It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Enough with the dishonest behaviour Truthers - I'm calling you out.

page: 46
60
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by Joey Canoli

No.

Towers 1 and 2 had roughly equal PE since they were roughly equal. Remember, PE is determined when an object is at rest.

7 was definitely different.

well well once again wrong.....the potential energy is in the amount of mass that was let loose and the distance of travel or height

PE=mgh

man Joey you keep stumbling on the simplist of things....OMG

North tower had way more mass than the south tower at the point of collapse.......

I think you must have failed physics......now once the potential energy is released it is now kinetic energy...in otherwords it is in motion......

Now, a simple question: Does this accounting of lost ke satisfy the equal and opposite reaction law in physics?

now yet again what a stupid question....the law must be satisfied....

For they do not account for the simple fact that the events were vertical, not horizontal.

your are forgetting i was repling to you...YOU presented the horizontal GIF......but saying that...the only diference between the horizontal model and the vertical model is the force being applied.....in this case the force being applied and the ONLY force being applied is Gravity.....IF one believes only the OS story.

Like we've been saying, turn this gif on its side, and consider the fact that once the second freight car is set into motion, it no longer, as ANOK states, result in an accumulating mass that will provide increasing resistance. Rather, it will result an increasing mass that will provide increasing ke.

oh yes right your talking about this accumulating mass that is being expelled in huge quantities (that is completely neglected in Bazants model) outside of the falling Mass hmmmmm strange that is isn't it.....IF the mass is being expelled...how can it be accumulating?.

now about the gibberish part......the only model that would be the most important to prove is the collapse of the south tower...but obviously you call it gibberish because you do not understand what was being said....For Bazants model to be deemed reasonable he had to prove it in the case of the building with the least amount of potential Energy....but then again you stated earlier the PE was the same so it shows you have not a clue what your talking about.

why do you think Bazant used the mass of the 16 floors to promote his model.......Because it had to be shown to be the case ....but you can't seem to comprehend such things can you.

Please Joey stop showing your in ability to comprehend such matters.....as you keep tripping yourself up.

You present the horizontal model...and when it is rebuked you then say you have to put it into a vertical postion thinking that that somehow changes the laws of physics.....well it doesn't, it changes the the force acting on it the physics is still the same....

so one thing here Joey.....were you wrong in saying the potential energy was the same in both towers.....you better look at Bazants own work as the answer is in there...not even he would make such a error to say that.

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by plube

North tower had way more mass than the south tower at the point of collapse.......

You do know the north tower is the one with the big antenna on top ......Right ?

With the exception of the antenna mass the towers had the same potential energy. You have the equation use it. show us we are wrong.

You do know gravity is an accelerating force....Right ? Thats why they put SQUARED at the end of the equation.
edit on 4-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by plube

well well once again wrong.....the potential energy is in the amount of mass that was let loose and the distance of travel or height

PE=mgh

man Joey you keep stumbling on the simplist of things....OMG

You need to reread what you wrote above and tell us you are not confused about the simple difference between potential and kinetic energy. The "mass that was let loose part" verses the rest of the sentence, that's what you should concentrate on.

man pube you keep stumbling on the simplist of things....OMG

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Remember, PE is determined when an object is at rest.

Yeah completely wrong.

Pe is the stored energy of position an object has.

A rubber band has Pe when it is stretched, because it will release energy when you let it go, at rest it has no Pe. A demolition ball on a crane will have Pe when it is elevated, because when let go it will move. AT rest, just hanging from the chain, it has no Pe.

An object at rest has no energy acting on it. Energy is the measurement of work done, unless work it being done, or has the potential to be done, there is no energy.

edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 06:42 PM

Originally posted by waypastvne
man pube you keep stumbling on the simplist of things....OMG

No you do, Plube is correct.

Until the top was in a position to fall, let loose, it had NO Pe. The top was not in a position to exert a force, until it became disconnected from the rest of the building.

edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by waypastvne
man pube you keep stumbling on the simplist of things....OMG

No you do, Plube is correct.

Until the top was in a position to fall, let loose, it had NO Pe. The top was not in a position to exert a force, until it became disconnected from the rest of the building.

Sorry Truther both you and Plube are wrong. Before it "let loose" it was PE=MHG after it "let loose" it was KE=1/2MxV^2.

You can't argue it.
edit on 4-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

No you do, Plube is correct.

Until the top was in a position to fall, let loose, it had NO Pe. The top was not in a position to exert a force, until it became disconnected from the rest of the building.

edit on 11/4/2011 by ANOK because: typo

Wait wait wait................. The top section of the building had no PE? Like seriously? Really? Are you sure? Positive? 100%?

That is about all I can do for this comedy.......... Mr. Physics just failed.

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:32 PM

Wait wait wait................. The top section of the building had no PE? Like seriously? Really? Are you sure? Positive? 100%?
That is about all I can do for this comedy.......... Mr. Physics just failed.

I think this really shows that some "truthers" have no real understanding of physics, and explains their silly conspiracy theories, as they use bizarro physics!

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:37 AM

Wait wait wait................. The top section of the building had no PE? Like seriously? Really? Are you sure? Positive? 100%?
That is about all I can do for this comedy.......... Mr. Physics just failed.

As I said the top would not have Pe until it was separated from the bottom, why is that hard to understand?

How did the top have Pe when it was still part of the rest of the building?

Again Pe is the energy of position of an object, not an object at rest as you claimed. Get the physics terms straight, and maybe you'll stop laughing like an ignorant hyena.

Potential Energy

An object can store energy as the result of its position.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

You can not have energy if work has not been done, a resting object has no Pe, unless that object is suspended in the air, or has some internal mechanism to create energy itself. Argue and laugh all you want, you are wrong and have always been wrong, you're not smarter than a fifth grader...

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:47 AM

Originally posted by spoor
I think this really shows that some "truthers" have no real understanding of physics, and explains their silly conspiracy theories, as they use bizarro physics!

You only think you're right because you read 911myths, or whatever, and for your hollywood physics to work you have to be ignorant of how it really works.

Please show me something that says objects at rest have potential energy? They can only have Pe if they are in a position for an energy to act on them.

Here, search....

startpage.com...

All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the laws of motion...

The 1st law states, 'a body remains at rest, or in motion, with a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force'.

Consider a book placed on top of a table. When the book is raised from the floor to the table, some external force works against the gravitational force. If the book falls back to the floor, the same work will be done by the gravitational force. Thus, if the book falls off the table, this potential energy goes to accelerate the mass of the book and is converted into kinetic energy. When the book hits the floor this kinetic energy is converted into heat and sound by the impact.

secure.wikimedia.org...

So back to the original point of this discussion, no the top did not have Pe until it was in a position that separated it into a body separate from the one it was originally part of. In other words until it became detached, and the energy of gravity could cause it to drop, converting its Pe to Ke. Ke would then be converted to other energy needed to deform, break connections, make sound, friction, heat etc., etc., etc...

edit on 11/5/2011 by ANOK because: typo

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:15 AM

the towers had the same mass...but they did not collapse at the same point did they....it is the mass of the upper blocks that is the potential energy in all three cases... i can see your completely confused also.....the PE is the energy stored in the upper sections of each collapse...not in the entire buildings themselves...if one has to explain this to you both ...then niether of you understand the physics at all.

yet again....the i OS is saying that truthers do not understand but your saying is ridiculous this....and also it shows that you don't get what is being said if you had to point out the acceleration due to gravity as it is a given that it is 9.8m/s2 the mass in all three cases of each building falling was a different MASS therefore a varied PE.
edit on 013030p://f43Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:29 AM

if you actually think i need to re read that part i think you better think again...i put it as let loose to try to get you to understand the difference in potential energy in each of the three cases...you obviously dont get it....each building at the point of collapse had a different PE as the mass of each was DIFFERENT

a 50kg object falls 10m its potential energy at rest is

PE= 50kg x 9.8m/s2 x 10m equals 4900j
PE= 60kg x9.8m/s2 x10m equals 5880j

Amazing......a different PE value a 16 floor block falls 10ft
a 28 florr block falls 10ft

you now tell me if one has more PE than the other......IT is pure simple physics here...come on.
you really put your foot in it....trying to say because i said let loose you tried to say i was refferring to the KE at that point ......man oh man.......
edit on 013030p://f32Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 013030p://f33Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 013030p://f44Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:41 AM

Your playing a bit on antics here..but your right in the literal sense...ALL things has PE but the PE is taken into account when work is being done by that PE so one is really just playing semantics here really GEN...and you know you are.

until that PE is used in work done it is there but is just potential...that is why it is called potential energy....you know that if a rock sat on the side of a hill the whole rock has mass and therefore PE....but say half the rock broke away do you calculate the potential energy of the whole rock....or just the part of the mass that broke away.

Now does that simplify things for those who do not understand....and try to make out that I don't have a clue what it is am talking about......hmmmmm...i am sure someone will come back with some Ignorant statement here....but this one is really for Joey and Wayne maybe now you will get it...cause it is so darn simple.

edit on 013030p://f47Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by ANOK
Please show me something that says objects at rest have potential energy?

"Similarly, when a mass is lifted up, the force of gravity will act so as to bring it back down. The action of stretching the spring or lifting the mass requires energy to perform. The energy that went into lifting up the mass is stored in its position in the gravitational field, while similarly, the energy it took to stretch the spring is stored in the metal. According to the law of conservation of energy, energy cannot be created or destroyed; hence this energy cannot disappear. Instead, it is stored as potential energy."
en.wikipedia.org...

You seem unable to accept that you know nothing about physics. from the above all the bits that made up the buildings when lifted above ground level had potential energy. The reinforced concrete floor on the 99th floor had energy put into it to raise it up to the 99th floor, thus it had potential energy. PE = mass • g • height
so we have the mass of the concrete, the height of the concrete and g (which = 9.8)

They can only have Pe if they are in a position for an energy to act on them.

which they have.....

So back to the original point of this discussion, no the top did not have Pe until it was in a position that separated it into a body separate from the one it was originally part of.

So the 99th reinforced concrete floor had no Pe....

You again show you have zero knowledge of physics!

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 02:06 AM
reply to post by plube and Anok

The post above mine pretty much covers it.

Thanks Spoor.

edit on 5-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 07:47 AM

Sorry Way it does not cover it...you stated that

With the exception of the antenna mass the towers had the same potential energy. You have the equation use it. show us we are wrong.

but you tried to infer that when the collapse happened that all PE was the same.....you are so wrong.

but you stil do not admit it do you....the PE that is to be calculated is the PE supplied from the upper block...not the entire building as the mass of the entire building is not in collision with the lower structure now is it.

Bazant calculates the PE from the accumulated mass of the upper 16 floors in the south tower....

If we assume that the upper section comprising 16 storeys falls under a full gravitational
acceleration through a height of one (removed) storey, a distance of 3.7 metres we can calculate
that its velocity upon impact will be 8.52 metres per second and have a kinetic energy due to its
mass and velocity of 2.105 GJ. (Using the figure of 58000 tonnes as detailed in the report by
Bazant & Zhou.[1]) In reality there would be some losses of energy due to residual strength
within the failing columns of the removed section, but these are ignored for the purposes of this
analysis.

this kinetic energy is derived from the PE of the 16 story block....

but hey is this something you will deny....but if you do then you deny the report that trys to make the OS plausible...

as i have said the whole building has PE but you can only use the PE of the section of the building that is release to calculate your KE.

So why is everyone trying the use semantics here.....it is a simple thing....stop with ridiculous statements.

you have PE this PE is then released which is now KE so we know the Apparent KE availible to impact the lower structure.....the issue is ...was there sufficient KE to destroy the lower structure....well the jury is still out on this one now isn't it.....in my opinion there was not enough..and in many other peoples opinions.....that is why paper after paper gets written about it.....but what is apparent.....is that some people have no idea about the physics......to say the PE was the same in all the collapses is not correct.....did the tower have the same PE in the entire structure...yes......Did the blocks that did come down and impact the lower structure have the same PE...no Other wise Bazants would not have even bother to work out the KE based on the 16floors just to use something you OSer's seem to cherish as gospel, you might want to read your own bible then.

but just for your entertainment lets look at how steel structures react shall we.....

heck why should we not also look at some physics in falling objects since we seem to be told to look at things on the vertical.

edit on 073030p://f52Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

edit on 083030p://f21Saturday by plube because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by plube
North tower had way more mass than the south tower at the point of collapse.......

Bazant calculates the PE from the accumulated mass of the upper 16 floors in the south tower....

First off lets try and figure out if you know the difference between the north and south tower. I don't think you do.

North tower antenna. Less mass above point of collapse.

South tower No antenna. More mass above point of collapse.

Both buildings had approximately the same amount of potential in relation to the center of the earth.

The falling block of the north tower had about 1/2 the kinetic energy of the south tower after its initial 12' fall, due to mass difference.

The falling block of the south tower had about 2x the kinetic energy of the north tower after its initial 12' fall due to mass difference

See if you can get north and south sorted out before we continue Truther. Then you won't be so confusing.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 11:13 AM

Originally posted by plube

but just for your entertainment lets look at how steel structures react shall we.....

Your video doesn't fool me truther. All structures in the video are heavily triangulated. I know what that does for the strength of a structure, do you ? The WTC buildings were barely triangulated relying on the spandrel plates for triangulation.

Your comparison of the structures in that video to the world trade centres, highlights your structural ignorance vividly.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 12:52 PM

Originally posted by plube

the potential energy is in the amount of mass that was let loose and the distance of travel or height

PE=mgh

Your statement was that the buildings had different PE. This is wrong.

You're confused about the north vs south towers too.

I think what you meant to say is that the part of the towers above the impact/failure zone had different PE, and thusly KE also once set into motion. This is the correct way to make your point.

now yet again what a stupid question....the law must be satisfied....

A bit cryptic.

If an analysis of the impacts say that the upper part of the north tower had 2GJ of energy at impact with the first lower floor, and 1.5GJ was "used up" in the collision, then is the equal and opposite law satisfied?

A simple yes or no is what I seek....

the only diference between the horizontal model and the vertical model is the force being applied.....in this case the force being applied and the ONLY force being applied is Gravity

Correct.

Now, do you agree that the gifs can only help understanding the events of 9/11 at the moment of impact, and that since gravity is most definitely NOT being represented in it, that there is another set of equations that must account for gravity?

Yes or no...

IF the mass is being expelled...how can it be accumulating?

The rational explanation is that it's delusional to claim that all the mass is being expelled during the collapse.

EVEN IF we came to an agreement that 100% of the friable materials such as drywall, SFRM, and concrete was expelled in the .1 second between collisions, there is ZERO non-delusional way to claim that the steel trusses and floor pans, etc were expelled.

And thusly, mass accumulates.

It was gibberish cuz you confused the north and south towers.

why do you think Bazant used the mass of the 16 floors to promote his model

Cuz that's what was above the initiation zone.

rational and simple...

You present the horizontal model

yes I did. I also said it was inappropriate to understand fully the dynamics of the event since gravity effects aren't a part of it.

so one thing here Joey.....were you wrong in saying the potential energy was the same in both towers

Nope, I am correct.

A true statement is that the sections of the tower above the impact zones have different PE.

posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

If an analysis of the impacts say that the upper part of the north tower had 2GJ of energy at impact with the first lower floor, and 1.5GJ was "used up" in the collision, then is the equal and opposite law satisfied?

A simple yes or no is what I seek....

This is an excellent pointblank question.

You can either answer it or put on your tap shoes and dance for us.

I love to watch truthers dance.

top topics

60