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 said:
“He’s referring to your post hoc ergo propter hoc method of accounting.”
I have accounted for the entire trajectory of the energy that was stored as GPE in the WTC including including the intermediate and final forms of the energy as well as the energy that left the system. Just because you don’t understand the principle of energy conservation doesn’t change the fact that I have completely accounted for all of the energy stored as GPE in the WTC.
Bob said:
“Reductio ad absurdum; a rookie dodge if there ever was one. We all acknowledge the existence of thermal energy in the piles of debris; thus the discussion. Problem is its existence necessitates the violation of a few basic laws of macro-state physics; or some creative accounting.”
You’ve never provided any evidence of why ‘its existence necessitates the violation of a few basic laws of macro-state physics’ or specified what ‘laws of macro-state physics’ enable you to blatantly disregard conservation of energy. And when I learned about it in math class ‘Reductio ad absurdum’ or ‘proof by contradiction’ was a logical technique and I have made use of it only in showing that your theories lead to logical impossibilities or improbabilities.
Bob said:
“Do you see what you did there? [I made a sound scientific argument, carefully qualifying in and quantifying it as much as possible.] Do you see your pattern of argumentation yet? [Yes, I offer logically consistent theories which obey the laws of physics.] Do you see the wild fanciful theories of meteors striking earth and the grandiose assumption that ALL THE GPE would be available in an instant? [So you consider the idea of a meteor striking the Earth fanciful? GPE is converted to KE in a very well defined way, we can use the observed difference between the free-fall time and the collapse time to determine how much of this KE is diverted and used to do the work of destroying the structure of the building.]
Bob said:
“In lieu of acknowledging the architectural WORK put into the design and structure of the building [You are showing a misunderstanding here – the structure of the building doesn’t do any work – work is force times distance and the whole point of the structure is to balance the force of gravity so it does not move (i.e. collapse)], and thence the incredible amount of WORK required to tear it down [As much as 200 GJ of work. I think that’s a lot of work, don’t you? And the by-product of all this work is heat.], you emphasize THERMAL ENERGY so much as to put it in the tertiary spot in the analysis where THERMAL ENERGY VIA FRICTIONAL BYPRODUCT OF WORK actually belongs [That’s some nice techno-babble]. Meaning, even your choice of words in your argument betrays your intent of getting Work on the cheap [You just fundamentally don’t understand that work dissipates energy. Work does not destroy energy – energy is never destroyed.]. Your comments about “there is plenty of energy here” and thence tossing up the Hiroshima assumptions only serves to illustrate just how much you’re willing to disregard the IMMENSE MAGNITUDE OF WORK REQUIRED TO CREATE THE F’N PILE OF RUBBLE. [I suggest that this ‘immense magnitude of work’ is 200 GJ – how much work do you think was required? Where are you getting energy in excess of the 200 GJ supplied by gravity?] Because once you’ve ’spent the money on Work’ it’s not available for Thermal energy [Once I’ve ‘spent the money’, I can’t do any more work because the energy has been transformed into heat i.e. ‘someone else has the money’.]. Any byproduct of work creating Thermal energy doesn’t reduce the amount of work necessary to shred the building [except insomuch as the heating of steel beams due to rapid bending will lower their strength, making it easier to ‘shred’ them.], as your ‘ASSUMPTION’ requires, but is simply added on to the total energy required to create said molten rubble. [Again you talk about ‘molten rubble’ in an effort to imply an impossible amount of heat (which you only explain with a vague reference to your mystical compound ‘thermate’). There was some (unknown quantity) of steel at or near the heat of fusion in the rubble, it was not a vast cauldron of molten steel and debris.]”
Bob said:
“By beginning with your assumption regarding an unknown amount of tertiary byproduct, further predicated by a ballpark guess regarding how many joules it would take to melt a certain amount of metric tons of steel [I began with the agreed upon total GPE (400 GJ)* and then I did a calculation using constants from a source that Robert linked to. It takes about 0.9 MJ to melt 1 kg of steel at room temperature – a reasonably accurate computation, not a ballpark guess. (Robert, you have helped me enormously by citing all of these sources – I’m having some fun with the study you referenced establishing the GPE as 400 GJ that I’ll talk about later. Thanks.)], you cannot logically work your way backwards to determine the finite amount of WORK required to be subtracted from the Pe in the buildings to tear it apart. [I used the difference between the collapse time and free fall time to estimate how much KE was present in the rubble immediately before impact, the rest of the energy stored as GPE was used elsewhere, i.e. to destroy the structure of the building.]”
* The estimate of 400 GJ GPE is low because it only takes into account the structure of the building itself (the ‘dead load’) as opposed to the ‘live load’ the building was carrying the morning of 9/11.
Bob said:
“This is why your accounting is so offensive. [Not nearly as offensive as your continuing hypocrisy and unjustified condescension.] Logically, the amount of WORK required to tear the building apart in the manner displayed on 9/11 is a CONSTANT. [A constant which I have estimated the value of as 80-200 GJ.] By your method of accounting, however, it’s a variable dependent on the amount of heat you find in the rubble. [The variability in the estimate is due to variability in the estimated collapse time of 10-13s. All of the energy that doesn’t leave the system (via sound, seismic wave or the pyroclastic flow or other expelled debris) remains in the system as heat (and the GPE of the rubble pile).]”
Bob said:
“Exactly how does one check for the probability that explosives were used or not used in a building collapse when your method of analysis couldn’t give a shit whether it fell naturally or not? [I have repeatedly stated that my hypothesis is that ‘natural’ sources of heat were sufficient to account for observations. The purpose of making and testing this hypothesis is to determine whether or not the building fell naturally. And you should watch your language, small children may be reading though the nearly 900 posts here in order to discover the sunning wisdom contained in ‘Physics according to Bob’.] By making thermal energy secondary (to Pe) and WORK a tertiary concern, you ignore the architectural constants of the building itself and always arrive at a theory of natural collapse with variable amounts of WORK thrown in as a tertiary concern to balance YOUR method of analysis. [Some more techno-babble. To clarify, work is the conversion of one form of energy into another form of energy – further work may be done by the same energy until that energy has been dissipated as heat and can no longer perform useful work. An example: Work is done by gravitation at the initiation of the collapse converting GPE to KE, some of this KE is used via the process of collision to bend and shear steel beams and converted into TE in the beams (which are now part of the debris).]”
Bob said:
“And getting back to your grandiose assumption that ALL THE GPE would be available in an instant; [I’ve not made any grandiose assumptions. GPE is converted to KE via the process of gravitation – do you have a problem with me using Newton’s law of gravitation to compute the rate at which this occurs?] do you see how you’re ignoring the architecture of the building? [Robert linked an article estimating the total GPE of the WTC (398 GJ – or 400 GJ to the accuracy of their computation), it has a table of the GPE by floor taking into account the decreasing mass of structural steel as we go up the building. In what way is this ‘ignoring the architecture of the building’?] Going up floor by floor, inch by inch, does the potential energy remain the same? [If you’d like to know, check out the table in the article Robert linked to – it ranges from 97 MJ for the first floor to 5.4 GJ for the 110th floor.] This is part of the naivete with the ‘pancake theory.’ Only a child would say that the entire portion of the building above the impact zone was pressing directly down on said area. Yet this is the implicit assumption conveyed in ‘the pancake theory.’”
Okay, we need to pause here to do a little computation and analysis. Using the table of floor by floor GPE, we find that the uppermost 15 floors of the WTC masses about 23 kilotons. This doesn’t include people, office furniture, computers, interior partitioning, or heavy equipment (I’m sure there was plenty of elevator machinery at the top of the building). Just for a sense of scale, 1000 people averaging 75 kg on the 95th floor would add about 270 MJ to the total GPE. This means that there was a static load of over 230 megaNewtons bearing on the remaining intact and damaged structural members in the impact zone. (The actual dynamic load would be even bigger.) Some of the damaged structural members were bearing more than their fair share of this load as well as being heated by fires. At some point the the yield strength of one of these members was decreased by heating to the point where it was below the load bearing on the member and it failed, increasing the load on the nearby (probably also damaged and heated) members causing them to fail. This progressive failure continued until structural members under sharply increasing loads had failed across the entire cross-section of the building. At this point the upper section of the building ‘fell’ 4 meters onto the 94th floor and impacted it. In its short fall it converted over 900 MJ of GPE to KE (and spend a little of that KE to collapse non-structural partitions or otherwise destroy materials). This is the equivalent of over 200 kg of TNT or 10 millionths of the Hiroshima bomb (that was just to bug you). There is no way that the 94th floor could stop this descending mass so it failed and became part of a bigger mass with more KE that impacted the 93rd floor and the collapse proceeded downwards (the 96th floor and above collapsed one by one as well). As the collapse descended, the energy increased until the energy of the descending debris exerted huge forces very quickly and generated significant heat in the increasingly more massive structural steel. Thus the biggest forces were acting in the center of the lower floors of the building where there was a higher density of steel per floor, thus generating the the most heat in a mass of iron at the bottom of the rubble where it was concentrated and best insulated (thermally) from the outside. Please tell me again how my analysis is childish.
Bob said:
“The question Slarti, seeing how each floor was anchored to a 47 steel column core and an exo-skeletal perimeter, is how much potential energy is contained in the floor about to magically collapse in a symmetrical fashion?”
I think I’ve pretty clearly stated how I think the collapse happened and what the forces and energies involved were.
Bob said:
“Did you guess that it’s NOT the total amount of GPE in the building? [I didn’t guess, I calculated it.] That it’s not even close? [Something like 1 GJ has been converted from GPE to KE.] Do you understand that the architecture of the building creating all those opposing newtons of force from the floor of initial impact down to the basement are just waiting to stop that initial collapse? [No structure on earth could come close to withstanding the impact of a 23 kiloton mass impacting it with 1 GJ of kinetic energy. Things get even worse the farther down you go.] Symmetrical collapse of a floor of approx 12 feet takes out 47 steel columns and the perimeter support of the entire building ALL THE WAY DOWN? [Yup. One by one (more or less).]”
Bob said:
“When you spend all that money on the WORK, you’ve got to rob another purse to pay for all those fireworks; unless you engage in ‘creative accounting.’”
After you spend money, it still exists – you just don’t have it any more. GPE paid KE to ‘get the ball rolling’ and continued to pay out all the way down (he had 400 GJ to start with). KE spent some along the way to smash the floors one by one (paid to TE in the structural steel), pulverize debris (paid to TE in the debris), and to eject the pyroclastic flow and various debris (paid to various parties outside the system) – and the big kaboom (paid to sonic energy – and ultimately TE in the atmosphere) this totals 80 – 200 GJ. When the collapse hit the ground, KE blew his wad with a little ending up with seismic energy (5.9 GJ) but most ending up with TE in the rubble. When the ‘dust cleared’ so to speak, GPE had a 30-story pile of rubble left, KE was flat broke and except for the money that got spent out of the system, everything else ended up with TE in the rubble (the lion’s share of 400 GJ). Just how am I engaging in ‘creative accounting’?
I’m sorry to say, Bob, that when it comes to knowledge and understanding of science, you’re just graduating from T-ball and I’m just getting started in the Show (That’s the major leagues if you’ve never seen ‘Bull Durham’). This isn’t a fair fight are you’re on the wrong side – I might be the Goliath in this story, but you’re no David.
Best.
Thread.
Ever.
Slarti: “The structure of the building was not designed to match the forces involved in the progressing collapse of the buildings.”
So the interior 47 Column support structure, as seen always standing on its own and higher than the rest of the building during construction, was just for show?
Slarti: “Imagine if CD were used to sever the structural supports on a single floor of the building simultaneously. In CD this is typically done to the first floor of a building. If the 80th floor supports were severed by CD, the remaining 30-stories would begin a gravitational collapse.”
Slarti, you stumbled upon one of my own thought experiments I created while trying to comprehend what happened. Problem with this one is, as Buddha would chime in, it’s impossible. The correct order of operations is not to assume CD, why? Because Ockham would not allow it until we’ve ruled out everything else. Here, you’re talking about the instantaneous availability of the GPE stored in 30 stories of a Tower; which as you conceded, could only be conceived of in a CD sense. Yet we know, in the absence of CD, the law of conservation of mass does not allow for the instantaneous disappearance of a single floor’s worth of perimeter steel as well as a single floor’s height section of the 47 steel column core. And ASSUMING that Elfin magic (I like Keebler elves better than Tolkien elves; despite the hype created by Leonard Nimoy’s music video about Bilbo Baggins) did kick in, i.e. removing the law of conservation of mass and allowing for an approximately 12 foot free fall of the 30 story structure; WOULD EVEN THAT BE SUFFICIENT TO SHRED THE 47 COLUMN CORE?
To give you an idea, let’s go one step further into imagination land. Imagine a hammer of the God; a giant sledge hammer in the form used to drive rail road spikes coming out of the sky and landing square on that 47 steel column core. Do rail road spikes shatter into little pieces when driven into the ground? Why is it easier to break a pencil by applying force to its mid-section than by applying force vertically down its length?
Beginning to see the problem yet?
Slarti: “The collapse of WTC7 was an event caused (in my opinion) by the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 that definitely occurred after serious damage was done to the building in the twin towers’ collapse and fires were allowed to burn unchecked for hours.”
Are you aware of the witnesses trapped inside WTC 7 who believed they were about to die because of the explosions heard within WTC 7? Further, as I stated before:
“Actually, according to FEMA, there was no structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. They said that a piece of debris from that collapse breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. That piece of debris had to travel across WTC6 and Vesey St., penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of WTC 7, including a concrete masonry wall.
And it was all that ‘burning fuel oil’ that not only managed to completely bring down a steel building for the first time in history, but its collapse was explained by the BBC 20 minutes before it ever happened.”
Slarti: “It left a nearby pile of debris. And I would note the there is a big difference between a ‘molten pile of debris’ and a ‘pile of debris containing some molten metal’.”
That’s about as cute as correcting my spelling. You know damn well what I meant; to wit: The debris of Building 7 registered more than 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit five days after the collapse.
Slarti: “And yes, the phenomena observed in the WTC7 debris must be explained using the same principles applied to the circumstances of the WTC7 collapse.”
That’s my point; you can’t do it. Since you relied so heavily on qualitative descriptions of a massive amount of GPE available in the Towers, your theory simply does not and can not account for the collapse of WTC 7. And yet when you hear Ockham’s call to check your bullpen for another entity to explain the discrepancy, you ignore it like a petulant child.
Slarti: A ways upthread there was some discussion of what it would take to convince you that you are wrong. To the best of my recollection you never answered the question, so I put it to you again: what would it take to convince you that explosives/incendiaries were not involved in the WTC collapse?”
I didn’t answer because I objected to the form of the question. Slarti, in case I haven’t told you before, I’m a Meyers-Briggs INTP/INTJ. What does that mean? It means, for purposes here, that I’m normally an affable guy until someone violates a PRINCIPLE or calls a principle into question without foundation.
So, the short answer would be to hear an explanation that properly accounted for all the principles at play in this scenario.
The second problem I have with your form of question, and you should mark this down in your notebook for future reference, is that it screams of ‘outcome determinism.’ What you’re doing in that question is asking me for a desired outcome on my part so that you can, like an intellectually dishonest judge, can cobble together a few premises, sans syllogism, to create the illusion that you’ve arrived at said outcome by honest reasoning. (See Dred Scott)
[Robert] “This is not acceptable accounting. It’s liken to a parent asking where the money was spent, and the child responding “on things”. To make matters worse, the child really does consider “on things” to be an acceptable answer and pats them-self on the back for being so honest.”
Slarti: “My repeatedly stated intent was to account for the GPE of the WTC (in order to demonstrate that this resulted in a large amount of thermal energy in the rubble of the WTC). To say that it is not acceptable to account for exactly what I said I was and no more is ridiculous. The question was, ‘Where was the GPE stored in the WTC on 9/10/01 spent?’. I gave an accounting of where every bit of it was spent. In your analogy, it’s like parents asking a child where he spent his money and the child replying, “I spent a quarter of it at a movie, a quarter of it on candy – like gum and chocolate and stuff, and half of it on fireworks (which converted chemical energy into electromagnetic, sonic and thermal energy when I lit them off).” The answer might not have been specific on every detail, but it is complete and accurate (and I’m patting myself on the back for the fireworks thing).”
Bob: He’s referring to your post hoc ergo propter hoc method of accounting.
Robert said:
“Saying that the energy exists in the rubble pile is (a) a bullshit dismissive answer, or (b) a demonstration of the limits of the interactions at play in the real world. I suspect that in this case the answer is (b).”
Slarti: “The answer is (c) factually correct. Are you saying that there is no thermal energy contained in the pile of rubble? That none of that thermal energy was originally stored as GPE?”
Bob: Reductio ad absurdum; a rookie dodge if there ever was one. We all acknowledge the existence of thermal energy in the piles of debris; thus the discussion. Problem is its existence necessitates the violation of a few basic laws of macro-state physics; or some creative accounting.
Slarti: “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.
Bob: Do you see what you did there? Do you see your pattern of argumentation yet? Do you see the wild fanciful theories of meteors striking earth and the grandiose assumption that ALL THE GPE would be available in an instant?
In lieu of acknowledging the architectural WORK put into the design and structure of the building, and thence the incredible amount of WORK required to tear it down, you emphasize THERMAL ENERGY so much as to put it in the tertiary spot in the analysis where THERMAL ENERGY VIA FRICTIONAL BYPRODUCT OF WORK actually belongs. Meaning, even your choice of words in your argument betrays your intent of getting Work on the cheap. Your comments about “there is plenty of energy here” and thence tossing up the Hiroshima assumptions only serves to illustrate just how much you’re willing to disregard the IMMENSE MAGNITUDE OF WORK REQUIRED TO CREATE THE F’N PILE OF RUBBLE. Because once you’ve ‘spent the money on Work’ it’s not available for Thermal energy. Any byproduct of work creating Thermal energy doesn’t reduce the amount of work necessary to shred the building, as your ‘ASSUMPTION’ requires, but is simply added on to the total energy required to create said molten rubble.
By beginning with your assumption regarding an unknown amount of tertiary byproduct, further predicated by a ballpark guess regarding how many joules it would take to melt a certain amount of metric tons of steel, you cannot logically work your way backwards to determine the finite amount of WORK required to be subtracted from the Pe in the buildings to tear it apart.
This is why your accounting is so offensive. Logically, the amount of WORK required to tear the building apart in the manner displayed on 9/11 is a CONSTANT. By your method of accounting, however, it’s a variable dependent on the amount of heat you find in the rubble.
Exactly how does one check for the probability that explosives were used or not used in a building collapse when your method of analysis couldn’t give a shit whether it fell naturally or not? By making thermal energy secondary (to Pe) and WORK a tertiary concern, you ignore the architectural constants of the building itself and always arrive at a theory of natural collapse with variable amounts of WORK thrown in as a tertiary concern to balance YOUR method of analysis.
And getting back to your grandiose assumption that ALL THE GPE would be available in an instant; do you see how you’re ignoring the architecture of the building? Going up floor by floor, inch by inch, does the potential energy remain the same? This is part of the naivete with the ‘pancake theory.’ Only a child would say that the entire portion of the building above the impact zone was pressing directly down on said area. Yet this is the implicit assumption conveyed in ‘the pancake theory.’
The question Slarti, seeing how each floor was anchored to a 47 steel column core and an exo-skeletal perimeter, is how much potential energy is contained in the floor about to magically collapse in a symmetrical fashion?
Did you guess that it’s NOT the total amount of GPE in the building? That it’s not even close? Do you understand that the architecture of the building creating all those opposing newtons of force from the floor of initial impact down to the basement are just waiting to stop that initial collapse? Symmetrical collapse of a floor of approx 12 feet takes out 47 steel columns and the perimeter support of the entire building ALL THE WAY DOWN?
Like I said
Bob: “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?”
Slarti: “I am now. That’s pretty hot (not like center of the sun hot but a lot warmer than high noon in the desert (except maybe on Mercury). So what?”
When you spend all that money on the WORK, you’ve got to rob another purse to pay for all those fireworks; unless you engage in ‘creative accounting.’
Bob said:
“Since WTC 7 was part of the same event and left the same molten pile of debris as the Towers, then all the principles you brought to bear in your explanation of the towers MUST explain the unique phenomena found at WTC 7 for this event as well.”
The collapse of WTC7 was an event caused (in my opinion) by the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 that definitely occurred after serious damage was done to the building in the twin towers’ collapse and fires were allowed to burn unchecked for hours. It left a nearby pile of debris. And I would note the there is a big difference between a ‘molten pile of debris’ and a ‘pile of debris containing some molten metal’. And yes, the phenomena observed in the WTC7 debris must be explained using the same principles applied to the circumstances of the WTC7 collapse.
A ways upthread there was some discussion of what it would take to convince you that you are wrong. To the best of my recollection you never answered the question, so I put it to you again: what would it take to convince you that explosives/incendiaries were not involved in the WTC collapse?
“I have discussed why I didn’t include WTC7 in my analysis and some of the reasons that I believe that the ‘natural’ explanation of the WTC7 collapse best fits the observed facts. I have clearly stated my hypothesis and outlined multiple ways in which my model can be falsified. No scientific theory is universal (unless you’ve got a GUT that you’ve been keeping to yourself). I have clearly and consistently stated what my theory is, provided detailed calculations, as well as numerous quotes supporting my interpretation of the physics. In the end, all you’ve got is an enormous amount of blind faith that ‘them bildins got blowed up…’.”
Since WTC 7 was part of the same event and left the same molten pile of debris as the Towers, then all the principles you brought to bear in your explanation of the towers MUST explain the unique phenomena found at WTC 7 for this event as well.
Bob said:
“Robert, While I agree with your nit picking about what type of system we’re analyzing, in a PRACTICAL SENSE, wouldn’t you agree that the system that is the object of our analysis is called Ground Zero?”
I adopted the term ‘ground zero’ after I read this.
Bob said:
“Once the energy has has been accounted for in the Ground Zero equation, either by work completed, frictional heat residue, sound waves (dear God, talk about energy coupon clipping)”
Great googly-moogly! We agree about something – you get the big kaboom on the cheap!
Bob said:
“…or what have you, the main point is that energy is no longer useful.”
Yes, when energy is dissipated as heat, it can no longer be used to do work.
Bob said:
“To put it another way, once the Pe is used up as Work (via a free fall collapse courtesy of Elfin Magic perhaps) it’s no longer available to be converted into heat except as a frictional byproduct.”
See comment above. And it’s generally spelled ‘Elven’ (at least that’s the way Tolkien spelled it, and since he created the entire language it seems reasonable to do it his way…). You never know when you might get your chance to see Elf magic, Samwise.
Bob said:
“Further, the fires existing before the collapse would be ‘blown out’ under the same theory that explains how candles and oil well fires are extinguished.”
But the heat generated by those fires would still be around. And the temperatures present after the collapse would have likely re-ignited them.
Bob said:
“At the end of the event, and six months thereafter, there exists an unexplained surplus of thermal energy keeping metal at or near the heat of fusion. Instead of the pile of rubble, as you say, ‘feeding itself like a chemical reaction,’ it should have been seeking thermal equilibrium.”
Yes, I’ve suggested that chemical reactions were fed by the constant spraying of water on the rubble.
Bob said:
“The same principle at work when you leave a spoon in a cup of soup to cool it down (i.e. heat sink) should have been cooling down the debris to ambient temperature. The energy would not only be escaping via the high thermal conductivity of the metal, but cold bedrock surrounded by the East & Hudson rivers would also have aided the process; not to mention all the water pumped onto the area by the fire department.”
As I’ve been repeatedly telling you, the water being sprayed on the rubble was the most likely source of heat in the debris. They may have been better off spraying the debris with gasoline. Also, you seem to be assuming that the pile of rubble had the thermal conductivity of a lump of metal or solid rock. The extremely inhomogeneous nature of the debris would have made for a much lower thermal conductivity.
Bob said:
“Yet after six months, lo and behold there’s still a sustained source of heat capable of keeping metal at its heat of fusion. ‘feeding itself like a chemical reaction’”
A chemical reaction fed by the constant spraying of water on the rubble (plus eyewitness accounts of pockets with fires in your sources).
Bob said:
“Either that or the energy developed a mind of its own and simply decided to stick around for half a year; right?”
In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.
Bob said:
“In any case, the strongest argument against Slarti’s explanation is its failure to apply to the collapse of WTC 7; in that his theory is by no means universal or refutable.”
I have discussed why I didn’t include WTC7 in my analysis and some of the reasons that I believe that the ‘natural’ explanation of the WTC7 collapse best fits the observed facts. I have clearly stated my hypothesis and outlined multiple ways in which my model can be falsified. No scientific theory is universal (unless you’ve got a GUT that you’ve been keeping to yourself). I have clearly and consistently stated what my theory is, provided detailed calculations, as well as numerous quotes supporting my interpretation of the physics. In the end, all you’ve got is an enormous amount of blind faith that ‘them bildins got blowed up…’.
Bob said:
“On its face, Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of another entity to explain the contradictions.”
I’ve used Ockham’s razor to decide between two preliminary hypotheses, which is the way that it is generally used in science.
Bob said: “First, you apparently wouldn’t know Ockham’s razor, or the law of parsimony, if you were pissing on it.”
This would be a example of your insulting me.
Bob said:
‘ “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” [“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.” You, like many others, interpret Ockham as saying “the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer.” Thus your tendency to create a ’simple’ mythical theory for yourself out of whole cloth and argue your way backwards in a piecemeal fashion; feigning true analysis.’
As I have repeatedly said, I’ve used OR to choose between the hypothesis that ‘natural’ causes were sufficient to account for observations and the hypothesis that explosives/incendiaries were required. This is how the law of parsimony is used in science.
Bob said:
“Allow me to illustrate Ockham’s razor in one simple example. For no less than six months, there existed at ground zero tons and tons of steel at and/or near the heat of fusion.”
I question the existence of ‘tons and tons’ of steel at or near the heat of fusion six months after ground zero. You have no evidence with which to corroborate this assertion and cannot quantify the time and amount of molten metal present except to say that it existed.
Bob said:
“Considering the law of thermo equilibrium had no effect in cooling down the metal, Ockham’s razor says IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO POSTULATE THE REALITY OF ANOTHER ENTITY THAT EXPLAINS THE DISCREPANCY. In this case, Q=MCΔT necessitates the existence of a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT to keep the metal at the heat of fusion. Which brings us back to that evidence of thermitic materials found within the dust…”
OR implies that there must be additional heat sources (or that portions of the rubble were initially impossibly hot). I’ve described several sustained sources of heat in the rubble, as well as a large amount of heat initially present in the rubble. You’ve given no explanation of how thermic materials could account for this heat.
Bob said:
“[i.e. you’re adopting and fronting an intellectually dishonest answer]”
No, I’m accounting for the energy available for various jobs given a ‘natural’ theory of the collapse. Prove that it required more than 200 GJ to destroy the structure of the buildings, pulverize the materials, and eject the pyroclastic flow and you falsify my hypothesis. This is how Popper (and you) say science is supposed to work.
Bob said:
“Fourth, fires burn up, building fall down. [and we drive on the parkway and park on the driveway] How hot is a diffuse jet flame? [I don’t know, how hot is a diffuse jet flame?] If you poured jet fuel onto concrete and lit it with a match; what happens and why? [Nothing, the match isn’t sufficient to ignite the jet fuel in that state. What happens if you pour jet fuel on office carpeting and blast it with a fireball?] Where is the steel losing its strength and how the hell does that affect the rest of the building below;{steel beams deprived of their fire-resistant insulation were heated and lost strength. I described above how a single failure would have led to a progressive failure and initiated a gravitational collapse.} [i.e. all those newtons of force that have been holding it up for nearly three decades]? {The structural members were exerting forces that held the building up for nearly three decades.} Was it built upside down? [Um… No?] Do you see buildings as nothing more than fancy forms of stacked boxes of equal strength? [I already made the ‘assume the building is a sphere joke earlier.] Do tree trunks on your planet go from small diameter to larger diameter as you travel upwards on the tree? [On Margrethea we build things to order.]”
Bob said:
“Fifth; show me where a steel structured building collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11.”
As I said before, the statistical universe is that two buildings were hit with loaded 767s and both collapsed.
Bob said:
“On its face, Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of another entity to explain the contradictions.”
No it doesn’t. I’ve repeatedly explained how I’m using OR and posted quotes that support this practice as standard in science.
Bob said:
“So, yes, ‘your theory’ is far from complete and your accounting of the energy in a PRACTICAL sense is so fanciful as to make former employees of Enron blush.”
I’m sorry you think so, but you’re wrong.
Robert posted:
“Bob Esq., said “Where is the requisite SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT?”
Bob, That is the problem with Slarti’s analysis. That is the problem with trying to conserve energy where it cannot be conserved. The fallacy of an isolated system. Slarti considers the energy to become PE in the rubble. It feeds itself like some chemical reaction. Why? Because he doesn’t comprehend where it went, and the books he read failed to exit the bogus isolated system.”
I account for all the energy stored as GPE in the WTC before 9/11. You have yet to offer a valid criticism of my accounting or alternate destination energy. Energy is never destroyed, so it all has to end up somewhere. I have described what I consider the isolated system above and specified the energies that leave it.
Robert said:
“If the universe is the isolated system; what energy arrived on Mars? Last time I checked, it was part of the “universe” and, therefore, fair game to place in the equation.”
I think it’s fair to say that no significant portion of the energy stored as GPE in the WTC before 9/11 reached Mars before, during, or immediately after the WTC collapse.
Bob said:
“I have no idea what you spoke to your ‘friend in the physics department’ about, but I’m sure, nay positive, that he would not agree with your theory when showed the methodology at how you arrived at your conclusions; what you ignored in your analysis, and how it falls far from being universal, even universal to the extent that it fails to explain the glaring anomalies per the third building within the single event — WTC 7 (a building whose pile of rubble was hotter than one of the towers.)”
Seeing that he does mathematical modeling and is a mentor of mine – meaning that many of my sensibilities when it comes to making modeling decisions come from him, I’m sure, nay positive, that he would find my model reasonable (and probably interesting). And, by the way, he’s not in the physics department, he just has a Ph.D. in physics – he has a joint appointment in the applied mathematics and pharmacology departments. I’ve explained that I choose to model the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 because it was easier than WTC7 and I get two for the price of one. This is not a flaw in the theory, every single scientific theory must have a carefully limited scope, and I’ve chosen a reasonable scope in which to investigate my hypothesis that ‘natural’ explanations are sufficient to explain the observed heat in the rubble of WTC1 and WTC2. While I’ve chosen not to include WTC7 in my model, that doesn’t mean that I believe that the WTC7 collapse can’t be explained by ‘natural’ means. Briefly, I believe that fires sprayed with high pressure diesel fuel that burned unfought for hours added significant heat to the system; I believe that the increasing bowing of WTC7 leading up to the collapse is indicative of progressive failure, not controlled demolition. The officials on the scene saw this as evidence that the building would collapse soon and consequently didn’t attempt to fight the fires. The collapse of WTC7, in my opinion, was consistent with gravitational collapse initiated by progressive failure caused by damage inflicted in the collapse of the twin towers. These are some of the reasons that I believe that the ‘natural’ explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is the most reasonable.
Bob said:
“One point Buddha alluded to was the improbability of asymmetrical damage leading to a symmetrical collapse — twice and in the same symmetrical fashion despite having two distinct asymmetrical damage patterns.”
I would say that similar damage led to similar collapses. These are clearly not symmetrical (identical) collapses – the first tower which was hit was the second to collapse and any number of details differed if you look closely enough. And all we can say about our statistical universe is that two skyscrapers were hit by 767s and both collapsed. It’s hard to get much information out of that (but clearly you’re trying…).
Bob said:
“What Buddha failed to bolster his argument with was the problem with your implicit assumption with your theory of the collapse; i.e. that the building somehow in that moment wasn’t DESIGNED to exert OPPOSING NEWTONS OF FORCE upwards so as to keep it standing for nearly three decades of existence.”
The structure of the building was not designed to match the forces involved in the progressing collapse of the buildings. Imagine if CD were used to sever the structural supports on a single floor of the building simultaneously. In CD this is typically done to the first floor of a building. If the 80th floor supports were severed by CD, the remaining 30-stories would begin a gravitational collapse. If we were talking about the first floor of a 30-story building, we would expect the building to (mostly) collapse into its own footprint. But this collapsing 30-story building is on top of an 80-story building. The descending 30-story building encounters the structure of the 80-story building and immediately overwhelms it with the enormous kinetic energy of the collapse. The collapse zone continues downward trading some of its increasing kinetic energy to destroy the structure of the building. We can estimate the amount of energy that was transformed from kinetic energy to thermal energy by doing work to destroy the structure of the building (and other things) from the difference between the time of collapse and free-fall time. All that is necessary to apply this scenario to the collapse of the WTC, is to believe that the airplane impact could initiate a progressive failure which led to the gravitational collapse of the structure above the impact. Given that the impact destroyed some of the structure of the building (increasing loads on the remaining structural members), displaced fire-resistent insulation on structural members (which wouldn’t have been there if it wasn’t necessary), and started fires which as a result were able to heat the structural members that were already carrying increased loads. Once one of these over-stressed structural members fails, its neighbors would immediately receive an increased load and begin to fail leading to a progressive failure of the entire building structure (a failure covering the entire cross-section of the building in the impact zone).
Bob said:
“Assuming, and I mean ASSUMING, an entire single floor magically gave way from all support simultaneously (i.e. symmetrically) and fell to the floor beneath, do you really think that amount of force wasn’t accounted for within the design? [No floor of any building ever constructed is designed to withstand the impact of a descending 15-story building, let alone a 30-story building.] 47 vertical steel columns just began shredding away and kept on going till they hit bottom? [Yes, no building is designed to withstand its own gravitational collapse once initiated.] And how did this ‘disaster waiting to happen’ building survive hurricanes? [The buildings weren’t a ‘disaster waiting to happen’, they failed as the result of some pretty extreme events – events, I might add, that are very different than hurricanes. And it’s not like category 5 hurricanes have regularly hit New York since the WTC was built.]”
Bob said:
“Newton for newton, your theory of Pe becoming Te is a pyramid scheme begging the existence of FREE WORK; i.e. you ignore the basic maxims of architecture itself — ignoring the path of greatest resistance from the roof down to the basement foundation of said building necessitated by architecture itself.”
My theory accounts for all of the GPE that was unquestionably stored in the WTC on 9/10/01 and you haven’t suggested any legitimate destination energy that I haven’t accounted for. The building collapsed (mostly) into its own footprint precisely because of the principles of architecture. All of the forces causing and resisting the collapse of the building were vertical in nature, naturally they caused vertical acceleration once the resisting forces were overwhelmed (pun intended).
Bob said:
“You see the free fall and you assume no resistance in the fall because that’s what you saw. You never ask the question HOW. You’re like a liberal playing foot loose and fancy free with the constitution; i.e. you never give deference to the structure of the subject you’re analyzing.”
As I said above, the difference between collapse time and free fall time tells us the amount of energy diverted from the kinetic energy of the collapse. I’m being strictly orthodox with the laws of physics. And I’ve put an enormous amount of thought into the structure of the WTC – I’ve just reached different conclusions than you have.
Bob said:
“And that’s where you put your foot in your mouth with your quick segue from Pe to Te by ignoring ALL THE ENERGY THEORETICALLY NECESSARY to rip through the PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE to account for the collapse in the first place.”
Technically, it goes from PE to KE to TE. And I have said repeatedly that the lion’s share of 80-200 GJ was available to rip through the structure of the building. Furthermore, this energy ended up as (mostly) thermal energy in the rubble.
Bob said:
“No matter what you saw, it is not true that buildings merely shred themselves to pieces. Not even Disney would attempt a fiction like that.”
Show me an example of a building undergoing gravitational collapse that doesn’t shred itself.
Bob said:
“Finally, your defense is relying more and more on my alleged ignorance of physics while claiming I’ve been insulting you.”
Yes. And I’ve posted dozens of quotes in support of my allegations, none of which you’ve refuted. I care about the ignorance of physics, but I’m not going to let the insults pass without noting them.
Bob said:
“Does Byron, an engineer, share your view? Buddha? Robert?”
I believe that Byron generally agrees with me. I believe that Buddha has said his piece on what he cares about and is now sitting back and enjoying the fight while chortling with glee and I believe that Robert’s comments speak for themselves. All of them are capable of correcting me if I’m wrong or clarifying their positions if they want to.
Bob said:
“Intersubjectively speaking, you’re shit out of luck. Yet you continually fail to comprehend why an attorney would focus on something as non-dramatic as the molten metal existing for nearly six months and how the law Q=mc(delta-T) could be held in abeyance for that time by bureaucrats and those who support their falsehoods.”
You’ve never even attempted to explain how thermic materials could account for molten metal existing for nearly six months, while I’ve explained that the collapse resulted in an enormous amount of heat in the rubble, parts of which were already hot from the fires before the collapse. After the collapse there were pockets where fires continued to burn. In addition, water was being constantly sprayed onto hot iron (possibly well within the rubble pile – thus well insulated), resulting in the oxidation of the iron and the production of hydrogen gas (and heat). The hydrogen gas combined with oxygen yielding more steam (and more heat) which was then free to oxidize more iron (and generate more heat). In addition, other exothermic reactions could have occurred in the rubble and multi-fuel fires and airflow considerations may have turned areas of the rubble into furnaces. I believe that taken as a whole, these are a much better explanation of the molten metal (which you can’t quantify in any meaningful way) than your non-existant ‘thermite’ (or ‘thermate’) theory.
Bob said:
“You’re so wrapped up in the bedtime story you’ve been fed, with the “oh let us cry for the people on flight 93 and the firemen and the policemen” appeal to emotion tripe that you didn’t even flinch when I showed you how NIST LITERALLY TAP DANCED around and denied the existence of a physical anomaly that even you were forced to concede.”
I’ve said repeatedly that I’m not defending NIST and that I think that incompetence is a much more likely explanation than conspiracy in an investigation run by the Bush-era FEMA. I’m happy to concede the facts (how else could I construct and test theories to explain them?), I just wish you could quantify them better.
Bob said:
“And if NIST passed on what you’re attempting; i.e. didn’t dare attempt to construct an argument based on fallacious slights of hand like you, what makes you so sure you can get away with it?”
There have been no fallacious slights of hand in my analysis. I’ve used plain vanilla conservation of energy and mechanics. (I do like vanilla. ;-))
Bob said:
“One last thing; in the class that I read that book “Physics and its 5th Dimension” we had a little experiment regarding the universality of scientific theories. We took all Horoscopes for each sign and simply wrote out the text for each one, without an identifier, on a scrap of paper. After handing them out to the members of the class, it was amazing to see how many thought that horoscope applied to them even though the odds were 11:1 against. Why? Because just like you THEY WANTED TO BELIEVE.”
I don’t want to believe, I want to understand (well, I believe in the scientific method). And I do understand a lot better than you.
Bob said:
“Just imagine Slarti, how easy it would be to ’strip the horoscope labels’ from the pseudo scientific crap regarding the collapse of the towers, and a whole host of stories regarding 9/11, i.e. kept the empirical facts the same but changed the names, faces and removed that 9/11 label for submission to a truly blind/impartial scientific panel for analysis?”
I think an impartial analysis of the facts would reach the same conclusions I have.
Bob said:
‘How would they react to an attorney asking “what happened to Q=mc(delta-T) that day and for the next six months?” “Where is the requisite SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT?”’
I described a sustained source of heat above. Where is the sustained source of heat in your thermic theory?
Bob said:
“Do you really believe that any self respecting scientist would formulate an argument like the one you’ve set forth here?”
Seeing that I’m a scientist and I have self respect, yes.
Bob said:
“Remember, there’s no ‘fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist’ because they’re blind to the, how shall we say, ‘horoscope labels’–i.e. their sole desire would be to believe in the consistency of the scientific theories they’ve held so dear their entire lives in lieu of buying into a ‘political fairy tale’ holding itself above the laws of nature itself.”
Yes, if my analysis said that the ‘natural’ explanation of the collapse wasn’t sufficient to account for observations, I’d be banging the drum with you calling for investigations. But it doesn’t.
Bob said:
“That’s why I start with Q=mc(delta-T) Slarti.”
You should really start with basic principles (like conservation of energy) to understand the processes occurring and then apply the appropriate formulas as necessary.
Robert said:
“If I come across as frustrated, I am. I despise arrogance.”
Yes, I have been very arrogant in this discussion. Much of it was done deliberately to indicate contempt for some of Bob’s (and your) ideas. Some of it was due to my annoyance at the beginning of this conversation. If you recall (although it was hundreds of posts ago), I was commenting on a thread about the climate change deniers making a mountain out of a molehill with the researcher’s emails so, as a scientist, I was annoyed already. I was engaged in a congenial discussion with Byron about an honest and substantive policy disagreement. I made an offhand comment on some off-topic posts on a subject which I had investigated to my satisfaction several years before, but had not thought much about lately. I was immediately attacked (by Bob) and ridiculed as not understanding the physics or having a reasonable, rational argument (I have at the very least proved that I have reasons for my opinions, if nothing else). Bob took (or at least I feel he took) a very condescending tone with me from the beginning and while I generally try to remain polite, I took an extremely arrogant tone in response. You jumped into the fray with some comments that I considered silly, but took some time to debunk. From your perspective you probably then got hit by a freight train of arrogance that you didn’t deserve. For that I apologize. I will continue trying to explain the science that you are misunderstanding, but I’ll try and keep the arrogance to a minimum.
Robert said:
“One of the worst attributes of a scientist is arrogance. Instead of saying “I don’t know” a scientist will disguise ignorance by arrogance.”
Good scientists (and I like to consider myself one of them) have a tendency to speculate rather than say ‘I don’t know’. We usually try to qualify such speculation as opinion, and while I may have been somewhat lax about it at the beginning of this discussion, since it has gotten going I’ve been pretty careful. I agree that disguising ignorance with arrogance is wrong, but that’s not what I’ve been doing.
Robert said:
“Permit me to give an example:
Hook a seismograph to the foot of a bed. Hit the mattress with a hammer and record the readings. Now hit the frame of the bed with the same hammer using the same amount of force. Record those readings. Are they the same? Are they even close? (If you don’t have a seismograph handy, put your hand under the bed post and perform the experiment. :>)”
So you’re saying that the same amount of energy is dissipated in each impact. The difference between the two events is how the energy is dissipated. When you hit the frame energy is dissipated as sonic energy, seismic energy, and thermal energy, when you hit the mattress, the sonic and seismic energies generated are much lower and the thermal energy generated is a little higher (I’m assuming that you don’t let the hammer ‘bounce’ in either case – that is it remains in contact with the surface of the mattress until it comes to a rest, the mattress is allowed to ‘bounce’ – using energy that ultimately becomes heat in the mattress).
Robert said:
“The surface of the earth will distort. The bedrock will not. To use seismic readings caused by an earthquake, and try to equate them to something that occurred on the surface is like hitting the mattress vs. hitting the frame. To claim that you have accounted for the energy without even acknowledging the difference is arrogant.”
I am correct in how I’m accounting for this (this isn’t arrogance, it’s confidence ;-)). If you measure the size of a seismic wave traveling through the earth at a particular location and calculate the distance from the source (both of which were done in this case), you can compute the energy required to generate that seismic shockwave (which is measured by the Richter scale – take a look at the ‘Richter scale’ article in Wikipedia, it gives a table of how much energy is required for integers on the Richer scale and the formula to determine the energy for other values). I’m assuming that the WTC collapse measured 2.1 on the richter scale which requires about 6 GJ or the energy contained in a metric ton of TNT. In both cases of your example, the seismic and sonic energy can be measured, the thermal energy is what’s left.
Robert says:
“Drop the BS “isolated system” and you may start to see reality. To not drop it is to avoid reality.”
I have been interested in accounting for the energy that was stored as GPE in the WTC on 9/10/01. If I choose my system to be the universe I can establish that conservation of energy is in play, but since I’m interested in quantifying the thermal energy in the rubble, I can restrict my attention to ‘ground zero’ (more accurately, I would specify a region in spacetime containing ‘ground zero’ and the twin towers and spanning a couple of hours on the morning of 9/11). All of the energy that I am interested in is initially inside this system and either remains in the system or leaves the system. Since the energy which leaves the system does not return, I can deduct this energy from the total system energy and then ignore it. I’ve accounted for the sonic and seismic energy and the energy ejected in the pyroclastic flow*. The rest of the energy remains in the system as thermal energy in the rubble. If you suggest any other destination energy which I am not accounting for, I will either include it in the computation or explain to you why it should not be included. My choice of isolated system and accounting of energy here has been perfectly reasonable and consistent with good scientific practice.
*Admittedly, I don’t know how much of the up to 200 GJ of GPE that wasn’t turned into KE (or more accurately, was turned into kinetic energy and converted into some other form before impact) went into ejecting the pyroclastic flow. I am aware that there are estimates that imply that the energy required to do this was too high to be caused naturally (not withstanding the fact that it would require a significant fraction of 40 metric tons of TNT just to double the available energy). I believe that the particle size distribution used in these estimates was unrealistically low, resulting in a substantial overestimate of the energy required.
Robert said:
“I cannot accept “heat in the rubble pile” as an acceptable answer.”
Is there no thermal energy in the rubble pile? Does not every piece of rubble have a temperature? (Or a temperature profile if you prefer.)
Robert said:
“Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE in the Slarti Calculations is energy simply transferred into the atmosphere.”
Energy transferred into the atmosphere is called sonic energy (or colloquially a ‘big kaboom’ [to be distinguished from an ‘earth-shattering kaboom’]) It is a trivial amount of energy (assuming that the sound of the collapse was as loud as a rocket engine or the Krakatoa eruption as heard from 100 miles away and lasted a minute), but I accounted for it anyway.
Robert said:
“That’s where most of the energy goes, and it happens instantaneously.”
What is this magical energy in the atmosphere of which you speak? And are you seriously suggesting that energy moves from the collapsing towers into the atmosphere at infinite speed? That’s pretty funny.
Robert said:
“However, the Slarti Calculations don’t account for it. It’s not what you see, it’s what you don’t see, that absorbs most of the energy.”
I see, it becomes ‘dark energy’. Show me some evidence that your ‘dark energy’ exists. Maybe they’ll give you some time on the large hadron collider.
Robert said:
“What happens to the Slarti Calculations when you consider that, unlike earthquakes that start in the bedrock, this started in the surface, and requires many times more energy to create the same seismic energy readings?”
The Richter scale is a measurement of the energy released in a seismic event. It takes the same amount of energy to cause a seismic event that measures 2.1 on the Richter scale no matter where it’s located on or in the Earth or how it is caused.
Robert said:
“Last but not least. The numbers for sound energy do not take frequency into account. Does anyone think it takes the same amount of energy to transmit a low frequency sound as it does a high frequency sound?”
As with the Richter scale, decibels are a measure of the power required to generate a particular sound. There is no need to take frequency into account – in any case, I have ridiculously overestimated the sonic energy (as loud as a rocket engine and lasting for 1 minute) and it is still a trivial amount of energy (5.9 MJ). It takes the same amount of power to create a 100 dB sound at 100 Hz as it does to create a 100 dB sound at 10 Hz.
Robert said:
“Deal with one tower at a time. I know this makes your numbers lower, but it does a much better job of permitting unaccounted variables to withstand comparative tests.”
There are no differences in how my model treats WTC1 and WTC2. I generally refer to the ‘WTC’ meaning either WTC1 or WTC2. All of the numbers I have been referring to lately have been for one building.
Robert said:
“I thought we had accepted 400 billion joules of GPE as a realistic number.”
We did. I was lazy and didn’t change the cell in my spreadsheet. You can find all of the correct energies referred to above, if you like. Given the accuracy of the model (which I have discussed on several occasions), 400 GJ ~ 500 GJ. The point of the computation is to give ballpark estimates, not to be accurate to 10 decimal places.
Robert said:
“Look at this video and tell me what is happening to the energy. Is it all going down? Is some going up? Where is the Slarti calculation for energy expended to send rubble up and sideways?”
As I have said repeatedly, as much as half of the GPE of the WTC was used to destroy the structure of the building, pulverize materials and eject the pyroclastic flow. In my calculation, I consider debris flung from the collapse to be included in ejecting the pyroclastic flow – since I have made no statements (except for a guess here or there that was clearly identified as such) about what fraction of that 200 GJ went into each of those categories, it doesn’t really matter, but if you’d like, feel free to include ‘debris flung from the collapse’ as its own category.
Robert said:
“Look at the arc of the debris and tell me where in the “Slarti Calculations” it has been accounted for.”
I just did.
Robert said:
“Today, Professor Turley posted the high-speed video of a water droplet landing on a pool of water. Slarti would have called this an inelastic collision. In reality, the water droplet, just like the rubble from the WTC towers bounces. (unaccounted energy)”
In my response to this comment, I forgot to point out a passage from Wikipedia that I had quoted above:
“James Joule studied the relationship between heat, work, and temperature. He observed that if he did mechanical work on a fluid, such as water, by agitating the fluid, its temperature increased. He proposed that the mechanical work he was doing on the system was converted to “thermal energy”. Specifically, he found that 4200 joules of energy were needed to raise the temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree Celsius.”
Can you Guess what was named after James Joule? Is there any reason to think that he may have understood something about energy?
Robert posted:
[Me] “I have accounted for all of the energy stored as gravitational potential in the WTC on the morning of 9/11. This energy is (like all energy existing that morning) still around (by which I mean in the universe).”
[Robert] “This is not acceptable accounting. It’s liken to a parent asking where the money was spent, and the child responding “on things”. To make matters worse, the child really does consider “on things” to be an acceptable answer and pats them-self on the back for being so honest.”
My repeatedly stated intent was to account for the GPE of the WTC (in order to demonstrate that this resulted in a large amount of thermal energy in the rubble of the WTC). To say that it is not acceptable to account for exactly what I said I was and no more is ridiculous. The question was, ‘Where was the GPE stored in the WTC on 9/10/01 spent?’. I gave an accounting of where every bit of it was spent. In your analogy, it’s like parents asking a child where he spent his money and the child replying, “I spent a quarter of it at a movie, a quarter of it on candy – like gum and chocolate and stuff, and half of it on fireworks (which converted chemical energy into electromagnetic, sonic and thermal energy when I lit them off).” The answer might not have been specific on every detail, but it is complete and accurate (and I’m patting myself on the back for the fireworks thing).
Robert said:
“Saying that the energy exists in the rubble pile is (a) a bullshit dismissive answer, or (b) a demonstration of the limits of the interactions at play in the real world. I suspect that in this case the answer is (b).”
The answer is (c) factually correct. Are you saying that there is no thermal energy contained in the pile of rubble? That none of that thermal energy was originally stored as GPE?
Robert said:
“Today, Professor Turley posted the high-speed video of a water droplet landing on a pool of water. Slarti would have called this an inelastic collision. In reality, the water droplet, just like the rubble from the WTC towers bounces. (unaccounted energy)”
I would not have called that an inelastic collision. I would, however, have told you that the kinetic energy contained in the drop of water was dissipated as the sound of the splash, the ripples, and heat in the water. I have explained in detail why I am justified treating the WTC collapse as an inelastic collision. I am correct (within the rough accuracy of the calculation) to do so. You may not agree that I’m accounting for the GPE correctly, but you cannot argue that I’m not accounting for all of it.
Buddha,
Glad you’re enjoying the show.
Robert: “Bob Esq., said “Where is the requisite SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT?”
“Bob, That is the problem with Slarti’s analysis. That is the problem with trying to conserve energy where it cannot be conserved. The fallacy of an isolated system. Slarti considers the energy to become PE in the rubble. It feeds itself like some chemical reaction. Why? Because he doesn’t comprehend where it went, and the books he read failed to exit the bogus isolated system.”
“If the universe is the isolated system; what energy arrived on Mars? Last time I checked, it was part of the “universe” and, therefore, fair game to place in the equation.”
Robert,
While I agree with your nit picking about what type of system we’re analyzing, in a PRACTICAL SENSE, wouldn’t you agree that the system that is the object of our analysis is called Ground Zero? Once the energy has has been accounted for in the Ground Zero equation, either by work completed, frictional heat residue, sound waves (dear God, talk about energy coupon clipping) or what have you, the main point is that energy is no longer useful. To put it another way, once the Pe is used up as Work (via a free fall collapse courtesy of Elfin Magic perhaps) it’s no longer available to be converted into heat except as a frictional byproduct.
Further, the fires existing before the collapse would be ‘blown out’ under the same theory that explains how candles and oil well fires are extinguished.
At the end of the event, and six months thereafter, there exists an unexplained surplus of thermal energy keeping metal at or near the heat of fusion. Instead of the pile of rubble, as you say, ‘feeding itself like a chemical reaction,’ it should have been seeking thermal equilibrium.
The same principle at work when you leave a spoon in a cup of soup to cool it down (i.e. heat sink) should have been cooling down the debris to ambient temperature. The energy would not only be escaping via the high thermal conductivity of the metal, but cold bedrock surrounded by the East & Hudson rivers would also have aided the process; not to mention all the water pumped onto the area by the fire department.
Yet after six months, lo and behold there’s still a sustained source of heat capable of keeping metal at its heat of fusion.
‘feeding itself like a chemical reaction’
Either that or the energy developed a mind of its own and simply decided to stick around for half a year; right?
In any case, the strongest argument against Slarti’s explanation is its failure to apply to the collapse of WTC 7; in that his theory is by no means universal or refutable.
😀
I do so love this thread.
Slarti: “My original statement was that Ockham’s razor favored the hypothesis that no additional heat sources were required to account for the observed heat in the rubble. Your response was to lecture me about Ockham’s razor and imply that I was making a knee-jerk decision to ‘trust the man’. You told me that I was incorrect about what Ockham’s razor implied in this situation and obviously had no sound reasoning on which to base my assertion. The negation of my hypothesis is that additional heat sources would be required to account for the observed heat in the rubble. Thus these are the two hypotheses at bar – and by deriding the hypothesis I favored, you were asserting its negation.”
Bob: “On its face, Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of another entity to explain the contradictions.”
Slartibartfast: “Occam’s razor clearly points to flaws in engineering resulting from a failure to envision such a scenario (the towers being hit deliberately by an aircraft larger than any is service when they were built with full fuel tanks and an abundance of flammables (plastics) packing into the office space causing (a) the instant removal of the fire protection from the structural steel and (b) significant degradation in the strength of the steel due to heat, leading to (c) structural failure due to design flaws leading to a pancake collapse). Also, the buildings did not collapse at free-fall speed and several skyscrapers have been destroyed due to fire and a couple have collapsed in a manner similar to controlled demolition. I don’t have the links handy as I looked into this years ago, but just google ‘9/11 truth debunked’ and you should be able to find plenty of good information.”
Bob: “First, you apparently wouldn’t know Ockham’s razor, or the law of parsimony, if you were pissing on it. “Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora” [“It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less”]. Thus, according to Ockham, we ought never to postulate the reality of any entity unless it is logically necessary to do so.” You, like many others, interpret Ockham as saying “the simplest answer is most likely the correct answer.” Thus your tendency to create a ’simple’ mythical theory for yourself out of whole cloth and argue your way backwards in a piecemeal fashion; feigning true analysis.
Allow me to illustrate Ockham’s razor in one simple example. For no less than six months, there existed at ground zero tons and tons of steel at and/or near the heat of fusion. Considering the law of thermo equilibrium had no effect in cooling down the metal, Ockham’s razor says IT IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY TO POSTULATE THE REALITY OF ANOTHER ENTITY THAT EXPLAINS THE DISCREPANCY. In this case, Q=MCΔT necessitates the existence of a SUSTAINED SOURCE OF HEAT to keep the metal at the heat of fusion. Which brings us back to that evidence of thermitic materials found within the dust…
…
Third, you may have noticed that the towers had two support systems; one internal, i.e. the 47 steel columns, and the exo-skeletal support forming the perimeter of the building itself. Note that when the architects discussed the 707 impact design, they made the analogy of poking a hole in a metal screen; the hole exists, but the screen remains in tact. Then there are those interior columns, like rail road spikes, that weren’t exactly designed to just collapse on themselves now were they? Accordingly, when you say: “(c) structural failure due to design flaws leading to a pancake collapse” you’re adopting the pancake theory assumption that the building was a hollow box. (See the FEMA report) [i.e. you’re adopting and fronting an intellectually dishonest answer]
Fourth, fires burn up, building fall down. How hot is a diffuse jet flame? If you poured jet fuel onto concrete and lit it with a match; what happens and why? Where is the steel losing its strength and how the hell does that affect the rest of the building below; [i.e. all those newtons of force that have been holding it up for nearly three decades]? Was it built upside down? Do you see buildings as nothing more than fancy forms of stacked boxes of equal strength? Do tree trunks on your planet go from small diameter to larger diameter as you travel upwards on the tree?
Fifth; show me where a steel structured building collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11.
Once again…
Bob: “On its face, Ockham’s razor demands the postulation of another entity to explain the contradictions.”
So, yes, ‘your theory’ is far from complete and your accounting of the energy in a PRACTICAL sense is so fanciful as to make former employees of Enron blush.
Robert said:
“Problem: “A 100 kg block of steel is launched at 100m/sec to the north off the top of a 1000 meter tall building. What was the total energy of the block when it was launched, and what was the total energy of the block immediately before it hit the earth?”
Slarti’s answer: Neglecting friction [my mistake fixed], the block (which may be launched in any direction, incidentally) will have 1.5 mJ of KE in the instant before it hits the ground if I haven’t dropped an order of magnitude somewhere. It will be going a factor of 3^(1/2) faster than when it was launched.
Initially, the object had both potential and kinetic energy.
Kinetic Energy =1/2m(v^2)=1/2(100kg)(100m/sec^2)=500,000 Joules.
Potential Energy = Mass x Gravitational acceleration X Height = 100 x 9.8 x 1000 =980,000 Joules
The total energy of this block of steel was 500,000 joules + 980,000 joules = 1,480,000 joules of combined energy. (that would be about 1.5 MegaJoules, represented as 1.5 MJ, not 1.5 mJ(which would represent millajoules [sic] or 10^-3 joules)”
Wow, you caught an actual mistake! Yes, I used mJ to indicate megaJoules instead of MJ (in my defense, earlier in the same post you will find the following ‘… megaJoules (mJ). It should be pretty obvious that I meant megaJoules (and used the same (incorrect) abbreviation that I had clearly used for megaJoules earlier in the post. I also used gJ for gigaJoules instead of GJ. I also used 10m/s^2 as the acceleration due to gravity (which is why I got 1.5 MJ instead of 1.48 MJ). This is certainly accurate enough for the spirit of the question. There is no substantial disagreement here – the block had about 1.5 MJ of KE + GPE immediately after it was launched. And in the spirit of this complaint, mJ is milliJoules, not millajoules.
Robert said:
“You final analysis “It will be going a factor of 3^(1/2) faster than when it was launched” is not supported by any math.”
As you will see below, it’s supported by your math.
Robert said:
“How did you arrive at this conclusion? Show your work! I didn’t ask how fast it would be going. I asked what the total energy would be immediately before impact with the earth.”
And I told you 1.5 MJ and added the additional information of its speed.
Robert said:
“Your answer of 3^1/2 times (or 1.73) faster IS INCORRECT. If you would have shown your work, you’d probably see your error.”
My answer is correct (and agrees with your answer) and I will show a calculation supporting it below. Originally, I merely calculated the total energy, set that equal to kinetic energy, and solved for velocity in the equation KE=1/2mv^2.
Robert said:
“Is there a point at which the object will be moving north as fast as it is moving towards the earth? [Yes] Is the object going to hit the earth in the same amount of time as it would from simply being dropped? [Yes] Does a bullet, fired out of a gun, fall to the earth in the same amount of time as a bullet that was dropped from the same height?” [Yes]
Robert said:
“I presented you with a problem that involves an initial velocity of 100 m/sec in a horizontal direction, and a zero velocity in the vertical direction. (Velocity is speed in a direction) We know that the vertical velocity will increase, and the horizontal velocity will decrease. Your answer must include the horizontal and vertical velocities. You cannot eliminate one from the answer without accounting for it.”
As you will see below, the answer only depends on the speed, not the velocity – as I indicated above, I got the correct answer only taking energy into account. I used an easier method to solve the problem without needing to decompose the velocity into horizontal and vertical components. Contrary to what you may have been taught in your physics and math classes, there are generally multiple ways to solve most problems and any legitimate methodology will yield the correct answer (like I got).
Robert said:
“If the object was just dropped from a height of 1000 meters, (not accounting for friction), it would accelerate at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second.
The formula is t = √(2x/g) = √(2(distance/gravitational acceleration)= √(2(1000/9.8)= 14.286 seconds”
Yes. And the square root signs are a nice touch. 😉
Robert said:
“(In reality, friction would determine terminal velocity, which occurs in roughly 5 seconds)”
Time out! In reality, terminal velocity is determined by shape and density. a 100kg pillow (that’s a big pillow!) will reach terminal velocity very quickly while a 100kg iron javelin dropped point-first will take much longer. If we’re talking about a 100kg iron sphere, I doubt it would reach terminal velocity if dropped from 1000m.
Robert said:
“The vertical speed immediately before impact can be calculated using this formula. v = gt = 9.8 (14.286) = 140 meters per second.”
Yes.
Robert said:
“The rest should be an easy calculation for a scientist with a complete understanding of the forces acting upon the object. It requires you to consider momentum.”
I already made the easy calculation and got the correct answer but I will answer a more general problem below and show my work:
Assume that a 100kg mass is fired at a speed of 100m/s and an angle of theta (th) to the horizontal off of the top of a 1000m building.
vh = vh0 = horizontal velocity = initial horizontal velocity (neglecting friction there are no horizontal forces acting on the mass)
vv = vertical velocity
vv0 = initial vertical velocity
vh0 = 100m/s x cos(th)
vv0 = 100m/s x sin(th)
xv0 = initial vertical position = 1000m
We may assume that vv0 0, the mass will rise before it begins to descend, but when it passes 1000m its vertical speed will be -vv0.
vertical acceleration (av) is -10m/s^2 . If you passed calc 1, you should be able to compute the vertical equation of motion as:
xv(t) = xv0 + vv0 x t + 1/2 x av x t^2
If you passed algebra 1, you can solve xv(t) = 0 for t, and get the time of impact (ti) as:
ti = (1/av)(-vv0 + √(vv0^2 – 2(av)(xv0))
Where I’ve eliminated the negative root as unphysical.
This gives a vertical impact velocity of:
vv(ti) = √(vv0^2 – 2(av)(xv0))
If you passed your pre-calc class, you know that to find the magnitude of the vector A+B (where vector A=(a1,a2) and vector B=(b1,b2)) you use the formula:
|A+B| = √((a1-b1)^2+(a2-b2)^2)
This yields an impact velocity of:
vi = √(vv0^2 – 2(av)(xv0) + vh0^2)
If you remember your basic trig identities (sin^2(th)+cos^2(th)=1), then you can simplify this as:
vi = √(v0^2 – 2(av)(xv0)) = √ (10000 + 20000) m/s = 173 m/s
This is the same velocity that results from a 100kg mass having 1.5 MJ of kinetic energy and equal to (√3)(100 m/s) just as I said. If the mass is fired horizontally (theta = 0) then we have:
vhi = 100 m/s
and
vvi = 142 m/s
or exactly the same as you computed. You will notice that impact velocity does not depend on theta (like I said) and that nowhere in this calculation have I considered momentum.