The UNofficial Report On 9/11

reply to post by ANOK


Just out of curiosity and my desire to learn more about Truther Physics, can you explain negative gravitational potential energy to us using Truther Physics.

When holding the string of a helium balloon you can feel a potential energy force pulling up. And when you let go of the string, the balloon does in fact go up. Can you explain this gravity defying phenomenon using Truther Physics.

Please entertain us with your knowledge.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

If that's the reason why you fail to comprehend simple physics, then that's OK. I knew there was some reason for your short comings. Earlier you stated that the 'squibs' had been 'proven wrong'. By who? You?

Clearly you're only here to belittle anyone who disagrees. I'm not falling for your attempts to be a paranoid jerk.

I do comprehend basic physics, and I think that you and others here do too. What you don't comprehend is the actual structure of the buildings in question, where the fires were, and how strong the connections were, or the sequence of events. Every time you bring it up (well, not you. You never make any points anymore, just attacking other members), it's always the same misconceptions.

But I understand. You WANT to believe the conspiracy with all your heart. It CAN'T be any other way for you, because you already determined who the "evil" people are, and are on a witch hunt. Logic and reason cannot beat a determined brain. That's why religion exists, in my opinion. People are simply determined to believe.

Now, I know that your rebuttal will be "you BELIEVE in the OS," but see, I don't. I think the government knew and even planned the attacks. I just don't think it was a demolition. I guess that makes me evil!

reply to post by Varemia
Look, if you expect me to believe that you think those THREE buildings fell because of fire, then you leave me no choice but to label you an impostor. Having seen the evidence to the contrary here on ats, anyone who stands by the OS still, is suspect. What you are attempting here defies explanation, so if I ruffle your feathers that's too bad. You are not helping to support those of us who are trying to bring the inaccuracies in the OS to light, and create a situation where there is a public outcry for the truth. You, are not helping.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by Varemia

 

Look, if you expect me to believe that you think those THREE buildings fell because of fire, then you leave me no choice but to label you an impostor. Having seen the evidence to the contrary here on ats, anyone who stands by the OS still, is suspect. What you are attempting here defies explanation, so if I ruffle your feathers that's too bad. You are not helping to support those of us who are trying to bring the inaccuracies in the OS to light, and create a situation where there is a public outcry for the truth. You, are not helping.

See, this is an intolerant and unscientific position to take. You can't just assume that every person who disagrees is an impostor or a moron. It only defies explanation in your mind, and you have no right to attack peoples' character based on your personal paranoia. Even the other conspiracy theorists (and I would be included, since I think the government was responsible) would agree that you are violently anti-reason.

When was the last time you added anything to a discussion? You always attack members for their transgressions against your gospel of history.

reply to post by ATH911


Thats what happens when evidence is staged like that.

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by ANOK

 

Just out of curiosity and my desire to learn more about Truther Physics, can you explain negative gravitational potential energy to us using Truther Physics.

When holding the string of a helium balloon you can feel a potential energy force pulling up. And when you let go of the string, the balloon does in fact go up. Can you explain this gravity defying phenomenon using Truther Physics.

Helium weighs less than air? It floats.

Not really sure how this contradicts what Pe is. Are you still trying to claim I'm wrong after I have show you I'm right? Are we in the twilight zone again?

Please entertain us with your knowledge.

The only thing you're any good at it is being childishly patronizing.

Again the definition of Pe...

Potential Energy Definition: Potential energy is that energy which an object has because of its position. It is called potential energy because it has the potential to be converted into other forms of energy, such as kinetic energy.

Example: If you lift a mass m by h meters, its potential energy will be mgh, where g is the acceleration due to gravity.

chemistry.about.com...

For those who have problems understanding what that means...

Potential energy is energy due to a body's position in space relative to other bodies that exert forces upon it. A body at rest has zero kinetic energy, but may have potential energy. A moving body has kinetic energy, and may also have potential energy.

www.lhup.edu...

Pe is not what a body at rest has, as originally claimed, it is the energy it has due to its position. For a body to have Pe it must be in a position to release energy, so also as claimed the top of the towers did not have Pe until they were separated from the bottom.

Originally posted by ANOK

A body at rest has zero kinetic energy, but may have potential energy.

Pe is not what a body at rest has, as originally claimed,

Oh dear, your reading comprehension is so bad you missed the above in what you posted....

So even your source tells you that a body at rest has Pe, but you missed that

you really do have zero understanding of physics, and how things actually work!

You embarrass yourself in every post you make here.

reply to post by Se7enex

Looks like a really well done report, Se7enex. I'm looking forward to reading it, and I agree with Varemia's early comment that truthers, if we want to live up to the name, should dig into the evidence presented with the same passion for truth that we'd have digging into Popular Mechanics. Instead, after only two pages of posts we've slipped into the usual Kabuki dance over the semantics of physics.

I hope I'll have time to read, research and comment on the report's content soon. I hope other people will do the same - that's a lot more interesting to read than personal attacks and arguments about concrete definitions of abstract concepts.

I'm curious, Se7enex - you mentioned that this is a project for school - this is a class project then? What's the class, if I may ask? What grade level? What do you expect the response to be (or what has it been, if you've already turned this project in). I'm interested in the way the events of 9/11 are portrayed in education, and this being a formal class project fascinates me...

Cheers,

reply to post by Se7enex

It is NOT a conspiracy website.

Yes it is. Want to know what engineers and architects think? Try AIA and ASCE.

They are presenting FACT....

No, its all ignorant opinion.

....and are verified architects.

Check again.

There research is completely scoentifical and there is absolutely no conspiracy belief involved in their research.

Their "research" consists of new ways of scamming suckers.

And fyi the Death toll can't be assured as 100% accurate so I left it out.

Yeah, right. The "architects and engineers" on that conspiracy website can't be 100% accurate either yet I notice you didn't do any rounding with that number.

It doesn't matter if I provide a specific number any amount of life taken is devastating.

No, it does matter quite a bit.

Nowhere do I come off as damning the people who died that day so please don't assume I am.

I don't have to assume anything - you couldn't be bothered to look up the actual number of victims that day so you have not damned them but yourself to permanent irrelevance.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by ANOK

A body at rest has zero kinetic energy, but may have potential energy.

Pe is not what a body at rest has, as originally claimed,

Oh dear, your reading comprehension is so bad you missed the above in what you posted....

So even your source tells you that a body at rest has Pe, but you missed that

you really do have zero understanding of physics, and how things actually work!

You embarrass yourself in every post you make here.

No, you need to re-read what it says genius.

'A body at rest has zero kinetic energy, but may have potential energy'

There is a huge difference between MAY have and HAS.

Re-read what Pe is and you will understand why it says MAY have. This is why you guys so easily fall for BS, talk about having comprehension problems.

You all still want to think energy is a substance of some kind that everything has.

Potential energy is energy due to a system's configuration in space in situations where the components of the system can exert force on one another.

The original claim was that the definition of Pe is a body at rest, which is not true, and that the tops of the towers had Pe before they were separated from the bottom, which is also not true.

6. Potential Energy

Potential energy results when work is done against certain kinds of forces which are known as "conservative" forces. Gravity, elasticity, electric forces and magnetic forces are examples of conservative forces.

We define gravitational potential energy as the stored work done against a conservative force. Usually this is related to the change of location of one object in relation to the force required to move it a certain distance.

With this definition is it easy to note than an object acquires gravitational potential energy when a force (equal to its weight) is used to lift it to a certain height. It then possesses something it didn't have before, that is the ability to do work.

For example if a weight is allowed to settle slowly on the diameter of a wheel, the wheel can turn and do work. This is the principle of the water mill which has been used for centuries to grind grain.

The potential energy of the weight can be changed to kinetic energy is the weight is allowed to freefall. AS IT LOSES POTENTIAL ENERGY (gets closer to the ground) IT GAINS KINETIC ENERGY (gains speed in freefall). It is obvious in a quantitative sense that this is true. Even more interesting is that it can be demonstrated that the LOSS OF POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE GAIN OF KINETIC ENERGY. This is once again assuming the frictionless case, but we already know that the concept of freefall generalizes to the case of no air friction.

honolulu.hawaii.edu...

Pe simpy means an object has the potential to release energy, an objects at rest has no potential to release energy unless an outside force acts on it. Lift the object off the ground and it will have Pe because of the potential for it to be dropped.

...So Clayton has managed to concentrate and store energy in the ball, though in the process five times more "spread-out" thermal energy was generated than ended up being concentrated in the ball. Darn that second law.

We call the stored energy, potential energy. To be even more specific we can call it gravitational potential energy. This tells us it is not energy stored in a spring or in chemical bonds. It has the potential to be converted into the energy of motion if we get the hand force out of its way.

How much gravitational energy is stored in the ball?
In this situation the ball has the potential to fall from Clayton's hand to the ground. If there was a deep hole under Clayton's hand it could fall farther. But in this case it can only fall the distance H to the ground. The potential energy in each case depends on how far the object can fall (not how much energy it took to raise it)...

www.ftexploring.com...

That is the same principle as the top of the towers. Until they could fall, their Pe was zero, when they became detached they had Pe dependent on the distance they could fall x the mass...

Potential Energy (PE) concentrated in the ball equals Force of Gravity times the distance the ball will fall, or PE = Fg x H.

www.ftexploring.com...

Continued...

The Final Conversion - Predictable as Always

Finally, the ball hits the ground. What happens to the kinetic energy? As we learned in the pages on the First Law of Energy, the energy doesn't disappear. It has to go somewhere.

All of that kinetic energy gets turned, rather quickly, through a work process, into thermal energy. The ball is smashed as the ball pushes on the floor and the floor pushes back on the ball. Work is done on the ball. If the ball hits dirt, maybe some work is done on the dirt as it also is pushed on by the ball. The internal friction of the molecules in the clay causes the clay to heat up.

That's right, the ball actually gets hotter. The kinetic energy has, now, all been converted to low-grade thermal energy. The air was heated up a little by the falling ball, and the ball was heated up by the internal friction of the molecules as they were pushed around during the "smashing process".

All of the potential energy was finally converted into thermal energy. As we learned in the section on the 2nd Law of Energy, this is what happens to mechanical energy. All of it can be, and is eventually, converted to low-grade thermal energy.

Once again the Laws of Thermodynamics have predicted the final end of all energy conversions.

www.ftexploring.com...

Replace the ball with the towers falling top sections...

reply to post by ANOK

Replace the ball with the towers falling top sections...

And therein lies your problem. The fact that you think you can, for even a second, compare the actions of a ball with the infinetly complex destruction of the world trade center towers tells me you know how to post links to websites about physics and have no clue about how things really work.

reply to post by hooper


You know what, you might be right hooper. We should stick with what architects and engineers say about 9/11. And while it is not about the mechanics of the collapse, what military people, intelligence people, (ex) politicians have to say on the subject is at least as interesting as what whitnesses have to say.

reply to post by Cassius666

You know what, you might be right hooper.

I'm going to save that one.

We should stick with what architects and engineers say about 9/11. And while it is not about the mechanics of the collapse, what military people, intelligence people, (ex) politicians have to say on the subject is at least as interesting as what whitnesses have to say.

Fine, but lets be a little bit more specific with regards to who should have attention paid to them. Ex-politicians? That's a pretty broad category - that can include anyone from former US Presidents to city council members. Architects? Why? What is their particular qualifications? And again, which architects? There are architects that are basically interior designers, you also have landscape architects and some that have never designed anything more complex than ranch homes. Do we listen to them all? Same thing with engineers.

No, first we have to descide who is qualifed to speak on a given matter and then listen.

reply to post by ANOK

Helium weighs less than air? It floats.

Great idea! To prevent buildings from collapsing we simply fill them with helium....

That way when the terrorists smash an airplane into them will not fall down

Originally posted by hooper
And therein lies your problem. The fact that you think you can, for even a second, compare the actions of a ball with the infinetly complex destruction of the world trade center towers tells me you know how to post links to websites about physics and have no clue about how things really work.

No, your problem is you can not comprehend physics, period. I was making a simple analogy. You also fail to explain why it is wrong, as usual all you can do is deny.

Complexity does not change physics. That description of what happens to the ball is the same as what happens when anything hits something. Pe changes to Ke, and Ke changes to energy for deformation, sound, heat etc.

You just once again prove you fail to understand basic physics. This all started with the claim, yours I think, that the definition of Pe is a body at rest. That is wrong, I have proven that it is wrong. You will say anything to not admit you were wrong. Intellectual dishonesty.

Read it again einstein...I have highlighted the relevant parts that apply to all objects.

The Final Conversion - Predictable as Always

Finally, the ball hits the ground. What happens to the kinetic energy? As we learned in the pages on the First Law of Energy, the energy doesn't disappear. It has to go somewhere.

All of that kinetic energy gets turned, rather quickly, through a work process, into thermal energy. The ball is smashed as the ball pushes on the floor and the floor pushes back on the ball. Work is done on the ball. If the ball hits dirt, maybe some work is done on the dirt as it also is pushed on by the ball. The internal friction of the molecules in the clay causes the clay to heat up.

That's right, the ball actually gets hotter. The kinetic energy has, now, all been converted to low-grade thermal energy. The air was heated up a little by the falling ball, and the ball was heated up by the internal friction of the molecules as they were pushed around during the "smashing process".

All of the potential energy was finally converted into thermal energy. As we learned in the section on the 2nd Law of Energy, this is what happens to mechanical energy. All of it can be, and is eventually, converted to low-grade thermal energy.

Once again the Laws of Thermodynamics have predicted the final end of all energy conversions.

reply to post by ANOK

No, your problem is you can not comprehend physics, period. I was making a simple analogy. You also fail to explain why it is wrong, as usual all you can do is deny.

Its wrong for the same reasons its always been wrong - the stories above the impact area are not "a mass" and the stories below the impact area are not "a mass". You keep trying to pawn off this idea that you can explain 9/11 and the collapse of the towers by understanding how two simple monolithic masses interact.

Complexity does not change physics.

Yes, but obviously complexity challenges your comprehension.

That description of what happens to the ball is the same as what happens when anything hits something. Pe changes to Ke, and Ke changes to energy for deformation, sound, heat etc.

There we go with the ball again. Trying to reduce a complex reaction to something you can grasp does not change the reality of a past event.

You just once again prove you fail to understand basic physics.

Yeah, right.

This all started with the claim, yours I think, that the definition of Pe is a body at rest. That is wrong, I have proven that it is wrong. You will say anything to not admit you were wrong. Intellectual dishonesty.

Not my claim.

Read it again einstein...I have highlighted the relevant parts that apply to all objects.

Unfortunately, applied physics is where you are falling short.

Originally posted by ANOK

That is wrong, I have proven that it is wrong.

No you are wrong. Every atom not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy. That is a fact. Are you aware a large chunk of Japan recently fell 2 feet. It had the potential to fall 2' and when the opportunity arose for it to fall it took it. When it did, it converted its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and made a big mess in japan.

How about glaciers, they are also driven by gravitational potential energy slowly being turned into kinetic energy.

Then there's also what's happening thousands of miles beneath our feet. Molten lava that circulates up and down as its temperature changes, this is also gravitational potential energy converted into kinetic energy through thermal expansion. Gravity is constant and does not stop at the earths surface.

If you check out the link below you will see an atoms gravitational potential energy will peak at about 1500 miles below the earths surface at about 10.9 m/s^2 and then falls off to 0 at the earths center.



Link

So one more time for clarity.

Every atom within earths gravitational field not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy.

Originally posted by ANOK
Helium weighs less than air? It floats.

That should be weight by volume. After all 2 tons of helium weighs more than 1 ton of air it's the volume that makes the difference. But it was really the mechanics of how volume displacement works that I was interested in seeing you explain. It's to bad. You had the opportunity to prove that potential energy can push up, but only in gasses, liquids and granular solids working against a volume/mass lighter than their own.

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by ANOK

That is wrong, I have proven that it is wrong.

No you are wrong. Every atom not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy. That is a fact. Are you aware a large chunk of Japan recently fell 2 feet. It had the potential to fall 2' and when the opportunity arose for it to fall it took it. When it did, it converted its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy and made a big mess in japan.

How about glaciers, they are also driven by gravitational potential energy slowly being turned into kinetic energy.

Then there's also what's happening thousands of miles beneath our feet. Molten lava that circulates up and down as its temperature changes, this is also gravitational potential energy converted into kinetic energy through thermal expansion. Gravity is constant and does not stop at the earths surface.

If you check out the link below you will see an atoms gravitational potential energy will peak at about 1500 miles below the earths surface at about 10.9 m/s^2 and then falls off to 0 at the earths center.



Link

So one more time for clarity.

Every atom within earths gravitational field not occupying earths gravitational center has gravitational potential energy.

Originally posted by ANOK
Helium weighs less than air? It floats.

That should be weight by volume. After all 2 tons of helium weighs more than 1 ton of air it's the volume that makes the difference. But it was really the mechanics of how volume displacement works that I was interested in seeing you explain. It's to bad. You had the opportunity to prove that potential energy can push up, but only in gasses, liquids and granular solids working against a volume/mass lighter than their own.Wow! now there's an example of a guy with way too much time on his hands. Just exactly what that wall of text has to do with anything related to 9/11 is a mystery to me. What's your goal here?

edit on 14-11-2011 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)