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
Bob,
I don’t know what led you to believe that I am a troll or uneducated in physics or science, but I think that I’ve earned some respect with many of the regulars here for demonstrating my education and intelligence. I know that you are a fine lawyer and could run circles around me in a debate on the law, but you’ve wandered over to talking about physics and you’ve BADLY mis-stepped in a discussion about basic physical concepts. Just like you wouldn’t let me get away with misquoting the constitution, I wont let you get away with trying to imply that I don’t understand what I’m talking about when you clearly don’t understand physics 101. Since you are behaving like a child, I’m going to have to get pedantic on your ass.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Are you kidding me? First when I don’t recognize a jargon term you denigrate my knowledge of science and suggest I can’t understand what you’re saying (I can and do).”
That would be the concept of the heat of fusion; something as recognizable as the sight of ice melting in a glass at room temperature.”
As I said before I always understood the concept, I had just never come across the term before. Do you know all the terms in all of the jargons in the world?
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Then you accuse me of committing a logical fallacy when I wasn’t.”
The bandwagon fallacy? ‘Poisoning the well’ via the phrase ‘conspiracy theory?'”
Yes, I used the term ‘conspiracy theory’ to refer to a theory that involved a conspiracy. How am I supposed to refer to the theory that there was a conspiracy to bring down the WTC using CD?
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Then you lecture me about Kant and the definition of truth and proceed to use that to obscure the truth by applying it narrowly.”
Seeing you accepted Kant’s definition of truth, and used it yourself in your explanation, perhaps you can how I ‘obscured the truth by applying said definition so narrowly.'”
You limited the scope of the inquiry to ‘thermic material’ found it the rubble while touting it as evidence that the IFT (impact fire theory) was wrong and the CDT (controlled demolition theory) was correct. Clearly the ‘object’ to which we are comparing ‘knowledge’ must include the WTC collapse and aftermath, the object of both the IFT and the CDT.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast [quoting wikipedia]: “Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system.”
What was that?”
It says that one kind of energy can be transformed into another kind of energy, but you can’t create or destroy energy. Furthermore, we’ve know about this for about 200 years.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Any form of energy can be transformed into another form,”
Ah, so you’re saying that one form of energy doesn’t just magically BECOME another form of energy, but it needs to undergo some form of transformation? And if the total energy always remains the same in an isolated system, I’ll bet you’re talking about the first law of thermodynamics. But seeing the world doesn’t exist in an ‘isolated system’, any CONVERSION OF ENERGY necessitates that you can’t even break even by virtue of an increase in entropy; a/k/a the second law of thermodynamics.”
I’ll introduce you into a magical machine for transforming energy in a bit, but first I need to clear up a misconception. While thermodynamics is all about energy, energy is not all about thermodynamics. When I’m talking about the law of conservation of energy, I’m talking about a basic principle of physics. If you weren’t taught that in your first physics course, you should get your money back. Conservation laws are the workhorses of physics, you should really learn about them. Also, you need to be careful in applying the laws of thermodynamics to the WTC collapse as their only valid for systems near equilibrium which doesn’t always obtain in this case.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “Okay, now that we know what energy is, lets talk about specific kinds.”
Deeming an amount of one form of energy as the same as an amount of another form of energy, WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR ANY CONVERSION WHATSOEVER, isn’t science; it’s equivocation.”
Like I said, I have a magic machine for converting energy, but don’t tell anyone, it’s a secret.
You posted:
“Here’s how you did it:
Slartibartfast: “At 6am September 11, 2001 that GPE was stored in the WTC. Later in the day all of that GPE was pretty much gone (there was still some GPE in the rubble pile). What happened to it? Upon structural failure of the building, it was transformed into kinetic energy (energy of motion). But the rubble pile didn’t have any of that kinetic energy, so where did it go?”
Gee, if I were to accept the ‘official story’ in so much as denying the possibility of any aid from, how shall we say, highly exothermic chemical reactions, I’d be constrained to say that the potential energy, converted into kinetic energy, and the aforesaid kinetic energy from the ‘collapse’ somehow managed to shred the building into pieces.”
This would be correct if it wasn’t dripping sarcasm.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The answer is into pulverizing concrete (and other things) AND THERMAL ENERGY (i.e. heat).”
Whoops-a-daisy; you left out that ‘conversion’ thingy again. So, how did that kinetic energy turn to heat energy?
Slartibartfast: “There is plenty of energy here (1/20th the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb) to do both.”
Sure there’s plenty of energy, but the problem Doc, is how ya gonna convert it. Speaking of Doc, remember the movie “Back To The Future” where Doc was able to convert the mass from a banana peel and some coffee grinds into energy to drive his flying Delorean? He just dumped that crap into that converter called… “Mr. Fusion” right? Nonsensical? Perhaps. But even the writers of that film knew the importance of accounting for the conversion of one form of energy into another.”
Are you sure you want to know about my secret energy conversion machine is?
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “If you don’t think that kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy in this way,”
What way? That’s just it; simply saying you have lots of energy in one form doesn’t mean you have it in another form. You have to account for its conversion; something you haven’t done here. Thus the question; WHAT WAY?”
If you really want me too tell you about it…
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “ask yourself what happens when a meteor hits the earth. If all of this GPE were converted into kinetic energy, it would be sufficient to melt 1,000 metric tonnes of steel.”
First of all, when we’re talking about Massive meteors whizzing around space at high Velocity, are we talking about potential or kinetic energy? Second, when we talk about Massive objects traveling at great Velocities, are we talking about heat energy or kinetic energy? (Hint, the meteor heats up in the atmosphere because of something called … ‘friction’–not impact)”
Okay, I’ll tell you. It’s right in front of your nose (or more accurately under your feet). That’s right, it’s the Earth! Actually, any planetary or other solid gravitating body of sufficient mass will do. Planets built for order are available from Margrethea, please contact the sales office for prices and options. Let me demonstrate how a planet operates. In order to convert gravitational potential energy (GPE) into kinetic energy (KE) you merely need to select a ball (any type will do, baseball, football, bowling ball – although if you use the latter, be careful with the next part). Now simply hold the ball out in front of you and release it. Congratulations! You should have successfully converted the GPE stored in your ball into KE in the form of a downward motion (if your ball failed to drop, please contact the complaints department – average wait time: 37.25 years). And now for another round of clearing up misconceptions.
When were talking about massive meteors moving merrily (sorry, I got a little carried away with the alliteration) along in space, we would generally consider its KE, but when we’re talking about a meteor being captured by gravity and falling into the planet’s gravitational well, GPE is what you want to know. Neglecting air resistance (which is only an issue for the last 100 km) objects tend to hit the Earth at around escape velocity (about 14 km/s), thus having KE equal to their original GPE. While an object could hit the earth going faster than that, you don’t get much slower when you fall into a gravity well (the Earth’s orbital velocity – its speed around the sun – is about 30 km/s, by the way). This brings us to the another way you can use your fine new planet for energy conversion – terminal velocity impact! This technique converts GPE to KE and then to thermal energy (TE). To perform this function, simply take your ball (or meteor or asteroid – CAUTION! Using this function on larger bodies can have adverse effects on your biosphere.) and increase its GPE to as near zero as is feasible (physicists, for reasons that are more boring than I care to explain, generally measure GPE starting at 0 at infinite distance from the Earth and decreasing as you get closer). Next, as before you merely release your meteor and allow your planet to convert its GPE into KE. While your meteor should be extremely cold in space, when it reaches the atmosphere, it will have a (very small) portion of its KE converted into TE by friction (this is caused by molecules of the atmosphere rubbing against the meteor as it passes them. CAUTION! Although this is not the primary conversion of KE to TE, the meteorite (the name for it when passing through the atmosphere) will become very hot and should be allowed to cool before handling.) When the meteorite has had all of its GPE converted into KE, it will automatically convert that into TE by smashing into the ground. Note: While the meteorite itself is hot, the energy released on impact is significantly greater, please use caution. To help you gauge the size of your meteor, if an impactor approximately 10km across hit the Earth (in, say, the Yucatan peninsula), 4×10^23 joules of KE would be converted to TE – an explosion equivalent to 100,000,000 megatons of TNT, about 400 times as powerful as the largest known volcanic eruption. This could have serious consequences, such as extinction of the dinosaurs. As you can see, a hot meteor will be the least of our problems at that point…
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “(Additionally, the kinetic energy of the faster plane on its own would have been enough to melt 4 metric tonnes of steel.”
But it punched a hole in the building instead of melting it. Why? You don’t suppose it has anything to do with the absence of a conversion of that kinetic energy into heat energy do you? And not for nothing, but Flight 175 is alleged to have been traveling far faster than its max operating speed at sea level. Another time perhaps…
Yes, the plane punched into the building – at the end of the impact, the KE of the plane was gone – converted mainly into TE contained in the plane/WTC system. ‘Enough KE to melt 4 metric tonnes of steel’ comes from the estimated speed and weight of the faster of the two planes to hit the WTC. And I think you meant that it was flying slower than its max operating speed (although maybe the government black ops team installed turbo on it).
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “You should realize that this energy was stored in the aluminum hull of the aircraft – we’ll get back to that later.) This should convince you that GPE (and the kinetic energy of the planes) is a source of heat that must be considered.”
Sure thing; once you account for the mechanism of conversion. Anything you say.”
Okay, I’ve accounted for the mechanism of conversion, I’ll consider this settled.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “So we have 3 potential sources of heat for iron in the rubble: 1)Fire (both before and after the collapse); 2) GPE converted to kinetic energy and then converted to heat energy on impact;”
Number one is plausible; so long as you can identify the material burning at a temperature near or above the heat of fusion for steel.
Number two, however, is potential nothing. Why? Because once again you didn’t explain how the kinetic energy was converted to heat energy.”
No matter what temperature a fire is burning at, it is a source of heat. Your number two here is aptly named. I’m sorry that I ever assumed that you understood something about energy.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “and 3) exothermic reactions in the rubble pile (I’ve suggested the reaction of steam with hot iron – two substances in plentiful supply in the rubble – this reaction also gives off hydrogen, which itself undergoes an exothermic reaction in the presence of oxygen…).”
Number three is also potential nothing. Why? Because you’re begging the question of the creation of heat energy from kinetic energy sans the conversion step yet again. Where are you getting your steam an hot iron from? ‘Exothermic reactions in the rubble’ — like the kind you get from thermate — evidenced in the dust found in the rubble of the WTC?”
You convert KE to TE by taking a relatively immovable object (like the surface of the Earth) and placing it in front of the object who’s KE you would like to convert – be sure to stand at a safe distance. That accounts for plenty of ‘hot iron’, if you remember ground zero in the aftermath of 9/11, they were continually spraying the rubble pile with water – combining hot iron with water gives us all the steam we could need, providing us with an exothermic reaction which produces hydrogen (it used to be used as an industrial process to produce hydrogen), which itself undergoes an exothermic reaction with oxygen (which can also be assumed to be present). In case you’ve forgotten, exothermic means the reactions generate heat (i.e. thermal energy).
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “I think these sources can reasonably account for all of the heat seen in the debris, including all of your molten metal.”
I wonder if Byron isn’t blushing by now; he tends to get nervous when I use things like logic to analyze issues.”
Byron can answer this for himself, but right now I’m imagining him at his computer yelling, “BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE!” Maybe you should have gotten a little nervous when I started using things like science to analyze this issue.
You said:
‘We’re talking about whether the ‘official story’ of the collapse of three buildings on 9/11/01 is TRUTHFUL or not. If the official story is proven to be false, then we need to proceed accordingly. Truth be known, the miraculous collapse of the buildings combined with the laws of physics held in abeyance on 9/11/01; much less the whitewashing of the official story don’t bring to mind the crime of conspiracy. Actually, its the flight paths of the planes and where they turned off their transponders that brings a murky treasonable design into specific relief. As one ATC put it; “they weren’t good, they were perfect!”‘
While I personally don’t believe it, a conspiracy involving flying planes into buildings (but not CD)
is consistent with the IFT. The ‘official’ statement is irrelevant to, as you say, the point at bar, with the exception that the NIST report is where the IFT appeared.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The test of a theory is not how well it accounts for a specific fact, but how well it accounts for all of the facts.”
That’s misleading; in the sense that it inspires you skip steps in the analysis of evidence available; e.g. outcome determinism.”
I wasn’t providing a step-by-step instruction manual – and my landshark with frickin’ lasers on their heads theory accounts for both the molten metal and the thermic reside (it’s projected in a particle beam to enhance the action of the laser) better than your theory. 😛
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “That being the case, my opinion that the IFT is far closer to the truth than the CDT is on very solid ground.”
Actually, seeing how you base your theory on a non-existent energy conversion mechanism, I don’t see any ground whatsoever.”
The solid ground I’m standing on is what you just got hit with.
You posted:
“Slartibartfast: “If you’re willing to admit that the twin towers (and WTC 7) were not felled by CD, I’ll take an Alford plea on thermite and we can both walk away.”
You are aware that we’re talking about the possibility of a treasonable design; aren’t you? Why so glib then?”
I’m not being glib, that was a serious offer precisely because of the gravity of possible treason. If you’re willing to admit that CD of the WTC was not a possibility and that thermitic material is not evidence of the same, I’ll not contest the evidence of thermitic material and you can go on to investigating conspiracies which are improbable instead of impossible.
You said:
“Equivocation is not a method of energy conversion.”
It’s a good thing I didn’t lie, then.
Slartibartfast “The closed system would be the twin towers (either standing or in the rubble pile). Now any energy contained in this system (namely, 2 trillion Joules of gravitational potential energy)”
You are aware that the NASA thermograph puts the rubble of Building 7 at more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse; aren’t you?
BTW, didn’t it bother you at all that an engineer from NIST, sent out to give a lecture at a university on what happened to those buildings on 9/11, could be completely ignorant of any ‘molten metal’ at ground zero?
How is it that both you and I know that fact but someone from NIST ‘claimed’ to have not?
That doesn’t annoy you?
Robert: “Judging from the angle of the top floors in the photo, how was downward force applied to the back side? The weight of the top floors was only applied to some of the floors below. If the steel was weakened, why didn’t the top section just continue to fall off?”
Are you asking how the ‘official’ story accounts for the reverse in angular momentum of the top of the South Tower; i.e. how did the back side collapse increase so quickly as to keep the section from toppling off?
Good question. If I were from Kansas, I’d say it smacked of intelligent design.
Slartibartfast,
The towers are not a closed (or isolated) system. You cannot impose the laws of an isolated system upon an open system. If the towers were a closed system, you would be able to account for all of the energy. You can’t.
Was energy lost? It sure was. That pyroclastic flow= lost energy. The sound emitted as the tower came down= lost energy. Those projectiles thrown great distances away= lost energy. The force used to break the floors free= lost energy.
“Mind you, I’m not a structural engineer or a demolition expert and that’s just off the top of my head, but that would be my first guess at the scenario.”
I have no doubt that you are very good at your job. What is the extent of your education in the engineering field?
Byron,
Don’t worry about blushing, I’ve got your back on this one, but a better response to my “SPOON!” comment would have been “NOT IN THE FACE!”.
Robert,
You said:
“I’ll let Bob respond to most of your post, but I think there are two things that need immediate attention:
1. The WTCs did not exist in a closed system. Energy conservation laws do not apply.”
First off, the law of conservation of energy always applies – when the lawyers here cite the constitution or a judge’s opinion they feel they’re on solid ground, but when I cite a law of nature, I’ve got the universe behind me. The closed system would be the twin towers (either standing or in the rubble pile). Now any energy contained in this system (namely, 2 trillion Joules of gravitational potential energy) still exists. Therefore it must either 1) leave the system, or 2) still be in the system. I have proposed 2 different destinations for this energy: pulverization of the concrete, etc. in the debris and thermal energy (i.e. heat) in the rubble pile. I can’t think of any process that would have transferred a significant amount of energy out of the system but if you know of one, feel free to let us in on it.
You said:
“2. The Potential Energy you presented is based on the entire building. Every floor that crashed down on to the floor below it had to burn-up some if the PE and KE in order to break the next floor free.”
The potential energy (again 2,000,000,000,000 Joules) was converted into kinetic energy some of which was responsible for pulverizing the structure (by smacking it with a 20 or 30 story building, essentially) and some of which was converted to heat when it hit the ground. Understand? If you want to suggest that some of it went somewhere else, you need to tell us where it went.
You said:
“Although I don’t agree with the Popular Mechanics story, I would like for you to look at the photo.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
Judging from the angle of the top floors in the photo, how was downward force applied to the back side? The weight of the top floors was only applied to some of the floors below. If the steel was weakened, why didn’t the top section just continue to fall off?”
Off the top of my head, I would think that this is a picture of the South Tower (the one hit on the corner, not the middle) and that the collapse started at the impact zone causing that corner of the building to begin falling first, after which (and as a direct result) the structural failure spread to the entire building and the cohesion of the building’s structure allowed the rest of the building to ‘catch up’ to the first corner. Mind you, I’m not a structural engineer or a demolition expert and that’s just off the top of my head, but that would be my first guess at the scenario.
Slartibartfast: “Are you kidding me? First when I don’t recognize a jargon term you denigrate my knowledge of science and suggest I can’t understand what you’re saying (I can and do).”
That would be the concept of the heat of fusion; something as recognizable as the sight of ice melting in a glass at room temperature.
Slartibartfast: “Then you accuse me of committing a logical fallacy when I wasn’t.”
The bandwagon fallacy? ‘Poisoning the well’ via the phrase ‘conspiracy theory?’
Slartibartfast: “Then you lecture me about Kant and the definition of truth and proceed to use that to obscure the truth by applying it narrowly.”
Seeing you accepted Kant’s definition of truth, and used it yourself in your explanation, perhaps you can how I ‘obscured the truth by applying said definition so narrowly.’
Slartibartfast: “Finally you unload two whoppers in a single post: an implication that I don’t understand energy that would get a failing grade from a bad first year physics student and an assertion that I’m not allowed to bring up CD conspiracy theories (presumably because you are embarrassed to be associated with them).”
The first alleged whopper came as a result of you confusing the term ‘heat of fusion’ (i.e. the phase change of substances between solid and liquid) with heat from ‘fusion’ i.e. the reaction found within the sun. The second alleged whopper arises from my distaste of the colloquial use of the term ‘conspiracy’ (i.e. an overly informal use of the term that is incorrect). A conspiracy is one of the three inchoate crimes at common law; the others being solicitation and attempt. Have we been discussing the elements of the crime of conspiracy? Seeing we haven’t been discussing the identities of any parties, underlying crime, agreement, objective, culpable intent or whether we’re discussing a ‘wheel’ conspiracy or a ‘chain’ conspiracy, I’ll go out on a limb and say we HAVE NOT been discussing ‘CONSPIRACY THEORIES.’ Nonetheless, should you feel inclined to continue using the term ‘conspiracy theory’ within this conversation, perhaps as some lame ass backfired attempt to ’embarrass me’ instead of yourself, then by all means have at it sir.
Slartibartfast: “Now I’m going to have to lecture a bit here, as you need someone to instruct you. I’ll try to keep things as simple as possible so you can understand. From wikipedia:
“In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια – energeia, “activity, operation”, from ἐνεργός – energos, “active, working”[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.”
Thanks for clearing that up.
Slartibartfast: “Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system.”
What was that?
Slartibartfast: “Any form of energy can be transformed into another form,”
Ah, so you’re saying that one form of energy doesn’t just magically BECOME another form of energy, but it needs to undergo some form of transformation? And if the total energy always remains the same in an isolated system, I’ll bet you’re talking about the first law of thermodynamics. But seeing the world doesn’t exist in an ‘isolated system’, any CONVERSION OF ENERGY necessitates that you can’t even break even by virtue of an increase in entropy; a/k/a the second law of thermodynamics.
Slartibartfast: “Okay, now that we know what energy is, lets talk about specific kinds.”
Deeming an amount of one form of energy as the same as an amount of another form of energy, WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR ANY CONVERSION WHATSOEVER, isn’t science; it’s equivocation.
Here’s how you did it:
Slartibartfast: “At 6am September 11, 2001 that GPE was stored in the WTC. Later in the day all of that GPE was pretty much gone (there was still some GPE in the rubble pile). What happened to it? Upon structural failure of the building, it was transformed into kinetic energy (energy of motion). But the rubble pile didn’t have any of that kinetic energy, so where did it go?”
Gee, if I were to accept the ‘official story’ in so much as denying the possibility of any aid from, how shall we say, highly exothermic chemical reactions, I’d be constrained to say that the potential energy, converted into kinetic energy, and the aforesaid kinetic energy from the ‘collapse’ somehow managed to shred the building into pieces.
Slartibartfast: “The answer is into pulverizing concrete (and other things) AND THERMAL ENERGY (i.e. heat).”
Whoops-a-daisy; you left out that ‘conversion’ thingy again. So, how did that kinetic energy turn to heat energy?
Slartibartfast: “There is plenty of energy here (1/20th the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb) to do both.”
Sure there’s plenty of energy, but the problem Doc, is how ya gonna convert it. Speaking of Doc, remember the movie “Back To The Future” where Doc was able to convert the mass from a banana peel and some coffee grinds into energy to drive his flying Delorean? He just dumped that crap into that converter called… “Mr. Fusion” right? Nonsensical? Perhaps. But even the writers of that film knew the importance of accounting for the conversion of one form of energy into another.
Slartibartfast: “If you don’t think that kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy in this way,”
What way? That’s just it; simply saying you have lots of energy in one form doesn’t mean you have it in another form. You have to account for its conversion; something you haven’t done here. Thus the question; WHAT WAY?
Slartibartfast: “ask yourself what happens when a meteor hits the earth. If all of this GPE were converted into kinetic energy, it would be sufficient to melt 1,000 metric tonnes of steel.”
First of all, when we’re talking about Massive meteors whizzing around space at high Velocity, are we talking about potential or kinetic energy? Second, when we talk about Massive objects traveling at great Velocities, are we talking about heat energy or kinetic energy? (Hint, the meteor heats up in the atmosphere because of something called … ‘friction’–not impact)
Slartibartfast: “(Additionally, the kinetic energy of the faster plane on its own would have been enough to melt 4 metric tonnes of steel.”
But it punched a hole in the building instead of melting it. Why? You don’t suppose it has anything to do with the absence of a conversion of that kinetic energy into heat energy do you? And not for nothing, but Flight 175 is alleged to have been traveling far faster than its max operating speed at sea level. Another time perhaps…
Slartibartfast: “You should realize that this energy was stored in the aluminum hull of the aircraft – we’ll get back to that later.) This should convince you that GPE (and the kinetic energy of the planes) is a source of heat that must be considered.”
Sure thing; once you account for the mechanism of conversion. Anything you say.
Slartibartfast: “So we have 3 potential sources of heat for iron in the rubble: 1)Fire (both before and after the collapse); 2) GPE converted to kinetic energy and then converted to heat energy on impact;”
Number one is plausible; so long as you can identify the material burning at a temperature near or above the heat of fusion for steel.
Number two, however, is potential nothing. Why? Because once again you didn’t explain how the kinetic energy was converted to heat energy.
Slartibartfast: “and 3) exothermic reactions in the rubble pile (I’ve suggested the reaction of steam with hot iron – two substances in plentiful supply in the rubble – this reaction also gives off hydrogen, which itself undergoes an exothermic reaction in the presence of oxygen…).”
Number three is also potential nothing. Why? Because you’re begging the question of the creation of heat energy from kinetic energy sans the conversion step yet again. Where are you getting your steam an hot iron from? ‘Exothermic reactions in the rubble’ — like the kind you get from thermate — evidenced in the dust found in the rubble of the WTC?
Slartibartfast: “I think these sources can reasonably account for all of the heat seen in the debris, including all of your molten metal.”
I wonder if Byron isn’t blushing by now; he tends to get nervous when I use things like logic to analyze issues.
Slartibartfast: “From now on I will refer to IFT (impact fire theory) and CDT (controlled demolition theory), however, in the interest of truth (as you so helpfully defined) there are aspects of conspiracy that we cannot ignore.”
Sure I can.
Slartibartfast: “This is because of your clear implication that evidence for thermite is evidence of CD (otherwise it’s irrelevant) and the fact that the CDT necessitates some form of conspiracy to have taken place.”
We’re talking about whether the ‘official story’ of the collapse of three buildings on 9/11/01 is TRUTHFUL or not. If the official story is proven to be false, then we need to proceed accordingly. Truth be known, the miraculous collapse of the buildings combined with the laws of physics held in abeyance on 9/11/01; much less the whitewashing of the official story don’t bring to mind the crime of conspiracy. Actually, its the flight paths of the planes and where they turned off their transponders that brings a murky treasonable design into specific relief. As one ATC put it; “they weren’t good, they were perfect!”
Slartibartfast: “We cannot possible decide if the CDT agrees with the object (the collapse of the WTC and aftermath) without considering possible conspiracies which could have resulted in the collapse.”
One thing at a time.
Slartibartfast: “I understand your wish to narrowly focus on molten metal and possible evidence of thermite to avoid being associated with CDT conspiracy theories, but that is not the object of inquiry here, the object here is the collapse of the WTC and aftermath.”
Thus my narrow focus on the topic at hand. I could discuss how the legal maxim Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur — ‘One absurdity begin allowed, an infinity follow’ applies to the chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report with regards to AAL 11, but I’m don’t. Why? To stay focused of course.
Slartibartfast: “The test of a theory is not how well it accounts for a specific fact, but how well it accounts for all of the facts.”
That’s misleading; in the sense that it inspires you skip steps in the analysis of evidence available; e.g. outcome determinism.
Slartibartfast: “Here are just a few problems that the CDT suffers from and dubious conjectures associated with it.”
Since I don’t make those conjectures, and you dismiss them, why shall we discuss them?
Slartibartfast: “These are just some of the issues were the knowledge contained in the CDT fails to match the object of the WTC collapse and aftermath. Taken as a whole, there is no CDT that agrees with the observed facts even close to as well as the IFT does.”
I smell straw.
Slartibartfast: “That being the case, my opinion that the IFT is far closer to the truth than the CDT is on very solid ground.”
Actually, seeing how you base your theory on a non-existent energy conversion mechanism, I don’t see any ground whatsoever.
Slartibartfast: “If you’re willing to admit that the twin towers (and WTC 7) were not felled by CD, I’ll take an Alford plea on thermite and we can both walk away.”
You are aware that we’re talking about the possibility of a treasonable design; aren’t you? Why so glib then?
Slartibartfast: “Kinetic energy and heat energy are two types of energy. Types of energy can be transformed into other types of energy – i.e. a meteor hitting the earth (or a building collapse) transforms much of its kinetic energy into thermal (heat) energy,”
By virtue of what method of conversion? Friction in the atmosphere?
Equivocation is not a method of energy conversion.
Slartibartfast,
I’ll let Bob respond to most of your post, but I think there are two things that need immediate attention:
1. The WTCs did not exist in a closed system. Energy conservation laws do not apply.
2. The Potential Energy you presented is based on the entire building. Every floor that crashed down on to the floor below it had to burn-up some if the PE and KE in order to break the next floor free.
Although I don’t agree with the Popular Mechanics story, I would like for you to look at the photo.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
Judging from the angle of the top floors in the photo, how was downward force applied to the back side? The weight of the top floors was only applied to some of the floors below. If the steel was weakened, why didn’t the top section just continue to fall off?
Bread
SPOON!
Muhahhahhaha!
Buddha,
I knew it! You’re really the Breadmaster! I bet you’ll be writing your villain laugh on your next post!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1I-NfgCNHY
Slarti,
I was trying not to ruin it for Continental Bakeries (based in KC and makers of Wonder Bread). I understand they are working on a cake flour with almond extract smart bomb for Raytheon, Sara Lee and DARPA.
And I’ve seen the aftermath of a grain elevator explosion up close. Oh yeah. Grain dusts can go boom.
Byron,
You said:
“wont any material capable of burning explode if pulverized to a fine powder? And with great effect?”
Yes. That’s basically the reason that fuel-air explosives are the most powerful non-nuclear bombs in the US military’s arsenal. And for what it’s worth, I would have rather been on one of the planes than in one of the towers above the impact.
Slarti:
wont any material capable of burning explode if pulverized to a fine powder? And with great effect?
They never did find much of those planes, what a horrible end for those people. Although I guess it was as instantaneous as you can get. They probably never even knew what happened, that is some small consolation.
Buddha,
And if you mix flour and air, it’s an explosive. I’m not sure how that fits into your analogy, but I thought I’d mention it… 😉
Slarti,
Thanks for the well wishes.
Bob,
I think Slarti has hit a contention that I have left alone as I am not an expert on HE and can offer no chemically compatible solution to your assertion or an alternative way to explain thermite related compounds at the site. All of my martial training is considerable more personal than bomb making and geared toward self-defense. My chemistry knowledge in the area of HE is very limited at best. Knowing the physics behind an explosion and knowing how to make explosives are two entirely different things. Since this cat is out of the bag . . . from what I have read about thermite, it truly has horrid characteristics as a demo charge. Not only does it burn slow, it’s inherently unstable. You can set of an igniter in it an it may still take time to flash (I witnesses this very phenomena on “Mythbusters” where they were doing ice myths that required them to use thermite – one charge went off as planned, the other they had to wait . . . and wait). I know its industrial application is primarily as an ice softener for construction – not exactly precision blasting. Even plain old TNT would have been a better choice than thermite in demolition. Even if the goal was just to create enough uniform softness in the steel to cause collapse that way (which could be calculated) based on compression strength rather than shattering the supports with a concussion, it’s just not the right material it seems. That also plays against sequence from a materials standpoint. Even if you planned a “slow collapse” like that, you’d still need to be able to calculate a constant heat to plan for timely failure. However, I just don’t have the chemical expertise to hazard a guess at what could form a thermite like compound and not actually be thermite. Jet fuel has a hell of a lot in it besides high octane fuel (anti-vaporizing agents, cleaners, other safety additives) let alone all the toxic and assorted other compounds that go into making a plane and a high rise complete with furnishings. It is not impossible that given it was a high energy/complex chemical compound fire that the compounds could be residual from an interaction we are not seeing. It’s not the simplest solution, but not an impossible one either. Chemistry is a funny thing. Flour and water one way is a cake. Another way, it’s glue. Another way still and it’s a brick. All dependent upon mixing conditions and relative water content and curing process. But since I cannot offer an alternative that’s less speculative than that to either explain or deny the compounds, I’ve left that topic alone. But as a demo material, I will say thermite does seem a bit odd.
Thanks Byron. I’ll try to answer your last post tonight, but since Bob was attacking my credibility as a scientist, I felt I had to answer him first. That’s what you get for being polite… 😉
Slarti:
Very good, well said. Although I agree with your assessment. But in any event you did cover the energy thingy quite well.
I did not know there was that much potential energy, I knew it was a pot full though. The meteorite hitting the earth was a good analogy and one I haven’t seen, although I only read a little bit on this as I pretty much figured it was 2 big planes that killed those people and those buildings.
Bob,
Are you kidding me? First when I don’t recognize a jargon term you denigrate my knowledge of science and suggest I can’t understand what you’re saying (I can and do). Then you accuse me of committing a logical fallacy when I wasn’t. Then you lecture me about Kant and the definition of truth and proceed to use that to obscure the truth by applying it narrowly. Finally you unload two whoppers in a single post: an implication that I don’t understand energy that would get a failing grade from a bad first year physics student and an assertion that I’m not allowed to bring up CD conspiracy theories (presumably because you are embarrassed to be associated with them).
Now I’m going to have to lecture a bit here, as you need someone to instruct you. I’ll try to keep things as simple as possible so you can understand. From wikipedia:
“In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια – energeia, “activity, operation”, from ἐνεργός – energos, “active, working”[1]) is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. Different forms of energy include kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound, light, elastic, and electromagnetic energy. The forms of energy are often named after a related force.
Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. ”
Okay, now that we know what energy is, lets talk about specific kinds. Objects get gravitational energy (or gravitational potential energy – GPE) via their height above the Earth. This potential is given by the equation E=mgh (Energy is equal to mass times the acceleration due to gravity (~10m/s^2) times height. From the paper “Good Science and 9-11 demolition Theories” we get that the GPE of ONE of the twin tower was estimated to be 1.139 x 10^12 Joules – that’s a little over one trillion Joules, approximately the same as 270 tons of TNT (I made an error by a factor of two – accidentally factoring in the number of towers twice – in a previous post). Thus the twin towers had a total of TWO trillion Joules of GPE, which is about as much as 540 tons of TNT. This is about 1/20th the 12-14 kiloton yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb (my aforementioned mistake caused my to say 1/10th in a previous post, sorry).
At 6am September 11, 2001 that GPE was stored in the WTC. Later in the day all of that GPE was pretty much gone (there was still some GPE in the rubble pile). What happened to it? Upon structural failure of the building, it was transformed into kinetic energy (energy of motion). But the rubble pile didn’t have any of that kinetic energy, so where did it go? The answer is into pulverizing concrete (and other things) AND THERMAL ENERGY (i.e. heat). There is plenty of energy here (1/20th the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb) to do both. If you don’t think that kinetic energy can be converted into thermal energy in this way, ask yourself what happens when a meteor hits the earth. If all of this GPE were converted into kinetic energy, it would be sufficient to melt 1,000 metric tonnes of steel. (Additionally, the kinetic energy of the faster plane on its own would have been enough to melt 4 metric tonnes of steel. You should realize that this energy was stored in the aluminum hull of the aircraft – we’ll get back to that later.) This should convince you that GPE (and the kinetic energy of the planes) is a source of heat that must be considered.
So we have 3 potential sources of heat for iron in the rubble: 1)Fire (both before and after the collapse); 2) GPE converted to kinetic energy and then converted to heat energy on impact; and 3) exothermic reactions in the rubble pile (I’ve suggested the reaction of steam with hot iron – two substances in plentiful supply in the rubble – this reaction also gives off hydrogen, which itself undergoes an exothermic reaction in the presence of oxygen…). I think these sources can reasonably account for all of the heat seen in the debris, including all of your molten metal. (My personal favorite is a picture – not in the article you posted, but widely touted on 9/11 truther sites – purporting to show workers clustered around a pool of molten iron. This picture is notable in that one of the worker’s legs are actually in the glow of the ‘molten iron’ and show a noticeable lack of being on fire – asbestos Levi’s, I guess…)
You said:
“Since we’re not discussing the elements of the inchoate (incomplete) crime of ‘conspiracy’ I’ll ask you to refrain from using that term.”
From now on I will refer to IFT (impact fire theory) and CDT (controlled demolition theory), however, in the interest of truth (as you so helpfully defined) there are aspects of conspiracy that we cannot ignore. This is because of your clear implication that evidence for thermite is evidence of CD (otherwise it’s irrelevant) and the fact that the CDT necessitates some form of conspiracy to have taken place. We cannot possible decide if the CDT agrees with the object (the collapse of the WTC and aftermath) without considering possible conspiracies which could have resulted in the collapse. I understand your wish to narrowly focus on molten metal and possible evidence of thermite to avoid being associated with CDT conspiracy theories, but that is not the object of inquiry here, the object here is the collapse of the WTC and aftermath. The test of a theory is not how well it accounts for a specific fact, but how well it accounts for all of the facts. (In science we attempt to strictly control the number of facts in an experiment in order to make it easier to determine the truth of our experiments, unfortunately that cannot be done here.) It’s easy to come up with a theory that explains a particular fact (I myself have developed a hypothesis regarding molten metal involving invisible alien landsharks with laser beams strapped to their heads which perfectly explains all of the observed molten metal), but that doesn’t make that theory a consistent part of an explanation of the collapse.
Here are just a few problems that the CDT suffers from and dubious conjectures associated with it.
1) Apparent molten metal being ejected from the vicinity of the impact pre-collapse.
People who support the CDT take this to be iron and start making back of the envelope calculations purporting to show how this can’t be possible without thermite, yada, yada, yada… But wait, was iron the only metal around it quantity? Hmmm… I seem to recall some aluminum with a planeload of kinetic energy stored in it. I wonder what could have happened to that?
2) On this thread people have been suggesting that office materials, computers and building materials cannot burn sufficiently hot to do things like melt iron.
This seems to conveniently ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room – the airplane. There have been airplane crashes where the fuel tanks remained intact, yet resulted in fire hot enough to melt the entire aluminum skin of the aircraft. There were many different inflammables in the impact zone which could easily have unknown synergistic effects. Not to mention enough kinetic energy to melt 4 metric tonnes of iron.
3) The north tower was hit earlier and more seriously (it was hit pretty much on center and the south tower was hit in the corner), yet the south tower fell first. (This is a common argument among the proponents of the CDT.)
Well, I think that the fact that the south tower had twice the weight bearing on the impact zone that the north tower might have made a difference (The south tower was hit 30 stories from the top, the north only 15).
4) There wasn’t sufficient energy to pulverize all of the concrete observed. (Another common CDT argument.)
I’ve established that there was plenty of energy available for this (1/20th of the Hiroshima blast), but there are a couple of ridiculous corollaries that should be mentioned. First, if additional explosive force was required, this would necessitate 1000 tons of TNT (or its equivalent) to merely triple the available energy – that’s a lot of explosives to hide even with more powerful, modern explosives. That’s not taking into account that explosives are not used for this purpose in CD – in CD, explosives are used to cut the supporting structure, gravity does the rest. Could the collapse of a building over four times taller than the tallest building which has ever been imploded do a more thorough job? We are essentially considering the gravitational collapse of a building 20% taller than any ever felled by CD on top of an 80 story building. Should it surprise us that it was more violent than any collapse previously seen?
These are just some of the issues were the knowledge contained in the CDT fails to match the object of the WTC collapse and aftermath. Taken as a whole, there is no CDT that agrees with the observed facts even close to as well as the IFT does. That being the case, my opinion that the IFT is far closer to the truth than the CDT is on very solid ground. If you’re willing to admit that the twin towers (and WTC 7) were not felled by CD, I’ll take an Alford plea on thermite and we can both walk away. If not, then while I’m sure you are a fine litigator, you make one lousy scientist.
A final note to clear up some of your misconceptions. You closed your post with the statement:
“Once again, kinetic energy is not heat energy and heat energy is not temperature.”
Kinetic energy and heat energy are two types of energy. Types of energy can be transformed into other types of energy – i.e. a meteor hitting the earth (or a building collapse) transforms much of its kinetic energy into thermal (heat) energy, and a steam engine is a device for turning thermal energy into kinetic energy. Temperature is a measure of the thermal energy contained in an object. Here endeth the lesson.