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
Sigh,
Well.
While the thermite residue has a rational explanation, my hat is now back in it’s old shape after watching the time/sound dissected video of the collapse Bob linked to. I’ll tell you why shortly. There is something I feel Bob, Byron and Slarti should know about me.
I must caveat that I have not looked at some of the more critical review of the tapes. I didn’t at the time and not since then for the aforementioned “physical Jesus” reasoning. This seeming lack of interest is for personal reasons.
I went into hospital on the morning of 9/12 with a life threatening condition. By the time I was out? Most people were still freaked out, but my relation to the attack has always been . . . a bit remote. I knew the instant it was terrorists when I heard about the first plane on the way to work. I saw the collapse and thought it was oddly neat – sparking my ordered outcome issues but beyond that? I went home, kissed my now ex-wife and went to bed. Then I woke up in severe pain. I spent the next several weeks fighting for my life and being malpracticed on. The WTC was and is an abstraction to me. I knew it was going to be bad for our legal system. But I simply didn’t have enough emotional investment to be paranoid or fearful – part of that is also due to my admittedly unusual nature but a lot of it had to do with the morphine and trying not to die.
It’s like I went to sleep in a John Hughes movie with a Wes Craven ending with someone saying “There’s an ogre at the door.” But when I woke up, everyone around me was bruised in odd ways I was having problems connecting with them. Problems causing them to act irrationally and jump at shadows. The general publics trauma was raw and festering. Mine was very abstract. Like the thought of losing a distant but once fond relative.
One day, I spent an hour in front of hardware store lecturing about chemical weapons, virology, the nature of bacteria and how plastic sheeting wasn’t going to do shit to protect ANYONE. I had some biters. About a dozen said, “Screw it” and went home. Many more of the fearful went on in to buy their useless plastic totem.
I went to sleep and logic was mostly the norm. I woke up and blind unthinking madness and induced paranoia were the norm. I went to sleep in an Elmore Leonard novel. I woke in a Kafka novel. And everyone was turning into roaches, fearful and scurrying.
I just thought you guys should know that about me.
Now I have another issue with time after watching the dissected tape.
I’ve been to demos. That was too close to a regular sequence I heard. A little too regular for my liking.
My skepticism remains in tact as much as before.
On a practical level, I agree with Bob – there’s a lot of bullshit here and some of it stinks. I also agree with Slarti and Byron that thermite – which even in private with Bob I’ve always contended was a weak spot – has another rational explanation. It IS possible it was a natural collapse. But like Bob says, its also possible it wasn’t.
Arguing the physics? You guys will continue to go round and round on where the joules went. This will be a non-conclusory argument. It’ll narrow down to opinion. Both are possible. One side has a distinct opine, the other has the opposite. That means no one is right and no one is wrong. It means both are absent sufficient evidence to make a statement with conclusory certainty. You are both relying on Gödel even if you don’t realize it yet. I’ll give Slarti and Byron points for the thermite question and for style. But you guys can’t prove it was natural with certainty just like Bob can’t prove with certainty it wasn’t. Bob gets points for being Bob. I love to argue with him. It’s like wrestling a grizzly bear. But you are both pointing to oddities in the data. You just draw different conclusions. So the argument isn’t “Is there a duck in the room.” Yeah, there’s a duck. The argument is “What kind of duck is it?”
But I won’t lie either.
Hearing the time dissected explosions? That set my chaos/order alarm off again.
So I return to complexity. The root of my skepticism. I expect no one to share it with me. I am not trying to convince anyone. It’s just my opinion and it’s based on raw math in operation. Complexity/Chaos, whatever you want to call it, it affects the universe at least as much as physics. Physics is a system, a model by man. Complexity affects not just reality, but all models as well. There’s too many parts here and too much order under such high energy conditions to please me. Order is not the norm.
It still stinks. And I’ll stop now.
Sorry Robert, I’m busy explaining the misconceptions in your earlier post.
Slarti said, “I’d try melting it and mixing it with a bunch of concrete dust and see what happens.”
During the collapse, the aluminum (on the outside) melted; combined with concrete dust; cooled; and was pulverized again to created the aluminum found in the site collections????? And this all happened in how many seconds?
Keep that up and you might make the atheists return to church. :>)
Byron,
Here’s what some of that cladding looked like from the recovery.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/SEPTEMBER11/collection/record.asp?ID=104
Robert said:
“I know how to turn concrete into dust, but I’m not sure about aluminum.”
I’d try melting it and mixing it with a bunch of concrete dust and see what happens.
Robert:
the aluminum was a patina probably a few mils thick.
Gyges,
I see what you mean about Bob’s absurdities sounding good. I think that I’ve convinced everyone else (save Robert – who is putting his money where his mouth is and calculating the energy to rip loose a floor) that I know what I’m talking about here, yet Bob made reporting that I had made a error of 8% (to my disadvantage, no less) sound like a credible indictment of my veracity. And finished it off with a Star Trek reference. If Orly Taitz was as good as Bob, I’d fear for Obama’s presidency!
Bob,
Everyone else can see that I’m making an entirely reasonable argument based on the principles of physics. I’ve clearly stated my assumptions, my methods, my results, and what I think the proper interpretation of those results are. You have ceased to make any valid criticisms of my model, simply because you can’t. I have built my argument on the laws of physics using the structure of mathematics. Built on the foundations of my assumptions, the structure is unquestionably true i.e. It’s been proven and cannot honestly be denied. My assumptions were shaped by the scientific method and are the correct ones to answer the question I posed: “Was there enough energy in the WTC collapse to account for observations without the use of explosives?” My model answers this question and the answer looks like yes to me. If Robert comes up with a value for the energy needed to rip a floor loose that my model can’t account for or I can’t discredit, then the model is proved wrong (and, I believe, CD cannot happen). Therefore the model is falsifiable and by your and Popper’s definition, good science (that’s not the only way to falsify it, mind you). You can continue using your golden keyboard to run circles around me, but I’ve already won and I know it. And deep down, I think you know it, too.
Slarti:
Great minds think alike 🙂
Buddha is Laughing,
We know that the building was clad in aluminum. We also know that the airplane fuselage was made of aluminum. Both of these are highly ductile and malleable. I know how to turn concrete into dust, but I’m not sure about aluminum.
How did you convert aluminum cladding or airplane fuselage to powder or flakes?
Slarti,
All you need to do is make a little love and you can get down tonight. There was plenty of dancing in your last post.
All of your calculations for energy transfer take place on the head of a pin, and they happen instantaneously.
I think your references to meteor impacts and atomic bombs may have led you astray. Even your bullet reference is an instantaneous event.
I was hoping that you would get the difference between an explosion and an event of longer duration. I was also hoping that you would understand the difference between imparting energy on a point, and that of imparting energy on an area.
As to the bending of iron beams, the reason they get hot is deformation. This is a form of friction. It is internal friction at a molecular level.
When an object hits the earth, it transfers its kinetic energy to the earth. The energy continues along the path of least resistance. You may be able to consider a very small portion of that energy to generate heat. In addition the area upon which it impacts determines the force exerted. This is represented in kg/m^2 or psi. We don’t end up with a puddle of joules.
Byron,
Raspberry, smooth, whole wheat.
Buddha:
I never said thermite was created, I said it is an explanation for thermite residue.
Strawberry or Raspberry jam? Smooth or crunchy?
White or whole wheat?
Robert,
Start at 13:20 and they’ll go through the sound delay; adjusting for distance and relative humidity.
Slarti,
To save time, you’ll need to start the clip at around the 13:20 mark.
Bob,
Excellent video! I can hear the repeated explosions. They took place well before the tower began to collapse. Light travels much faster than sound. If the explosions were sounds of the tower collapsing, they would not occur until after the tower began to fall.
Gyges: “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.”
Gyges,
Allow me to simplify this argument for you. I asked Slarti to explain the existence of molten metal at ground zero for six months after the event.
Problem 1. In formulating his theory, which was to show how that molten metal got there and why it stayed around for so long, Slarti begged the question of the existence of the molten metal. Combine this with the Post ergo propter hoc “After the collapse, there was molten metal; therefore the molten metal was a result of the collapse.” And how does he begin his calculations? By ASSUMING heat generation for a thousand mentric tons of steel by gravity alone and thence arriving at a remainder amount of energy which he deems the energy necessary to shred the building.
Problem 2. He states that the force of gravity pulling the steel to earth was sufficient to liquify the steel on impact; thus the reason I kept asking HOW FAST MUST THAT STEEL FALL?
When he finally got around to at least addressing the question, he did so as follows:
Bob said: “And at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’”
Slarti: “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.”
So Gyges, I checked his math
Bob: “Well, you claim it’s 1.45 km/sec, or 1450 m/s
However, based on your 900,000 joules, it’s a little less:
900,000 joules = .5 * 1kg * v^2 (divide both sides by .5)
1kg v^2 = 1800000 joules
Square root of 1800000 is ~ 1341.6 m/s
And converting that back to the English system, i.e. in terms that most people understand, we get …. bout 3,000 mph or about Mach 3.94.
So I take a kg of steel and toss it off the top of a 415 meter tall building and just before impact, according to your liquification theory, the steel is traveling at mach 3.94 when it hits the ground. Did you know that it would take more than fifty seconds for that kg of steel to reach that speed if it was in free fall near the surface of Jupiter?
I’m reminded of an episode of Star Trek TNG where ‘Q’ says he can solve everyone’s problems by changing the gravitational constant of a moon. In actual plot he was speaking hypothetically, sine he was stripped of his powers; but I think you get the idea.”
It’s not that I don’t want to be proven wrong Gyges, I simply refuse to accept the absurdity as reality.
Robert said:
“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.”
No aluminum on the side of the building doesn’t magically turn into thermite, but the presence (in abundance) of the primary ingredients of thermite in the collapse is a devastating blow to the theory that the residue found could have only been the result of thermite demo charges. Byron’s taken care of the rest.
Robert said:
“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.”
Sorry, my bad. I fell victim to SOS (shiny object syndrome) and forgot to answer this. The energy transferred is the same, the effects of that transfer would be different. Obviously, an extremely high energy density would be necessary to melt steel. The question is, ‘Were conditions in the WTC collapse sufficient for that?’. I would suspect that the energy density in the center of the footprint of the building would be extremely non-uniform. Could these densities be high enough to melt iron which was already heated (you do realize that when you bend a bar of iron it heats up, don’t you? This is an example of energy that is converted from kinetic energy, used to do work in destroying the building and remaining as heat in the rubble, by the way – something that you and Bob have repeatedly mocked as ridiculous and which is not included in my calculations. In reality, the whole load of GPE of the towers winds up in the rubble heap, less seismic energy, sonic energy, and the energy ejected in the pyroclastic flow (plus the odd grider and piece of rubble). After subtracting out the GPE in the rubble heap, all that’s left ends up as heat. In addition, there was peanut butter, bread, and raspberry jell… er, … I mean fires and likely exothermic reactions in the rubble which could have helped maintain the temperature for the long periods of time observed.
If you drop a 70lb bag of bag of cement on your friend’s head one grain at a time, each grain would heat slightly on impact (which could be treated in the same way as I have done), but the heat would dissipate (and the total’s not that much heat anyway (I’m not figuring it out for you since you didn’t use metric units)). If you dropped the whole bag on his head the kinetic energy transfer would be different. The remaining kinetic energy is equal to the kinetic energy in the center of momentum frame of reference. In the case of the WTC, the size difference between the impactor (rubble pile) and Impactee (the Earth) allowed for the approximation that this was coincident with the center of the Earth (in reality it’s almost 500 picometers from the center of the earth). In the case of your friend’s head this assumption is no longer valid. He will likely suffer injury due to the transfer of kinetic energy and momentum (can’t forget the big MO! – unless one party outweighs the other by a factor of 10^18).
How’s the floor-ripping calculation coming? I’m looking forward to seeing your results.
Slartibartfast: “I thought that since you’re insisting that our government murdered nearly 3000 people including some who were performing very heroically, it deserved mention.”
I’m insisting that our government murdered nearly 3,000 people? I am? Really? I said the govmint did it? Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth?
Slartibartfast: 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.”
What you offered was an incomplete explanation for the existence of molten metal at ground zero for nearly six months after the attacks. Your theory is based so heavily on your near operatic emphasis on the amount of GPE in the Towers that it falls flat on its face per explaining the molten metal at building 7. As a scientist, you know damn well that what you offered was ANYTHING but scientific.
Slartibartfast: “It doesn’t answer questions about WTC 7 and it doesn’t purport to.”
Which makes it by definition a NON-EXPLANATION as to the existence of molten metal at ground zero for nearly six months after the attacks.
Slartibartfast: “It is correct in that from the given assumptions my calculations are accurate.”
Your entire method was fallacious. To get your numbers you begged the very question you were allegedly setting out to prove and worked your way back to your desired outcome.
Slartibartfast: 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.”
Then you should have stated it in your summary as an assumption; not a declarative fact.
Per my comment that your other ‘simplifying assumptions’ were conslusory assertions, I need only point to THE METHOD (not the number, I mean your reasoning process) by which you arrived at your 17.4%. Basing your other ‘simplifying assumptions,’ and the derivatives thereof, on such fallacious reasoning makes all that follows suspect as well.
Slartibartfast: “making simplifying assumptions is a necessary part of science.”
No kidding; but it’s not a license to cut corners via faulty reasoning.
Slartibartfast: “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.”
Love the way you treat WTC 7 as a quantum particle; “it’s part of the event” “It’s not part of the event”
I could complain at the Wendy’s drive thru that when they put my straw for my ice cold drink in the bag with my hot fries and chicken sandwich that they’re unnecessarily warming my drink when I put my straw in it. But, like tracking those vectors, I think that would be a fucking waste of time; don’t you?
Slartibartfast: 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.”
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. 😛 )
My objection lays with your process; thus ‘bolstering’ your fallacy.
“Slartibartfast: “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.
It’s still not reproducible/falsifiable because your entire theory fails in the face of WTC 7. In case you haven’t been paying attention, I don’t care what equivalents you use if you don’t tell me how steel capable of liquifying by falling to earth. How many times do I have to ask
To wit:
How many joules does it take to ‘liquify’ one kg of steel? And
You know why I ask this and you know why you avoid answering the question? It goes back to your post hoc ergo propter hoc/question begging regarding the existence of molten metal. It’s the basis of all your further calculations; seeing you assume heat generation for a thousand mentric tons of steel by gravity alone and thence arrive at your 17.4% or whatever you’re calling it now.
How fast does that steel have to fall in order to approach the conditions necessary for your first ‘simplified assumption?’ How fast does your speeding bullet/meteoric steel have to fall to melt on impact?
Slartibartfast: “Again, I have to specify any constants that I used.”
Something something 9.8 m/s^2 and about 415 meters to play with? So, at what velocity must one kg of steel need to fall in order for it to ‘liquify?’ — U=mgh?
Slartibartfast: “First off, the 17.4% figure is from outdated numbers. The correct figures are 16-50% depending on the duration of the collapse.”
Once again, irrelevant. Post hoc ergo propter hoc/question begging is by no means a scientific method.
Slartibartfast: “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.” … 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.”
Bullets, meteors, gravity …
Slartibartfast:
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.
Well, you claim it’s 1.45 km/sec, or 1450 m/s
However, based on your 900,000 joules, it’s a little less:
900,000 joules = .5 * 1kg * v^2 (divide both sides by .5)
1kg v^2 = 1800000 joules
Square root of 1800000 is ~ 1341.6 m/s
And converting that back to the English system, i.e. in terms that most people understand, we get …. bout 3,000 mph or about Mach 3.94.
So I take a kg of steel and toss it off the top of a 415 meter tall building and just before impact, according to your liquification theory, the steel is traveling at mach 3.94 when it hits the ground. Did you know that it would take more than fifty seconds for that kg of steel to reach that speed if it was in free fall near the surface of Jupiter?
I’m reminded of an episode of Star Trek TNG where ‘Q’ says he can solve everyone’s problems by changing the gravitational constant of a moon. In actual plot he was speaking hypothetically, sine he was stripped of his powers; but I think you get the idea.
Slartibartfast: 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.”
You missed the point; you don’t seem to understand that buildings falling at near free fall speed suffer from a want of resistance i.e. from the very structure of the building. As if it vanished.
Slartibartfast: “If there were no resistance, the building would have fallen at free fall speed and all of the GPE would have become KE.”
That’s my point; yet you’re not amazed at the speed of the falls.
Slartibartfast:
Bob posted:
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.”
No adjustments for mass, height, velocity? Or did you feel free to change the gravitational constant of the earth again?
Slartibartfast: “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.”
So your theory includes, but doesn’t include WTC 7??
Slartibartfast:
Bob posted:
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.”
Note how I stressed the word “Work” — i.e. that necessary component for the GPE to be used to shred the building. Also, when you say “The magnitude of the energy of resistance is determined by the collapse speed.” The problem here, in light of some incredible collapse speeds, is that the LACK OF RESISTANCE might be construed, by those who find buildings collapsing at near free fall speed as rather odd, to be evidence of demolition. But seeing how wrapped up you are in proving your outcome, I can understand why that thought wouldn’t cross your mind.
Slartibartfast: 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.
–Thus the reason I told you that your post hoc ergo propter hoc/question begging is the reason your theory fails.
Slartibartfast: “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.”
I don’t ‘want’ to say anything. However there exists some interesting audio/video footage of the events indicating massive explosions occurring just before each collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&hl=en&emb=1#
Byron,
You said “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%.”
I found and posted this: “Someone was asking “how much sulfur”. U.S.G.S analysis is available here. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/
Sulfur% MIN 0.87 MAX 5.77 AVG 3.11″
Those are pretty high concentrations of sulfur.
8 parts iron oxide
3 parts aluminum
parts by weight
All the ingredients where there in quantity and enough energy was introduced to the system to cause vaporization or crushing the materials into a fine enough powered to work.
That’s not magic. That’s not thermite. It’s a residue that looks like thermite because it the same chemical composition. Some of it burned similar to thermite, but it was a thermalitic compound created by the accident proper – not man made. Iron oxides and aluminum dust under energy are all that’s required to get the residual effect. As noted, there was a lot of pulverized and particulate iron and aluminum dust generated by the transfer of KE on impact. Then it’s just a matter of mixture in and deposition by the pyroclastic cloud. The fuel cloud itself was not thermite hot. But some of the local materials went that way under that proper conditions.
Strangely coincidental – an odd series of conditions precedent – but not magic.
Compare to this:
A plane carrying jelly hits a store house. One part of the building stores peanut butter, the other is built out of bread. After the impact, finding a PB&J sandwich in the rubble isn’t magic. It’s coincidence.