Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
femr2 said:
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 ;) )
Click to expand...

I can only repeat what sabretooth said,in the vain hope that you will finally understand it.
"Every standing structure has stored *potential* energy due to *gravity*. Do you not understand basic physics?"

Where did you study physics?
 
Sabretooth said:
Every standing structure has stored *potential* energy due to *gravity*. Do you not understand basic physics?
Click to expand...
The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show :)
 
Last edited:
femr2's grasp of physics is similar to his grasp of medicine and vaccines. And sound and video engineering. University of google.
 
Guess I will have to wait another ten years for twoofers to show me an example of an explosive controlled demolition exhibiting free fall acceleration.
 
femr2 said:
The cracks are all widening now. lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *ficticious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show :)
Click to expand...

And I'll just quietly reminisce about your continued insistence a while ago, until you had it explained to you in words of one syllable, that energy loss in inelastic collisions was completely different to energy loss due to crushing and deformation. But you couldn't possibly be just as confused this time, of course.

Dave
 
femr2 said:
The cracks are all widening now. lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show :)
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm getting my hat handed to me, I think I better make a lame attempt at a joke.
 
femr2 said:
The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show :)
Click to expand...

That answers my question. You have never studied physics.
 
Dave Rogers said:
And I'll just quietly reminisce about your continued insistence a while ago, until you had it explained to you in words of one syllable, that energy loss in inelastic collisions was completely different to energy loss due to crushing and deformation.
Click to expand...
A long day it was (though you appear to have fallen into a similar hole :eek: ), and as was made clear my mistake was in being (foolishly) rigid with the system definition. A lesson long learned.

But you couldn't possibly be just as confused this time, of course.

Dave
Click to expand...
Oh come off it Dave. Gravity != GPE. As you said yourself...
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?
Click to expand...
You know full well the distinction being made, and the point. You just don't like criticising your, er, chums. It is fun watching the cracks widen though.
 
DGM said:
Unless you can specify how much explosives were needed, I hope you are not going to imply CD.


:)
Click to expand...

Looks like he's asking everyone else to prove there was no loud 'boom' inside the building that was then attenuated by the rest of the building.
 
tsig said:
Looks like he's asking everyone else to prove there was no loud 'boom' inside the building that was then attenuated by the rest of the building.
Click to expand...
It's the world's longest slow-pitch, but my personal opinion of femr2 / Major_Tom's endgame is this:

Analyze the collapses in in order to find the smallest specific failure that could have *initiated* the global collapse. Then, calculate what small device / cause could have been used to artificially start the initiation. A small "boom" for instance (ETA - based on recent posts, a boom small enough not to be heard by a certain camera in a certain location). It's a bit of circular logic, in that there would be no way to know that, for instance, a certain column failure would cause global collapse without studying the global collapse retrospectively to learn this, but that's just my 2p. :)

Of course, he could simply state his ultimate goal, but that would undermine his whole passive/aggressive intentionally-vague-speech-as-control mechanism schtick.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
A long day it was (though you appear to have fallen into a similar hole :eek: ), and as was made clear my mistake was in being (foolishly) rigid with the system definition. A lesson long learned.
Click to expand...

Apparently not, if you still think all you got wrong was a system definition. Still, I suppose that means I should give up, because you're extraordinarily resistant to learning anything.

femr2 said:
Oh come off it Dave. Gravity != GPE. As you said yourself...
Click to expand...

And nobody has at any point denied, despite your repeated attempts to imply otherwise.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Apparently not, if you still think all you got wrong was a system definition.
Click to expand...
The root cause of the brain fart :)

Whilst we're there...
Dave Rogers said:
energy loss in inelastic collisions was completely different to energy loss due to crushing and deformation
Click to expand...
...and...
Dave Rogers said:
irreversible deformation is the mechanism by which inelastic collisions occur
Click to expand...

As I said, you appear to have phrased your former post rather badly ;)

And nobody has at any point denied, despite your repeated attempts to imply otherwise.

Dave
Click to expand...
dafydd and Sabretooth are showing clearly that their understanding of the terms in use is very poor, yet you are defending it, choosing instead to attack me for pointing out more appropriate application.. Interesting
 
dafydd said:
femr2 said:
The cracks are all widening now. Stored ? Standing relative to what ? lol. I'm fine with gravity. (G)PE is rather a different kettle of fish. Even gravity as a force is *fictitious*. I'll surf curved space-time for a while and watch the show
Click to expand...
That answers my question. You have never studied physics.
Click to expand...
Really ? Would you care to explain the issues you have with my quoted post then ?
 
BCR said:
Yep, me too .... 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! :covereyes
Click to expand...

Yes, inside the building the fire gradually weakened the columns. Then one of then was weakened below it's ability to hold the load and it buckled thereby reducing its' support to ~0. when the next columns tried to take the load from the buckled one they too exceeded their load capability and they also buckled leading to the rapid collapse of the building.
 
femr2 said:
Take a wild guess.

You folks really are going to have to stop creating inference :)
Click to expand...


Then what would you complain about? The inferences of others are your own creation. Speak plainly.

Clayton Moore said:
If you're wondering about noise you should be in a tizzy about where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble.
Click to expand...


Spaaaaaaace beeeeeaaaaams!
 
femr2 said:
The root cause of the brain fart :)

Whilst we're there...

...and...


As I said, you appear to have phrased your former post rather badly ;)


dafydd and Sabretooth are showing clearly that their understanding of the terms in use is very poor, yet you are defending it, choosing instead to attack me for pointing out more appropriate application.. Interesting
Click to expand...

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Why are you so coy about telling me where you studied physics?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom