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,
Have at it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf
Byron,
Why attempt to beat up on a scientist who gives you more than what was really there? Using the GPE instead of estimating the KE available for transfer on impact is being generous. The GPE is the most energy available.
Robert:
total energy is total energy. It may take a certain amount of energy at each point but total energy should be sum of all energy at each phase.
That guy is wrong.
Byron,
It takes more energy to undergo the phase change.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html
Robert:
can you explain to me how it takes 270,000 joules of energy to melt 1 kg of steel but 478,400 joules to raise the temperature of 1 kg of steel from 800 C to 1536 (the melting point) C.?
Is the first one wrong or the second? And why do you have to add the 2 together? If steel was already hot wouldn’t it take less energy to get it to the melting point.
If water is at 180 F do you need more energy to get it to 212 F than you do from 75 F? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
Kinetic Energy is 0.5MV^2 not MGH which is Potential Energy.
And sulfur occurs in many hydro-carbon based products and it occurs in steel. He did not say what % of sulfur was found. Was it 0.5% or 15%.
Personally if he is so sloppy on these simple facts how could you take him seriously on anything else.
Try again and give me a paper that has some real credibility, not some ersatz science dufus.
A mysterous Muslim group with unknown sponsors has purchased a building steps away from Ground Zero.
Hudson New York reported:
An identified group with unknown sponsors has purchased building steps away from where the WorldTrade Center once stood — to turn it into potentially one of the largest New York City mosques.
At the moment the building, the old Burlington Coat Factory, already serves as a mini-mosque: an iron grill lifts every Friday afternoon for a little known Imam leading prayers a few yards away from where Osama Bin Laden’s airborne Islamist bombers killed nearly 3000 people back in 2001.
The Imam, Feisal Abdul Rauf, told the New York Times — which put the story on its front page Wednesday — that he has assembled several million dollars to turn it into ‘’an Islamic center near the city’s most hallowed piece of land that would stand as one of ground zero’s more unexpected and striking neighbors.’’
The 61-year-old Imam said he paid $4.85 million for it — in cash, records show. With 50,000 square feet of air rights and enough financing, he plans an ambitious project of $150 million, he said, akin to the Chautauqua Institution, the 92 Street Y or the Jewish Community Center.
The origins of such monies are unexplained; neither are the countries or entity advancing such huge donations. Most US mosques, including many in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are funded directly or indirectly by Saudi Arabia the country to which 15 of the 19 hijackers who bombed the World TradeCenter belonged. The UAE, Qatar and Iran are other major sponsors across the USA.
Robert:
I read a portion of that and will comment later, but there are inconsistencies in the first couple of pages that I need to check out.
PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
Byron: “A lead bullet doesn’t melt in a barrel of a rifle but some leading will occur so it isn’t advisable to use solid lead bullets. Although you can use bullets that have a small copper cap at the base but otherwise are lead.”
Excuse my previous hyperbole. Here’s what (everyone’s favorite fun source) wikipedia says:
“The surface of lead bullets fired at high velocity may melt due to hot gases behind and friction with the bore. Because copper has a higher melting point, and greater specific heat capacity and hardness, copper jacketed bullets allow greater muzzle velocities.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet
Byron: “If a bullet strikes a plate some energy is dissipated as heat. I don’t know how much the contribution is.”
Lead grinding (i.e. rubbing and compressing) against lead would create friction heat; anything close to being forced down a 24 inch barrel by hot gas? I’d calculate not.
Byron: “When you hit a tank with a sabot it turns the armour plating to molten metal. These are called kinetic energy rounds. They don’t use explosives. So I think my point is valid on the smaller scale.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but armor piercing bullets are a function of immense muzzle velocity and a highly dense projectile.
Byron: “Even Prof. Kant would agree that a matter of scale does not impact the truth of an axiom. A bb falls at the same speed as a bowling ball. But the energy upon impact is much less due to differences in mass.”
But if you got those two items traveling at 11km/sec, I’m sure they’d be pretty hot upon impact.
Thus the reason the average terminal velocity of objects falling to earth precludes such phenomena.
Speaking of terminal velocity, building 7 fell within 6.5 seconds. Makes ya wonder if there was any resistance at all.
Slartibartfast: “You raise valid points which can’t be settled without actually doing the experiment (and I lack equipment to accurately measure the temperature of a bullet), so I’ll let it drop”
Everything I said about the firing of a bullet through a rifle would come in as evidence via the court simply taking judicial notice. It’s common knowledge. As to the the amount of heat produced by the friction of a bullet flattening upon impact, I’m sure someone in some field felt compelled at one time to do the research on that one as well.
Byron,
You’re not paying attention. If you remember, I believe the mechanism for demolition was installed to prevent the building from falling over.
Bob Esq:
A lead bullet doesn’t melt in a barrel of a rifle but some leading will occur so it isn’t advisable to use solid lead bullets. Although you can use bullets that have a small copper cap at the base but otherwise are lead.
If a bullet strikes a plate some energy is dissipated as heat. I don’t know how much the contribution is.
When you hit a tank with a sabot it turns the armour plating to molten metal. These are called kinetic energy rounds. They don’t use explosives. So I think my point is valid on the smaller scale.
Even Prof. Kant would agree that a matter of scale does not impact the truth of an axiom. A bb falls at the same speed as a bowling ball. But the energy upon impact is much less due to differences in mass.
Robert/BobEsq:
Maybe these will help:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
“It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.”
The fires may have reached a 1,000 C but probably 700 to 800 C.
Byron: “I think you both are right on the bullet. Think depleted Uranium shape sabot and then down size to steel jacketed bullet.
Some heat is from barrel, some heat from impact.”
First, you damn well that most if not all of the heat comes from inside the barrel; e.g. if you fired a plain lead bullet from a 7mm casing, nothing but goo would come out the end of the barrel.
Second, are you really comparing the collapse of a building, which somehow occurred at free fall speed (about 8 seconds for the towers and 6.5 seconds for WTC 7) with the dynamics of a bullet; just for the rhetorical bridge of saying “hey, it could be?” Seriously?
Slartibartfast: “This is equally daft, but I need to finish this off for the night, so I’ll just note that I’m talking about trillion, not million – i.e. 1,600,000,000,000 joules, not 1,600,000 joules”
That was an obvious typo.
Slartibartfast: Bob said:
“The closest kinetic energy comes to heat energy is through the mechanism of FRICTION. But you don’t even attempt to account for that conversion either.”
Friction is converting kinetic energy into thermal energy, but (in my opinion) this effect is many orders of magnitude less significant.”
At least you named the mechanism of conversion.
Slartibartfast,
Can you explain the molten metal before the collapse?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Cn5cqgh-g&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Robert:
So what? That isn’t exactly incontrovertible proof.
I have seen wood smolder for days and upon exposure to air burst into flame. Fire needs fuel and oxygen.
How do those fire fighters know that what they saw dripping down those beams wasn’t molten glass or plastic or a combination?
You just could not keep something like controlled demolition quiet, too many people would know and someone would spill the beans at some point.
None of what I saw surprises me, there is no smoking gun in that video.
Why are you so sure that Thermite was used? I know why Bob is sure. Same equation?
Why are you so hell bent on believing the towers were destroyed by a cabal of government agencies?
Do you have an axe to grind, know something the rest of us don’t? Especially in light of the fact that you saw 2 large planes fly into them or do you believe that was just special effects like the moon landing?
Bullet:
The heat transfer coeeficient of the bullet would prevent it from getting that hot, that fast, just from bring fired. Though I have not performed any scientific research on the subject, I would suspect that much of the heat is the result of energy released during deformation. Plasticity
The core? Where did the core go?
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaLolMki5GE&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Bob,
You raise valid points which can’t be settled without actually doing the experiment (and I lack equipment to accurately measure the temperature of a bullet), so I’ll let it drop. I think Byron gets the gold star on this one – we’re both identifying valid sources of heat. I’ve gathered some additional evidence for my case – I’ll post it later this afternoon (don’t have time until then).