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
My response to Buddha continues…
Part II – Things start getting hot
Thermal Evidence
What Bob points to is indeed puzzling evidence. However, the heat of fusion/thermal retention line of reasoning was addressed by Slarti in a way perfectly suited for the adversarial process. He addressed 1) a chain of custody issue, 2) a sampling issue and 3) an integrity issue about the declarative expert offered.
I would also add that I showed that Bob’s original statement that there was evidence of temperatures at or near the heat of fusion of Iron (1538°C) was incorrect and that temperatures in the range of 700°C-1000°C are sufficient to explain observations.
While Bob’s reasoning in finding this anomalous information was a sound display of what I think reductionism is best at (finding holes in standards of proof and certain kinds of causal analysis), he built the counter argument for natural collapse on the basis of questionable evidence in both quality and source of expertise.
He also chose to ignore a large part of the evidence which doesn’t agree with his theory (although I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn’t know that). Also, Bob seems unconcerned with what standard of proof his argument does (and does not) satisfy.
Evidence is only as good as its intrinsic qualities of relevance, probative value and veracity. An interesting anomaly from a questionable sampling and source makes for interesting cocktail chit-chat, but not an argument with any kind of conclusory certainty.
Personally, I prefer my cocktail chit-chat to have more validity than Bob’s argument, but that’s just me.
While curious, this argument ends exactly where I said it would: non-determinative absent further evidence of better quality.
I disagree – the argument has been about my statement that Ockham’s razor prefers the ‘natural’ hypothesis and since choosing between preliminary hypotheses is an appropriate use of OR, the fact that you consider the truth ‘non-determinative absent further evidence’ only increases the relevance of which hypothesis is favored by Ockham’s razor.
Given the recent nature of the discussion, I found this that I thought you might be interested in concerning monism versus dualism in the context of quantum mechanics and classical physics.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/05/21/127032176/the-actual-the-possible-and-what-s-real
Bob posted:
Clearly you’ve mastered the Republican tactic of trying to smear your opponent with your own sins. Would you care to address the points I listed at the end of my last post? Anyway, to give the lie to your statements I watched the video you posted (again – last time I watched all five parts) and did a little thinking about equivalent airspeed (EAS). The first thing I thought of was that in the video they are using the formula backward – normally you would use it to determine that (for instance) flying 722 knots at 22,000 feet was the equivalent of flying 510 knots at sea level (because the structural data available would most likely be for flight at sea level). The next thing I wondered was what the range of applicability of the EAS formula was. Because I have intellectual curiosity, I followed up on this… (yeah, you know what’s coming – I’m about to use Wikipedia to make you my bitch)
You should look this up on Wikipedia yourself to see the equations involved (and if you would like to try to determine the correct value for the EAS of Egypt Air 990), but the upshot is that the comparison to Egypt Air 990 is totally bogus. So all we’ve got is Boeing’s word (based on unreleased wind tunnel data) that the airframe would sustain those velocities and the argument by the pilots for 9/11 truth which is based on applying a formula in a way it was not intended to be used outside of its range of applicability (twice the upper bound on the velocity for which it is accurate, in fact).
One other thing that they mentioned in the video was that their (shitty) calculations meant that either (a) the planes were not unmodified 767s or (b) the NTSB numbers were not accurate. I have repeatedly stated why the NIST estimates (presumably from video of the impacts) are likely to be more accurate than the NTSB estimates (from the primary radar data). Since the NIST estimates are lower than the NTSB estimates, this makes your argument even less persuasive. In any case, I’m curious why you are following this line of argument – do you believe that the planes that hit the twin towers were not AA11 and UA175 being flown by Al-Qeada terrorists?
Bob posted:
I sent the following email to Bob and Buddha in response:
Bob posted:
I’ve continually addressed all of the arguments you’ve made line by line while you generally just pick and choose what you would like to respond to. It’s not my fault that your arguments show some serious misunderstanding and ignorance when it comes to basic physics and I will continue to point this out. In closing here are but a few of the arguments of mine that you have not seen fit to address:
The common usage of Ockham’s razor in science
The legitimacy of tracing heat backwards to its source
The lack of energy sinks beyond those which can be filled by GPE
The suggestion that the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 was aluminum, not steel
The suggestion that the jets of dust and debris from below the collapse zone were the result of air pressure not explosives
The implausibility of explosives being the mechanism which pulverized the concrete
My assertion that the GPE of the WTC implies that the collapse, once initiated, would be self-sustaining
The bowing visible in all three buildings before they collapsed
The effects of eccentric loading and heat-induced weakening of steel columns
The effects of the energy dissipated in the aircraft impacts
The holes in your ‘pencil and screen door’ analogy (pun intended ;-))
The analogy of your ‘designed to survive aircraft impact argument’ being equivalent to proving that the Titanic was unsinkable (not to mention the fact that that statement was originally made when the total computing power on the planet was probably less than what I’ve got in my laptop…)
The corrosion of aluminum in the rubble producing heat and hydrogen gas
The lack of evidence of explosive demolition charges and the implausibility of incendiary demolition charges
The primary radar data from the NTSB which shows the location of both planes every 15-30 seconds or less
The implausibility of explosives/incendiaries and their detonators surviving the aircraft impact
The implausibility of timing detonation to produce observed effects (which are exactly what would be expected if explosives were not used and the GPE was sufficient for a self-sustaining collapse)
The nature of collapse in controlled demolition (i.e. the lower supports are removed after which gravity does the work)
Are you starting to get the idea?
Buddha,
If you have a genuine problem with the dust sampling and a plausible argument as to how chips of nano-thermite are fungible in a chain of custody sense, then by all means don’t leave me guessing.
FYI, seeing body parts from 9/11 have still been turning up on building tops as recently as a few years ago, what do you think the chances are that there’s still dust to be collected on said building tops?
Finally, keep an eye on your email, I’ll forward you the links and jpgs that set forth what I mean by ‘holes in the primary radar.’ Further, when you understand who first pointed me in the general direction of said holes and why, you’ll understand why it’s by no means a ‘conspiracy theory.’
Bob,
Real and valid as best evidence are two different things.
Part 2; In re Equivalent Air Speed Limitations
The quick answer to your questions is found in the beginning of part 2 of this video. In light of how you’ve been ignoring anything I say lately, God forbid I bother you with the backing details contained in part 1.
Brief response in two parts
Slarti: So where is your evidence that a single beam in the WTC was severed or even weakened by thermitic charges?
Bob: And evidence of active nano-thermitic material in the dust, combined with the debris exhibiting the aftermath of being melted by said nano-thermitic material accounts for nothing to you … why?
Slarti: First off, the import of my question is that even if we assume that there was thermitic material used in the collapse or aftermath,
What assumption? Physical evidence of its presence negates any need for assumptions.
Slarti: Secondly, while there was evidence of molten metal, there is no specific evidence of melting via thermitic material*
Once again, all your theorizing will never supplant the import of real physical evidence.
Slarti: Finally, your sole evidence consists of the results of testing done on one sample of dubious provenance by Dr. Jones (and ONLY Dr. Jones). I have raised several objections to the scientific procedures in his study (as well as his ethics), none of which you have addressed.
The elephant in the living room, which you ignored ONCE AGAIN in your usual long-winded form, is indicative of just how much you are disengaged from principles of argumentation.
Let’s review some of the basics; shall we?
Arguing is reason giving.
Reasons are justifications or support for claims.
Rationality is the ability to engage in reason giving.
The alternative to reason giving is to accept or reject claims on whim or command.
When we speak of effective reasoning we imply a concern for an audience.
We do not offer arguments in a vacuum since success ultimately depends on the assent of an audience. And assent is based on audience acceptance of the reasoning.
NOW, when I say you’re treating the paper regarding discovery of active thermitic material in the dust of the WTC like an elephant in the living room, I’m saying that YOU’RE IGNORING IT COMPLETELY.
What reasons do I offer in support of the foregoing claim?
Well, when you copy and paste other’s comments about a topic having nothing to do with the paper in question, you exhibit the behavior of a man arguing in a vacuum. Not one thing you posted has ANYTHING to do with the paper you keep ignoring.
Further, your protestations about Jones with the implication that he is the primary author are false and misleading. Jones is the tertiary author on the paper, while Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark & Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University are the primary and secondary authors respectively. (BTW, the paper cites four sources for the dust containing something that not even a sculptor’s welding torch could produce–but why should that bother you)
And your problems with the primary and secondary authors are what?
Perhaps if you had read the paper before throwing your tantrum you would have realized that.
Slarti: You seem to be fixated on this one piece of shaky (at best) evidence to the exclusion of all else… why?
Because it’s REAL EVIDENCE.
Here’s an apt metaphor to help you understand.
“If finding aluminothermic residues in the form of spheroidal micro-droplets was like finding fired bullets at a crime scene, then the discoveries presented in Active Thermitic Material Discovered are like finding the gun loaded with several rounds of unspent ammunition that match the fired bullets.”
For further information on the importance of REAL EVIDENCE, consult your Fisher Price “See & Say.”
I will no longer be addressing your Lane’s Process arguments or your theories about how nano-thermite could occur naturally; since the former bears no relevance to the argument and the latter is about as plausible as an argument attempting to explain away a malpractice case by claiming the clamps, towels and cigarette butt sewn inside the patient could have grown “naturally.”
Finally, if your complete lack of attention to the arguments I’ve proffered weren’t insulting enough, your attempt to saddle me with your inability to distinguish work from heat, after I had corrected you, is beyond puerile and tiresome.
Either you address my arguments as I make them, i.e. not as you’d like to see them, or by definition of argumentation we have nothing further to discuss.
No disagreement. My concerns were indeed with the initial symmetries. The orderly collapse was the symptom, not the disease I was seeking.
As far as “hotter vs. cooler” equating to efficiency I have no issue with that clarification as efficiency was the effect I was referring to.
I was under the impression all the fires were fed by diesel pumped into the buildings for generators. I read a lot of stuff here and had several offline conversations and I may be confusing the two. Is so, it still doesn’t change the outcome because regardless, the lower temperatures of the fire (even factoring in only jet fuel) does not alter what the critical change in how I was picturing the collapse was, it just adds more time for it to occur. What I am not confusing though is the conversation about concrete because it wasn’t related to primarily structural concrete but incidentally structural concrete. I know concrete was primarily used in the floors and the central column and that the building was structurally a steel tube frame design. In fact, the conversation with my relative didn’t start as a WTC conversation, but a materials sciences conversation. Purposefully structural or not, concrete has compression strength. I was having issues visualizing how concrete could suffer uniform failure at a roughly contemporaneous time with the steel failing and it was perturbations caused by those incidental “imperfections” impeding an even collapse across the floor that was setting off my symmetry alarm. To me it seemed incidental structure would induce tilt without some sort of intervention, but I was working from an incomplete model. Once I realized/synthesized concrete could be made uniformly intrinsically brittle by application of heat in addition to damaged caused by the impact, any incidental structural value it had vanished from how I pictured the failure as did my doubts that fire could have caused the type of damage required to induce an even collapse across the floor.
Well, that was worth the wait… 😉 In order to respond in a more timely fashion, I’m going to separately post my commentary to each of your categories… (I’m also trying out a different format – Buddha’s words will be in italics and mine in bold.)
Symmetry In Collapse:
My concerns in this area we’re initially based on a lack of sufficient and/or evenly distributed joules from the impact and jet fuel alone to account for a symmetrical collapse. A symmetrical collapse would require key structural components to fail in an ordered or a simultaneous manner.
Since the failure was most likely ordered rather than simultaneous, the question in my mind is how quickly would a single failure propagate into a global one. Equivalently, how quickly would the load that was being carried by a beam that failed be transferred to its neighbors (causing them to fail). Byron can probably address this, but I would guess that the answer is pretty quickly. Also of note here is the difference between plastic and elastic deformation – any member stressed past the elastic limit can’t ‘snap back’ when the force is removed. Therefore it is doomed to eventual failure since it can no longer respond elastically to things like the sway of the building.
I’ve never had issues with the energy required to pancake the buildings once a floor at that elevation was effectively removed as that is what most controlled demolitions operations do – take out supports along several floors and let the PE do the rest of the work.
Thank you, I’ve been trying to make that point for months…
First, the introduction that diesel under pressure was pumped through the tower addressed some of the net joules questions for me. Jet fuel of the grade used in commercial airliners is a lot like kerosene on steroids. It burns at lower flashpoints (and autoignition points) than gasoline but it also burns cooler absent the pressurization present in a duct engine.
I just have some clarification here – in WTC7, it is my understanding that the diesel fuel didn’t ignite in aerosolized form – rather, it was pumped out of the underground tanks and pooled around truss #2. Also, it doesn’t burn ‘hotter’ or ‘cooler’ (although the flashpoint and autoignition point are lowered in aerosol form as Buddha said), it burns more efficiently – the same number of Joules are released by burning a given quantity of fuel, it’s just a question of how long it takes for the fuel to completely burn (and WTC7 had hours in which to burn all of the fuel – which it apparently did since no fuel was found in the debris). Also, computer simulations showed that the failure of column #79 under the presumed conditions present in the building would lead to the observed failure mode (penthouse first, et cetera). As for WTC1 and WTC2, the kerosene was essentially lighter fluid (which is exactly how my grandfather used to use kerosene). The impacts in both towers created piles of office debris which were covered in kerosene and ignited by the fireball. In a few minutes the kerosene burned off and left a flaming mass of debris.
This relates to my symmetry concerns as it didn’t seem right that the quantity and quality of fuel from one plane could upon an asymmetrical impact distribute around the central column 1) sufficiently evenly distributed enough to cause uniform collapse characteristics at 2) a relatively cool temperatures.
It’s my understanding that a single failure ultimately led to a global collapse – it wasn’t symmetric so much as it happened very quickly. In fact, in the WTC2 collapse the lack of symmetry led to the ’tilting’ of the upper block (Dr. Greening’s paper provides a mathematical treatment of this as does Bazant et al.). In fact, the impact on WTC2 (mostly) missing the core may have made matters worse due to the more eccentric loading placed on the unsevered columns (more weight bearing on the impact zone was certainly an important factor as well).
The addition of pressurized diesel to the scenario removed the distribution concern. To reach that height, the pipehead pressure (once the integrity of the pipe was breached) would spread enough fuel around to make the burn even enough around the central column although diesel has similar burn characteristics to commercial jet fuel. The lower temperature fire – if even across the structure – would simply require more time. Thus my concerns about distribution of fuel were addressed by factoring in the diesel.
There wasn’t any diesel fuel (pressurized or otherwise) involved in the impact zones in WTC1 or WTC2 as far as I know.
This concern for symmetry was also related to timing. I had these concerns alleviated by a discussion with an architect/engineer in the family about how concrete behaves in a fire. Ever have an “ah ha!” and a “duh.” at the same time? When I had been visualizing the collapse of the central column I was thinking about the primary mechanism for concrete failure being the distortion of embedded re-bar by heat. As I was discussing this, my relative asked me a question. “If you dismiss the acid damage caused by pollution and simple erosion, why are the buildings of the Romans crumbling?”
Ah ha! Duh.
Um… I hate to step on your realization, but the only concrete in the WTC construction was the 4″ slabs in the floor plans. The structural steel was merely covered with fire-resistant insulation (blown off of some beams in the impact).
Because concrete only has compression strength and the nature of where this strength comes from. Without re-bar, concrete gains its strength from cement mixed with water and aggregate. When the concrete cures, enough water has evaporated out of the mix for it to be solid for building purposes but that once all the water is evaporated out, the cement starts to lose cohesion as the bonds holding the cement together break and it wants to become a granular solid again. Concrete “rot”. Accelerated drying by a fire. Half dozen on one hand, six on the other. This property of concrete under heat took care of “enough” of my time concerns related to symmetrical collapse. If the central column failed in an roughly even manner, the rest is gravity.
Again, the concrete in the WTC wasn’t structural, so it’s failure mode is not relevant. What is relevant (regarding the concrete) is the amount and method by which it was pulverized. I say that about 10% of the concrete was pulverized by impact as each floor collapsed and have provided estimates of the size of this energy sink which are consistent with both the natural hypothesis and observations of the dust cloud and rubble. I have also provided the estimate that it would take the equivalent of 600 metric tons of TNT placed in pre-drilled boreholes in the concrete floor slabs to pulverize 10% of the concrete.
Apparently I had misunderstood your concerns about symmetry before – I thought you were concerned about the buildings collapsing roughly into their own footprints and you’ve made it clear that you understand that this failure mode is to be expected given a global failure in the impact zone. Let me know if you’d like to renew any of your objections to the initial failure mode or if you disagree with anything I’ve said.
Okay okay okay.
I had a much longer response I was editing down Saturday and I realized it had a fatal flaw. One flaw which with I simply could not abide.
It was boring as Hell.
So I’ve opted for a shorter summary format even though it meant a re-write.
I’ll break it down into the following categories: Symmetry In Collapse, Thermal Evidence, Chemical Evidence, Radar Evidence, and Scientific Method vs. Methodological Reductionism/Ramblings On Proper Tool Usage.
Symmetry In Collapse:
My concerns in this area we’re initially based on a lack of sufficient and/or evenly distributed joules from the impact and jet fuel alone to account for a symmetrical collapse. A symmetrical collapse would require key structural components to fail in an ordered or a simultaneous manner. I’ve never had issues with the energy required to pancake the buildings once a floor at that elevation was effectively removed as that is what most controlled demolitions operations do – take out supports along several floors and let the PE do the rest of the work.
First, the introduction that diesel under pressure was pumped through the tower addressed some of the net joules questions for me. Jet fuel of the grade used in commercial airliners is a lot like kerosene on steroids. It burns at lower flashpoints (and autoignition points) than gasoline but it also burns cooler absent the pressurization present in a duct engine.
This relates to my symmetry concerns as it didn’t seem right that the quantity and quality of fuel from one plane could upon an asymmetrical impact distribute around the central column 1) sufficiently evenly distributed enough to cause uniform collapse characteristics at 2) a relatively cool temperatures. The addition of pressurized diesel to the scenario removed the distribution concern. To reach that height, the pipehead pressure (once the integrity of the pipe was breached) would spread enough fuel around to make the burn even enough around the central column although diesel has similar burn characteristics to commercial jet fuel. The lower temperature fire – if even across the structure – would simply require more time. Thus my concerns about distribution of fuel were addressed by factoring in the diesel.
This concern for symmetry was also related to timing. I had these concerns alleviated by a discussion with an architect/engineer in the family about how concrete behaves in a fire. Ever have an “ah ha!” and a “duh.” at the same time? When I had been visualizing the collapse of the central column I was thinking about the primary mechanism for concrete failure being the distortion of embedded re-bar by heat. As I was discussing this, my relative asked me a question. “If you dismiss the acid damage caused by pollution and simple erosion, why are the buildings of the Romans crumbling?”
Ah ha! Duh.
Because concrete only has compression strength and the nature of where this strength comes from. Without re-bar, concrete gains its strength from cement mixed with water and aggregate. When the concrete cures, enough water has evaporated out of the mix for it to be solid for building purposes but that once all the water is evaporated out, the cement starts to lose cohesion as the bonds holding the cement together break and it wants to become a granular solid again. Concrete “rot”. Accelerated drying by a fire. Half dozen on one hand, six on the other. This property of concrete under heat took care of “enough” of my time concerns related to symmetrical collapse. If the central column failed in an roughly even manner, the rest is gravity.
Thermal Evidence
What Bob points to is indeed puzzling evidence. However, the heat of fusion/thermal retention line of reasoning was addressed by Slarti in a way perfectly suited for the adversarial process. He addressed 1) a chain of custody issue, 2) a sampling issue and 3) an integrity issue about the declarative expert offered. While Bob’s reasoning in finding this anomalous information was a sound display of what I think reductionism is best at (finding holes in standards of proof and certain kinds of causal analysis), he built the counter argument for natural collapse on the basis of questionable evidence in both quality and source of expertise. Evidence is only as good as its intrinsic qualities of relevance, probative value and veracity. An interesting anomaly from a questionable sampling and source makes for interesting cocktail chit-chat, but not an argument with any kind of conclusory certainty.
While curious, this argument ends exactly where I said it would: non-determinative absent further evidence of better quality.
Chemical Evidence:
Slarti is too quick to dismiss the chemistry. Although I agree that with all the raw ingredients under such high energy conditions, the most likely source for the residues in question is “natural” (as opposed to manufactured). This does not change that nano-thermite does not have the flaws as a CD material its non-engineered cousin does. It burns and ignites evenly for one thing. It could be used as a demolitions material. And another interesting thing about metastable intermolecular composites (MIC) and micro-engineered explosives is that not only are the materials themselves capable of interesting burn characteristics, but a common method of manufacturing seems to be forms of vapor deposition allowing multiple compounds to be layered to get special and specific effects. Imagine the wet dream an explosives expert has when he’s told he can not only engineer each material, he can wafer it any way he wants? C-4 and thermite? No problem. Centex, a pre-heater and a heat activated dispersal accelerant? You got it. If (IF!) this was an inside job, the chemistry could point to enough suspicious compounds to merit further investigation into whether or not MIC’s were involved. They are not “your daddy’s” explosives. This being said, raw ingredients plus high energy exchange event is the most likely causation for the residues. It is, however, not the only possible explanation. I said “possible” and not “plausible” or “probable” because this is where the Razor cuts.
Ultimately both the chemical and thermal evidence lead to the same wall and that wall is complexity again. This time though it’s complexity in execution. The sheer number of people required to deploy such a scenario as CD and the associated support activities would guarantee a leak somewhere. A secret is only as secure as its circle of trust and a circle of trust, even when divided into cells, is like any machine and/or construct: more parts equals more error. I know too many humans to think this would be possible without a leak. We’re chatty, inquisitive creatures (excluding Bush who’s just chatty). And we gossip like mad.
With the net joules required for pancaking addressed to my satisfaction, relatively equal distribution of fuel and re-evaluated properties of concrete addressing timing and symmetry of the collapse(s), and the logistics of pulling off such a stunt? I think natural orderly collapse is both a reasonable conclusion using the Scientific Method and properly so by application of Occam’s Razor despite there being outstanding evidence of a curious nature. This doesn’t mean the CD argument is totally without merit logically, just based on evidence of insufficient quality to trump another perfectly reasonable explanation (and more plausible as it requires no supervening force or factor just facts certain). Arguments are like any construct. Fewer moving parts means less to break.
Radar Evidence:
Not really following that line of the argument to be honest. It goes beyond my threshold of logical consideration by assumption of misdoing without better evidence from the site itself to merit an expanded scope. If the evidence of Bob’s selection was from a stronger source, I’d be more inclined to follow about what essentially amounts to a “downline” part of a conspiracy without proving the object outcome conspiracy proper. In other words, it’s a bit like trying to argue for a lesser and included offense without being able to prove the crime proper. I’m not discounting the idea but the utility of the argument at this point in time ergo I have not been following that part of the discussion. Call it my selection bias if you must call it a bias but even thought experiments need limitations.
Scientific Method vs. Methodological Reductionism/Ramblings On Proper Tool Usage:
Tools. They are part of what defines us as a species. Both in design and application, we’d all be extras in “Quest for Fire” and Purina Lion Chow © without our tools.
All tools have a logic. Logic is the Mother of All Tools. As logic often tends to be linear, so to tools. A hammer has a logic when viewed in the context of a human arm and leverage. All one needs to understand this logic is to 1) be human (familiar with our biology at a minimum) and 2) critically examine the tool (it’s a lever with a striking head when viewed in the context of an arm). Some logics, however, are differential. Let’s stay in the realm of the mechanical and use gearing as our example of a differential logic made manifest as a tool. It is the very differential nature of gearing that makes it useful for transforming one kind of energy to another or into direct work. For example the gearing of a car turns rotational of the crank shaft energy into forward momentum via gearing and an axle that turns perpendicular to the drive shaft to put that force on wheels and from there to the ground – turning rotational energy of the engines output into work of the wheels thus moving the car.
All tools as with all logics have certain built in biases. These biases need not affect the utility of the tool so long as they are kept in mind as a limitation. Such biases would be found in “perfect tools” as at some level Gödel’s math kicks in and we have a fact of design and/or function in the tool that is built upon something assumed true even absent proof. An example of this is the (likely true) assumption that the speed of lights is a universal constant for most astronomical calculations although there are some cosmological theories that say this may not be the case for all regions of space. This bias is clearly not detrimental to every or even most equations it is applied to although it is helpful to mindful of any tool’s limitations as you are of their strengths. A hammer is biased to be a striking lever tool just as a screwdriver is biased to be a torque tool. Each can be used to do the others job, just not very well (as the design biases are too pronounced).
It is these limitations and strengths that have been on display in contrasting the Scientific Method and Methodological Reductionism. Both have utility in the same endeavor, making sense of the universe, albeit it sometimes the methods clash. Too this end, let’s address the fundamentals of the tools.
The Scientific Method is a systematic way of verifying reality versus a given hypotheses. A scientist first makes a hypotheses to explain the information gleaned from direct observation and/or data in the attempt to explain the nature of reality in a rational and repeatable manner. Secondly, to this end, experiments are devised, conducted and observations made/data collected. Finally, as a check on the system, independent verification of the test results either confirm or deny the validity of the hypotheses. Some few hypotheses turn out to be so manifestly true and universal in application that they become known as scientific laws such as the laws of thermodynamics. In summary, the Scientific Method is 1) theory, 2) repeatable test(s) and 3) independent confirmation of results. A fairly straight forward proposition as it has been since the time of Al-Hazen and Galileo.
Reductionism, on the other hand, is deceptively simple. It is on its barest face the proposition that to understand a complex system one must understand the components in the simplest terms possible. It can be used as an underpinning in any number of analytical rational endeavors from the study of history to the study of the sciences. When discussing reductionism from the Kantian perspective, it is helpful to dissect reductionism to a bit more granular definition. Generally speaking there are three forms of reductionism: theoretical, methodological and ontological.
Let’s start with a scientific restatement that methodological reductionism is a sound strategy for reducing explanations to their smallest possible cause(s). This is a preference of scale in that a scientific methodological reductionist would prefer a quantum explanation over an atomic explanation over a chemical explanation as the quantum mechanical solution would constitute the smallest constituent parts/solution for a given object/event. This tool, in effect, is much like a scalpel. It is useful for logical deconstruction which in turn makes it a great tool for examination of both systems and the intrinsic nature of discrete objects/events. This idea will come back into play presently.
Theoretical reductionism is seen in science when a previously asserted theory is subsumed or supplanted by later work. For example, Gregor Mendel’s work in mathematically describing the genetics of peas – referred to as classical genetics – has been supplanted by the molecular genetics of Watson and Crick. Analogous to this in law we find the concepts of stare decisis, res judicata and codification (in the Napoleonic sense, in which codices are a distillation of case law and legislation, as opposed to the Common Law sense where codes are usually little more than a grouping of related laws and regulations), all of which carry past precedents and/or legislation forward into the future in a simplified form of accepted current cites and codes. I think the history of genetics provides the clearer example of this proposition but I included law to show that theoretical reductionism has utility in simplification in multiple fields of study. I like to think of it as “The Law of the Conservation of Laws”. We are not directly concerned with theoretical reductionism at this point, but more on this later.
Ontological reductionism is a more philosophical and metaphysical application of the concept. It is the idea that all objects and events can be reducible to a single or a small set of substances. This is a form of monism, dualism and/or the kind of thinking that led the Humorism (the Greek/Roman notion that the body is composed of four humors – black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood). It is tangentially important to this discussion proper, but it should be of note this is Bob’s taproot into Kant. Kant was making epistemological attacks on traditional metaphysics to assert that the mind must work with certain underpinnings, namely causality and the innate preexisting properties of objects/events as either a cause or an effect and that these properties are constrained by the ability of the human mind to define them based on experience and reason. A consequence of this line of reasoning is that objects/events outside experience cannot be known rationally, ergo while science is rooted in the mind’s experience and reason, some metaphysical questions simply cannot be answered (like “Why are we here?”) because we as humans have no proper frame of reference lacking the experience and logical examination required for actual understanding. Kant was in effect applying methodological reductionism in a critique of critical thought to create an ontological argument about the limits and sources of knowledge. In this, he was trying to bridge the gap between empiricists (those who argue that experience alone is knowledge) and rationalists (who argue reason alone is knowledge as experience is subject to Cartesian doubt). Kant would have liked Ian Ketterling’s statement that “logic is a way to go wrong with absolute certainty” as this is the very tactic he took to the rationalist viewpoint – reason alone can lead to illusory conclusions. Conversely he argued that the empiricists were wrong because experience without critical examination in the the light of reason is merely subjective. Thus we get Kant’s proposition that a synthesis of experience and reason must inform one another to get the only verifiable solutions, thus rendering anything outside our experience unknown as it would anything beyond our ability to reason.
Which brings us back to methodological reductionism and an argument by analogy. If methodological reductionism is like a scalpel, with the inherent limitations of a deconstructionalist tool, then the Scientific Method is like a net. Theories set the hypothetical weave, experiments define the lines of the weave for application of the weave, and results net the fish in the form of scientific understanding. However, just like a net, the Method has holes in it. These holes are not a result of the tool proper as the tool is fairly simple. These holes rather are created by the completionist nature human psychology and sometimes ego. A good example of this is Einstein’s refusal to accept a consequence of his own work, quantum mechanics. People like things to make sense as a whole. It is well established that the human mind will fill in gaps in information to form a perception based on partial and/or biased information if it make a complete pattern to their perception. Einstein’s bias was against the random being a child of the Newtonian idea of a clockwork universe. As such, his ego would not let him accept that his net caught an unexpected fish. This resulting in a classic exchange of quotes when Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe” and Bohr responded, “Stop telling God what to do with His dice.” These are the holes in the net of the Scientific Method – humans will gloss over or ignore data if it 1) creates a clearer picture for them or 2) it contradicts their preconceptions and/or biases from other sources. Part of the reason for the independent verification process is to reduce the size of these holes as very often refinement of theory comes directly from experimentation.
The tools, the Scientific Method and Methodological Reductionism, both have inherent limitations and strengths accordingly.
This was reflected in Slarti’s sometimes casual dismissal of some evidence as it could cast doubt on his Method based conclusions. His mind and ergo his thinking and argument were confined by his choice of base tool/analytical construct. In this instance, this was not fatal error as the tool rendered a solution that is rational and applicable in light of Occam’s Razor and covers the key issue of were there enough joules to cause a collapse absent a supervening force. This, however, might not have been the case had the quality of Bob’s evidence been better (still combined with the suspect chemistry).
This was also reflected in Bob’s argument which failed for two reasons – 1) correlation between effect and cause based on evidence that doesn’t conform to the rules of best evidence and 2) creating a fallacy of distribution (assumption that’s what true for the parts is true for the whole). One key data point hinged upon evidence of suspect quality even by legal standards does not an actual conspiracy make.
At this point, I’d like to make everyone’s head explode by playing Devil’s Advocate and suggesting the best way to stage an accident is to make it look like an accident by the evidence. I know. I’m evil that way.
In a more general sense, this highlights both tools limitations in the face of uncertainty, complexity and scale. Some would argue that complex systems cannot be understood solely upon a component basis and this would mean that reductionism in science and other applications carries the innate capacity to create errors via oversimplification and/or biases in both the tools and the users. I would be in that camp. Complexity is a differential logic. Order changes depending upon what scale a given system is viewed from. The perfect example of this are the graphic representations of fractals. The order of the patterns change depending upon view point which is directly relative to scale.
The net and the scalpel can both yield true (or false) patterns. Ergo, the best approach for defining true knowledge is in the synthesis in tool use. For if logic is the Mother of All Tools, then synthesis is the Father of All Knowledge. One cannot accurately synthesize without accurate inputs. In this, tools should be selected and used with an eye toward maximum error correction. This is a statement even Kant would have a hard time arguing as it mirrors his very criticisms of the empiricists versus the rationalists.
Now aren’t you glad I chose to summarize?
Bob posted:
Bob posted:
A short time after posting this and the subsequent responses:
Bob; “Absolutely wrong. Once energy is used for work it is no longer available for the creation of heat. You can’t use it twice.”
To which you responded: “I challenge you to run this idea past any physicist on the planet. Once they stop laughing, maybe you can get them to explain the concepts of work and conservation of energy to you.”
I went back to my college physics text for to clarify for myself what I wrote so instinctually. After a brief review of the basics of conservative and non-conservative forces I thumbed ahead to the section on “Heat & Work.” Lo & behold I found this:
“We have seen that heat is the energy that flows from one body to another because of a temperature difference between them. “
“Work is similar to heat in that it is a measure of energy being transferred from one body to another. In fact work may be defined as energy that is transmitted from one system to another in such a way that a difference of temperature is not directly involved.”
“Work is a measure of energy transfer by mechanical means, such as by gravitational, electrical, or magnetic forces. Heat is a measure of energy transfer by means of temperature differences.” (Fundamentals of Physics, 2nd Ed., Halliday, Resnick 1986)
So, restating what I said earlier, once you’ve used a measure of energy as work, you can’t use that same measure of energy again as heat BY DEFINITION.
So I ask you, in regards to this:
Slarti: “I challenge you to run this idea past any physicist on the planet. Once they stop laughing, maybe you can get them to explain the concepts of work and conservation of energy to you.”
What’s so funny?
This?
Slarti: “The thermal energy generated via internal friction is equal to the energy used to bend the beam – energy is neither created nor destroyed in this (or any other) process.”
The measure of energy used to bend the beam is called work. Thermal energy is not work. See definitions of work and heat above. And not for nothing, but it was because I’d grown tired of your distortions of the definitions of work and heat with comments like that last one, along you’re your “meat” insults based on such nonsense, that I felt like I needed a break this thread recently.
Slarti: “I almost missed this whopper – the energy in the battery is converted into kinetic energy – i.e. the boat is accelerated to a certain SPEED. The boat loses this energy due to friction between the hull and the water (and air). I suppose you think that ships in space need engines to keep moving like in the movies…”
I’m not sure you’d call that pure friction. Regardless, I believe my battery operated boat metaphor (regarding the distinction between work and heat) strayed into an area of which I’m pretty much ignorant; i.e. fluid dynamics. A man’s got to know his limitations. Accordingly, I must abandon the metaphor.
However, speaking of knowing limitations …
Slarti: “And they were capable of traveling the observed velocities at sea level – UA175 may have sustained more structural fatigue than normal, but that’s not really significant now, is it?”
A 767 traveling 510 knots at or near sea level would be traveling 150 knots over its operating limit set by Boeing and an EQUIVALENT AIR SPEED of 85 knots FASTER than Egypt Air 990 just when it broke up. IOW, it’s impossible for a 767 to travel 510 knots at or near sea level without breaking up, much less under any semblance of control; therefore IT’S QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
Slarti: “we find that the engines are capable of a (level flight) velocity of 558 knots at sea level.”
Whatever you say.
Slarti: “I really don’t know what point you are trying to make about holes in the primary radar”
That’s because you first need to take the time to consider what’s being said in that congressional testimony I linked you to. Instead of thinking in terms of mechanics, try geometry; i.e. area once covered; then not covered as certain primary radars are turned off.
Slarti: “where are the ‘holes’ that you are talking about?”
Nine years after the fact and you can’t find them, yet those 4 planes had no problem finding them PERFECTLY on 9/11/01 when said information was classified.
Slarti: Bob, you’re making even less sense than usual – if I’m wrong about the primary radar, show me where the holes in the data are and explain how they are significant to this discussion.
Before I show you, you need to comprehend the gravity of such information and what such knowledge necessitates.
Any who…
Let’s briefly sum up where we differ on the energy topic. You say there was enough stored GPE in the tower to account for the collapse and the molten metal at ground zero. Yet you’ve yet to adequately explain the mechanics responsible for the creation of said molten metal at ground zero.
I say there was not enough DIRECTED ENERGY to cause the creation of the large quantities of molten metal observed at ground zero; that the collapse was never sufficiently investigated or explained in light of said molten metal and the nature of the collapses themselves; and finally that the entire issue has been turned on its head by the discovery of active nano-thermitic material (i.e. Real Evidence) within the dust of the WTC last year.
Oooh, look at that elephant sitting on the coffee table…
Slarti: So where is your evidence that a single beam in the WTC was severed or even weakened by thermitic charges?
And evidence of active nano-thermitic material in the dust, combined with the debris exhibiting the aftermath of being melted by said nano-thermitic material accounts for nothing to you … why?
Slarti: “Experiments could be done in order to establish if there is heat generation via Lane’s process under the sort of circumstances present in the rubble”
Me: Like superheated steam being passed over porous iron? You don’t know when to let go do you?
Slarti: It’s a chemical reaction – conditions don’t have to be ideal for it to occur – you have never provided any evidence for what the minimal conditions under which it will occur (and generate heat) and how the reaction rate is effected by those conditions.
Nor have I provided any evidence for what the minimal conditions under which leprechauns would appear with zippo lighters. Whose burden? Your point?
Slarti: “How do you plan of proving that the WTC collapse was initiated or accelerated by thermitic charges?”
Me: Well, considering that real evidence of active nano-thermitic material found within the dust of the WTC would be the elephant the living room, I might start there.
Slarti: So you’re starting with the evidence that I’ve shown is highly dubious from a scientific point of view for a whole host of reasons which I have indicated? Please continue…
Actually, you’ve never addressed that elephant in the living room directly. You’ve danced around it many times and attempted to make us disregard it for reasons and arguments that were collateral at best, but you never did address that elephant in the living room directly. Why is that do you suppose?
Slarti: As I’ve shown, there are no anomalies which suggest the use of thermitic (or any) explosives or incendiaries and a number of problems with accomplishing the results you suggest with said materials. But I guess logic, reason and scientific fact aren’t an obstacle to you.
So the molten metal and the active thermitic material in the dust; not relevant why?
Me: Then I’d argue why the new investigation into the matter shouldn’t be led by spineless liberals who have a problem with the death penalty. After all, we wouldn’t want their fear of putting a traitor to death interfering with their analysis.
Slarti: I’m a liberal who is against the death penalty (it seems to me to be un-American, barbaric and to go against the very principles of our justice system),
So when George Washington informed Major John Andre that he would die by the felon’s noose, he was being barbaric and un-American?
BTW, I disagree with Kant regarding the death penalty. The criminal justice system’s reliance on the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” necessitates a margin of error and therefore the execution of innocents. Since employing categorical imperative on that level would necessitate the eventual execution of all mankind, I reserve the death penalty for the highest crime of all; TREASON.
Slarti: but if you are referring to President Bush and Dick the war criminal, your ludicrous charges of treason for complicity in 9/11 only serves to help marginalize those who would like to see them prosecuted for the real crimes (like torture and other war crimes) that they have committed.
You say Bush& Cheney and stop there; I say go where the evidence and investigation take you. Further, Vincent Bugliosi has already tied the noose for Bush & Cheney in his book “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”
Slarti: “And in any case, I wouldn’t want anyone punished at all on the basis of your ‘analysis’.”
I’m not a prosecutor presenting a case you juristic whiz.
Bob posted:
Bob, you’re making even less sense than usual – if I’m wrong about the primary radar, show me where the holes in the data are and explain how they are significant to this discussion.
Bob posted:
Slarti: “meaning that all 480 GJ ultimately ended up as heat”
Absolutely wrong. Once energy is used for work it is no longer available for the creation of heat. You can’t use it twice.
Slarti; “No. Energy is ‘used up’ when it has been converted to uniformly distributed heat (it can no longer do be used to do work). Over half of the 480 GJ was converted to heat by being used to collapse structure, pulverize concrete, expel dust and debris, etc.”
You just re-defined work again. Work USES energy everywhere in the world except your imagination.
Slarti: What do you think happens to the energy used to do work? If you bend a steel beam, what happens to the energy you used to do it?”
The energy is used in the bending and excess energy is released due to internal friction.
What do you think happens with a battery operated boat? The energy in the battery is converted to mechanical force that pushes the boat a certain distance. While some of the energy is converted to heat via mechanical friction, the majority of the energy is used up in the creation of the work that moved the boat forward.
Slarti: “I was making a point about the amount of energy dissipated in the descent of the planes”
Which bears no relevance at all to the amount of energy observed at impact. The planes could have dropped 40,000 feet in five minutes — yet they would still have been bound by their operational and structural limitations. Doesn’t matter where the speed came from, it only matters how fast they were capable of traveling at the point of impact.
Slarti: “The acceleration of a plane in a vacuum would have nothing to do with its jets – I suggest that you review Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion.”
That’s you failing to appreciate the stupidity of your metaphor. “Plus thrust from their engines” you said…
Slarti: “Given this fact, it seems easily possible for both planes to reach their observed impact speeds given the kinetic energy gained in their descent (plus thrust from their engines).”
Slarti: “Do you really think that you understand physics better than me?”
You have an incredibly poor intuitive grasp of the subject; thus the reason for your moronic metaphors.
Slarti: “In a steep dive, anyway. Don’t you think that gravity helped to accelerate the plane?”
Bob: “Hint: The WTC wasn’t 22,000 feet tall; it existed in, how shall we say, MUCH DENSER AIR at sea level. But why should facts like that bother you Slarti.”
Slarti: “And why should you let the fact that a 767-200 has plenty of power to achieve the impact velocities estimated by NIST at sea level bother you?”
You’re not only weaseling your way around the physics, you’re ignoring the limitations set forth by Boeing. Your shamelessness knows no bounds.
Slarti: “I didn’t say anything about holes in the primary radar – I was talking about the sample rate of radar.”
No, you didn’t say anything about holes in the primary radar, but YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE.
Thus the reason for this request
Slarti: “Then please, by all means, explain what you mean by a ‘hole in primary radar’.
Thus making you a (what’s the word?)
Slarti: “If you knew anything you would be able to explain it to everyone and make me look like the idiot you seem to think I am.”
I already did. For when I posted the link to McNally’s 1999 Senate testimony about the problems with turning off primary radar starting in June 2000 [THUS CREATING SAID HOLES IN PRIMARY RADAR] you ignored it all and continued with this…
Slarti: “As I explained above, the primary radar only painted the plane once every 15-30 seconds. This isn’t very good data to determine impact speed.”
Rather than admit you had no idea what you were talking about, you kept on talking about the non-subject like some trite sit-com character. Pathetic.
Slarti: “And has nothing to do with anything that I’ve been talking about.”
Seeing you completely ignored the topic of holes in the primary radar completely, your observation is irrelevant.
Slarti: “The location of the planes were known by air traffic control on the morning of 9/11”
And the people watching the radar that day saw it happen. Which is why some of those who knew where the holes in the primary radar were that day would later claim “They weren’t good; THEY WERE PERFECT.”
Slarti: “No, holes in the primary radar coverage have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.”
Yeah, it’s just a bunch of incredible coincidences.
Slarti: “{despite the fact that significantly more kinetic energy was dissipated in the impact of UA175 on the south tower and there was considerably more weight bearing on the impact zone.}”
AAL175 missed the core.
That doesn’t change the fact that UA175 had more kinetic energy. The amount of damage done is equal to the amount of kinetic energy dissipated – in both towers kinetic energy primarily went to crushing the plane and damaging the building. There was plenty of structure to damage across several floors even missing the core.
Slarti: “I notice that you didn’t respond with your own comprehensive theory of the collapse which requires controlled demolition.”
Would you like Buddha to explain it again for you?
I keep hoping that Buddha will get back into this discussion. While the hypothesis you support covers all of the theories involving deliberately planted explosives/incendiaries (at least if they involve some sort of thermitic material) – just as my hypothesis includes all theories that don’t involve unnatural accelerants – the fact that you can’t come up with a single plausible, internally consistent comprehensive theory of the collapse doesn’t bode well for your theory. And since I’ve been arguing about which theory Ockham’s razor favors from the beginning, your protestations that you can’t be tied to the CD theory are pretty weak.
Slarti: “Much of the 480 GJ of GPE was converted to heat by work done to ’shred’ the building.”
The foregoing sentence results from your problem with defintions;
Yet, once again, you totally fail to find any sort of definition of work which doesn’t agree with everything that I’ve said…
to wit:
Slarti: “work is the process by which energy is converted from one form to another”
Once again, energy is the capacity for doing work; [Yes.] Work refers to an activity involving a force and movement in the direction of the force (e.g. vector); [That’s mechanical work, specifically.] Power is the rate of doing work or the rate of using energy. [Yes, and you use energy by converting it from one form to another or transferring it from one location to another.] Work is not the ‘process by which energy is converted from one form to another.’ [Yes, it is.] Why? Because WORK IS THE USE OF ENERGY.
Yes, work is the use of energy and energy is used by being converted to another form of energy or transferred to another location. If this were not true then energy would be either created or destroyed, violating the law of conservation of energy.
Accordingly, when you say “Much of the 480 GJ of GPE was converted to heat by work done to ’shred’ the building” you’ve said nothing meaningful; since work and heat remain two distinct energy components to be subtracted from the initial 480 GJ and you have not added a single predicate to either.
Work is done by gravity converting GPE to KE after which further work is done by various processes which ultimately led to the KE being converted to thermal energy. Many of these processes involved the violent destruction of the buildings. All 480 GJ of energy were conserved in this process (meaning that all 480 GJ ultimately ended up as heat).
Therefore, when you say “I believe that enough heat to liquify over 500 metric tons of iron (assuming the iron is at room temperature) was generated in the collapse of each tower.”
You have said that 450 GJ was used up when that heat ‘was generated’ — leaving only 30 GJ (using your 2007 Ulrich numbers) for ‘work’ in tearing down the tower.
No. Energy is ‘used up’ when it has been converted to uniformly distributed heat (it can no longer do be used to do work). Over half of the 480 GJ was converted to heat by being used to collapse structure, pulverize concrete, expel dust and debris, etc.
Total work done does not include heat generated. Heat generated represents excess energy used in the process; not a part of the work.
What do you think happens to the energy used to do work? If you bend a steel beam, what happens to the energy you used to do it?
Slarti: “I have my doubts that you will ever understand the physics involved no matter how clear my explanations are. But I could be wrong, Meat.”
Keep insulting me; I’m sure in your world that form of argumentation makes you sound all the more convincing.
No, it amuses me. My arguments don’t need any help (especially since I’ve supported them with references that you are unable to refute). How many terms, definitions, and concepts have I provided references for that you have never refuted – most of which you’ve said or implied were incorrect based on nothing but your unsupported word.
Slarti: “Since the rest of this paragraph contains factually true statements that can be verified (although the final one is merely a statement about my perception) I don’t really feel the need to defend them”
Let’s take quick look at the inanity of the following:
Slarti: “If you look at both plots, you will see that both aircraft descended over 30,000 feet in the 10 minutes before impact. As you should know by now, this means an enormous amount of GPE was dissipated – in fact, the GPE dissipated was the equivalent energy of the planes traveling 835 knots!”
Wow; so I guess 30,000 feet in 10 minutes isn’t 29.6 knots? It’s 835 knots? So if the plane descended 845,000 feet in ten minutes, then how fast would it REALLY be traveling?
An airplane weighing 128 tons at 30,000 feet has about 11.58 GJ of gravitational potential energy (with respect to the ground). The same airplane traveling at 835 knots has about 11.58 GJ of kinetic energy. These two quantities are what we call equal. When a plane descends 30,000 feet it must dissipate 11.58 GJ of energy – this is converted into kinetic energy and then dissipated through atmospheric friction.
Slarti: “This means that if the planes were dropped from 30,000 feet with no air resistance, they would be going 835 knots at impact.”
Really? Move over Bernoulli, here comes a plane that sustains altitude in a vacuum!
Can you really not imagine the thought experiment of dropping a plane from 30,000 feet in a vacuum? I would think you would realize that the term ‘dropped’ indicates that the plane does not sustain altitude.
I find it laughable that you’re willing to venture so far into your absurd metaphors as to remove the very predicate that makes the existence of the object of your analysis possible;
You mean the Earth? Since the object of this analysis is the GPE of the plane, the metaphor doesn’t require air, just the planet (which is implied by giving an altitude).
while asking your audience to ‘believe’ it could ever apply to the real world problem at hand.
I was making a point about the amount of energy dissipated in the descent of the planes – their gravitational potential energy is real and must be dissipated via conversion to kinetic energy in order for the plane to descend.
Slarti: “Given this fact, it seems easily possible for both planes to reach their observed impact speeds given the kinetic energy gained in their descent (plus thrust from their engines).”
Given the fabricated fact that a plane, i.e. an object that owes its existence to air,
A plane owe its existence to air? Sorry, Bob, but planes can continue to exist in a vacuum.
is able to accelerate free fall in a vacuum, WHILE using jets that would have NO EFFECT without said existence of air to push through said jets
The acceleration of a plane in a vacuum would have nothing to do with its jets – I suggest that you review Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion.
(yes folks, this is Slarti world)
Right, a world in which the laws of physics are obeyed…
then the planes would reach their observed impact speeds (i.e. those speeds physically precluded by the existence of said air at sea level.)
In descending the planes dissipate 11 GJ of GPE as KE (and dissipate KE due to atmospheric drag). This is why planes can go faster in a dive than in level flight (or a climb), but even discounting this added KE the engines of the 767 have a maximum thrust of 222 kN (each). Assuming a coefficient of drag of 0.031 (equal to a 747) and a mass density of air of 1.225 kg/m^3 at sea level the 767 has enough power to fly at 558 knots.
Slarti: “Anyone still reading this can judge my grasp of the physics”
Indeed.
Do you really think that you understand physics better than me? That’s cute.
Slarti: “We know that a similar plane in a steep dive (EA 990) can reach Mach 1 or thereabouts,”
Near Mach 1 at 22,000 feet while accelerating straight down…
In a steep dive, anyway. Don’t you think that gravity helped to accelerate the plane?
Slarti: “so just slightly decreasing from cruising velocity during the descent seems well within the realm of possibility. Especially given that the 767-200 is an overpowered plane.”
Hint: The WTC wasn’t 22,000 feet tall; it existed in, how shall we say, MUCH DENSER AIR at sea level. But why should facts like that bother you Slarti.
And why should you let the fact that a 767-200 has plenty of power to achieve the impact velocities estimated by NIST at sea level bother you?
Slarti: “I’d be willing to wager that I’ve spent a lot more time studying this problem than you.”
Which is why you were beating your chest about holes in the primary radar when you had ABSOLUTELY no idea what you were talking about?
I didn’t say anything about holes in the primary radar – I was talking about the sample rate of radar. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Wikipedia says:
A radar emitter points in a particular direction 2 to 4 times a minute – i.e. a radar paints a target once every 15 to 30 seconds. This is perfectly consistent with the primary radar data of AA11 in the NTSB report. Also, the primary radars aren’t doppler radars, they are search radars – they only give location, not speed.
Why do you find the need to do that? Were you ignored as a child?
I choose not to let your ignorance go uncorrected.
Slarti: “Then please, by all means, explain what you mean by a ‘hole in primary radar’. You should also tell us what the sampling rate of the radar involved is and what information is gathered in each sample.”
I should what? There you go again; making demands on a topic as to which you’re completely clueless.
I just provided a reference that the sampling rate of the primary radar is between once every 15 s and once every 30 s. If you knew anything you would be able to explain it to everyone and make me look like the idiot you seem to think I am.
Here’s a glimpse of how the holes in the primary radar evolved between June 2000 and 9/11/01
[link removed]
Like I said, why don’t you ask your brother in law what charts he’s privy to that contain the locations of gaps in the primary radar; after all, if the lack-luster terrorist pilots could find them I’m sure he can too.
As I explained above, the primary radar only painted the plane once every 15-30 seconds. This isn’t very good data to determine impact speed. And I have no idea why you want to bring my brother-in-law into something that he didn’t comment about in any way whatsoever.
Oh wait, that information is classified isn’t it; like it was classified on 9/11/01.
And has nothing to do with anything that I’ve been talking about.
Many people know that Benedict Arnold was a traitor, but few know the details of the treason found within Major John Andre’s boot. You see, if the British knew when Arnold planned to replace a link in the chain across the Hudson protecting West Point with a piece of rope…
Well it would be like knowing where those holes in the primary radar were on 9/11/01 now wouldn’t it?
The location of the planes were known by air traffic control on the morning of 9/11 – I linked to NTSB documents giving the ground location and altitude of AA11 and UA175 from takeoff to impact.
But don’t worry Slarti, from your perspective, it has nothing to do with the ‘natural causes’ for the destruction of the WTC.
No, holes in the primary radar coverage have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Slarti: “You don’t really want to go there, do you?”
Discuss the rules of argumentation or the rule of evidence for that matter; absolutely.
Slarti: “Experiments could be done in order to establish if there is heat generation via Lane’s process under the sort of circumstances present in the rubble”
Like superheated steam being passed over porous iron? You don’t know when to let go do you?
Slarti: “How do you plan of proving that the WTC collapse was initiated or accelerated by thermitic charges?”
Well, considering that real evidence of active nano-thermitic material found within the dust of the WTC would be the elephant the living room, I might start there. Then I’d show how all those other anomalies we’ve been discussing tend to be explained by said real evidence.
Then I’d argue why the new investigation into the matter shouldn’t be led by spineless liberals who have a problem with the death penalty. After all, we wouldn’t want their fear of putting a traitor to death interfering with their analysis.