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
It works! 🙂 A degree symbol is °(followed by a semicolon)
Slarti,
Two questions.
What was taking place when the seismic activity started?
How does steel melt at 1000°C?
°
Slarti,
Two questions.
What was taking place when the seismic activity started?
How does steel melt at 1000° C?
Vince,
Thanks. And you haven’t even seen my magic tricks. Molten steel at 1000 C would seem to substantially weaken Bob’s argument… And if 5 out of 4 doctors smoke Camels then they must be good!
Good work, Slarti. The title of this thread, “One Hundred and Twenty Percent of People Can’t Be Wrong,” keeps reminding me of those TV commercials from many years ago saying that five out of four doctors smoke Camels:
Well, Robert’s latest post continues to show a substantial lack of understanding. I’ve put Robert’s post in a block quote, things that he’s quoted me saying in italics and my new comments in bold.
Robert posted:
Well, I’m guessing that Robert didn’t mention my link on conservation of energy because he couldn’t find any credible sources to refute any of it (since someone of his intellectual integrity would never consider making an allegation without strong support to back it up ;-)). But that’s okay, I’m going to do a couple of magic tricks to entertain him – first I’m going to show him how to make steel melt at 1000 C and then I’m going to make the credibility of Jim Hoffman’s paper on the dust cloud disappear!
Slarti said “[T]he seismic record suggests that the collapse time was more like 16s (a footnote on that page says that 15s is a much better estimate as well), yielding plenty of GPE for pulverizing concrete and other sinks.”
Now those of you following along will see why I asked Slarti to provide us with a link to the records and the basis of his conclusion that it took longer to collapse. Let’s look at what Slarti was finally willing to disclose:
We all know that the building was about 420 meters tall. And we also know that the seismic record could end before the collapse was complete, but not after. From what Slarti just disclosed above we can conclude that Slarti says it took the 420 meter building at least 15 seconds to collapse. To put this as a math problem we should say that little Johnny ran home. His house was 420 meters away, and he was able to run home in 15 seconds. What was Johnny’s average speed? 420 meters/ 15 seconds = 28 meters per second.
Now let’s compare that 28 m/s to Slarti’s previous claims. Those in bold-italics are Slarti’s previous assertions:
1, March 19, 2010 at 12:53 am “I have not made any counterfactual assertions or implications about the velocity of the debris (or anything else) and have refuted all of your and Robert’s accusations of such. I don’t know where the ‘Mach 4′ number you give comes from, but I’ve said the the debris were traveling somewhere in the 60 to 80 m/s range at impact (possibly lower than 60 m/s).”
1, February 4, 2010 at 6:10 pm
we get t = 11.5s for the time of collapse and v = 73.3 m/s as the impact velocity (you forgot that the lower acceleration is applied over a larger time). Assuming that 400 GJ of GPE was converted into KE, this implies that about 260 GJ remained KE just before impact and about 140 GJ was dissipated to destroy the structure of the building
Here’s one where I made a claim and Slarti’s rebuttal:
[Robert] “We also know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. That opposite reaction causes the “actor” to slow down by an amount equal to that which is used to speed up the object acted upon. Not only did the “actors” need to slow down while acting upon the objects acted upon, the would have had their speed further reduced by using some of their speed to pulverize the objects below. As you can plainly see, the only “actors” that could have achieved a speed of 65-85 m/s were those that ignored atmospheric drag, and had little to no interaction with the lower objects. This would make an average speed of 65-85 m/s for all the rubble physically impossible.”
SLarti replied Robert,
There are several things that I can plainly see: the ‘drag’ of collapsing the building is what prevented it from collapsing at free-fall speed; If no part of the building could have exceeded the ‘free-fall’ speed from it’s height, the collapse would have taken much longer than it was observed to; atmospheric drag is another trivial effect in the collapse; your final statement contradicts the observed time of collapse for the building; and finally, I can plainly see that we are not in the same league here – since I’m in the NFL (I’m not the star, but I made the team) and you’re on the freshman ‘B’ team (you might even be the star of it 😉 ) I think some sort of mercy rule should probably kick in soon…
How I missed that special tidbit is beyond me! Slarti really did say “If no part of the building could have exceeded the ‘free-fall’ speed from it’s height, the collapse would have taken much longer than it was observed”. How the building would have exceeded free-fall speed must still be an undisclosed part of ‘Slarti Science’.
Slarti even went on to say “I can plainly see that we are not in the same league here”. You’re right about that Slarti.
Now back to more quotes from Slarti on the speed of the collapse. (Be sure to pay special attention to how when he needs more GPE (as he did in the first sentence far above) the speed lowers, and when he needs KE the speed increases.)
1, January 31, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“According to Dr. Greening, the end velocity of the collapse was more likely around 50 m/s (more energy used to destroy structure, etc.) I defined what I meant by the ‘velocity of the collapse’ (which Dr. Greening also define in a way which is consistent with my definition) and it is a property of the collapse (you know, the event in the ‘real world’ which is the object of discussion) that Dr. Greening and I are estimating.
““This is why it is important to carefully specify your assumptions. In your analysis, you have assumed that the pieces of the WTC were being acted on by gravity and nothing else, an assumption which is false. Pieces of the WTC did not fall to the ground at free fall speed – they were accelerated by a mass of debris moving at a speed of roughly 65 to 85 m/s when it reached street level. Yes, I’m making a simplifying assumption when I say the the impact speed was between 65 and 85 m/s, but it is a reasonable and justified assumption since the ‘average’* speed of the collapse was between 65-85 m/s.”
I could keep adding more and more, and Slarti would give a contradictory reason to support all of them. My favorite was when at one point Slarti recognized that the collapse might have taken longer, and he immediately claimed “you forgot that the lower acceleration is applied over a larger time”.
This is exactly an argument based on verbosity will unravel with time. As exposed by getting Slarti to finally admit what he was reluctant to admit (his conclusion as to collapse time from the seismic records), not even Slarti believes Slarti’s numbers have meaning.
Even in ‘Slartiville’ the top of the building doesn’t hit before the bottom of the building (Except perhaps the top of WTC2, which Slarti doesn’t want to talk about because the initial jolt didn’t exist). That probably won’t prevent Slarti from some convoluted attempt to have his cake and eat it too.
Your last post quoted a REFERENCE of mine (one of many), I have explicated my process and provided more detail when requested. At no point have I said ‘this is true because I say so’ – I’ve repeatedly said ‘I know this is true and here are some references that support that statement’. None of my arguments depend on my own authority and to say that I only appeal to my own authority is a hypocritical lie (a blatant lie because it is so obviously untrue and hypocritical because you have never provided anything but ‘I say so’ to support your own arguments). Personally, I got tired of your ignorant, hypocritical objections long ago.
I’m not – the following are a couple of quotes from the 9/11 research site that Bob frequently links to that discuss energy in a way completely consistent with my interpretation – I’ve added statements debunking all of the quotes, lest you think that any of them are valid arguments for controlled demolition.
and
I could mine some more quotes from the article on the dust cloud by Jim Hoffman, but I want to thoroughly debunk that article so I’ll let it wait…
Also every link that I’ve posted which mentions energy is completely consistent with my interpretation as well, including everything I’ve seen in Dr. Greening’s papers on the WTC collapse (which discusses energy extensively).
As a person with a PhD in Mathematics who’s areas of interest are modeling and non-linear dynamics (chaos) that specializes in the modeling of biological systems I am a skilled professional in the area of mathematical modeling (given enough time and resources I feel that I can model anything – I choose to focus on biology because it is a rich source of interesting modeling problems). In the area of modeling biological systems I am an expert and I have created a more sophisticated model of the DNA damage G2 checkpoint than any that are currently in the literature. So in the context of this problem, I am someone who has been trained to construct mathematical models and determine their validity (and I have substantial knowledge about Newtonian mechanics backing up the modeling I’ve done in this case).
The analysis is not ambiguous and I have discussed the validity and accuracy of my conclusions on several occasions (they’re not proof, but they don’t leave much room for the effects of artificial accelerants in the collapse).
I apply the laws of physics and give multiple references as to my interpretation of said laws.
Because it is energy stored in the mass of the building by virtue of its position in the gravitational field of the Earth (energy derived from the gravitational potential) rather than energy stored in chemical bonds or due to motion of particles.
What on Earth gave you the idea that I think the gravitational potential energy formulas only work on paper? (Also, what do you mean by ‘GPE formulas’? Are you talking about GPE = mgh or something else?)
Slarti,
People just get tired of hearing the conclusions of one who appeals to their own authority. Why are you (a mathematical biologist) the first to try to explain the collapse using only energy formulas? That’s easy, because the analysis is too ambiguous to permit anyone to arrive at any legitimate conclusions. You make the laws apply however you wish, and then use yourself as a reference.
Tell us, Slarti; Why do they call it “potential energy”? And why do you think the gravitation potential energy formulas only work on paper?
Good to hear from you Duh, I was starting to think that you didn’t love me anymore… 😉
Duh posted:
Duh, you just failed logic 101 – the conclusion ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’ is universal (literally – all energy is contained within the isolated system of the universe, hence cannot be created or destroyed – this is the point that I’ve been trying to hammer home to you and Robert for months now). Energy can’t be created or destroyed in ANY SYSTEM. In open or closed systems it is possible for energy to enter of leave and this must be accounted for properly which I am doing in my analysis.
If that’s the best objection you can find to the module I posted (and I suspect it is), maybe you should give up while you’re behind…
From the link provided by Slarti:
Definition 2: The total energy of an isolated system can not change.
From above two interpretations, it emerges that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed”.
Slarti, Your own sources contradict you.
Bob, Robert and Duh,
The following link is to a module on conservation of energy from an open content educational website called ‘Connexions’. I would appreciate it if you would take the time to read it, after which I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
http://cnx.org/content/m14106/latest/
The following are a bunch of posts that I’m just getting around to responding to…
Bob,Esq.
1, March 10, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Slarti: “Wow, your reasoning is even faulty in analogies… Even discounting that feathers may contain DNA (do you think DNA is fungible?), it is certainly possible for an expert to differentiate between a duck’s feather and the feather of another bird.”
Before you use phrases like “chain of custody” you may want to investigate the analysis of said subject before putting your foot in your mouth.
The subject in question is the reliability of SCIENTIFIC samples, not ‘chain of custody’ in court – I don’t believe that Dr. Jones’ samples meet the legal standard, but I KNOW they don’t meet the scientific standard.
Bob,Esq.
1, March 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Repost:
Byron: “It would be very hard to predict how the building actually reacted to having all of those external columns removed.”
Byron,
A few ’simple’ observations:
First, ‘both towers lost less than an eighth of their perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost little of its core.’
That is, the ‘analysis’ of the North tower collapse, as allegedly explained by Slarti & Greening and bolstered by you, fails as a theory to so much as begin to explain the collapse of the South Tower. IOW, the lack of damage to the South Tower core precludes a ‘falling block/momentum analysis’ scenario; resulting in a failure of the theory to explain the collapses in toto.
First off, the cause of the initial failure is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the collapse would be self-sustaining after the failure occurred. Once the impact zone failed (whether because of the damage or explosives) the collapse would have been self-sustaining. And as far as the initial failure of the south tower goes, it had a much greater weight bearing on the damaged area and was further from the hat truss which would result in differences in how the load from the damaged and destroyed columns were transferred to intact columns. The initial stages of the collapse show significant differences in the modes of collapse of the two towers (the upper block of WTC2 tilted, for instance). These differences cannot be understood via simple analysis (since a simple analysis neglects many of the details that result in the observed differences).
Byron: “And then the redistribution of forces is going to depend on the degree of damage or not that the remaining columns and beams had. Load is taken to stiffer members so you would have to determine the remaining or existing section properties of hundreds of columns and beams. There is no way to have an accurate answer short of measuring each foot of each beam and inspecting for damage.”
Compare your observation with that of Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, said in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
As I’ve said before, your implication is equivalent to saying that the Titanic sunk due to foul play because it was said to be unsinkable. And you totally failed to address Byron’s point that the damage changed the load bearing on hundreds of columns. You can’t do an analysis of the forces without knowing the loads.
Second, as we’ve discussed above, an energy analysis, sans mechanical analysis (e.g. claiming that “Newton’s Third Law
does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself” – F. Greening) is tantamount to “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
The strength of an energy analysis EXACTLY that it doesn’t require knowlege of the precise forces involved like a mechanical analysis does. The only idiot here is you (and Robert and Duh).
Byron
1, March 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Bob Esq:
then Frank A. Demartini is misinformed. A screen and the columns on those towers are 2 totally different things. The screen is supported from above and below. A small penetration in a screen would not matter because of the strength to weight ratio of the screen. If you took away the top support of the screen it would fall down even before you poked a hole in it. In my opinion this is not a good analogy.
I agree.
In addition a 707 going a 180 knots or so is not the same as going 400 to 500 knots. As Slarti has shown KE is the square of the velocity so the force/energy would be much greater.
There is some redundancy but I think Frank A. was forgetting about the wings by the way he worded his statement.
And from the images after impact, the wings seem to have done a considerable amount of damage…
Newtons 3rd did apply but you tell me how you are going to accurately model the effects of the destruction without knowing the capacity of the remaining members? Energy is an appropriate substitute.
Yup.
I guess I am idiot, because I think energy is an acceptable substitute for classical structural analysis. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
You can do a better job with structural analysis if you have millions of dollars to hire experts to construct computer models, but for rough analysis that can be done easily, energy is a far superior subject of analysis.
Bob,Esq.
1, March 10, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Slarti: So let’s take a look at my method:
As opposed to apologizing for the tripe you posted earlier.
There’s nothing in what I posted earlier that I need to apologize for, unfortunately you can’t say the same thing…
Slarti: I wanted to test the hypothesis: ‘natural causes are sufficient to explain observations of the WTC collapse and aftermath’ (A). Had I approached it from your point of view, I would have used a hypothesis like: ‘deliberately placed explosives* are required to account for observations of the WTC collapse and aftermath’
Then you would be misrepresenting my position yet again. My position is that the mosaic of evidence supports at the very least a presumption of a building demolished by the use of devices (including but not limited to) the use of nano-thermate as opposed to a presumption of ‘natural causes.’
You’ve owned the deliberate demolition hypothesis ever since you said I was wrong about Ockham’s razor favoring the ‘natural’ hypothesis. The ‘mosaic of evidence’ as you put it has nothing but the dubious science of Dr. Jones to support the presence of nano-thermate in the collapse – there is no evidence of energy added to the collapse by explosives or incendiaries nor was there any observation of the effects of explosives or incendiaries in the collapse.
Slarti: (B). Doesn’t seem like there’s much difference yet… Because I understood all of the concepts in physics class instead of just memorizing the formulas for the test”
Feeling a tad insecure math man?
No, just taking a little potshot at your ignorance.
Slarti: I know that the energy dissipated in the collapse is the key here.
Ipse dixet? Tell it to NIST and all the other physicists whose knowledge of their trade is being trumped by the mathematician who ‘knows’ better.
The authors of the NIST report had resources far superior to mine (and hence could perform a complex structural analysis of the failure – plus they didn’t even look at the collapse) and nothing I said contradicts the findings of any physicist I know of (excepting Dr. Jones).
Slarti: Clearly, a large amount of GPE was dissipated and there were many energy sinks in the collapse that accounted for this dissipation. To falsify hyp. A we must show that the energy sinks in the collapse are larger than the portion of the GPE that was dissipated in each sink (plus other ‘natural’ sources if applicable). To falsify hyp. B we must show that the energy sinks are equal to their contribution from the GPE and other natural sources. What do we expect to find by looking at the energy? We know that the sources and sinks of energy all balance each other out (that’s what the law of conservation of energy says, Bob – and you can’t use Bugs Bunny’s excuse that you didn’t study law) so if there are more sinks than ‘natural’ sources can account for then it becomes likely that explosives were involved.
Lost me on the Bugs Bunny reference, but I’m with ya so far on the energy analysis
I was referring to the scene where Bugs walks along the underside of a branch and when questioned about defying the law of gravity says, “I never studied law”
Slarti: If, however, we find that the sinks are equal to the natural sources then there is no room for the effects of explosives and it is unlikely that they were involved.
Is that necessarily true?
Yes. If ‘unnatural’ devices were used to weaken the structure of the building, then less of the GPE is required to fill this sink. While the estimates that I’ve given are pretty rough, the fact that we have more than 50 GJ (by a conservative estimate) to account for expanding the dust cloud (plus some small sinks) doesn’t allow for much (if any) energy going into deliberately compromising the structure of the building.
Slarti: Given that we can’t do more than roughly estimate most of these quantities, we should not expect to be able to falsify either hypothesis (Unless the building was absolutely packed with explosives) but it should give us an idea of what is most likely. In either case we must estimate the various sinks and sources of energy involved in the collapse.
Ah, so Newton’s third law is precluded because, as you allege, we can’t account for ALL the forces involved, AND YET you give yourself license to make ‘rough estimates’ in your energy analysis. I see… continue.
Nice try at comparing apples and oranges. Because I have the energy balance equation, I can estimate the size of the various terms in the equation and draw conclusions about other terms that are correct within the accuracy of my estimates. To analyze the motion of a particle via force, we need to know all of the forces on the particle – once things started moving in the WTC collapse, the event was too complicated to be able to estimate the force bearing on every single structural element.
Slarti: “This implies that at least half of the original GPE was used to ’shred the building’ as Bob put it.”
Where’s your internal friction when the steel snaps into pieces instead of bending as you allege with your paper clip innuendo?
Steel ‘snapping’ is the result of a lot of heat being generated by internal friction.
Slarti: “Energy required to pulverize concrete – This comes from an extremely well supported calculation of Dr. Greening’s which assumes 10% of the concrete in the WTC was pulverized – he estimates that 234 MJ were dissipated by the pulverization of concrete in the first impact (the upper block impacting the lower block) up to a maximum energy dissipation of about 700 MJ/floor. I’ve used 700 MJ/floor * 110 floors to determine the total energy dissipated by the pulverization of concrete.”
I see.
[Link to Jim Hoffman’s ridiculous analysis of the dust cloud]
This paper is a steaming pile of crap – I guess I’ll have to debunk it myself since you can’t be bothered to read the excellent job Dr. Greening has done in totally discrediting Mr. Hoffman’s analysis.
Slarti: “This calculation doesn’t say anything about explosives being used to initiate the collapse, but my back-of-the-envelope calculation which implies that a progressive failure could have resulted from the impact and the weakening of the steel expected at the temperatures that Dr. Jones suggests that some of the steel in the impact zone attained leaves little room for explosives here, too. So, in doing this analysis did I demonstrate a confirmation bias?
Could have?
Yes – a good scientist carefully qualifies their statements. I don’t know exactly what happened, but I can certainly speak to what I believe could have happened.
Dr. Jones good when he agrees with you, evil fraud when he does not.
Even a broken watch is right twice a day – I evaluate each of Dr. Jones’ claims independently – if they are plausible I have no qualms about using them (with proper citation, of course).
Slarti: Now let’s take a look at your behavior, Bob. Instead of critiquing my estimates or offering your own, suggesting energy sinks which I had neglected, or in any way engaging in a debate on the science, you have questioned my use of long-established physical law* and standard analytical methodology, suggested analytical techniques that are either demonstrably incorrect (tracing heat backwards) or inappropriate in the context you suggest (Newton’s 3rd law) and accused me of intellectual dishonesty.”
I did that? Really; and here I am thinking you drift off on these self-congratulatory tirades because you don’t know how to reply to my rebuttals of your fantastical assumptions and counter-factual premises. Silly me.
I was just pointing out your hypocrisy (in accusing me of confirmation bias) and you haven’t rebutted any of my assumptions or premises with anything but ‘you’re wrong because I say so’ while I’ve provide extensive support for my methodology from multiple sources.
Slarti: “I find it deeply ironic that you continue to excoriate Dr. Greening for his poorly stated reference to Newton’s 3rd law after arguing for months that conservation of energy did not apply.
When did I argue that?? I might have had a few objections to your labeling the system as ‘the universe’ and then commented on your waffling by re-defining the system as the WTC when it suited your fancy. But I never said the COE did not apply. My how you enjoy putting premises into my argument and thence reducing them to absurdity.
If you agree that I can write down the balance of energy equation (theoretically) for every instance of work and as a result for the collapse as a whole, then I apologize, but I certainly got the idea that you objected to that.
Slarti: At least Dr. Greening’s remarks have a legitimate interpretation (as Byron suggested earlier today). What’s your excuse for saying that conservation of energy isn’t universally applicable?
Seriously, If I said this, please let me know where and how.
Again, this is an impression I got from your support of Robert. If you agree with the above statement then it was mistaken.
Slarti: So your behavior hasn’t been the finest example of fair-minded, rational thinking but is it indicative of a confirmation bias?
Need I go back and cite EVERY counter-factual and incredible premise you have ‘assumed’ in constructing your creative accounting Tolkien hoops for you to jump through in an attempt to make your argument more plausible?
I’ll defend any of my assumptions you care to attack.
Fire Impact theory?
This refers to the theory that the jet impact and the fires it initiated caused the collapse (which I believe I’ve made a persuasive case for)- I think you’re trying to deride the well-established fact that impacts cause objects to heat up
Lane’s Process?
How is suggesting that a process used in the industrial production of hydrogen might have occurred in the rubble counter-factual? I never said this did occur, just that given the conditions in the rubble it was possible that iron was oxidized via contact with steam.
The system is the universe; the system is the WTC…?
I was using two different lines of argument to justify my use of conservation of energy in the face of idiotic objections. My analysis is entirely valid given either choice of system.
Molten aluminum glows hot orange instead of dull gray?
The color something glows is dependent on its temperature – molten aluminum glows white if it is hot enough. I think that molten aluminum (possibly mixed with other substances present in the impact zone) is a much more likely explanation of the observed molten metal falling from WTC2 than molten iron.
Newton’s thee laws of motion are hereby Newtons Three Laws of Stasis because Slarti says so?
I never said that Newton’s laws didn’t apply, only that analysis of a complex dynamic event via force is difficult if not impossible due to lack of knowledge of all of the forces involved.
And you dare call me intellectually dishonest?
I dare because you have been extremely intellectually dishonest throughout the course of this debate in addition to falsely accusing me of many of the offenses that you are guilty of yourself.
Apparently your latest tirade is an emotional reaction to this little ditty that bears repeating:
‘You’re a mathematician, not a physicist; and it shows in your arguments. And wearing your PhD in mathematics as a voucher for your arguments regarding physics is as meaningful as a drug/surgical supply rep using his position to vouch for his medical acumen.’
You apparently don’t understand the intimate relationship between physics and mathematics – every hard science is based on mathematical analysis. In practice the biggest difference between a physicist’s analysis and a mathematician’s analysis is that a mathematician tends to be much more careful and rigorous. Was Newton a physicist or a mathematician? For the purposes we’re considering here it’s almost a distinction without a difference.
I stand by that remark because your arrogance has done nothing but weaken your arguments since the inception of this debate.
My arrogance is completely irrelevant to the scientific merits of my arguments.
What’s the difference between you and the likes of [K]arl Rove who writes books with chapters entitled “Chapter 21: Bush Was Right on Iraq?”
I’m not a political operative who learned to do whatever it takes to win at Lee Atwater’s feet that displays a shocking disconnect from the reality-based world. I believe that he is also a carbon-based life form, but beyond that there’s not much similarity.
And you think your exercise in argumentum verbosium, cutting and pasting a cite from wikipedia and attempting to attribute it to me makes your argument stronger how?
Jesus H. Tap Dancing Christ.
I choose speaking correctly over speaking simply. You may call this ‘argumentum verbosium’ but a scientific theory about an event as complex as the WTC collapse can’t be described by a short comment. Trying to talk about the science of the collapse in an un-nuanced way is suitable only for spreading disinformation. I attribute arguments to you that I believe are logical consequences or implications of things you said (such as how your accusation that I don’t understand Ockham’s razor ties you to the negation of the hypothesis I said Ockham’s razor favors). Pointing out how ridiculous some of the logical implications of your arguments are makes my arguments much stronger by comparison (such as the implications of believing Jim Hoffman’s analysis of the dust cloud).
Bob,
In your single-minded rants about Newton’s third law, you seem to have forgotten that Newton had two other laws of motion. Namely, that an object in motion tends to stay in motion and force is equal to the product of mass times acceleration. Let’s look at what all three of Newton’s laws tell us about the first impact of the collapse:
Let’s look at the idealized scenario in the video that Robert posted a while back – The 95th floor magically disappears and the upper block falls 3.7 m onto the lower block. We’ll assume that the mass of the upper block represented 20% of the maximum load on the columns (a 5:1 safety margin). In the 0.87 s that it takes the upper block to fall 3.7 m due to gravitational acceleration, the upper block attains a velocity of 8.5 m/s. In order to arrest the collapse, the lower block must exert enough force on the upper block to reduce this velocity to zero (to overcome it’s inertia). Now let’s assume that the lower block was continuously capable of exerting it’s maximum force while being compressed (a ridiculous overestimate of its structural strength). This means that the lower block was capable of exerting enough force to decelerate the upper block at 5 times the acceleration due to gravity. A simple calculation using x(t) = v0 * t – (5 * g * t^2)/2 show that the upper block would descend 0.74 m after the initial impact before it came to rest. Do you really think that the columns could continuously exert their maximum force while being compressed by almost 3/4 of a meter?
Bob posted:
Finally, since this debate is centered around molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, I have a question for you: what is the melting point of steel?
Slarti: “Bob, If you were a scientist, you would have been the first to criticize Duh’s comments. Having these posts associated with your arguments does nothing good for your credibility.”
I’m sorry that I’m busy right now with a once in life time event that’s sapping all my time and energy. Being such, I have no inclination to parse through your deceitful spins line by line as I’ve been devoting most of my time being as genuine as possible in light of my circumstances.
In a word, re-writing the history of your argument and disavowing the points you harped on for so long is enough to make me sick.
And what fucking scientist cites wikipedia as if it were as good as the source it was allegedly citing?
You didn’t read the NIST report you fucking liar.
Duh,
I’ll give answers with references to your objections in a later post – this one’s just to point out what a [deleted] you are.
Duh posted:
Bob,
If you were a scientist, you would have been the first to criticize Duh’s comments. Having these posts associated with your arguments does nothing good for your credibility.
Here’s a preview of my next post:
So are you ready to admit that my analysis of the energetics of the collapse is completely appropriate and correct?
Slarti: “In all of my calculations regarding the plane, I used the speed of 404 knots from the NIST report. Once more Bob lies to create a straw man – it must be a day ending in ‘Y’.”
Credat Judaeus apella, non ego.
Slarti,
To be accurate, instead of saying “I have provided a multitude of references”, you should have said ‘I have provided a limited number of references, all of them apply to an isolated system. For my purposes, I consider an open system to be an isolated system’ If you people don’t agree with me, prove that I’m wrong. Just because you provide references that say energy is conserved in an isolated system, and my system is an open system (proven beyond any doubt due to mass and energy leaving the system), I will continue to ignore those facts and once again appeal to my own authority.’
Bdaman said:
“GOOOOOO!!!!! Blue Devils :)”
That may be the first thing you’ve ever said that I agree with whole-heartedly. In my time at Duke I was one of the 2 or 3 most recognizable Cameron Crazies.
Rip ’em up!
Tear ’em up!
Give ’em hell, DUKE!
(And nice job hanging on down the stretch by my Spartans last night, too!)