The 9/11 Forum

Intelligent and evidence-based discussion of 9/11 issues

Skip to content

v

Welcome
Welcome!

Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.

question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Analysis, observations and theory related to progression.

question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Illuminist14 » Fri May 18, 2012 4:56 pm

Does this statement make sense? I wasn't so sure, and would appreciate any pointers on PE nad KE please.

Its a refutation against NIST.
Thanks

the report is violating the laws found in the conservation of energy. Gravity's potential energy will be consumed doing anything in an accelerated fall, including pushing away air. What that essentially means is that you will still have less energy to create a downword acceleration like the ones we saw on 911. Only in a near-vacuum can any falling object come close to converting all its potential energy into kinetic energy.
Illuminist14
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:02 pm

 

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Oystein » Fri May 18, 2012 9:57 pm

Illuminist14 wrote:Does this statement make sense? I wasn't so sure, and would appreciate any pointers on PE nad KE please.

Its a refutation against NIST.
Thanks

the report is violating the laws found in the conservation of energy. Gravity's potential energy will be consumed doing anything in an accelerated fall, including pushing away air. What that essentially means is that you will still have less energy to create a downword acceleration like the ones we saw on 911. Only in a near-vacuum can any falling object come close to converting all its potential energy into kinetic energy.

I am guessing that your point of attack is where there is some building part (of WTC7) falling at, and even slightly above, g.

But you posted this in the WTC1/2 collapse progression subforum. So please clarify first if my guess is correct.

Also, you seem to imply that ALL the potential energy was converted to kinetic energy in any or all of the three (or two) collapses. Do you? If yes, what's your reason to think so? This did not in fact happen.
Oystein
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Illuminist14 » Fri May 18, 2012 10:13 pm

No this was a poster on a forum I frequent, sorry. It was in fact about WTC 1 and 2 collapses.
Illuminist14
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:02 pm

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby femr2 » Fri May 18, 2012 10:15 pm

Illuminist14 wrote:Does this statement make sense? I wasn't so sure, and would appreciate any pointers on PE nad KE please.

Its a refutation against NIST.
Thanks

the report is violating the laws found in the conservation of energy. Gravity's potential energy will be consumed doing anything in an accelerated fall, including pushing away air. What that essentially means is that you will still have less energy to create a downword acceleration like the ones we saw on 911. Only in a near-vacuum can any falling object come close to converting all its potential energy into kinetic energy.

Potential energy will be converted into many forms: Heat, sound, light, fracture of materials (kinetic), ...
femr2
 
Posts: 2687
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 12:08 am
Location: UK

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Illuminist14 » Fri May 18, 2012 10:39 pm

Yes and thanks, so the post is basically disingenious?
Illuminist14
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:02 pm

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Oystein » Fri May 18, 2012 10:45 pm

Illuminist14 wrote:No this was a poster on a forum I frequent, sorry. It was in fact about WTC 1 and 2 collapses.

Well then...

It has been shown on this forum, and elsewhere, by people such as Frank Greening, Zdenek Bazant and others, that there was much more than enough potential energy to destroy the steel structure and enable complete collapse. Since acceleration of the center of mass of the falling parts of the twin towers never reached g, we know that indeed some of the potential energy was more or less continually used up to break steel connections, crush concrete, move air, create heat, create seismic waves etc. By far the largest expender of energy would be material destruction.

So no, the physical law of energy conservation was not violated by the conventional progressive collapse scenario.

Illuminist14 wrote:Yes and thanks, so the post is basically disingenious?

Can't say if he wrote it with the wicked glee of an evil mind on his eyes - he could also be misinformed and/or incompetent to judge the matter.
Oystein
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Illuminist14 » Fri May 18, 2012 11:38 pm

Thanks so much for your input, that makes sense.
Illuminist14
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:02 pm

Re: question about potential energy and kinetic energy...

Postby Oystein » Sat May 19, 2012 12:43 am

Just to give you an idea about the magnitudes of energy we are talking about here:

- Each tower started with a potential energy relative to ground level equivalent to something like 120 tons of TNT
- After the collapse was finished, all of that energy had been transformed, in part via kinetic energy, into destruction, some heat, and a small portion was lost to planet earth through seismic waves (which in turn became heat eventually)
- It isn't agreed upon with precision how long the collapses took. Longer than freefall time, but probably less than double that time. So, on average, the towers collapsed at 2/3 of g. This means that, during the collapse, 2/3 of the potential energy was turned into kinetic energy (which dissipated upon hiting the ground), and the rest, 1/3, was already dissipated as destruction and heat during the collapse. This 1/3 is equivalent to some 40 tons of TNT.

Be careful, these numbers are rough and dirty. don't kill me if the "true" equivalent is 20 tons or 60 tons. This is, again, just to give you a feel for the dimensions.


Now, in a carefully crafted actual highrise CD, much less explosives are used. The Landmark Tower in Fort Worth, 115 meters high and perhaps 1/16 the volume/mass of a twin tower, required only 365 pounds of high explosives. The twin towers then might have required 2 to 3 tons of high explosives for total collapse (by far most of the energy in CDs comes from the building's potential energy, not from explosives, by the way). 40 tons equivalent were actually dissipated - obviously more than enough.
Oystein
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:00 pm




Return to WTC1 and WTC2 - Collapse Progression

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

suspicion-preferred