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
Buddha,
Your right about symmetry – symmetry breaking is a common form of bifurcation, and the reverse doesn’t usually follow the entropy arrow. I’m fine with your newly reshaped probability hat, all I wanted to do was provide a scientific context to answer the question ‘Were explosives necessary?’. I don’t want to make up anyone’s mind for them, I just want to show them what my reasoning is based on. I figure if my thinking is good and other people understand it, then they will tend to agree with me (unless they disagree with my assumptions). As long as people don’t form their opinions based on ignorance (especially willful ignorance) I’m happy. I hope you like the new contours of your hat.
Robert:
I am not saying it turned into thermite just that it is a viable explanation for “thermite like” residue.
I also answered you about the sulphur.
Are you talking about the cuts in the pictures? Those are from upper floor columns. The lower level columns were massive and were rectangles with 3 or 4 interior bulkheads. The upper level columns were rectangular with no bulkheads, 4 sides only. The pictures I saw were only rectangles and looked like they were cut with torches. In close ups you could make out flame marks. As you well know being a welder an acetylene cutting torch leaves a very distinctive pattern in the steel.
Slow down guys. Aluminum cladding on the side of the tower doesn’t magically turn into thermite. It also doesn’t explain the high concentrations of sulfur. And it doesn’t explain the 45 degree cuts on the core support.
I asked this question before I went out. I would really appreciate an answer.
I do have one very important question for Slarti.
When creating molten steel by transferring energy, does it matter if that energy transfer takes place on the head of a pin (the way you did it) or can I spread out that energy transfer over 500 sq. miles and still have the same effect? Does the rate at which the energy is transferred have anything to do with the equation.
I was getting ready to drop a 70 lb bag of cement on my friends head from 5 ft above him, and was wondering if pouring the contents over 20 minutes would have the same effect.
Buddha,
I understand the fascination with chaos – after reading Gleick’s book I was hooked. I spent two years in grad school taking classes in non-linear dynamics and ergodic theory with a student of Stephen Smale’s. Very cool stuff. I once asked him about a phenomenon called ‘Newhouse sinks’ and professor Newhouse replied, “I don’t call them that…” and proceeded to give me a very thorough explanation of the concept.
Thanks for the hat. I’ve got some ACME instant spot remover that I’m sure will get the orc blood right out. 😉
Slarti,
I will stipulate that the heat of fusion and residue issues do lend more credence to anomaly than conspiracy. However, I was never in either camp. I was in the “could be meat, could be cake, could be meat-cake!” camp (apologies to Mr. Carlin). But what you have described is a possibility. A slide one direction in the matrix of probability. I have no problem with possibility, and while your possibility (with the possible explanation for the residue Byron hooked us up with) has reshaped my hat of probability, it has not destroyed it – merely changed the fit. My hat no longer has the thermite question in it.
Feel free to keep that hat. I’ve probably got more. Don’t mind the Orc blood on it. We got a little carried away last dungeon.
I will remain skeptical of symmetry from asymmetry. However, this points to a problem that is solely mine. A long recognized personal quirk. I have a thing about chaos. It is deep embedded in the universe’s behavior and when it act orderly without intervention it always makes me curious. Not necessarily suspicious (though it can), but curious always.
bUDDHA/Slarti:
thank you, oink, oink.
Buddha,
I knew that aluminum was a main ingredient of thermite, but not that the WTC was clad with it. Together did we know that the ingredients for thermite were abundant in the WTC collapse? What is 1/2 of knowledge?
.
.
.
HEY! Look over there!
.
.
.
Sorry, I just had to distract you so I could steal your hat of probability.
Byron,
What Buddha said.
BTW, Byron. Good show on piecing that together. Pretty good reasoning for a capitalist pig. 😀
It would explain the residue.
As I said earlier, chemistry is a funny thing. But if all the basic ingredients were there? It makes that “not impossible” statement about a process we might not be seeing come to light. And had I known that’s what’s in thermite? I’ve been to the WTC. I knew it had aluminum cladding. I’ve touched it. I might have made that chemistry connection earlier. As Sgt. Schultz would say, “Veddy interestink.”
That could be the simple answer to one question.
Not mine, but one.
Byron said:
“more like in like a Lion out like a Lamb.”
ROTFLOL. How right you are.
Gyges said:
“Aesthetically Bob still wins. No offense, he’s just a master wordsmith and rhetorician, even his absurdities sound plausible. I actually had to go back and reread what I said a few times, and I’m no slouch when it comes remembering what I wrote.
However, when it comes to establishing a factual basis for your claims, math wins over words. Especially when you’re trying to prove a possibility.”
I can live with that. I’m trying to communicate, not entertain or persuade. I believe that if people understand the science, they will be better able to judge the truth for themselves.
Bob,
I asked you why you felt that a conspiracy was a logical necessity, right after you implied that a conspiracy was a logical necessity, and that’s off topic. You either have a bad memory, or a very flexible one.
A refresher:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-98804
and my “off topic” question.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-98820
Either way, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that you’ve convinced yourself that anyone disagreeing with you is wrong, and therefore not worth actually listening to. Have fun, I see no reason to keep enabling your disillusion of being an impartial and unbiased interpreter of facts.
Slart,
Aesthetically Bob still wins. No offense, he’s just a master wordsmith and rhetorician, even his absurdities sound plausible. I actually had to go back and reread what I said a few times, and I’m no slouch when it comes remembering what I wrote.
However, when it comes to establishing a factual basis for your claims, math wins over words. Especially when you’re trying to prove a possibility.
Slarti:
more like in like a Lion out like a Lamb.
Could it be that simple?
Byron,
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE! (or thermite ;-))
BobEsq:
did you know that the exterior support columns were coated with aluminum?
“The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4″ wide and set only 22″ apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.”
http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm
I just found that out. I think that might be your answer or at least it sure goes a long way toward explaining some things. That would be one heck of a lot of aluminum.
I wonder why that wasn’t looked into as a source for possible “thermite” residue? At least I haven’t seen any mention of it in anything I have read.
recipe for thermite:
8 parts iron oxide
3 parts aluminum
parts by weight
I think we can put that controlled demolition speculation to bed once and for all.
Gyges,
I’d like to thank you for intervening in this discussion yesterday. You took Bob’s rhetorical heat off my back (I love mixed metaphors…) and allowed me to concentrate on the physics. In my Scopes Monkey Trial analogy, you’ve taken the role of Clarence Darrow. I hope you’re happy with the testimony of your expert witness. 😉
You said yesterday (and I agreed) that Bob was beating me on style and I was beating him on substance. What do you think now?
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “First, take a minute to think of the heroes of 9/11 – the men and women of NYPD and NYFD and the passengers on United Flight 93.”
Spare me the appeal to emotion; why not regale us with song and poem? (See Rheinquist’s dissent in Texas v. Johnson — pathetic)”
Fine, my analysis stands on its own, I thought that since you’re insisting that our government murdered nearly 3000 people including some who were performing very heroically, it deserved mention.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: Assumptions: GPE of WTC1 = WTC2 = 500 GJ (gigajoules) (From here on out, I will just refer to WTC or ‘the tower’)”
Yet the entire event included WTC 7; the collapse of which left and even hotter pile of rubble than one of the Towers and just as much molten metal. Accordingly your theory fails to account for the molten metal at ground zero and is therefore incomplete and incorrect.”
I didn’t include the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, either. I was investigating the plausibility of the hypothesis that there was sufficient energy involved in the WTC collapse to account for observations. I said that I COULD do a similar analysis of WTC 7, but would not unless I were paid for it. My theory is complete in addressing my hypothetical. It doesn’t answer questions about WTC 7 and it doesn’t purport to. It is correct in that from the given assumptions my calculations are accurate.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The collapse of WTC did not involve added explosives”
That’s a conclusory assertion, not a fact.”
This is the hypothetical that we are investigating the plausibility of. My model assumed no added explosives. This is a necessary assumption for the goal of my model and in no way improper.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: “All of the simplifying assumptions that I have previously specified”
Most of which were also conclusory assertions.”
See above – with the addendum that making simplifying assumptions is a necessary part of science. If you can track the vectors of all of the particles that made up WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 the morning of 9/11 and account for every millijoule of energy, more power to you. My calculation is a good first step and the kind of thing that a scientist wants to consider when he asks the question: Were the observations consistent with my hypothesis (no explosives).
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The collapse of WTC registered 2.1 on the richter scale”
Sure did, but since you’re using the conclusory assertion that there were no explosives involved, you’re using the seismic evidence to bolster your fallacy.”
The amount of energy needed for seismic events is well understood and easily calculable. Roughly 5.9 GJ of seismic energy is required to generate an event that registers a 2.1 on the Richter scale. This is true no matter what the cause of the event. I subtracted this energy from my calculation (this was kinetic energy converted into seismic energy). Just to be clear – this is energy that is no longer available for heat or generalized destruction. To bolster your argument, you would like to make me subtract as much energy as possible – would you like me to add this back in? (It’s the equivalent of more than a metric ton of TNT. :-P)
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The collapse of WTC was as loud as a rocket engine or the Krakatoa eruption from 100 milies away”
All that represents is energy unavailable for conversion into heat. Or… so what?”
It is identifiable energy released in the collapse, so I account for it. It isn’t much, just 60 MJ, but every little bit helps you out.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The sound of the collapse lasted for 1 minute”
Relevance counselor?”
The volume of sound is measured in decibels (dB). This is a measure of the power required to produce a sound. Power has units of energy per unit time. In order to calculate the amount of sonic energy present we must know how loud the sound was and how long it lasted. I chose what I considered to be more than reasonable upper bounds for both.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The thermal characteristics of iron (specific heat and heat of fusion) from the paper that Robert linked to are correct”
Wow; relevance to this alleged point you’re building?”
I gave thermal energy equivalents in terms of ‘metric tons of iron at room temperature liquified’. I used the specific heat and heat of fusion from that paper to do the calculation. If I don’t do things like this, my work is not reproducible (I know that no one will attempt to reproduce it, but the principle is still important.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: “A metric ton of TNT is equivalent to 4.6 MJ (megaJoules)”
And how many joules of energy represent all the dripping faucets in the country?”
I would measure all of the dripping faucets in the country in liters per second, not joules. I’ll leave estimating the actual value to you.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “‘Little Boy’ had a yield of 13-18 kilotons”
Okay
Slartibartfast: “room temperature is 68 F”
And there are four pecks in a bushel…”
Again, I have to specify any constants that I used.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: I accounted for energy in the following forms:
GPE
KE
thermal energy in the rubble
seismic energy
sonic energy
energy to reduce the building to rubble and create the pyroclastic flow”
No you didn’t. You argued in a post hoc ergo propter hoc fashion based on bare assumptions targeted at a specific outcome. Your 17.4% GPE argument assumed the very conclusion which you were supposed to prove; namely that the collapse created the molten metal.”
First off, the 17.4% figure is from outdated numbers. The correct figures are 16-50% depending on the duration of the collapse. Assuming that my scenario is correct, 16-50% of the gravitational potential energy was available for collapsing the structure, pulverizing the materials, and generating the pyroclastic flow. 50-84% went elsewhere. In the interest of accuracy, the sonic energy should probably be included here, however it is so small that it doesn’t effect any of the numbers that I have reported. My calculation suggests what the distribution of the GPE stored in the WTC would be during the collapse. I’m not trying to prove that the collapse created the molten metal, I’m just saying that enough GPE was converted to heat to liquify 270-455 metric tons of iron at room temperature. With additional heat sources available, I think this makes finding molten metal in the rubble reasonable. I have never asserted anything more.
Bob said:
“Once again: How many joules does it take to ‘liquify’ one kg of steel?”
about 900,000.
Bob said:
“And at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’”
I actually posted this (along with the height it would need to fall from to obtain that velocity (neglecting air resistance)) upthread. Find it yourself.
Bob said:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/12/09/one-hundred-and-twenty-percent-of-people-cant-be-wrong-fox-news-shows-people-are-dubious-about-the-accuracy-of-global-warming-science-with-a-poll-showing-120-percent-of-people-are-skeptical/#comment-98758
The aforesaid fallicious reasoning poisoned every other calculation in your process.”
You link to a prior post of your in which you go on at length with comments no more valid than any of these. Since you did not see fit to reproduce the arguments, I’m not going to bother refuting them here. Most of them have been refuted in other posts.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: “I assert that the amount of other forms of energy present in the collapse of WTC are much smaller than any of these forms (except sonic energy, it’s a wuss). If you feel otherwise, please explain what form of energy I’m neglecting and why that energy is relevant on a scale measured in GJ.”
You do a hell of a lot of asserting; you’re just tad light on forming so much as a syllogism or proving anything.”
I was offering you (or Robert) the opportunity to point out energy that I haven’t considered, provided you could justify including it. I would be a poor scientist if I wasn’t willing to do this. You clearly do not understand my goal here. I am providing evidence of whether or not the ‘natural’ theory of collapse is consistent with the observed facts by calculating the distribution of the GPE originally in the towers the morning of 9/11. I think my analysis is pretty solid evidence that it is.
Bob posted:
Slartibartfast: “Depending on the time required for the collapse (free fall requires 9.18s), the various quantities change.”
Do you also assert that buildings falling at free fall speed is an everyday natural phenomena? Sorry, but it seems a bit fucking silly to me.”
By comparing the time required for the collapse with the free fall time, we can determine the velocity of the collapse, we can determine how much of the original GPE went into KE and how much was diverted to generalized destruction. If there were no resistance, the building would have fallen at free fall speed and all of the GPE would have become KE. Are you saying that the question of how much energy is available for destruction is irrelevant? If so, you should tell Robert that he’s wasting his time. Could we understand the result of the computation that Robert is doing as well if we didn’t have the context of my analysis and the 200 GJ to compare it to?
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “On the morning of September 11, there was half a terrajoule of gravitational potential energy in the WTC, the equivalent of over 100 kilotons of TNT (5 – 10 times the energy released by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima) or enough energy to power the flux capacitor for nearly seven seconds (Doc Brown only needed the duration of a lightning strike to send Marty forward 30 years).”
And the energy in WTC 7? And the length of the time of collapse, what was that 6.5 seconds? The height? The velocity of the collapse?”
If you’re referring to the 6s/6.6s times I used in earlier calculations, I believe they are free fall vs. collapse times from WTC7, if so, the 17.4% of GPE for destruction is applicable to the collapse of WTC7. If you’re talking about the 6.9 minutes that the flux capacitor could be powered, I assumed that a lightning strike lasts one second to compute the number of years it would be possible to travel through time (~15,000).
Bob said:
“Once again: How many joules does it take to ‘liquify’ one kg of steel? And at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’ — U=mgh?”
See above.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “This energy exists to this day, this is my best guess as to where it went.”
I’ve never seen anyone use the law of conservation of energy as a fucking Hallmark card.”
So you agree that I am correctly using the law of conservation of energy. It’s a start. (You really should watch your fucking language, though.)
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: Somewhere between 80 to 250 GJ went in to collapsing the building, pulverizing debris, and the pyroclastic flow.”
What happened to the 17.4% GPE? You know, the figure you got from assuming the conclusion you were allegedly going to prove?”
As per above, the 17.4% number comes from using the WTC 7 collapse times in the calculation. With a collapse time of 10-13s, we get 16-50% of the GPE diverted from KE to destroy the building.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “This is the equivalent of 18 – 55 kilotons of TNT or somewhere between one and five times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Right before the descending rubble of the WTC impacted the Earth it had about 250 to 420 GJ of kinetic energy.”
Because the rubble wasn’t being created by the Work of the collapse; the rubble was created by the Work of God; right?”
Because the energy used to create the rubble has already been subtracted. Call the energy that went into collapsing structure, pulverizing debris and generating the pyroclastic flow (you can throw in the big kaboom) the energy of resistance – this is the stuff that slows down the collapse. The magnitude of the energy of resistance is determined by the collapse speed. I calculated it. Do you understand? This number is one of the numbers in my analysis that does not depend on the ‘no explosives’ assumption. Given the observed facts 80-250 GJ of kinetic energy was diverted into generalized destruction, additional explosives or not.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “As the rubble impacted the Earth, this kinetic energy caused a seismic event of magnitude 2.1 and the sound of the collapse was as loud as a rocket engine and lasted for one minute.”
And you precluded the use of explosives in the basements of the buildings causing the 2.1 Richter how? Oh, that’s right. You didn’t exclude the possibility; you just threw that assumption on top of your 17.4% assumption.”
As I’ve already explained this is a well-defined amount of energy which I subtracted from the energy available for heat generation. If you want to say it came from explosives, I get to add it back in (5.9 GJ) and you have to show why you think there was over a metric ton of TNT in the basement.
Bob said:
“You’re just the logic maven; aren’t you?”
I’m pretty proud of what I’ve done here.
Bob said:
Slartibartfast: “The rest of the kinetic energy was converted into about 240 – 415 GJ of energy, the equivalent of 50 – 90 kilotons of TNT and enough energy to liquify 270 to 455 metric tons of iron at room temperature.”
Thanks for the equivalent alert; but still waiting on that assumed conversion mechanism of yours.”
It’s called inelastic collision it applies to all collisions where there is no ‘bounce’ or the rebound speed is negligible (that’s for you Buddha ;-)). The rubble did not bounce enough to worry about, so the collapse was an inelastic collision.
Bob said:
“Once again: How many joules does it take to ‘liquify’ one kg of steel? And at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’ — U=mgh?”
See above.
Bob posted:
“Slartibartfast: “The debris landed mainly in a cross-shaped pattern centered on the footprint of the WTC and extending 300 to 400 meters from the footprint. If this thermal energy were
Seeing you YET AGAIN failed to account for the method of conversion of your miraculous amount of Ke available into heat, after your deus ex machina explanation of the Work required for shredding the building, I’ll have to end my little trip down the rabbit hole with you here.”
That a significant amount of GPE was converted in to KE is unquestionable. As is the fact that that energy continued to exist. Since the energy had to be somewhere, I hardly find it miraculous when it turns up where we (at least I) would expect it to be (the rubble heap that it was in to begin with). I have already explained the origin and magnitude of energy that went into shredding the building, so with that I’ll rest my case.
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
How many joules does it take to ‘liquify’ one kg of steel? And at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’ — U=mgh?
Gyges: “It was a dodge. I asked a question, you refused to answer and tried to change the subject.”
Refusing to answer a question that leaps off topic is not a dodge. I’m focused on the issue of an immense amount of excess heat that’s unaccounted for; analysis of that issue has nothing to do with an inquiry as to the existence of a conspiracy.
I offered you a taste of the absurd story of AAL 11 as yet another example of the absurd stories being proffered for what happened on 9/11. About as absurd as the notion that gravity alone can cause steel to melt on earth; and keep it molten for six months.
Gyges: “Someone always has to come up with a theory before you can check to see if it’s falsifiable.”
Correct, but your question had nothing to do with the focus of the analysis here.
Gyges: “All I’m saying is that any changes in the theory need to be as vigorously checked against reality as the unaltered theory was.”
Elementary my dear Gyges; however when you see that the prevailing theory is full of holes and those who adhere to said theory are quite reluctant to let it go, even when logic dictates they should let it go, you don’t begin by postulating another theory, conspiracy or otherwise, until you’ve gotten the point across as to WHY they should take another look.
Bob posted:
“Byron: “why does thermite necessarily need to be the reason for heat at the site?”
I didn’t say it was necessary, I said as of April of 2009, it had been established that there was evidence if active thermitic material found in the debris of ground zero.
The implication being, if we can’t account for nearly six months of steel existing at or near the heat of fusion, MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, there were other factors besides gravity at work.”
Great! We’ve accounted for quite a bit of heat, so, maybe, just maybe, there weren’t other factors at work here.