Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Dave Rogers]

The depths you will go to avoid admitting a mistake. You said:

"it is utterly false to claim that "all the available gravitational potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy" in the freefall phase, because a part of the available gravitational kinetic energy was converted to fracture energy before the freefall phase began."

You hold up a bowling ball. At that point the bowling ball has a certain amount of GPE (the sum total before it hits the ground). You drop the ball. At any point now in free fall only some of the current GPE is available to be converted to KE but in free fall all of that portion of GPE is converted to KE. If it wasn't the energy would not balance violating the law of conservation of energy. Laughing now?

You hold up a bowling ball. You then lower it a foot slowly, then drop it.

Dave

 

[ergo]

Sure, if it makes you feel better. It's no different than saying "the temperature of the steel" or "steel's temperature." Whatever word you want to latch onto, man.

Thanks. I'm sorry ozeco couldn't find his way around this.

 

[excaza]

Thanks.

For what? Ozeco wasn't wrong.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah so while the building is standing the fires are not hot enough to melt steel.

Correct.

But after it collapses into a pile with no oxygen the fires are hot enough to melt steel.

Eutectic system^WP.

Your completely unsupported hand-waving pronouncement that no nano-thermite particles were found is very convincing.

That's worth a laughing dog too. Harrit's results contradict his conclusion that the particles are nano-thermite, and the only attempt to reproduce his work found no energetic materials in the dust whatsoever. Therefore, no nanothermite has been positively identified in WTC dust.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

Ah so while the building is standing the fires are not hot enough to melt steel. But after it collapses into a pile with no oxygen the fires are hot enough to melt steel.

The word 'melt' is being abused here.

Gross, macroscopic change-of-state metling of steel is a totally different process from the high-temperature eutectic corrosion witnessed in the 'swiss cheese' sample.

I'm sure people here are very willing to explain it, but you'd need to stop bouncing around from factoid to factoid to show it's worth their while (for example the explosive demolition vs. thermite melting dichotomy. You seem to happily accept and quote them both, yet they're mutually exclusive).

 

[cmatrix]

As I said, all the evidence supports collapse due primarily to fire and gravity, and none supports any other cause; this may be assumed to mean all the evidence that exists. Your suggestion that specific items of evidence do not exist, whether true or false, is simply another intellectually dishonest attempt to obscure that fact.

Dave

It's actually you who is obscuring the facts. One of the facts in the NIST report is that WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is impossible for fire to remove 8 stories of structure in a precisely timed manner to allow WTC 7 to fall the way it did. It it were possible we'd have evidence that it could, which you could provide but you can't because it doesn't exist and can't exist. The CD theory can easily explain the free fall period though. Yet you persist in believing the completely unsupported NIST fairy tale.

 

[cmatrix]

Sorry, but in order for this layman to believe that nano-thermite was found, I'm going to need more than just people like cmatrix declaring it was on obscure internet forums, or Jones' so-called "research".

In other words, if science disproves your beliefs you just ignore it.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

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.'

Sheesh. What Dave Said.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's actually you who is obscuring the facts. One of the facts in the NIST report is that WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is impossible for fire to remove 8 stories of structure in a precisely timed manner to allow WTC 7 to fall the way it did. It it were possible we'd have evidence that it could, which you could provide but you can't because it doesn't exist and can't exist. The CD theory can easily explain the free fall period though. Yet you persist in believing the completely unsupported NIST fairy tale.

Meaningless bluster, then.

Dave

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

In other words, if science disproves your beliefs you just ignore it.

Speaking of ignoring, isn't it odd that real Thermite...

looks nothing like Harrit's supposed thermite...

Details 'n' sources here.

 

[beachnut]

All the evidence includes the eutectic reactions ("intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.") and nano-thermite particles in the dust. How does that evidence support fire?

That is corrosion, not melting. You need to read the study.

There was no nano-thermite in the dust, it is a lie made up by an insane person who thinks the US caused the earth quake in Haiti to take their oil. Insanity, fraud and ignorance explains most of 911 truth. Why are fooled by lies?

 

[cmatrix]

Do you not understand what an eutectic reaction is?

And no, nano-thermite particles being found by someone, then submitted to a know fraud, who publishes it in a sham journal, and refuses to submit his samples to an independant lab for confirmation, is not very convincing.

Not to mention that the nano-thermite would have hd very little, if ANY effect on the steel.

I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire but can be caused by thermitics. Care to support your pronouncements against nano-thermite or is this all just bluster?

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire but can be caused by thermitics.

And how did you come to "know" this piece of utter nonsense?

Dave

 

[beachnut]

I know that eutectic reactions are not caused by fire but can be caused by thermitics. Care to support your pronouncements against nano-thermite or is this all just bluster?

No melted steel, you failed to read the study it said.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Your melted steel, was not melted, it was corrosion. You did not read the study! You take lies and repeat them without checking.

Can you source the study? No wonder you failed to read it, you have never seen it. You repeat lies

 

[cmatrix]

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

My word! When GPE is converted to KE it's no longer _available_ to do work. You made the mistake now admit it or keep quiet.

 

[cmatrix]

You hold up a bowling ball. You then lower it a foot slowly, then drop it.

Dave

Er...your point is? The ball now has less GPE. At any point now in free fall only some of the current GPE is available to be converted to KE but in free fall all of that portion of GPE is converted to KE. If it wasn't the energy would not balance violating the law of conservation of energy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

My word! When GPE is converted to KE it's no longer _available_ to do work. You made the mistake now admit it or keep quiet.

More meaningless bluster. Of the gravitational potential energy initially available, E2 has been converted to fracture energy, and the object is in free fall. Therefore, not all of the GPE has been converted to KE. Your statement that some of the GPE has been converted to KE is not a point in dispute.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Er...your point is?

A foot beyond your grasp, apparently.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

My word! When GPE is converted to KE it's no longer _available_ to do work. You made the mistake now admit it or keep quiet.

Is this why bullets don't hurt me? I am superman, the bullet can't do work! Is this a stundie, or what? And his next post is too.

 

[cmatrix]

Sheesh. What Dave Said.

Eh...Dave said GPE is still available to do work after it has been converted to other forms. You really believe this?