"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by ANOK

Just because someone can't explain, to your satisfaction, how the rubble was ejected does not mean it wasn't.

The evidence is in the post collapse pics, not in how it happened. Photographic evidence proves the rubble was ejected. FEMA supports that fact. There is no need to provide any more proof to you.

Hi ANOK! Its me again! Your personal mess cleaner. Please show us a picture where the rubble was ejected. Notice, ejected meaning, forcefully launched out by whatever magic force you wish to use. Ejected does not mean a tall object titling over and the top section falls farther away from the center. Also, ejected does not mean a tall object being knocked over by another object falling on it.

Also, Its been almost TWO months now, and I am still patiently waiting for any actual evidence of floors being ejected outside the WTC footprint. Any pictures of floor trusses, floor pans, or actual floor segments containing floor trusses, pans, and concrete slabs being ejected outside the footprint would do. I can wait and wait, but its starting to wear thin ANOK. You claim that the majority of the mass was somehow ejected outside the footprint. I am giving you many chances to back it up. Show me a picture or a video where a section of floor is in the process of being ejected outside the footprint. Remember, a floor segment looks like this:





In case you have a hard time seeing or remembering what a floor segment looks like:

@ 0:21 in the video you have one being hoisted up.
@ 1:37 in the video a great shot underneath one.
@ 1:52 in the video we see them being offloaded off a truck and raised up.
@ 2:53 we see another floor section raised.

The floors were the majority of the mass in the WTC. You claim they were ejected. Show me something that looks like the above being ejected.

You only hang on to this fantasy because otherwise your hypothesis falls flat on its face, Mr.Electrical engineer who can't answer simple physics questions.

So says the Mechanical Engineer who cannot read and correctly comprehend what is being said in a report and confusing what the term initiator means in regards to what started the collapse. Remember your little "oopsey" with what FEMA said and NIST said? How can someone get so far in education when one cannot even comprehend correctly what one is reading? Reading comprehension is a very important skill in ALL fields of education and life.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Correct. Its called inertia.


It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.

So in Truther World inertia and potential energy are she same thing ?

Within the given context I believe the two terms could be used interchangeably but the correct term is inertia.

If you disagree then please explain why. Afterall I do not have a physics degree so I am "stupid".

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Correct. Its called inertia.


It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.

So in Truther World inertia and potential energy are she same thing ?

Within the given context I believe the two terms could be used interchangeably...

The short answer is, you are very, very wrong. You should ask psikeyhackr what potential energy is, or read the thread, or Wikipedia. This is not a remedial school of physics. Lots of prestigious schools have online lectures, and there may even be some online textbooks if you want to learn physics.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Correct. Its called inertia.


It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.

So in Truther World inertia and potential energy are she same thing ?

Within the given context I believe the two terms could be used interchangeably...

The short answer is, you are very, very wrong. You should ask psikeyhackr what potential energy is, or read the thread, or Wikipedia. This is not a remedial school of physics. Lots of prestigious schools have online lectures, and there may even be some online textbooks if you want to learn physics.

So you are not going to explain why I am wrong? Just send me off on a wild goose chase....

BTW I love that bugs bunny chick! Can I ask her out?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


The reason to use the correct terms is so that other people can understand what you are talking about. Although that seems a bit obvious to me.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

The reason to use the correct terms is so that other people can understand what you are talking about. Although that seems a bit obvious to me.

I couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't know the physics terms and use them consistently, discussion of the physics of 9/11 is an impossibility. Telling you to go learn some physics from any online source is not a 'wild goose chase'. It's a sure fire hit. All it takes is time and effort. Go for it!

reply to post by -PLB-


Letting semantics get in the way of a good discussion is wrong.

And none have explained the significant difference between the two terms within the context.

Just "very, very wrong". sorry but that will not cut it with me!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Letting semantics get in the way of a good discussion is wrong.

And none have explained the significant difference between the two terms within the context.

Just "very, very wrong". sorry but that will not cut it with me!

Inertia and Potential Energy are not interchangable terms in any context, period. This is not a question of semantics. Go learn physics and come back when you know the definition of the words we are using. Or continue to expose yourself as ridiculously ignorant, yet content to hold forth on subjects of which you know nothing. Either way, I don't care. This is not a remedial science class.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Letting semantics get in the way of a good discussion is wrong.

And none have explained the significant difference between the two terms within the context.

Just "very, very wrong". sorry but that will not cut it with me!

Inertia and Potential Energy are not interchangable terms in any context, period. This is not a question of semantics. Go learn physics and come back when you know the definition of the words we are using. Or continue to expose yourself as ridiculously ignorant, yet content to hold forth on subjects of which you know nothing. Either way, I don't care. This is not a remedial science class.

Ok doctor frankenstein. Here is an overview definition of potential energy from wikipedia.

Potential energy exists when a force acts upon an object that tends to restore it to a lower energy configuration. This force is often called a restoring force. For example, when a spring is stretched to the left, it exerts a force to the right so as to return to its original, unstretched position. 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. If the spring is released or the mass is dropped, this stored energy will be converted into kinetic energy by the restoring force, which is elasticity in the case of the spring, and gravity in the case of the mass. Think of a roller coaster. When the coaster climbs a hill it has potential energy. At the very top of the hill is its maximum potential energy. When the car speeds down the hill potential energy turns into kinetic. Kinetic energy is greatest at the bottom.

Notice "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."

So in a loose-about-way one can say the kinetic energy being released from the top mass of the falling building is being countered by the "potential energy" of the lower building at rest.

I already said I think he meant INERTIA and he picked the wrong term. It does not mean the rest of his analysis was flawed. It simply means he picked the wrong term. You are arguing semantics in an effort to derail the topic!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
Letting semantics get in the way of a good discussion is wrong.

That is why it is so important to use the correct terms. But in this case it is not just a matter of accidental wrong use of terms, it is a complete lack of understanding of the meaning of the terms. So a good discussion isn't even possible.

And none have explained the significant difference between the two terms within the context.

Just "very, very wrong". sorry but that will not cut it with me!

Potential energy is the energy stored in a body or in a system due to its position in a force field or due to its configuration.

Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to a change in its state of motion or rest, or the tendency of an object to resist any change in its motion.

(wiki)

If you are unable to understand why the terms have a fundamentally different meaning, you are missing the required knowledge of physics and the meaning of the terms. I can tell you that "stored energy" is completely different than "resistance as result of change in motion", but if you do not know what terms like energy, resistance or motions mean then there isn't much left I can do. I would have to explain those terms, again using terms you do not understand. There are of course people who do this to the point you understand it, they are physics teachers, which I am not.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

keep reading the wikipedia article and everything you can find linked from there. You're off to a good start, Earth Citizen. I'm glad to see you've taken my advice.

reply to post by -PLB-


The bottom line of our seemingly fruitless discussion, is that the top part of the building would have severed from the rest of the unaffected building and toppled over, because of the inertia factor of the unaffected sections.

Instead that is not what happened. The whole building came down in one peice with hardely any horizontal motion. THIS CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY EXPLOSIVES!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Correct. Its called inertia.

It makes perfect sense to me and I don't even have a physics degree. It goes to show we have lots of trolls here that defend the Original Story for a living, ie get paid to post nonsense.

So in Truther World inertia and potential energy are she same thing ?

Within the given context I believe the two terms could be used interchangeably but the correct term is inertia.

If you disagree then please explain why. Afterall I do not have a physics degree so I am "stupid".

They are both related to mass but they are definitely not the same thing.

Suppose you had to push a car on a smooth level surface. It would be difficult to get started because of the inertia but once it was going you would just have to compensate for the friction. Now suppose you had to push it up a slight incline. By raising the height of the car you would be increasing its potential energy that could be significantly harder.

This is high school physics but it should be taught in grade school because it is that easy. People deal with physics every day. This pretense that it is difficult it ridiculous.

psik

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I don't see how the opinion of someone who says he doesn't have a degree in physics is of any relevance in this matter. The top section had no reason to topple over, as the resistance it encountered was more or less symmetrical.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by -PLB-

 

The bottom line of our seemingly fruitless discussion, is that the top part of the building would have severed from the rest of the unaffected building and toppled over, because of the inertia factor of the unaffected sections.

Instead that is not what happened. The whole building came down in one peice with hardely any horizontal motion. THIS CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY EXPLOSIVES!

edit on 10/13/2011 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

Actually, the building came down in many pieces only as the debris got to the lower parts. If it was demolition, wouldn't the whole building have come down at once rather than top-down?

reply to post by GenRadek


Show me the floors still in the footprints of the towers.

Unless you can do that your claims are nonsense.

Here's an idea:



Wouldn't it make sense that losing its pivot as the floors below collapse would prevent it from having the momentum to fly to the side?

reply to post by ANOK


Basically you agree that you do not have any evidence of floors that are outside the footprint, so you argue that there isn't evidence of floors inside the footprint either. There is and it has been shown to you. But lets put that aside for a moment, and agree there is no photographic evidence for either position. On what exactly do you base your position that the floors ejected?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I don't see how the opinion of someone who says he doesn't have a degree in physics is of any relevance in this matter. The top section had no reason to topple over, as the resistance it encountered was more or less symmetrical.

I don't think you can prove there was enough weight on the top part of the skyscraper to cause a cascade free fall downwards of the entire building.

And secondely even if there was enough weight the resistance encountered would NOT be symmetrical because many structural beams, floors and other structures were deformed from the raging fires meaning their load bearing capacity would be compromised, meaning there would be a huge imbalance problem, meaning there would be a toppling over effect.

Nice try but I don't need a ph.d in physics to recognise BS!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I don't think you can prove there was enough weight on the top part of the skyscraper to cause a cascade free fall downwards of the entire building.

Things that did not happen do not require proof. There was no "cascade free fall downwards", and nobody but a couple of truthers think that this is the "OS theory".

And secondely even if there was enough weight the resistance encountered would NOT be symmetrical because many beams, floors and other structures were deformed from the raging fires.

Nice try, but I don't need a ph.d in physics to recognise BS!

I said "more or less". As in, the resistance on one side of the building was not much different from the resistance on the other side of the building. And seemingly you do need a degree in physics to recognize bull#. If you could recognize bull# your would not have been a truther.