Context was that you had written: “Are you saying the towers initially fell at free fall?”
I had asked: “Huh?!? Where on earth did I say anything remotely like that??”
And you replied: “30,000,000 kg * 3.66 m * 9.81 m/s^2”
This is numbers inserted into the term for gravitational potential energy: GPE = m*h*g
That gravitational acceleration, g, appears in the term does not mean that anything happened at free fall. When you push your bicycle of m=10 kg up a hill of height h=50 m, it gains GPE = m*h*g = 10 kg * 50 m * 9.81 m/s^2, despite you pushing it up slowly with little, if any, acceleration. When you then roll down the hill, with brakes carefully applied, you release the exact same GPE = m*h*g, despite you accelerating at far less than g. In the process, your brakes (and tires and ball bearings…) dissipate some of the energy, such that only a part of the GPE is converted to Kinetic Energy – and yet the source of this is m*h*g.
“Look Jens, you talk a lot, but you don’t make much sense to me. I wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about…”
Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and am willing to explain at the level you require. Don’t know how good you are at mechanics or engineering. I am not an engineer myself, but have a good grasp on the physics, which is so foar sufficient for the debate we are having.
“…and are maybe not just pasting stuff from elsewhere.”
Everything I wrote in that debate so far has been my original writing, no copy and paste. I got a number of the ideas from elsewhere and others, but I understand well enough to explain to others in my own words. You can try and google my formulations if you have doubts,
The only phrase I am aware of having reproduced almost verbatim from someone else is “…consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with …” – but even that is reproduced from comprehended memory, not copy & paste.
“you seem obsessed with hypotheticals from your limited imagination”
Can you be specific? I suspect you noticed that I made explicit that some of my premises are hypothetical and from imagination, but I provided reasons why I needed to go there; while very often, people imagine hypotheticals while, on the face of it, passing them off as facts. Call it “full disclosure”.
“Of course, the demolition was extremely loud.”
You say “of course”, but that is exactly what I am searching for: Where is the evidence that any loud sound that you have evidence for is “demolition”, or conversly: Where is the sound of the alleged “demolition” in any of the videos?
The collapses are “loud” – yes, but if the collapses were caused (started) by explosives, as many Truthers clearly claim or at least insinuate, then the noise of these explosives must have sounded before the collapse made any sound.
You may have a point about the alleged use of explosives to make the collapse continue after it has initiated – their noise would be concurrent with the noise of the collapse itself. And yes, I must speculate about what truthers imply quantitatively. None actually, explicitly, claim “500 pounds per floor” or “175 tons total”, but I explained why I derived these numbers. I had to hypothesise, because Truthers did not: There exists no alternative theory to explain the collapses with the use of explosives.
“And of course, things slow down when they hit something else. An upper section wouldn’t instantly ‘hit’ anything anyway unless it was in one piece and the floor below was completely removed.”
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
If you mean that there is no clean drop of a clean top section onto a clean lower section through a clear, open gap: Yes, absolutely right – and so what. Both the falling top and the standing lower part are assemblies with many parts that interact in many places almost constantly as the collapse progresses. Still, with each bit of height that any bit of mass descends, some GPE is released, and with each piece hitting some other piece, some KE is dissipated. It’s reasonable and valid to do the sums, and think about what the sums imply. The AE911Truth sums imply insane amounts of added explosives.
“Your ‘calculations’ are frankly inane.”
Your saying so doesn’t make it so. Remember you said:
“you don’t make much sense to me”
I am making sense – I am quite sure of that – but may not yet have succeeded in explaining it properly for you.
“Feeding time over.”
You never provided a refuting argument.
Neither did ruffadam or Travis.
You simply give up.
I have a hunch of why that might be.
In other words when your bike reaches the bottom of the hill the amount of force it exerts on the ground will be less than if you had simply dropped it the same distance.
lazyjonesblog 
Hi cs, I am responding to this post on Craig McKee’s blog: https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/pentagon-debates/#comment-42310
It seems Craig didn’t allow it (the entire debate is off-topic there, so I don’t blame him).
Context was that you had written: “Are you saying the towers initially fell at free fall?”
I had asked: “Huh?!? Where on earth did I say anything remotely like that??”
And you replied: “30,000,000 kg * 3.66 m * 9.81 m/s^2”
This is numbers inserted into the term for gravitational potential energy: GPE = m*h*g
That gravitational acceleration, g, appears in the term does not mean that anything happened at free fall. When you push your bicycle of m=10 kg up a hill of height h=50 m, it gains GPE = m*h*g = 10 kg * 50 m * 9.81 m/s^2, despite you pushing it up slowly with little, if any, acceleration. When you then roll down the hill, with brakes carefully applied, you release the exact same GPE = m*h*g, despite you accelerating at far less than g. In the process, your brakes (and tires and ball bearings…) dissipate some of the energy, such that only a part of the GPE is converted to Kinetic Energy – and yet the source of this is m*h*g.
“Look Jens, you talk a lot, but you don’t make much sense to me. I wonder if you have any idea what you are talking about…”
Yes, I do know what I am talking about, and am willing to explain at the level you require. Don’t know how good you are at mechanics or engineering. I am not an engineer myself, but have a good grasp on the physics, which is so foar sufficient for the debate we are having.
“…and are maybe not just pasting stuff from elsewhere.”
Everything I wrote in that debate so far has been my original writing, no copy and paste. I got a number of the ideas from elsewhere and others, but I understand well enough to explain to others in my own words. You can try and google my formulations if you have doubts,
The only phrase I am aware of having reproduced almost verbatim from someone else is “…consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance with …” – but even that is reproduced from comprehended memory, not copy & paste.
“you seem obsessed with hypotheticals from your limited imagination”
Can you be specific? I suspect you noticed that I made explicit that some of my premises are hypothetical and from imagination, but I provided reasons why I needed to go there; while very often, people imagine hypotheticals while, on the face of it, passing them off as facts. Call it “full disclosure”.
“Of course, the demolition was extremely loud.”
You say “of course”, but that is exactly what I am searching for: Where is the evidence that any loud sound that you have evidence for is “demolition”, or conversly: Where is the sound of the alleged “demolition” in any of the videos?
The collapses are “loud” – yes, but if the collapses were caused (started) by explosives, as many Truthers clearly claim or at least insinuate, then the noise of these explosives must have sounded before the collapse made any sound.
You may have a point about the alleged use of explosives to make the collapse continue after it has initiated – their noise would be concurrent with the noise of the collapse itself. And yes, I must speculate about what truthers imply quantitatively. None actually, explicitly, claim “500 pounds per floor” or “175 tons total”, but I explained why I derived these numbers. I had to hypothesise, because Truthers did not: There exists no alternative theory to explain the collapses with the use of explosives.
“And of course, things slow down when they hit something else. An upper section wouldn’t instantly ‘hit’ anything anyway unless it was in one piece and the floor below was completely removed.”
I am not sure I understand what you mean.
If you mean that there is no clean drop of a clean top section onto a clean lower section through a clear, open gap: Yes, absolutely right – and so what. Both the falling top and the standing lower part are assemblies with many parts that interact in many places almost constantly as the collapse progresses. Still, with each bit of height that any bit of mass descends, some GPE is released, and with each piece hitting some other piece, some KE is dissipated. It’s reasonable and valid to do the sums, and think about what the sums imply. The AE911Truth sums imply insane amounts of added explosives.
“Your ‘calculations’ are frankly inane.”
Your saying so doesn’t make it so. Remember you said:
“you don’t make much sense to me”
I am making sense – I am quite sure of that – but may not yet have succeeded in explaining it properly for you.
“Feeding time over.”
You never provided a refuting argument.
Neither did ruffadam or Travis.
You simply give up.
I have a hunch of why that might be.
LikeLike
Hi Jens sorry I’ve only just noticed this reply here.
Regarding the energy, I wasn’t wondering about the ‘g’ but the ‘h’ – why do you make it 3.66m?
LikeLike
In other words when your bike reaches the bottom of the hill the amount of force it exerts on the ground will be less than if you had simply dropped it the same distance.
LikeLike
October 2016 Update – Engineers:
LikeLike