify as "not being able to prove you wrong". Rather, you have wholly failed to prove yourself correct. "
 
 
Firstly it is recognized that the towers consisted of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss.

The perimeter walls are steel columns connected by steel spandrels. The core struc-ture is steel columns connected by steel beams. The floors are steel trusses carrying a steel/concrete composite; trusses are bolted to the perimeter walls and the core structure;

The hat truss is simply steel beams connecting perimeter walls and core structure at roof level.

All steel structure is designed with FoS > 3.

Secondly, the towers have great redundancy. You can remove parts of perimeter walls, core structure and floors anywhere and nothing happens except local falures! Example - a plane slices a perimeter wall and damages core structure and floors.

Thirdly, if you read my articles carefully you find a fair amount of structural calcu-lations to confirm above and the stability of the parts. Also is described the step by step method to do proper structural damage analysis, the latter which neither NIST nor Bazant & Co has done.

It is pointed out that the alleged destruction is not a collapse but a crush down! An upper part C is alleged to drop on a lower part A.

As the upper part C consists of perimeter walls, core structure, floors and a hat truss it is then described what these sub-parts can inflict on the lower part A, which is similar to part C except for the hat truss.

And the result is quite clear; the stronger sub-parts of C and A will damage the wea-ker sub-parts, i.e. columns will damage floors and the interface at contact changes, which you have to analyse in the second step.

NIST and Bazant & Co deny this.They suggest that the bottom floor of part C remains intact and is capable of crushing/compressing part A perimeter walls, core structure and floors from top to bottom only assisted by gravity. This is ridiculous. The bottom floors of part C is the first to be affected at contact. So it will be destroyed. And also the second floor of part C may be destroyed if there is enough energy available to do that.

However, the available potential energy of the first step is quite small - say 340 kWh or 1.22 GJ. It is hardly enough for walls and core structure to penetrate the bottom floor of part C and top floor of part A. Thus, further destruction will be stopped already then! As most structure remains intact part C will just bounce on part A and then get stuck up top.

Finally, if you read my articles carefully you see that I describe a completely different destruction of the towers! Part C is destroyed prior dropping on part A. Part C is destroyed by controlled demolition producing a smoke and dust screen that in turn hides - or try to hide - the controlled demolition of part A that follows.

The controlled demolition of parts C and A is quite obvious to the trained eye.
I wonder how NIST and Bazant & Co could have missed that?



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137095
 

8th March 2009, 09:19 AM   #1

Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
 
A Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

Heiwa

You have claimed on the "gravity collapse" thread that:

 
Originally Posted by Heiwa
All steel structure is designed with FoS > 3.

Secondly, the towers have great redundancy. You can remove parts of perimeter walls, core structure and floors anywhere and nothing happens except local falures! Example - a plane slices a perimeter wall and damages core structure and floors.

Thirdly, if you read my articles carefully you find a fair amount of structural calculations to confirm above and the stability of the parts. Also is described the step by step method to do proper structural damage analysis, the latter which neither NIST nor Bazant & Co has done.
When challenged for a detailed analysis of this, you cross-referenced your own paper wherein it is noted:
 
Originally Posted by Heiwa
The above is a clear indication how the Towers were originally built by serious archi-tects and engineers in the 1960's.Compressive static stresses in the primary structure columns were less than 1/3 of the yield stress of the steel before (obviously) ... and after serious damage (not so obvious but shown here)! The buckling stress of the column is virtually the same as the yield stress as the columns were arranged with spandrels. One reason why the static stresses were so low was that the designers had no access to computers to optimize (slender down) the construction. Manual cal-culations were done and to be on the safe side you added steel and built strong! And steel was quite cheap at that time.And US steel was good quality. The assumed yield stress 248 MPa was probably much higher in reality. NIST never checked the yield stress of the steel from the initiation zone in the rubble!

There was therefore plenty redundancy.A plane may crash into the bird cage and no- thing happens.A big fire may break out and nothing happens. Why? Because the nor- mal compressive stress in the supporting vertical structure is so low and if any co-lumn breaks or buckles, its load is transmitted to adjacent columns via the spandrels and the stress in adjacent columns increase a little. No global collapse is possible under any circumstances.

Evidently the columns got stronger (thicker plates, steel with higher yield stress) further down when the 'mass above' increases, but it is certain that the compressive stresses in the Towers never exceed 1/3 of the yield stress. Same applies for the buckling stresses.
 
I believe this analysis to be insufficiently detailed and, in particular, incorrect.

NIST tested the steel recovered from WTC (which in itself is of interest,as CTers usu- ally claim it was all whisked away to China with unseemly haste). NIST NCS STAR 1-3D (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05158.pdf) confirms a range of actual values:

- Core webs ranged from as low as 31.1 to 41.9 ksi, ie. 86 to 116% of specificed strength.

- Core flanges ranged from 32.4 to a high 53.4 ksi, ie. 90 to 146% of specified strength.

Setting to one side the 31.1 and 32.4 ksi results, inasmuch as a small proportion of columns below failure point are unlikely to lead to any wider problem, let's take the lower maximum of 116% specified value.

Now, the NIST Demand to Capacity Ratios (DCR) are based upon specified strengths and NIST themselves note that there is effectively spare capacity up to actual (but varying) yield point/strength.

Core columns in WTC typically had a Demand to Capacity Ratio (DCR) of 0.83, ie a safety factor of 1/0.83=1.20. Now let's assume assume that the steel has an additio-nal 16% beyond minimum yield value. This would reduce the DCR to 1.16/.83=1.4.

In other words we could increase the loads in these areas by up to 40% before yield point was reached and plastic (permanent) deformation begins. Of course this figure has lots of variables - most of the steel webs did not have such a high yield factor, some areas had DCRs well in excess of 0.83, and so on.

What we don't do is then add any significant additional allowance for tensile strength because (a) yield failure is already occuring and (b) gravity loads will be compressive, not tensile.

As I frequently mention elsewhere on the forums, one thing we also have to appreci-ate is that the structure of WTC is complex; in addition to dead and live loads, it will be dealing with (for example) transverse and shear loadings from the wind. There will be a degree of torsion due to differential loading. And so on. We would therefore have to look at the exact steelwork design in considerable detail before we could determine a safety factor for each. That's why engineers earn a lot of cash, and why complex modelling software was developed.

Nevertheless it is clear that the actual capacity of the core is not going to be anything like 300% or 3:1 before irreversible damage and failure begin to occur.

But in any event the above calculations all assume an intact core, and we know from the various NIST studies and eyewitness evidence that the cores suffered damage - around a third.This will obviously have reduced loadbearing capacity still further, and a simple pro-rata reduction of (say) 30% is likely to be wrong because the damage is concentrated in localised areas and hence these areas will be susceptible to accelerated failure under loads.

Now, Heiwa, can you produce similar calcs and figures to back up the "FoS>3" position you've adopted, or is it as substantial as your structural calculations?
__________________
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
 
 
10th March 2009, 03:34 AM   #14
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
" Thanks for starting a thread with:

Heiwa

You have claimed on the "gravity collapse" thread that:


Originally Posted by Heiwa
All steel structure is designed with FoS > 3.

Secondly, the towers have great redundancy. You can remove parts of perimeter walls, core structure and floors anywhere and nothing happens except local falures! Example - a plane slices a perimeter wall and damages core structure and floors.

Thirdly, if you read my articles carefully you find a fair amount of structural calcu-lations to confirm above and the stability of the parts. Also is described the step by step method to do proper structural damage analysis, the latter which neither NIST nor Bazant & Co has done.


Evidently I have never suggested that all steel structure is designed with FoS > 3. For certain items (subject to wear) you can use FoS = 6. For others you use FoS = 1.5.

Why do you start a new thread with a false quotation?

It is correct that WTC 1 structure had great redundancy. Remove 60% of all columns in a wall between 5 floors anywhere, bits of the floors inside these columns and some core columns and ... the tower still stands! Easy to prove.

It is also correct that NIST doesn't know how to do structural damage analysis. They can hardly do structural intact analysis!!

Example! When WTC 7 upper structure floors 16-47 free falls for 2.25 seconds and is only subject to small air resistance forces, NIST suggests that strong steel elements fail! It is not possible. Air resistance loads cannot break a steel element ... in free fall. Easy to prove!

What to do want to discuss? My articles on the Internet? Just copy/paste what you cannot understand and I will explain. In that way I will not get misquoted!  "

 

10th March 2009, 04:40 AM   #16

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by alex04 View Post
 
" for convenience, this is the post in question

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4481512&postcount=1851


err that's exactly what you said in your post

It may not be exactly what you meant, but it would be helpful if you say exactly what you mean (be specific). I assume that you're saying that Architect is taking your quote slightly out of context?

Perhaps there is a slight language barrier? (i'm assuming that English is not your native language).

No disrespect is intended. "
 

Yes, all steel structure elements (of WTC1 - generally the primary ones) that I have analysed in WTC 1 (listed in my article) have FoS > 3, i.e. design stresses are very low. I assume reason for this is 1960's US building standards but I have not inquired further about that. Reason for FoS>3 is to provide redundancy, i.e. one or more ele-ments may fail locally, while overall structure remains intact. One result of this is, e.g. that you can drop the upper structure part C on lower structure part A and only result is local failures of both parts in the contact interface and that part C remains on top of part A. Complete crush down of part A by part C is not possible and this I show in my articles. If you read the complete articles you also find how the WTC structures were destroyed. Controlled demolition! I think I show that quite convincingly using my ap-proach comparing with ship collisions. Others have done it better using other models and methods. Suggest you join AEtruth.org to ensure that a new, proper investigation is done.

10th March 2009, 01:35 PM   #19

Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" Yes, all steel structure elements (of WTC1 - generally the primary ones) that I have analysed in WTC 1 (listed in my article) have FoS > 3, i.e. design stresses are very low. "

 

Please provide a source for this information, as I can determine no such detail in your paper (see quote above).
 

Quote:
" I assume reason for this is 1960's US building standards but I have not inquired further about that. "
 
You've not researched the matter?
 
Quote:
" Reason for FoS>3 is to provide redundancy, i.e. one or more elements may fail locally, while overall structure remains intact. "
 

With the deepest respect, we are quite aware of what safety factors are for. You have been challenged to provide evidence not that one was used during the design - that much is expected - but rather that it was greater than a factor of 3 especially inasmuch as the NIST test and modelling data seems to suggest something quite different.
 

Quote:
" One result of this is, e.g. that you can drop the upper structure part C on lower struc-ture part A and only result is local failures of both parts in the contact interface and that part C remains on top of part A. Complete crush down of part A by part C is not possible and this I show in my articles.

If you read the complete articles you also find how the WTC structures were de-stroyed. Controlled demolition! I think I show that quite convincingly using my ap-proach comparing with ship collisions. Others have done it better using other models and methods. Suggest you join AEtruth.org to ensure that a new, proper investigation is done. "
 

This is not a thread about your proposed collapse mechanism, rather it is purely con-cerned with the technical detail of your claim regarding safety factors. I would ask that you please avoid such un-necessary derails. __


When the men elected to make laws are but a small part of a foreign parliament, that is when all healthy national feeling dies.
 

10th March 2009, 10:41 PM   #23

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
 
" A second massive error that Heiwa makes in his statement that "a smaller portion of the building can never crush down a bigger section" is to assume - incorrectly - that you can average the stress & strain energy over the entire structure. Doing this ig-nores (& eliminates) stress & strain energy concentrations that are key to progressive collapse.

tom "

 
I would say that this is the error of NIST, Bazant, Seffen & Co. They apparently assume in their 1-D models some average stress/strain energy applied over 4000 m² WTC 1 cross area of structure shredding only the lower contact part of it,the damaged elements of which are then compressed into rubble, etc. Upper part C remains intact. Fantasy of course - and nothing to do with structural damage analysis. If you read my article you will find that only 0.05 kWh/ton rubble is apparently used to crush down WTC1 as per NIST & Co:s model. That is much too little. To shread, e.g. a car you need 36.7 kWh/ton or 734 times more energy.

You are 100% right that you have to study the 'stress/strain energy concentrations' and what they are up to, i.e. what happens where elements of upper part C contact lower part A and vice versa. The result is always only local failures and ... collapse/crush down/destruction arrest.

Last edited by Heiwa; 10th March 2009 at 10:43 PM.

11th March 2009, 07:09 AM   #29

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
 
" Heiwa has not, of course, done so. There is no post where he gives a source or calculations to justify his bare assertion that the WTC towers were built with a FoS greater than 3. This will be demonstrated by the fact that he will be unable, in reply to this post, to link to any such post, but will instead at most simply repeat his assertions.

Dave "

Maybe you misunderstood my reply? Regardless, various FoS of the WTC structure components is of no importance as long as it is accepted that upper part C was built similar to lower part A, incl. FoS of elements.

The basic mistake of NIST and Bazant & Co when analyzing the destruction is that they treat the problem as a mechanical one of solids, where you can assume parts and elements to be rigid, i.e. they do no deform. In structural analysis evidently no part is rigid, as the whole purpose is to see how each non-rigid element deforms elastically and transmits the loads as forces and moments from one element to an-other. Structural damage analysis is the most advanced stage of structural analysis as then elements are deforming or have deformed plastically and/or failed and the whole layout of the structure under analysis change at every failure with associated modified load paths, etc.

It seems NIST and Bazant & Co have very limited experience of structural damage analysis or just simple structural analysis, as they introduce rigid elements and com-plete rigid parts in their models. As the rigid parts do not deform at all they evidently transmit forces without getting damaged. And then, e.g. FoS of elements inside this assumed rigid part bcomes of no interest to them.

Result? Horrendous conclusions that a small part of a structure (assumed rigid) can crush a bigger part of the same structure (assumed non-rigid) and similar; the small part (assumed rigid) accelerates through the big part, etc, etc. It is sad that NIST has adopted such stupid methods ... and the result is evident: to suit a misguided political agenda based on scientific nonsense.

It is quite funny to follow the supporters of this agenda here at JREF and their argu-ments. I have put most of the worst ones on ignore as they just repeat themselves and just study the more advanced ones. But it is the same nonsense, nevertheless.

11th March 2009, 10:58 AM   #32

Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
 
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" Maybe you misunderstood my reply? Regardless, various FoS of the WTC structure components is of no importance as long as it is accepted that upper part C was built similar to lower part A, incl. FoS of elements. "
 
Anders

You were the one who raised the issue of Factor of Safety as supporting evidence that the lower structure had sufficient integrity to restrain the overall collapse.

Having been asked to justify this statement, inasmuch as calculations of actual demand to capacity ratios are significantly less, you have claimed that the Factor fo Safety is "of no importance".

I assume that you realise how this appears. Either:

(a) The FoS is not relevant and you introduced spurious material in support of your argument, or

(b) You have been unable to support your claim.

Whichever it is, it doesn't look very good, does it? And if it's (a), then I think you have to retract the post you originally made on the subject.

So, which is 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

 

11th March 2009, 12:26 PM   #34

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
 
" Anders.

I see nowhere your worksheets or calculations proving a safety factor of 300% ("FoS > 3").. You keep saying you have answered this but it is perfectly clear to all you have not. You have been caught in a lie. Your work is nothing more than false assertions and errors of omission.

Answer the op or concede. "

 
I have answered that one several times, which is perfectly clear to me. See http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist0.htm#3 . Just click and look. Scroll down to 5.3.

Any problem? It deals with the primary structure - the columns. Pretty strong - to say the least.

Redundancy is then provided by the spandrels. Remove 70% of the wall columns in the north wall, i.w.o. floors 93-98 and nothing really happens.

Reason? These columns were low stressed in the first place, FoS > 5 w.r.t. static loads, and the load was just transmitted via the spandrels to the adjacent intact structure, incl. all the other walls.

Why are you so concerned about F.o.S.? You do not like my conclusion that upper part C can never crush lower part A? Or all observations that upper part C is destroyed by controlled demolition before part A suffers the same fate? Let's discuss those instead. They are more interesting.

Why does NIST invent a stupid theory that little part C can destroy big part A because PE>SE without any calculations of PE or SE? Why do Bazant & Co have to assume that part C is rigid while part A below is not in a 1-D model where a rigid line C com-presses a non-rigid line A? These people seem to lack imagination. Can't they come up with cleverer propaganda?

It was not necessary. Any US person with relevant qualifications that queried the NIST/Bazant nonsense was quickly fired from his job! So the rest shuts up. No solidarity there. Lack of moral fibre throughout.

Except my hero Richard Gage and his team at http://AE911truth.org. Join them.

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137095&page=2

 

 

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137095&page=5

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Question for Heiwa - WTC Safety Factors

 

18th March 2009, 11:18 PM   #161

Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
 
" Oh-oh.....it looks like Bazant may be vindicated after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NaAcAgQgoY&eurl=http://www.911blogger.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/ particu-lars 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

Master Poster
 
Minadin's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,469
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
" 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

Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
" 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.

 

19th March 2009, 01:16 AM   #164

Banned
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
 
" 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

Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,254

" Eurotrash. "

 

19th March 2009, 01:54 AM   #166

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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 con-structions 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

Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
 
" 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

 

19th March 2009, 02:27 AM   #168

Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,363
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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 illust-rates 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
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
 
19th March 2009, 03:02 AM   #169
 
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
 
" Is that the glue and sawdust cubes ? I think that could replicate the concrete con-structions 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

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
" 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

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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.


All three Towers  "

 

19th March 2009, 03:30 AM   #172

Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
 
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
" FoS of a lemon? "

...Inside lemon are also fibres of various kind. You can test those and establish their FoS, if you are clever.
OK, you've established that you have no idea of the FoS of one of your models, which is supposed to behave structurally like a WTC tower, so we eliminate that as a valid model.

Remember that you cannot now claim this isn't important. Two days ago you said this:
Quote:
Well, my pizza boxes, lemons, sponges, &c, models were just to show that you can-not crush a number of them by dropping a smaller number of them on them. Same applies to WTC 1 - drop a part C of it on the lower part A and only local failures would result, no crush down, &c!
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.

Now please answer the second part of my question, which you evaded above: what is the FoS of the match boxes? For your match box model to be a predictor of tower behavior it must have a similar FoS: about 3 for a static load, as you have calculated.

You can't say you don't have enough money to buy inexpensive match boxes to exceed a FoS of 3 or 10 or 50 for your model. After all, the other day you said you had a million dollars to give away.

So what's the FoS of the match boxes, Anders? 1.5? 3? 30? 500?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 19th March 2009 at 03:32 AM.

 

19th March 2009, 03:42 AM   #173

Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
 
[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

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
 
[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

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
 
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

Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
 
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

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 
19th March 2009, 07:10 AM   #177
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
 
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

Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,584
 
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
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
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
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
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

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
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

Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
,,,,,,,, and still we wait for confirmation that this $million challenge actually is more than huffing and puffing,,,,,,,,,,,,

<<crickets chirping>>

Heiwa, your new disciple, bill, was chomping at the bit to see this challenge go ahead.

 

19th March 2009, 10:35 AM   #183

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

Chief Punkah Wallah
 
Architect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,609
Originally Posted by HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP View Post
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
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 549
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post

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
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
 
Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland View Post
" 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

Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
 
Originally Posted by KTB View Post
 
" 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

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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, spon-ges, steel beam structures, wedding cakes, WTC 1, sawdust-n-glue cubes, all drop-ping 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 horizon-tally 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 ?

 

Old 19th March 2009, 01:28 PM   #189

このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
So can somebody update me on whether Heiwa has submitted his calculations con-cerning 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...
__________________

 

19th March 2009, 01:30 PM   #190

Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
 
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
 
" 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

Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
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

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 
19th March 2009, 01:48 PM   #192
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
 
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."

 

19th March 2009, 02:03 PM   #193

Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Modeling Scale using the femur

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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, spon-ges, steel beam structures, wedding cakes, WTC 1, sawdust-n-glue cubes, all drop-ping 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 horizon-tally 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.
Now follow me closely.
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.
And I made the plot.
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 Sca-ling 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
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
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.

 

Old 19th March 2009, 03:30 PM   #194
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
,,,,,,,, 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

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
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

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,148
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
" 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

Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
" 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 View Post
" I am off skiing.

That's what you call it there? Interesting metaphor. __________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

 

20th March 2009, 12:35 AM   #198

Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
 
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
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

Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
 
" 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).

 

20th March 2009, 01:35 AM   #200

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,465
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
" It does not apply to my axiom "<blah>". "
 
"Axiom" meaning a self-evident truth ? Oh dear. The megalomania is strong with this one.