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
Slartibartfast: All I’m asserting is that GPE -> KE -> TE is a source of heat (and that ‘natural’ forces are sufficient to account for observations). The contributions of the various factors are different with WTC7 – much less GPE, fires burning much longer before collapse, fuel/industrial electrical equipment throughout the building, etc. I’m not willing to do the work to make a model of it. Unless I’m being paid to do it.”
You can charge me $50/hr and I’ll charge you $200; why don’t we just call it even.
Besides; we don’t need a model. You already conceded that WTC 7 had much less GPE; and that was your star player in your inelastic collision model for the towers.
Yet a building of less than 1/3 the mass and height of the Towers creates the same phenomena; i.e. molten metal and temperatures on the NASA thermograph in excess of 1,300 Fahrenheit. That’s amazing; each one of the first three steel buildings to ever collapse as a result of fire (on the same day no less) all left debris with molten metal lasting for six months.
Crazy world we live in; huh?
WTC 2 did not topple over.
”
Me: “If the WTC started to fall over…”
Me: “How?”
Robert:
“Uneven removal of the lower support structure. You know, like the top of WTC #2 did.”
Observational evidence seems to contradict this.”
WTF? What are you talking about? Are you claiming that the top of WTC-2 did not fall over? Or are you claiming that removal of the lower support would not result in tipping?
Me: “If the WTC started to fall over…”
Me: “How?”
Robert:
“Uneven removal of the lower support structure. You know, like the top of WTC #2 did.”
Observational evidence seems to contradict this.
Bob,
All I’m asserting is that GPE -> KE -> TE is a source of heat (and that ‘natural’ forces are sufficient to account for observations). The contributions of the various factors are different with WTC7 – much less GPE, fires burning much longer before collapse, fuel/industrial electrical equipment throughout the building, etc. I’m not willing to do the work to make a model of it. Unless I’m being paid to do it.
“If the WTC started to fall over…”
“How?”
Uneven removal of the lower support structure. You know, like the top of WTC #2 did.
Gyges: “So what makes the existence of a wider conspiracy any more logically necessary than the existence of a gap in our knowledge about the behavior of a collection of materials that was once a huge building being hit by an airliner?”
That’s your false dichotomy; not mine. First step is to figure out what’s true and what’s not true or not even remotely plausible.
Example, from the story of AAL 11 in the 9/11 Commission Report: “At 8:41, Sweeney told Woodward that passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class.”
Assuming you read the first chapter of 9/11 Commission Report, did you deem that portion true or plausible?
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur — ‘One absurdity begin allowed, an infinity follow’
Care to guess what’s absurd about the official story of AAL11 five minutes before impact? Mind you we’re talking about absurdity based upon the premises of the report itself.
Bonus points if you can reference Helen Keller in your answer.
Excuse me:
“…AFTER being hit…”
Slartibartfast: “I’m perfectly willing to say that I believe that WTC 7 died of wounds sustained in the collapse of the twin towers. I’m not going to take the time to make a model of it. I said that I would be willing to do it if you paid me – I’ll do it for $50/hr and it will take at least 5-10 hours.”
But if your theory behind the creation of molten metal at the footprints of the twin towers is correct, and ALL THAT POTENTIAL ENERGY is true source of heat, then surely you’ll have no problem applying the same reasoning to WTC 7. After all, you wouldn’t proffer a ‘scientific model’ that was irrefutable; would you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable
Robert,
“Godzilla” is not a credible answer.
Robert,
You said:
“If the WTC started to fall over…”
How?
The last should read: “… what the MAGNITUDE of the forces involved were.
Byron,
A kg of steel (at room temperature) would have to impact at about 1.45 km/s to have kinetic energy equal to the energy required to melt it. It would have to drop from a height of about 105km (neglecting air resistance) to attain this velocity. There was a lot of mass besides steel in the rubble. I made an estimate of the energy density earlier and will repeat it when I fix the numbers, but all I said was that KE was one source of heat in the rubble. I also specified fire (both before and after the collapse) and exothermic reactions (hot iron and steam undergo an exothermic reaction which results in hydrogen gas which reacts with oxygen. My assertion is just that these causes are sufficient to account for observations of heat at ground zero and my computation gives a rough idea what the forces involved were. Unless your saying that no heat came from KE, I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me at all.
Bob,
So what makes the existence of a wider conspiracy any more logically necessary than the existence of a gap in our knowledge about the behavior of a collection of materials that was once a huge building being hit by an airliner?
Slarti,
Please finish this statement:
An object in motion ______ __ ____ __ _______. IF the WTC started to fall over, it would continue until it impacted something else. That would be the path of least resistance.
I said:
“My theory predicted that 100 gigaJoules was available for demolition work, Robert’s estimate given 154 gigaJoules required. This is excellent agreement for this sort of model”.
Robert replied:
“Not so fast. You completely forgot about pulverizing the concrete. (or did you conserve that energy for later re-use?) :>)”
I’m tabling this until I’ve had a chance to fix the numbers. Nothing useful is gained by this discussion until then.
Bob,
This goes for you, too. I’ll be back tomorrow with new numbers to provide focus for you yelling about how I’m incompetent. If you’d like me to do the math on WTC7, I’ll need $250 up front and it will require from 5-10 hours at $50/hr to do. I’m serious about this.
Arent we all forgetting there were cut gas lines as well and large electric cables that also contributed to the heat prior to being turned off. As well as hundreds of tons of paper and other inflammables.
What about those items? Electricity is used to melt steel when welding.
I guess I am moving away from Slarti’s PE/KE proposition. That point that Bob made about how far does a kg of steel have to fall before it melts made me stop and think. Intuitively it would have to fall a hell of a long way, certainly more than a few thousand feet.
The other question is why don’t other controlled demolition sites have hot areas? Is it because the gas and electric are turned off which is probably the case, so there should be some heat but I don’t think anyone ever talks about that.
I still think that Slarti is correct, just maybe not about the heat coming from the collapse.
Here’s one for ya.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/implosion-goes-wrong-buil_n_249940.html
Bob said:
“Not for nothing, but your reluctance to apply your theory to WTC 7 is proof positive that you’ve set forth an ‘irrefutable theory’ making it untestable anywhere but your thought experiment with the two towers and therefore unscientific.”
I’m perfectly willing to say that I believe that WTC 7 died of wounds sustained in the collapse of the twin towers. I’m not going to take the time to make a model of it. I said that I would be willing to do it if you paid me – I’ll do it for $50/hr and it will take at least 5-10 hours.
Robert said:
“If, after the 1993 attempt to take down the WTC, you realized what would happen if a 1400 ft. tall building was to fall over in downtown Manhattan, what would be your course of action? How would your course of action impact operation?”
Please enlighten me by what theory of structural collapse would a 1400 ft. tall building ‘fall over’? (By which I assume you mean topple to one side like a tree being felled.)