Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[tsig]

I didn't say it wasn't, I said the term is a bit of a misnomer. It's meaning is regularly misunderstood by those who do not understand the relevance of the frame of reference, which you can change at will, therefore, in context, changing the GPE without doing any work at all.


Of course.


Fine with that.


Not fine with that. Instead of digging, simply remove the cover from an already dug 100m hole. Work done in removing the cover != increase in GPE of the ball.

Again the point is understanding the relevance of frame of reference whenever GPE is discussed.

There was work done to dig the hole.

 

[twinstead]

seriously. If femr2 didn't dig the hole there was no energy done to dig the hole?

 

[femr2]

There was work done to dig the hole.

Yee gads. Work done digging hole + removing cover != increase in GPE of ball.

Again the point is understanding the relevance of frame of reference. Appears you don't.

The original point is that the term gravity should not be confused with any of gravitational potential energy, gravity driven, force of gravity, gravitational constant, gravitational acceleration, gravitational field...

Many of you clearly do so. It's not clever and renders many responses misleading, inaccurate and/or incorrect.

Seriously. If femr2 didn't dig the hole there was no energy work done to dig the hole?

An instance of you not understanding the point being made I'm afraid.

 

[twinstead]

Yee gads. Work done digging hole + removing cover != increase in GPE of ball.

Again the point is understanding the relevance of frame of reference. Appears you don't.

The original point is that the term gravity should not be confused with any of gravitational potential energy, gravity driven, force of gravity, gravitational constant, gravitational acceleration, gravitational field...

Many of you clearly do so. It's not clever and renders many responses misleading, inaccurate and/or incorrect.


An instance of you not understanding the point being made I'm afraid.

Pedantics and semantics. The last refuge of the wrong.

I said energy instead of work. I meant work. Sue me. At least I'm not in some irrelevant cult that believes there was something suspicious about the WTC collapses.

 

[femr2]

Pedantics and semantics. The last refuge of the wrong.

I said energy instead of work. I meant work.

The problem is not the incorrect term, it is the entire intent of the post, clearly demonstrating that you haven't understood the relevant point, namely that GPE is dependant upon frame of reference (which is why I indicated that *stored energy* is a bit of a mis-nomer.)

You can change the GPE of a piece of WTC7 to any value you please, simply by changing your reference frame.

Making a comment about the work done in digging a hole is utterly missing the point, and clearly ignorant of the concepts being discussed. Probably best if you stop digging the hole eh.

 

[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]

Ok, who said Floor 12 was burned out by this time? NIST?

 

[Toke]

An instance of you not understanding the point being made I'm afraid.

Do you have any kind of point regarding crushed concrete?

 

[beachnut]

The problem is not the incorrect term, it is the entire intent of the post, clearly demonstrating that you haven't understood the relevant point, namely that GPE is dependant upon frame of reference (which is why I indicated that *stored energy* is a bit of a mis-nomer.)

You can change the GPE of a piece of WTC7 to any value you please, simply by changing your reference frame.

Making a comment about the work done in digging a hole is utterly missing the point, and clearly ignorant of the concepts being discussed. Probably best if you stop digging the hole eh.

911 truth math, takes 911 to a new level of woo. Where did you teach physics?

What reference system you want to use. Are you going to roll out the differential equations, some EOMs for the collapse? Why have been hiding your expertise behind "Demolition" videos on youtube? Earth centered, what will it be. Go ahead make our day, roll out the big guns of math, physics and frames of reference. Take what is a simple model, and make it full scale cool, fill all the blackboards with some equations.

Where is the popcorn? Start with the equations for moon center frame of reference. I know someone who can help you, he was my aero teacher and he discovered moons or something in solar system, I think, back in 1981, or so. He could do the EOMs for flight in minutes. I liked the lift component due to the earth's rotation; what about you?

 

[Animal]

There was no axial restraint on the beams and therefore no axial compression to cause the beams to buckle.

Since the floor beams were still connected to the exterior columns and the girder, and the girder was restrained by the perimeter column due to the flange, the beams buckled. It is quite simple, you just are looking for any reason to fit facts to your predetermined conclusion.

It's not "my claim", it's a statement in the report.

That's the problem, the girder and beams were removed from the model when the girder was was no longer supported by the seat at column 79.

1-9 Vol.2 pg 488 [pdf pg 150]
Walk-off failure of beams and girders was defined to occur when . . . . . . . (2) the beam or girder was pushed laterally until its web was no longer supported by the bearing seat. . . . . . . . When this occurred in the ANSYS analysis, the beam was removed. When a girder failed in this manner, the floor beams that it supported were removed at the same time.

This is before the beams supposedly buckled.

Except that it could not have walked off the seat at the perimeter column because it was restrained by the column flange. It was not restrained at COl.79. So itwould remain in the model WRT the perimeter, but would not at COl 79. The floor beam nearest the perimeter column buckled first.
You claim is still a failure

 

[Animal]

The girder was pushed off its seat after the beams failure by buckling.

"Axial compression then increased in the floor beams, and at a beam temperature of 436 °C, [1] 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, [2] and rocking of the girder off its seat at Column 79 as shown in Figure 8–27 (b).

The girder was restrained from moving off its seat at the perimeter, it was not at the interior Col. 79. The buckling began at the northern most beam ( at the perimeter) which makes total sense because that was the location that was most restrained.

 

[dafydd]

You certainly don't, have made that perfectly clear, and have dodged my questions again.

The hypocricy in the recent discussion is hilarious, but it's all in stone. I may refer to it at a later date

Yes, it's about correct use of terminology, a point that the likes of tfk normall apply the other way around.

Really very, very funny to see the group-think circle-jerk reactions of the locals when you are put in a situation where you should really be criticising one another.

*Yeah, it's wrong, but you know what they were trying to say, so shut up!* lol.

You (and a few others) have shown your personal level of understanding quite clearly over the last page or two, and it's very poor. Has made the repeated accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about drown in irony.

Where did you study physics? I know more about the subject than you do.

 

[dafydd]

Why hide theories on 911? ... lack of evidence?

femr2 has the CD theory, tries to be covert about, naming his "studies", youtube videos with no analysis or comment, only questions, "Demolition". Questions, demands answers, a new investigation, because the original studies and investigations are too complicated, or what?

I was saying femr2 had not goal but he does. Asking questions.
for someone with a fictional covert CD theory, why does he projects his fiction to the "official story/theory"?

I would ask him if this is fiction. But his branch of 911 truth does no answers.
19 terrorists took 4 planes and hit 75 percent of their goal, and the murderers were stopped 100 percent when the rules were known. 911 figured out by ordinary people who stepped to be heroes, saying people they did not know. 911 truth spreading lies, with no care who they disrespect with no evidence claiming Demolition, and claiming the 19 terrorists, the official theory, called reality, is fiction.

911 truth void of physics and math, unable to figure out air ejections in the WTC are due to the collapse, the gravity collapse. femr2 thinks the air ejections are due to explosives, but will not discuss, or admit. If he applies physics to his "anomalies", he will be ejected faster than free-fall from 911 truth.

I have asked femr2 to give us his full theory concerning the events of 911,but have received no reply. No truther here has ever given us a full theory. All we get from them is nitpicking about tiny details. None of them know anything about physics or engineering,it's pathetic to behold sometimes. What about your version of 911 femr2. Be a brave warrior for truth.

 

[femr2]

Do you have any kind of point regarding crushed concrete?

Hmm, howsabout...

Concrete Crush Energy = 3.75E+05/x J/Kg

Where x = scale of crush in microns.


What were you after exactly ?

 

[dafydd]

911 truth math, takes 911 to a new level of woo. Where did you teach physics?

We have yet to find out if he has ever had a physics lesson in his life. I want to know what his credentials are,it is relevant to the thread.

 

[dafydd]

Hmm, howsabout...

Concrete Crush Energy = 3.75E+05/x J/Kg

Where x = scale of crush in microns.


What were you after exactly ?

No full theory then. What a surprise.

 

[Senenmut]

So you are going to take a brittle 20µm layer with another 15-20µm layer and roll it up!

just ignore the fact that the red grey chips were found in the dust...ohhh, i know..no chain of custody even though mark basile got a sample from one of the museums in the area and found them there too!

Do you actually have any understanding of how thin that is? Copy paper is about 0.1mm thick. That's 100µm. 2 1/2 times thicker than observed in the Harrit paper. (5x if just the red layer is thermite!) What were the NWO operatives doing? Putting the stuff up like wall paper!

we dont know how many layers this stuff came in.

:If it came 10 layers thick then we would have seen that in the Harrit et al paper. What no multiple layers. You do know that calculations have been done and show that a temperature rise of no more than 5° (I think it was less iirc) would occur with this thickness.

the point is that they found chips with multiple layers. how many layers was it before the towers collapsed....who knows.

:If it was sprayed on it wouldn't be sprayed on in micron thick layers now would it. Think about how long that would take to build up any sort of thickness that could actually heat the steel up. Secondly if it was hosed on then what is the gray layer for? Why not just hose on the red layer?

thats why i think it was probably pre fab stuff from a lab.

The thermite reaction is Fe₂O₃ + 2Al --> 2Fe+ Al₂O₃

Seeing as you are a master of speculation, could you please speculate as to why we don't see any alumina in the oxidised layer? Where did the Al₂O₃ go?

why do you think it should be there? but thanks for showing everyone that those chips were thermitic. this is what jones said about those pesky iron microspheres produced by those red grey chips when questioned by frank greening:

prof jones: "Dr. Farrer and Danny and I have looked at many of these post-DSC spheres, many do NOT contain Al. See for example Fig 21 in our paper:

Look again at the data (above) -- there is no Al in evidence. Furthermore, the amounts of Si and Ca and especially S here is trivial. The melting points of iron and of iron oxide are both above 1200 C, yet the DSC reached only 700 C, insufficient to cause melting of iron or iron oxide."

For the 3rd time - Source please.

http://911blogger.com/node/16564#comment

:FYI - we know sulphur is the main driving force for this type of corrosion. Therefore we could do "the experiment" (no details of what he did are forth coming) with sulphur and Yorkshire pudding or sulphur and hamsters and still find similar corrosion.

Do you know why an FeS powder was used in the R. R. Biederman, Erin Sullivan, George F. Vander Voort, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. paper?

they wanted to bypass the actual office/debris fire causing the eutectic to form in the first place.

:I'll tell you. It was quick, cheap and easy. Now it's obvious that SO2/H2S was not the only gas present - CO, CO2 would have been too. In order to look at a range of possibilities they would have had to have used specialist furnaces whereby partial pressures of gases could be controlled for long periods of time. They showed that the production of FeS at high temperature could cause a similar effect to that seen without having to perform an experiment with different conditions over long periods of time - smart people.

at least you didnt say wallboard! a fire with office supplies should suffice. ps why mention co when that would carburize the steel when the fema report showed it was decarburized?

 

[beachnut]

Hmm, howsabout...

Concrete Crush Energy = 3.75E+05/x J/Kg

Where x = scale of crush in microns.


What were you after exactly ?

Out of thin air? Per tower? Based on? Etc... No credit when you don't show your work. Is your CD theory thermite or some type of explosives?

 

[newton3376]

We have yet to find out if he has ever had a physics lesson in his life. I want to know what his credentials are,it is relevant to the thread.

Whether he has taken physics courses or not.....and no matter what his actual credentials are or are not, the fact remains that some people were using terms incorrectly.

I've been sucked into the "jump on the truther" thing before....and afterwards I realized that I was doing the very thing I have seen truthers do to non truthers.

The bottom line is that we should demand the same level of accuracy from fellow skeptics that we do from truthers (or any group for that matter).

 

[A W Smith]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2. Since the zero of gravitational potential energy can be chosen at any point (like the choice of the zero of a coordinate system), the potential energy at a height h above that point is equal to the work which would be required to lift the object to that height with no net change in kinetic energy. Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted.

 

[A W Smith]

Correct

The problem is not the incorrect term, it is the entire intent of the post, clearly demonstrating that you haven't understood the relevant point, namely that GPE is dependant upon frame of reference (which is why I indicated that *stored energy* is a bit of a mis-nomer.)

You can change the GPE of a piece of WTC7 to any value you please, simply by changing your reference frame.

yes, by moving the zero in altitude

Making a comment about the work done in digging a hole is utterly missing the point, and clearly ignorant of the concepts being discussed. Probably best if you stop digging the hole eh.

Its not the digging of the hole. its moving the frame of reference (the zero) to the bottom of that hole.