So you agree completely with Dave Rogers statement:
'your statement that "With a free falling object all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" is inconsistent with simple Newtonian mechanics.'
cmatrix, let me remind you of the example I gave. An object falls a distance H1-H2, releasing potential energy mg(H1-H2), of which a part mV2 is converted to kinetic energy and another part E2 is converted to fracture energy. It then falls a further distance H2-H3 in freefall, converting mg(H2-H3) to kinetic energy. "All the available potential energy" is {mV2+E2+mg(H2-H3)}, {mV2+mg(H2-H3)} has been converted to kinetic energy, and E2 has not. All of this is consistent with Newtonian mechanics, and contradicts your statement; therefore, your statement contradicts Newtonian mechanics.
Apart from content-free scoffing (because you've already done that), would you like to point out any part of the above scenario, in which an object is in free fall and
not all of the
available gravitational potential energy
has been converted to kinetic energy, is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics?
Let's take another, rather simpler example, as I know you're having trouble comprehending the one above. Suppose an object falls from a height H, in freefall, having available gravitational potential energy mgH. At the moment it passes height H/2, it has converted mgH/2 gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy. So, we have an object in freefall, but not all of its available gravitational potential energy
has been converted to kinetic energy. Again, which part of that is inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics?
At this point, cmatrix, the gracious thing to do is to say "OK, I didn't express that very clearly; what I meant to say is that the gravitational potential energy of an object in freefall can only be converted to kinetic energy while it is in freefall", and then I'd say, "OK, if that's what you meant then I agree with it", and we could get back to discussing the rather obvious fact that WTC7 converted its gravitational potential energy to fracture energy before the period of freefall, so your statement is actually irrelevant.
Alternatively, you could continue to bluster and dodge, and quibble over the meaning of the word "available" in the pretence that its standard meaning is "released between the instant of entering freefall and the instant of measurement", when in fact that would simply reduce your statement to the already universally understood truth that WTC7 could not - as, indeed, it did not, and nobody is suggesting it did - cause significant damage to intact supports while collapsing at near-freefall acceleration. But we all know that's a strawman argument, so there's very little for you to gain by it.
Your choice: intellectual honesty or meaningless bluster.
Dave
