We previously saw a Fox News pie chart that had a couple extra slices (here). Now, fair and balanced math adds up to 120 percent of voters indicating that they view the science on global warming to be rigged.
This is an interesting Rasmussen poll when you add up the number and discover that you are in a parallel universe.
The question is: “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?” According to the poll, 35 percent thought it very likely, 24 percent somewhat likely, 21 percent not very likely, and 5 percent not likely at all (15 percent weren’t sure).
This rather dubious poll is offered to show that people are dubious about the science and math of global warming experts.
For the full story, click here
Byron,
To limit design to near-empty, close to stall speed aircraft doesn’t make sense. It fails to take into account other very possible scenarios.
Planes are at low altitudes during take-off too. Trouble during take-off could cause the plane to be off course. (possibly making turns to return to the airport)
Where did you come up with velocity squared? We’re talking about force of the impact. Force equals mass (which would change immediately upon impact) and acceleration (which would also change upon impact).
I’m going to say one thing only about this discussion:
Uniform orderly collapses require either 1) lots of planning or 2) a huge confluence of coincidence that it strains credibility at best.
This never smelled right to me, not even the day of the crash, and it never smelled right because of chemistry.
When the tower fell that day, my immediate response was “Was there a secondary device on the plane?” Because of the nature of jet fuel (and safety additives), first there is the lower heat issue. Second, there is the dispersal issue. If a fuel is not evenly distributed it with burn unevenly. Third, local materials – while they may have boosted or retarded spot specific areas burn temperature-wise would also increase the variances in temperature applied across the structure. Fourth – failure temperatures for the structural members isn’t enough for orderly collapse – that requires sequence. Randomly hitting an appropriate sequence, while not impossible, seems highly improbable.
That’s a lot of variables around temperature alone that have to come together just so to make what should be a chaotic event fairly ordered. That’s a lot of chance.
Will I say it was conclusory that it was an inside job? No. Even with physics, that’s an incredible claim and requires more causal evidence. Evidence something happened, proof of cause and the identity of actors are different. Identity would be required. We KNOW Saudis attacked us for a fact. We can’t say with that same level of certainty that the collapse was (or wasn’t) rigged. What I will say is that killing civilians to start their little war for oil profits is not beyond anyone in the Bush White House as evidenced by their subsequent behavior. Dick Cheney would have killed twice as many civilians if he thought it’d make Halliburton’s P/E statements look good. No doubt in my mind.
Personally? I lean toward the complicity by provocation and deliberate inaction theory as far as the traitors go, but the order of the fall is in itself suspect. I don’t have an issue with buildings failing. Gravity happens. I do have an issue when they do it so neatly without specific human intervention. Complexity compels me to question that. Both plane and building are complex systems. Combining them under chaotic conditions should create a greater chance for error as more parts always means more chance for error. The logic goes that the probability of disordered collapse (possible across a broad range of numbers – in this case probabilities of structural failure) is much much higher than an ordered collapse (possible on a narrow range of numbers – there are a limited number of orderly outcomes).
To allude to Tom Stoppard, an orderly collapse is a lot of coin tosses coming up heads.
And that is all I have to say about that.
Bob Esq:
“Fifth; show me where a steel structured building collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11.”
A steel building does not collapse because of fire but because of additional stresses caused by the heat. Building connection are mostly stationary and restrain columns and beams from moving vertically or horizontally. As you well know when steel heats it expands in a very predictable fashion and there is a constant of thermal expansion for steel (you can look it up). Ergo the need for expansion joints on steel bridges, sometimes allowing for 6″ of movement depending on bridge length.
If a beam or column is restrained this strain (movement) has to be taken up somehow and that is by additional stress in the heated beam. This additional stress is a function of the steel temperature and member length (when a member gets hot it expands [a little engineering humor]).
Hot gets the steel down comes the building if the steel members are stressed to the point of failure. Simple stuff:
sigma (stress) = load/area.
Bob Esq:
“Second, Leslie Robertson, et.al. designed the Towers to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling heavy at full speed; have you done the math to compare the impact force between the 707 and the planes that hit? If you did, you would have seen that the difference was negligible.”
I believe he designed it for around 160-200 mph and the plane was assumed to not be fully loaded with fuel. Basically an accidental strike during a landing.
Since velocity is squared 500 mph would a tremendous additional force – over 6 times assuming constant mass.
To have designed that tower for a heavy 707 traveling at 500 or 600 mph would have made the towers too expensive to build.
D’oh! I forgot to put quotes around “There was a good show on PBS… precious metals.” – Robert said that, not me.
Robert,
You said:
“Back to taxing poluters.
If you tax the electric company for releasing toxins into the atmosphere, they just pass that cost along to the consumer. Most electric companies have no local competition. In fact, I recently read a story about an electric company wanting to raise their rates because people reduced their consumption. The consumer goes green, the electric company doesn’t sell as many kilowatts, so they want to charge more per kilowatt. How can the consumer afford to go green, and pay more to the electric company?”
This is why industries in which competition is not possible (like health care) should be run in the public trust rather than by for profit enterprises.
There was a good show on PBS last night about precious metals used in green technology. China is the biggest polluter, and the primary source for precious metals used in green technology. China wants to be able to pollute more, in order to mine and process the precious metals.
And how would you solve this problem? (You should be able to guess how I would solve it by now…)
Byron,
See, I knew we still had something to say to each other! Thanks for your reply. Sorry to take so long to get back to you (I should have known better than to get involved in the 9/11 discussion…).
You said:
“I agree that pollution is a negative, poison water and air is a negative and not conducive to human life (a high value).
So therefore the extension and protection of human life is a positive. I think we both agree on this point.
But industry also promotes and extends human life by creating jobs and wealth and new technologies. I think we both agree on this point as well.”
I’d prefer a bit more qualification on your last point, but I’ll let it slide…
You said:
“What if we had no industry, we would be back in the stone ages and life would be brutal and short. So we have pollution and a fairly high quality of life on the one hand and a short brutal existence on the other. We need industry and no industry is risk free, people will die fixing those giant wind turbines.”
Why shouldn’t we have a fairly high quality of life without pollution? In fact, pollution lowers quality of life substantially – it’s hard to have a high quality of life when someone’s dumping arsenic in your drinking water. And it’s interesting that you bring up wind turbines… What does it say about our country that Texas is buying wind turbines, based on technology developed in the US, from China? And no industry has the right to impose a risk on me merely to increase their profit (like contaminating the water table with arsenic).
You said:
“So how do you balance the need for industry and the need for a clean environment? I don’t think you need to, I think innovation and prosperity will lead to a clean environment.”
I balance industry and the environment by assigning a cost to pollution (I would think that would be obvious by now ;-)). Then industry is able to account for it and market forces take care of the problem. If industry is so good at regulating itself, why is history so replete with examples of its abuses? The Jungle by Sinclair, Love Canal, hog farms, etc.
You said:
“Wouldn’t it be better to change things through market forces – consumer spending, rather than taxes on pollution. A company will just absorb those taxes and pass them on to the consumer, which is how all taxes are paid. You are not punishing the company by making it pay a pollution tax. If it gets taxed $10,000 and it makes a 1000 widgets the cost of the widget increases by $10. There is no real monetary loss to the company. Unless of course the company goes out of business, but then real people are hurt because they are out of a job. I will assume companies could also be put out of business by consumers, but that would happen gradually and they would most likely make the necessary corrections to maintain market share.”
You’re an engineer, right? Would you try to control a system with positive feedback? (For those of you who don’t know, if you use positive feedback to control a system, it oscillates out of control.) Because that is what you are suggesting – consumer spending. What I am suggesting is negative feedback – taxing pollution. That is the correct way to control the system to achieve the desired results (high standard of living without pollution). The company may pass the tax along to consumers, but if they don’t adapt to reduce costs, then another company will come along and provide widgets without polluting and undercut the first company. Aren’t you FOR this sort of competition?
You said:
“If the press would do an honest job and point out to consumers which companies were good stewards of the environment and which were not, I will hazard a guess those companies that pollute would change their ways faster than through some government imposed tax. All taxes and penalties imposed on industry are paid by consumers and not the particular company. In reality, we are paying the tax you wish to impose. It is the equivalent to rubbing your wife’s face in the mess the puppy made.”
“If the press would do an honest job…” How do you propose to get them to do it? The taxes get passed along to the consumer – which prejudices the consumer towards buying products that don’t incur pollution taxes – exactly the incentive structure you want! Upside: Your wife would train the puppy pretty darned quick. Downside: You wouldn’t be around to see it.
To me, what it comes down to is this: Why do you think that industry should have the right to dump arsenic in our drinking water? And if you don’t think they have that right, then what are you proposing that will stop them? I know I’ve been going on about the arsenic in the drinking water quite a bit, but it’s something that companies actually do, and they do it because it enables them to make more profits. I’m suggesting a course of action that will fix the problem (and I’ve explained how that will work). If you’ve got a better solution I’m all ears, but if not, why are you insisting that we all drink arsenic?
Bob,
This will be the last post I make on this topic. I’m not going to waste my time doing the research to debate you on a topic that I just don’t care very much about. Feel free to have the last word.
You said:
“Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ. You don’t even know what the term “heat of fusion” means. How can you be so bold in your statements when you’re so ignorant of basic chemistry and physics?”
Sorry, it’s been a long time since basic chemistry and physics and I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term ‘heat of fusion’ before, although I certainly am familiar with the concept. And I am in no way ignorant of basic chemistry and physics – I spent 3 years as a physics major as an undergraduate (chemistry wasn’t my best subject, but I’ve had the basics).
You said:
“Hmm, let’s see… heat of fusion for molten plastic — a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit; heat of fusion for steel — oh, about a couple thousand degrees Fahrenheit… But seeing you don’t know what the heat of fusion is, you don’t comprehend how ignorant you sound.”
Is it not possible that burning jet fuel and plastics (and whatever other inflammables in the WTC could result in a fire hotter than any of these elements would burn at individually?
I said:
“What happens to maximum load capacity of steel when you heat it? What is the maximum load on the steel core of the building after the impact?”
You replied:
“How many vague predicates can you pull out of thin air to form your smoke screen of nonsensical questions lacking any direction whatsoever?”
What I was implying is that the structural strength of a steel beam declines as the beam is heated. It’s not hard to imagine that between the structural damage from the plane’s impact and the burning jet fuel and plastics that one of the columns was heated to the point where it could no longer support the weight bearing on it and failed, causing a chain reaction resulting in the collapse of the building.
I said:
“At what temperature would this load exceed the carrying load of the steel? Can mixing burning plastics with molten steel produce something like thermite? (Some experts think it can – see the link I posted.)”
You replied:
“So where do these experts of yours find the molten metal to mix with your burning plastic to create the very substance capable of creating the molten metal in the first place? Are you for real?”
I don’t concede that there was thermite in the building – the expert I’m talking about explains how particles identified as resulting from thermite could have been created.
I said:
“I’ll try and find you the link about other buildings collapsing due to fire (one of them was a hotel in France, if I recall correctly) later if I get the chance.”
You replied:
“Don’t bother; at best you’ll find a floor or two collapsing–NEVER THE ENTIRE BUILDING.”
So if a normal fire could cause a couple of floors to collapse it seems well within the realm of possibility that the extreme damage to the towers caused a couple of floors to collapse after which the weight of the building above the collapse gained momentum and the lower (intact) floors were unable to stop the descent of the floors above. No other skyscrapers have suffered the kind of damage that the twin towers sustained on 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that the effects might be qualitatively different (and substantially more destructive) than other skyscraper fires with less extreme causes.
I said:
“I also have a low tolerance for bullshit, and while it’s possible that I could be wrong (I think that it’s very unlikely in this case), I’m not taking a knee-jerk position from ignorance – I’ve looked at both sides and I find your position unconvincing.”
You replied:
“How exactly do you find my position “unconvincing” when you’ve betrayed your ignorance of what I’m saying? You need to read up on Q=MCΔT, the heat of fusion & heat of vaporization; the plateaus created by a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT during each phase change and why, etc., etc. Till then, try not to draw any more conclusions as to how ‘convincing’ you find my arguments.”
The theory that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition requires that thermite or its residuals be found in the debris, that at some point (presumably after the 1993 attack or immediately before 9/11) the twin towers were rigged with thermite charges in either (a) what could only be described as an incredibly stupid and misguided safety measure in case of an attack (in which case, it would have had to escape anyone’s notice that the buildings were rigged over the course of years) or (b) a false flag operation that would require a massive conspiracy to pull off (without anyone talking, at least so far…) not to mention the fact that a team, working in secret, in a limited amount of time (say over the weekend), would have to do a job that would take demolition experts weeks even if they can put the explosives in plain sight, let alone if they have to hide them… and on it goes. You’re promoting a conspiracy theory which, by its nature, depends on a chain of logic which is only true if every single link is true – which is why I say that Occam’s razor favors my theory (which is just the negation of yours) as requiring ‘less’ as you put it.
I said:
“The fact that there are whackjobs with doubts similar to yours doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it sure as hell doesn’t add credibility to your argument.”
You replied:
‘And that’s called the bandwagon fallacy, a/k/a Appeal to Popularity; Argument by Consensus; Argumentum ad Populum; Authority of the Many
Fifty dollar philosopher talk for “since your ‘argument’ is based on an informal fallacy of logic, it’s a load of horseshit.”’
If I had said: “Everyone thinks your theory is silly, so therefore it’s false.”, I would have committed the bandwagon fallacy, but all I said was that whackjobs (like the makers of ‘loose change’) that believe the same thing as you don’t ADD to your credibility – and they don’t. You wouldn’t argue that Orly Taitz adds to the credibility of the birthers, would you? That’s a fancy way of saying “he who smelt it, dealt it.” in reference to horseshit.
In any case, I realize that I’m not going to convince you that the twin towers collapsed due to the primary and secondary effects of airliners crashing into them, but if you think that I came by my opinion out of ignorance, without considering it and examining both sides, you are sorely mistaken.
Tootie,
You’re welcome. I agree that most people get into science because of a passion to understand the universe, but as baser motives glory far outweighs money or power as a motivation to be a scientist.
(CBS) News To anyone who is skeptical about the science of global warming, “ClimateGate” is the biggest scandal ever.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/eveningnews/main5955012.shtml
There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people’s faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. – Lord Turnbull Dec 8th 2009
Climategate reaches the British House of Lords
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/climategate-reaches-the-british-house-of-lords/#more-13969
A press release from the European police force Europol states that the VAT fraud afflicting the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme in the past 18 months, has resulted in the loss of approximately €5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.
http://openeu.bluestatedigital.com/page/m/4b66096e/1ba92b0c/85c56ce/7c556fcb/3477542164/VEsCBg/
It seems so hard to believe that a scheme concocted by Ken Lay and the boys at Enron in the mid-1990s, adopted recently by derivatives-types as their next playground, pushed all along by Goldman Sachs and feverishly demanded by George Soros should have to suffer the indignity of such charges.
259 Bob,Esq.
1, December 10, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Slartibartfast: I don’t know what Bob said at 6:31 but it looks like you were sitting on a high horse and he took his lance and knocked you right the F@#@ off.
Good job Bob an education is a terrible thing to waste.
Slartibartfast December 10, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Thanks for the (lengthy!) response. When I was scrolling up through the comments and ran across one that went on and on forever, I thought: oh oh, that is probably for me!
LOL
And it was.
You asked:
You think people go into science for money and power?
No, absolutely not. I think most go into science because of a passion to know and understand the world around them. It is just that now scientists and researchers seem to have a greater political role in which they can become subject to the same errors as non-scientists who acquire great power.
I think most never thought they would have such a role.
I loved science in school and always had a crush my science teachers.
Robert,
I agree with your observation; I’m simply saying that the only way it could collapse on the corner is if the rest of the building was shattered at the time the collapse began.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/shattering.html
In Re the white puff, taking into consideration the excess heat for six months, thermitic material found in the dust, it’ smost likely
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
SD,
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/rotation.html
Bob Esq.,
Look at 2 seconds into the video. What is the white puff in right portion of the building?
Bob Esq.,
I’m refering only to the top section. It started to lean or tilt, and then the bottom fell out. The best part of this video is that it also demonstrates that it did not smack down on the lower floors. It just seems to enjoy the ride.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799#
Robert: “I think the first tower to collapse did so by design when the top tilted far enough. (That’s exactly how it would have gone down if I was involved in devising a method to protect the city from a tower about to fall over.)”
But there was no ’tilt’; the rest of the perimeter of the building and the interior support structure were doing what they always had been doing; holding up the building. To say that it tilted (before it collapsed) is to say that the building distributed its load unevenly. Yes it did appear to tilt as the collapse began, but did you ever ask yourself what in the name of Christ reversed the angular momentum and velocity, FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING, to keep it from toppling?
In any case, I tend to go with what I know I can prove from a practical standpoint and stay far away from the hypotheticals attempting to explain it all.
Slartibartfast: “At or near the heat of fusion? Are you saying that there was molten metal at or near the heat of the center of the sun or an nuclear (not atomic) bomb?”
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ. You don’t even know what the term “heat of fusion” means. How can you be so bold in your statements when you’re so ignorant of basic chemistry and physics?
Slartibartfast: “To give a theory that addresses some of your issues (I have no desire to take the time to address all of them): What happens when you pour burning jet fuel on plastic? Is it possible that globs of burning plastic glommed onto structural steel that was exposed when its fire-resistant coat was blown off by the impact of an airliner?”
Hmm, let’s see… heat of fusion for molten plastic — a few hundred degrees Fahrenheit; heat of fusion for steel — oh, about a couple thousand degrees Fahrenheit… But seeing you don’t know what the heat of fusion is, you don’t comprehend how ignorant you sound.
Slartibartfast: “What happens to maximum load capacity of steel when you heat it? What is the maximum load on the steel core of the building after the impact?”
How many vague predicates can you pull out of thin air to form your smoke screen of nonsensical questions lacking any direction whatsoever?
Slartibartfast: “At what temperature would this load exceed the carrying load of the steel? Can mixing burning plastics with molten steel produce something like thermite? (Some experts think it can – see the link I posted.)
So where do these experts of yours find the molten metal to mix with your burning plastic to create the very substance capable of creating the molten metal in the first place? Are you for real?
Slartibartfast: “I’ll try and find you the link about other buildings collapsing due to fire (one of them was a hotel in France, if I recall correctly) later if I get the chance.”
Don’t bother; at best you’ll find a floor or two collapsing–NEVER THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
Slartibartfast: “I also have a low tolerance for bullshit, and while it’s possible that I could be wrong (I think that it’s very unlikely in this case), I’m not taking a knee-jerk position from ignorance – I’ve looked at both sides and I find your position unconvincing.”
How exactly do you find my position “unconvincing” when you’ve betrayed your ignorance of what I’m saying? You need to read up on Q=MCΔT, the heat of fusion & heat of vaporization; the plateaus created by a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT during each phase change and why, etc., etc. Till then, try not to draw any more conclusions as to how ‘convincing’ you find my arguments.
Slartibartfast: “The fact that there are whackjobs with doubts similar to yours doesn’t mean you’re wrong, but it sure as hell doesn’t add credibility to your argument.”
And that’s called the bandwagon fallacy, a/k/a Appeal to Popularity; Argument by Consensus; Argumentum ad Populum; Authority of the Many
Fifty dollar philosopher talk for “since your ‘argument’ is based on an informal fallacy of logic, it’s a load of horseshit.”
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a091201moltenmetal#a091201moltenmetal