Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[ozeco41]

...At this point I don't care anymore....if anyone wants to say that the energy "came from gravity" go right ahead...I won't comment. It's not worth the never ending debate, justifications, and excuses. I'll just move on to other topics within this and other threads.

I support your statement. You may note that my couple of comments went a step further. I focussed on the issue or claim - I did not limit my comments to technical correct use of language.

My statement, which I have made several times and in probably slightly different format (I won't go back and find them all), is that the truth of an issue or claim is inherent in the claim. A claim is either true or not true (or "as yet undetermined" to cover all the options)

It does not become untrue because the person making the statement has been denigrated by being identified as a "truther". It does not become true because it is made by a debunker. (Or vice versa for those who want the options covered.)

Neither does a current claim by a "truther" (so called) become untrue today because 5 years ago he made some claims about bulges in the underside of an aircraft unless that claim is the specific issue under current discussion. More generally a true statement made by a "truther" remains true no matter what unrelated statements, true or false, that person may have made elsewhere or in the past. Such statements may cast doubt on credibility in general but cannot outweigh the fact that the current claim is true. Fill in the analogous variants for "debunkers" - the same rules apply.

 

[Myriad]

Where did you see me discuss anything about alternative answers to the question "where the energy came from to completely demolish about 260 floors of steel and cement into rubble"?

I do not even discuss anything about those posts. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

So I am not sure why you are even bringing such issues up honestly.

My discussion was limited in scope to the fact that when Femr2 was getting "pedantic" about how we define certain terms he was correct.

How did femr2 know the correct usage of the terms? Did he read Wikipedia? Did he take a physics class? Is he an Engineer? Is he a Physicist? Does he have some online physics book open ready to correct any erroneous terms he sees? I have no idea...and I don't care.

The fact is that he was correct and instead of people saying "You know what.....you're right. I used the term inaccurately and the correct terminology is.....etc etc etc." Is that what people did? Nope....people just continued debating...maybe because they didn't want to be wrong...maybe because they don't believe it's important to be completely accurate....maybe because they just want to debate to debate...again I have no idea and I don't care.



Here is what I originally posted...you will notice it is quite limited in scope...




That was all I said....

I expected a reaction like this: "You know what.....you're right. We should be as accurate and correct as possible, even if it is just "semantics". And what Femr2 is saying is a "more" correct usage of the terms."


Instead of

1. Claiming FEMR2 knows nothing about physics, math, science, engineering, etc.

2. Claiming I am somehow defending truthers overall arguments.

3. Claiming accuracy is not important.

4. Claiming debating truthers on a free debate forum in the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" section is a waste of time and the root of the problem.


At this point I don't care anymore....if anyone wants to say that the energy "came from gravity" go right ahead...I won't comment. It's not worth the never ending debate, justifications, and excuses. I'll just move on to other topics within this and other threads.

Sorry, now I'm just confused.

If the issue wasn't the respective answers offered to the question of where the energy to collapse the towers came from, then what term(s) was femr2 using more correctly that would justify saying, "you know... what femr2 is saying is a "more" correct usage of the terms"?

Femr2 is correct in saying "gravity != energy" but no one claimed otherwise, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

----------

I'm interested to see if this process works the other way too. So let's try an experiment.

Femr2 is wrong. Clams aren't mammals, they're insects.

Now, let's see if we get a dozen truther posts urging femr2 to be more careful with his zoological terminology in the future!

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[NoahFence]

There is no footage which shows anything of the sort. By all means suggest a piece of footage which you think supports your view though.

You see the penthouse coming down? In order for that to happen, the building below it has to be sort of...gone. Can we agree on that? GROOVY!
Now...We know the North face hasn't collapsed yet because we can sort of you know, see it. Same goes for the East and West faces of that building.
You with me? GROOVY! So, we have a collapse that's causing the penthouse to go. The only side we've not touched upon is the south side. I'm guessing since we see the North, East and West faces of the building at this stage (not all in this photo though!) that the SOUTH FACE is the one in the process of collapsing. Fair enough?

You suggested that the facade distortion highlighted in the video was "the sun shining through the North face". Nonsense. The distortion is of the reflections upon the North facade, which, as I've said, allows you to the the effect of the internal building behavior...bottom to top propagation under East penthouse, followed by top to bottom as penthouse descends.

So they're reflections now? I thought they were a shockwave?

I guess you have a problem with the word *shockwave* ... a type of propagating disturbance.

Your use of "shockwave" was meant to imply explosives, was it not?

Again, engage your brain and answer the question within my quote above.

All set.

What is it that you think I am wrong about, and what link are you referring to which you think proves such ? (I'll be rather less gracious if you respond with nonsense on this point)

Your WTC 7 "Shockwave" video. Look at the whole thing.
The penthouse comes down, and you see the building getting brighter. In the video, you highlight this and refer to it as the "shockwave". Later in the video, during the global collapse, the entire building gets brighter. Is this supposed to be a second shockwave?

OR

Did the south face of the building get gouged out, allowing light to shine through the north face, then during the global collapse, the entire south face goes and you can see through the whole building?

Again, I make no mention or suggestion of *blast*, that is your invention. I have shown you two views, Dan rather and NIST Cam#3 viewpoints, both showing the same behaviour.

Lie. You use the term shockwave to imply explosives.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm not at all interested in discussion of *the big picture* as some here call it, nor do I have any intention of furnishing any demands for such, especially given their continnual nonsense.

There's a shock.

 

[carlitos]

... how does anyone take action?

Inaction is not a bug; rather, it's a feature. The goal is inaction. Finding anomalies is a direct substitute for doing something productive. Since it's all a fantasy, there is no danger, as there would be with real political action or reform.

Truthers can safely nitpick NIST for the next 100 years, just like JFK guys with the Warren Commission report. femr2's blurry gifs are simply the internet version of unclear photos that prove bigfoot or UFOs, a fantasy that he has special knowledge. His anti-vaccine stuff makes his worldview clear to us all. The impotence of willful inaction is the goal - to be powerless. That powerlessness is itself a part of the proof that there is a conspiracy.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal remarks

Please refrain from making other posters the subject of your post. It is unnecessary and against the Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[femr2]

The fact is that he was correct and instead of people saying "You know what.....you're right. I used the term inaccurately and the correct terminology is.....etc etc etc." Is that what people did? Nope....people just continued debating...maybe because they didn't want to be wrong...maybe because they don't believe it's important to be completely accurate....maybe because they just want to debate to debate...again I have no idea and I don't care.

I quite agree, and no, you don't have to care. My initial comment was tongue in cheek, and some subsequent *proddings* clearly less than fully accurate (though not all). I assumed that most folk do actually know the correct usage of the simple terms in question (which turn out highlighting that many simply don't), and VERY early in the *debate* I said...

Where does the energy come from again ?

Don't you think it results from the fact that a load of cranes elevated the mass to create the potential ?

Don't you think the energy to drive the cranes came from somewhere ?

etc.

Read a physics textboox ? Funny.

I vote for...the Sun

ETA: To stop the inevitable long-winded drone...Gravity is a force (as far as needs explaining here. Potential field.). Have a think about that dafydd.

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...

Accuracy of both can of course be increased of course, and part of the intent was to point other in the right direction rather than provide a specific definition, but it seemingly is not useful for some here to note such early responses in favour of making a continued *argument with the arguer*.

It's not worth the never ending debate, justifications, and excuses.

Perhaps the end result will be a little more care from some, and a little less posturing from others.

 

[femr2]

You see the penthouse coming down?

Yup.

In order for that to happen, the building below it has to be sort of...gone.

Or going (bits of it), sure.

I'm guessing since we see the North, East and West faces of the building at this stage (not all in this photo though!) that the SOUTH FACE is the one in the process of collapsing. Fair enough?

No. There is no reason to think that the South facade behaved any differently than the others at that stage in descent, and the much more likely behaviour is that of internal building core destabilisation.

So they're reflections now?

They ? What are you talking about ? The features highlighted in both videos are CLEARLY the result of slight change in reflections upon the facade, yes.

I thought they were a shockwave?

Again: Shockwave...a type of propagating disturbance.

Your use of "shockwave" was meant to imply explosives, was it not?

No.

All set.

Clearly not.

Did the south face of the building get gouged out, allowing light to shine through the north face, then during the global collapse, the entire south face goes and you can see through the whole building?

That's rather hum funny. Just stop eh. You are not doing yourself any favours. (I invite someone to point out the problems with your statement. I could list quite a few.)

You use the term shockwave to imply explosives.

Incorrect.

Recall my initial response on the subject of the video in question...

How apt.

No, the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.

...

The detail is subtle, sure, and is only visible due to distortion of the facade, which does affect reflections. But to say *nothing more than the sun shining through the North face*...oh dear. LOL.

Here's some of that detail in another processed version ...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif[/qimg]

Has to be watched a number of times.

By the way, in your haste to whine and complain (and make a fool of yourself at the same time) did you stop to think about what that detail implies ? Well, consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not

 

[dafydd]

Making a claim, i.e."there were bombs in the building" is not what I would call nitpicking, nor what I was referring to. A contention/claim/theory is exactly that. 'Nit picking' is a vernacular reference to one correcting another person's usage of wording.
If someone said that a car drove by at a "high rate of speed" , I would correct them by pointing out that 'speed' is a 'rate' and thus "rate of speed" is at best redundant and literally incorrect regardless of whether or not I would agree that the speed of the car was high ('for a car' being implied).

If the car exploded the first question that would come to mind is,was that caused by a bomb or not? I would not be discussing semantics.

 

[dafydd]

Yup.


Or going (bits of it), sure.


No. There is no reason to think that the South facade behaved any differently than the others at that stage in descent, and the much more likely behaviour is that of internal building core destabilisation.


They ? What are you talking about ? The features highlighted in both videos are CLEARLY the result of slight change in reflections upon the facade, yes.


Again: Shockwave...a type of propagating disturbance.


No.


Clearly not.


That's rather hum funny. Just stop eh. You are not doing yourself any favours. (I invite someone to point out the problems with your statement. I could list quite a few.)


Incorrect.

Please tell me what you are implying.

 

[NoahFence]

Ah... I see now.

You're using the term "shockwave" as a descriptive term. That's not meant to instill the implication of explosives at all, is it? Sort of like Box Boy Gage using the term "pyroclastic" when describing the dust?

The more sinister the term, the more likely gullible people will fall for it.

There were no explosives in WTC 7. That was not a shockwave. Shockwaves are the result of explosions. Period. It's not a term that you can just throw around to scare the beejeebus out of immature gullible people, any more so than "pyroclastic". The fact of the matter is, there is a slight chance I could be wrong about seeing through the building, although it's unlikely. If I am in fact wrong about that, then there's another innocuous explanation, such as curtains or light shining on the windows.

The one thing I AM 100% sure of, is that it wasn't explosives.


(i now await your reply when you cherry-pick the "i could be wrong" statement and ignore the rest of the post)

 

[jaydeehess]

----------

I'm interested to see if this process works the other way too. So let's try an experiment.

Femr2 is wrong. Clams aren't mammals, they're insects.

Now, let's see if we get a dozen truther posts urging femr2 to be more careful with his zoological terminology in the future!

Respectfully,
Myriad

It won't work the other way, but that is hardly the point.

It would lead to 'they do it so we can too' . This is of course utterly wrong.
How many mothers said something along the lines of "if Jimmy jumped off a bridge would you do it too" or similar.

At JREF we are supposed to be the ones who use proper and accepted science arguements and thus to say that since those who don't, are not using accepted and proper science arguements, then we don't 'hafta' either is hardly consistent.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure, when I hear it a part of my brain cries out "that's wrong," but the other parts of my brain that enjoy having friends and staying married tells that first part of my brain to shut up.

I'm a physicist. We're born without those bits.

Dave

 

[newton3376]

Sorry, now I'm just confused.

If the issue wasn't the respective answers offered to the question of where the energy to collapse the towers came from, then what term(s) was femr2 using more correctly that would justify saying, "you know... what femr2 is saying is a "more" correct usage of the terms"?

Femr2 is correct in saying "gravity != energy" but no one claimed otherwise, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

If you really want me to I can go back and go over all the posts to show where and why I came in and made the comment....reading through the thread I think it's rather obvious, but I am willing to take the time and go through it if you like.

The energy does not "come from" gravity. Is this semantics? In a way yes....but in a way it does go a bit deeper.

The terms gravitational "potential" and gravitational "potential energy" are not the same thing just like Electrostatic Potential (Voltage) and Electrosiatic Potential Energy are not the same thing.

I really don't want to debate just for the sake of debating...I'm actually very shocked that some posters here are reacting to what I posted the way they are.

I did not expect that.....

 

[R.Mackey]

Ah... I see now.

You're using the term "shockwave" as a descriptive term. That's not meant to instill the implication of explosives at all, is it? Sort of like Box Boy Gage using the term "pyroclastic" when describing the dust?

Yeah. Seems pretty funny for a guy who got all bent out of shape over definitions just a few posts ago...

For the record, shockwaves can be created by things other than explosives. But the term "shockwave" has a very specific meaning, and it absolutely certain that femr2 is using it wrong.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yeah. Seems pretty funny for a guy who got all bent out of shape over definitions just a few posts ago...

For the record, shockwaves can be created by things other than explosives. But the term "shockwave" has a very specific meaning, and it absolutely certain that femr2 is using it wrong.

I admit that I had not really looked at the whole 'shockwave' thing but this post caught my eye.

So its better described as a 'ripple' perhaps?
a 'perturbation'?
simply a 'wave'?

ETA: I see femr himself suggests 'a type of propogating disturbance'

I have not bothered with it because my first thought was along the lines of ; " a floor collapsed and took out several more below it. A few hundred tons of falling debris with the violent ripping out of floor members, of course the building reacted to this."

 

[femr2]

Ah... I see now.

I doubt it.

You're using the term "shockwave" as a descriptive term.

Correct, again as per my earlier response to you...

How apt.

No, the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.

Your interpretation is indeed one expected from an individual with only half a brain

The detail is subtle, sure, and is only visible due to distortion of the facade, which does affect reflections. But to say *nothing more than the sun shining through the North face*...oh dear. LOL.

Here's some of that detail in another processed version ...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif[/qimg]

Has to be watched a number of times.

By the way, in your haste to whine and complain (and make a fool of yourself at the same time) did you stop to think about what that detail implies ? Well, consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not

Try reading it.

That's not meant to instill the implication of explosives at all, is it?

No.

That was not a shockwave.

Yee gads. Shockwave...a type of propogating disturbance.

Shockwaves are the result of explosions. Period.

Incorrect.

It's not a term that you can just throw around to scare the beejeebus out of immature gullible people, any more so than "pyroclastic".

Seems a reasonable word to use to me...Shockwave...a type of propogating disturbance...the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.

The fact of the matter is, there is a slight chance I could be wrong about seeing through the building, although it's unlikely.

ROFL. You're wrong.

If I am in fact wrong about that, then there's another innocuous explanation, such as curtains or light shining on the windows.

What the hell do you think a reflection is ?

You seem more than a few cards short of a full pack you know.

(i now await your reply when you cherry-pick the "i could be wrong" statement and ignore the rest of the post)

Wooooo ! lol.

 

[femr2]

So its better described as a 'ripple' perhaps?
a 'perturbation'?
simply a 'wave'?

Perhaps. I think it's ironic that folk have been jumping up and down talking about explosions, when I've described the behaviour being highlighted in reasonable detail a number of times...which in no way suggests anything of the sort. *A type of propogating disturbance* is the first line in the wiki desciption for *shockwave* btw.

But, I could change the title <shrug>

"WTC 7 Ripple Visible" Hmm. Sounds crap

I have not bothered with it because my first thought was along the lines of ; " a floor collapsed and took out several more below it. A few hundred tons of falling debris with the violent ripping out of floor members, of course the building reacted to this."

It's interesting for me to be able to see the upward propogation of facade disturbance, followed by the much larger downward propogation of disturbance as the penthouse drops through the building.

Of most interest is the upward section, which I note the likes of NoahFence have not even attempted to explaion in any way except ***explosives!!1!**, even when I repeatedly asked...consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not

 

[kmortis]

So it doesn't get missed in the chatter...

Please refrain from making other posters the subject of your post. It is unnecessary and against the Membership Agreement.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[DGM]

It's interesting for me to be able to see the upward propogation of facade disturbance, followed by the much larger downward propogation of disturbance as the penthouse drops through the building.

So, if I got this right. When people ask if the NIST collapse sequence (as described) reflects what is seen, the answer should be yes?

 

[NoahFence]

What exactly are we supposed to be seeing in that animated .gif anyway?

Of most interest is the upward section, which I note the likes of NoahFence have not even attempted to explaion in any way except ***explosives!!1!**, even when I repeatedly asked...consider whether you think it supports the notion of upward propogating failure from a low floor around a small group of columns, or not

Put an end to this femr. What exactly are you trying to prove with this supposed 'shockwave' beyond what NIST has reported? Are you implying some sort of government nastiness, or are you satisfied in the theory that this collapse is nothing more than icing on the terrorist cake? Where do you fall? That the collapse is a 'red flag' or that it was irrelevant in the events of the day?