Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Dave Rogers]

Gravity is not *enegy* Beachnut.

It's perfectly reasonable, though, to say that gravity is "where the energy comes from," as Beachnut and Daffydd have consistently phrased it. The suggestion that "gravity is energy" is one that nobody but you has made, and that only as an obvious strawman. In the most immediate sense, the source of the energy for the collapse was as a result of elevated objects moving under the downward force of gravity, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that the energy "comes from" gravity. If you want to go further back and say that chemical energy was the source, then that's a completely artificial demarcation; why not say that the source for the chemical energy was nuclear fusion in the Sun, since the main energy source for construction was fossil fuels?

You're very obviously just trying to give the appearance that everybody else is wrong. Give it up; they aren't. In an informal account, it's perfectly reasonable shorthand, and comprehensible to any scientist, to say that gravity was where the energy for the collapse came from. Anybody who isn't simply interested in nitpicking will interpret this as "The energy source for the collapse was the gravitational potential energy of the structure."

Dave

 

[dafydd]

See my response to Dog Town, above.

I'm not really sure if those of you getting angry are really mad at the sub-forum, itself, yourselves for entering the sub-forum, or just yourselves for not being able to comprehend something to the point where you can teach it to others.

Surely you're just mad at yourself for not creating ONE page with YOUR understanding, so that you can attach your name to it and receive criticism in return, right??

I know that if I understood why a building that wasn't hit by a plane fell at free fall acceleration for 100 feet, I'd want to share that with the world one time and post my name next to it on the internet, so that we can just end this sub-forum altogether.

PUT AN END TO THE REPETITION IF YOU CAN!! Stop repeating yourself and say it once and for all.

Could you give me your full theory about the events of 911 please? How were the bombs planted,what were they made of,how were the rigged without anyone noticing,were the passengers in the planes involved in the conspiracy,was the entire NYFD in on it,little details like that.

 

[dafydd]

It's perfectly reasonable, though, to say that gravity is "where the energy com. Anybody who isn't simply interested in nitpicking will interpret this as "The energy source for the collapse was the gravitational potential energy of the structure."

Dave

That's what I meant,but I just used the word gravity to keep it simple for femr and grdslm who are not well versed in the ways of physics.

 

[dafydd]

Please folks,only one f in Dafydd,it's Welsh for David.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Please folks,only one f in Dafydd,it's Welsh for David.

Oops, sorry mate. As a Cymruphile David, I really should have known that.

Dave

 

[Carlos]

They are designed to hold up 3 to 5 times the load [including people] they were required to carry.Yes they will buckle but they were buckling in an irregular manner and some were providing more resistance than others. They cannot all give way completely and suddenly allowing the building to go into FFA for 100 feet.

Saying that "some were providing more resistance than others" doesn't help.

For example:

0,001 N =/= 0,01 N

But both are negligible forces.

Buckling columns provide uneven and significant resistance and I will not argue that part. It is axiomatic as far as I am concerned and each of us must decide for ourselves.

You're starting from the premise that buckling columns provide significant resistance, then you conclude the VFFA collapse would be possible only if these columns were removed.

The problem is that you cannot prove that buckling columns provide significant resistance, and if this premise is false, your claim is also false.

If you are unable to offer any evidence that buckling columns provide significant resistance, your claim is based on speculation and guesses, not facts.

Do you think the top part of the top graphic will fall as fast as the top part of the bottom one?

http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1647/bucklingvnothing.jpg

The top part of bottom graphic will fall faster.The question is, how fast will that be?

three times?
two times
0.5 times?
0.1 times?
0.00001 times?

How much?

And remember, we are talking about the weight of thousands of tonelades.

 

[triforcharity]

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over one half hour before the collapse.
[FONT=&quot]NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. [/FONT]

But the NIST hypothesis says:

NCSTAR 1A pg 53 [pdf pg 95]
The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.
[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79. [/FONT]

Now, I have hilited the parts you seem to have missed.

How does a fire that goes out on the 12th floor, effect fires burning on adjacent floors?

 

[Carlos]

The fire that supposedly started the collapse had burned out over one half hour before the collapse.
[FONT=&quot]NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time. [/FONT]

But the NIST hypothesis says:

NCSTAR 1A pg 53 [pdf pg 95]
The buckling failure of Column 79 between Floor 5 and Floor 14 was the initiating event that led to the global collapse of WTC 7. This resulted from thermal expansion and failures of connections, beams, and girders in the adjacent floor systems.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1A pg 22 [pdf pg 64][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fire-induced thermal expansion of the floor system surrounding Column 79 led to the collapse of Floor 13, which triggered a cascade of floor failures. In this case, the floor beams on the east side of the building expanded enough that they pushed the girder spanning between Columns 79 and 44 to the west on the 13th floor. This movement was enough for the girder to walk off of its support at Column 79. [/FONT]

The report didn't say the thermal expansion was just before the failure of Column 79.

 

[femr2]

It's perfectly reasonable, though, to say that gravity is "where the energy comes from," as Beachnut and Daffydd have consistently phrased it.

I do not agree. It's wrong. And you know it.

If it was me making such poor statements there would be a horde of laughing dog bearing locals champing at the bit to correct me (as well you know), so keep the hypocrisy in check yeah

The suggestion that "gravity is energy" is one that nobody but you has made

Energy doesn't come from gravity.

why not say that the source for the chemical energy was nuclear fusion in the Sun, since the main energy source for construction was fossil fuels?

Already have

You're very obviously just trying to give the appearance that everybody else is wrong.

Incorrect. I'm making the point that repeatedly answering the question *where did the energy come from* with *gravity*...is a very poor response.

For dafydd to turn around and say *oh, that's what I meant to say* is pretty funny. He had ample opportunity to do so, but you folk just hate being corrected, or criticising each other, don't you

So, as you agree, gravity != energy.

To hark back to the original question...

The progressive destruction of the tower was gravity driven. The energy *source* was gravitational potential energy, which was converted into kinetic energy as masses fell through the gravity field...etc...etc...

 

[triforcharity]

How did 10 floors just lose all structural integrity to the point where they didn't even bend, or the building didn't topple to one side??

Explain that!!

NIST doesn't claim that. Please feel free to read about it at www.wtc.nist.gov

Cheers!

PS. Welcome to 2011. Please remove your head from Loose Change, and out of 2006.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I do not agree. It's wrong. And you know it.

Yawn.

So, as you agree, gravity != energy.

Probably. It's hard to tell with all this straw flying around.

Dave

 

[Animal]

I'm not making this up:

[FONT=&quot]On page 33 is a graphic showing the beams pushing the girder off its seat to the west:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] "Forces from thermal expansion failed the connection at Column 79, then pushed the girder off the seat."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Technical_Briefing_082608.pdf[/FONT]


NIST actually says that after the girder gets pushed off its seat to the west, the beams buckle and rock it off the seat to the east.

[FONT=&quot]NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 353 [pdf pg 397][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally. Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b) [to the east]

[qimg]http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/9324/girderrollsroeast.jpg[/qimg]



[/FONT]

From NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Page 353.

"Axial compression then increased in the
floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, the northmost beam began to buckle laterally.
Buckling of other floor beams followed as shown in Figure 8–27 (a), leading to collapse of the floor
system, and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b). The collapse
process took time to occur in the LS-DYNA analysis, during which the temperatures had ramped up to
their maximum values in the simulation."

Anyone notice the difference?

By the way, the image shows the girder pushed off its SEAT to the west, and pulled to the east at the top clip AFTER the floor beam buckles, hardly anything unexpected. There is no conflict with the NIST response dated Aug 26, 2008

 

[dafydd]

I do not agree. It's wrong. And you know it.

If it was me making such poor statements there would be a horde of laughing dog bearing locals champing at the bit to correct me (as well you know), so keep the hypocrisy in check yeah


Energy doesn't come from gravity.


Already have


Incorrect. I'm making the point that repeatedly answering the question *where did the energy come from* with *gravity*...is a very poor response.

For dafydd to turn around and say *oh, that's what I meant to say* is pretty funny. He had ample opportunity to do so, but you folk just hate being corrected, or criticising each other, don't you

So, as you agree, gravity != energy.

To hark back to the original question...

The progressive destruction of the tower was gravity driven. The energy *source* was gravitational potential energy, which was converted into kinetic energy as masses fell through the gravity field...etc...etc...

Energy doesn't come from gravity,that's a good one. Try opening a physics book. It is pointless trying to explain anything to you until you have a basic grounding in the subject.

 

[NoahFence]

Did I say 15 seconds? Did I say the entire WTC 7 building?

No, but you should have.

The point is obvious -- that for even just TEN FLOORS to offer no resistance from anything whatsoever, no walls, no steel columns.... when it WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE AT ALL.... is a point that speaks all by itself.

I think that you're imagining the columns should bow? What if they snapped like a twig under the weight of the building above it? Would that not account for zero resistance?

How many seconds did NIST and even fellow JREF members admit that WTC 7 *did* indeed fall for free fall acceleration??

2.5 sec (maybe 2.4, but who's counting?)!

See above

So how many floors of the building is that weren't doing the job that it was doing before the building WASN'T hit by a plane??

So you're under the impression that every building that has collapsed all over the world did so because it was hit by a plane?

100 feet of floors, walls, support columns, etc.... NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

Snap

There was no bending, or it wouldn't have fallen at free fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds, people!!

snap

Oh, and BTW... It's FREE FALL ACCELERATION!!!

Really? Wow.

I think you need to take a logic class. This thread is restricted to the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration!!

Why? So you can nit-pick?

 

[NoahFence]

PUT AN END TO THE REPETITION IF YOU CAN!! Stop repeating yourself and say it once and for all.

My irony meter just exploded using thermite.

 

[Sabretooth]

How did 10 floors just lose all structural integrity to the point where they didn't even bend, or the building didn't topple to one side??

Explain that!!

Did you read the NIST report, or did you get all your info from youtube like the rest of the truther crowd?

 

[Sabretooth]

I already know where the energy *comes from*. Tried to get you to stop and think about what you were saying. Seemingly didn't touch the sides.

It's not *gravity*, that's for sure. Gravity != energy

Every standing structure has stored *potential* energy due to *gravity*. Do you not understand basic physics?

 

[Sabretooth]

See my response to Dog Town, above.

I'm not really sure if those of you getting angry are really mad at the sub-forum, itself, yourselves for entering the sub-forum, or just yourselves for not being able to comprehend something to the point where you can teach it to others.

Surely you're just mad at yourself for not creating ONE page with YOUR understanding, so that you can attach your name to it and receive criticism in return, right??

I know that if I understood why a building that wasn't hit by a plane fell at free fall acceleration for 100 feet, I'd want to share that with the world one time and post my name next to it on the internet, so that we can just end this sub-forum altogether.

PUT AN END TO THE REPETITION IF YOU CAN!! Stop repeating yourself and say it once and for all.

:yawn:

 

[femr2]

Energy doesn't come from gravity,that's a good one. Try opening a physics book. It is pointless trying to explain anything to you until you have a basic grounding in the subject.

If you can figure out a way of converting "gravity" into "energy", go for it. Revolutionise the world

(Converting gravitational potential energy into other forms, such as kinetic energy, will not win you any awards. Don't confuse the two )

 

[NoahFence]

Did you read the NIST report, or did you get all your info from youtube like the rest of the truther crowd?

Sounds like he got the info from Box Boy Gage.