10 story hole in WTC 7 - Part II

[Baylor]

That is, unless the difference would be damning evidence against the impossible gravity driven progressive collapse.

I already told you a controlled demolition IS a "gravity driven progressive collaspe." (Another meaningless term.)

 

[KreeL]

That's why I used the word 'impossible'. Supports must be removed or defeated or there is no global collapse.

 

[GlennB]

2.3 vs 2.1 is double the magnitude. To the naked eye it certainly appears that the north tower explodes with more robustness.

Others might respond to your use of the word "explode" here and to your naked eye assessment of the collapses, but ...

Yet again you have failed to address the point - made several times now - that amplitude and duration are essential to the calculation. Even leaving aside (for now) any questions about the accuracy of the measurements.

From my recollection of physics you'd need to do some calculus, because the seismic record represents a curve and I'd guess that the area bounded by this curve would be proportional to the energy yield. Better physicists than me might wish to comment. In any event, I'd make an educated guess that simply multiplying the peak Richter reading by the duration of the entire event won't cut the mustard.

Do you ever read the replies you get and reflect on them ?

 

[Baylor]

That's why I used the word 'impossible'. Supports must be removed or defeated or there is no global collapse.

 

[KreeL]

Does the north tower explosion look larger to you than the south tower explosion?

 

[KreeL]

Are you saying that amplitude and duration can be controlled by the intensity of the force applied?

 

[GlennB]

Are you saying that amplitude and duration can be controlled by the intensity of the force applied?

I said - clearly enough I thought - that both amplitude and duration have to be considered when calculating the energy output.

 

[KreeL]

In light of the evidence...it so happens that now your 'foot of God' theory becomes a slow foot/fast foot, light foot/heavy foot theory.

 

[MetalPig]

If you measured two bowls of sugar with the same measuring cup that was off .25 - would both bowls of sugar be off the same difference?

That's a different kind of error. You mustn't confuse inaccuracy with uncertainty.

 

[KreeL]

To an extent, but the uncertainty factor would be extremely low since both bowls were measured with the same cup.

 

[GlennB]

To an extent, but the uncertainty factor would be extremely low since both bowls were measured with the same cup.

In your sugar example, we could conclude that one of the following happened:

1. The original sugar was heavily compacted but has now loosened. Exactly the reason why a pile of soil has greater volume than the hole in the ground you dug it from. You should have been measuring weight all along, not volume.
2. You didn't count accurately.
3. Someone is fooling with you and tossing in some sugar when you're not looking.
4. There was already some sugar in the bowl.
(etc)

These all represent possible flaws in your experimental design, not approximation errors in your measuring system (the cup). A better experiment would eliminate them.

 

[Toke]

One of the first things we did in highschool chemistry was learning to use lab equipment.

First assigment was to use measuring glasses and take notes.
One glass with 5cl of water one with 5cl of ethanol, then we poured them into a 10cl glass and read the result, 9cl.

We did alot of pouring to find out what glass was defective, but ended up concluding correctly, that water and ethanol have less volume when mixed.

Our teacher were very amused, and pointed out the importance of taking notes every step of the way as results may not be as expected.

In physics we used statictics to determine the uncertancy of a geigercounter at different radioation levels. It depends on the down time after registration compared with frequency of registrations.


Science can be alot more complicated and involve more math than you think KreeL.

 

[GStan]

Would not measurement error be applied equally to both measurements? I fail to see how one could logically argue that 2.3 is MINUS .2 and the 2.1 is PLUS the .2 MofE. That is, unless the difference would be damning evidence against the impossible gravity driven progressive collapse. It was measured with the same equipment at the same distance +/-50M.

If you measured two bowls of sugar with the same measuring cup that was off .25 - would both bowls of sugar be off the same difference?

2.3 vs 2.1 is double the magnitude. To the naked eye it certainly appears that the north tower explodes with more robustness.

A 2.3 is not a 2.3. Its anywhere between 2.1 and 2.5 with roughly equal confidence. The same applies to the 2.1. There is uncertainty involved. In your sugar example, you've shown that you either don't know or are willfully ignoring the difference between uncertainty and inaccuracy. (If you know that the cup is off by .25, there is no uncertainty, there is no required margin of error caveats to apply to any measurement results for your cup.)

 

[Sunstealer]

This little exercise regarding accuracy and uncertainty just goes to show how little truthers actually know about science yet they claim to know that 9/11 was caused by space beams/thermite/explosives etc. Experimental error was on of the first things I was taught at 16 which built upon knowledge gained at 13 and it's pretty basic stuff.

Truthers seem to have never done any science at all yet the less they know the more they seem to think it backs their claims. Surprises me there isn't a facepalm smilie on JREF.

 

[GStan]

This little exercise regarding accuracy and uncertainty just goes to show how little truthers actually know about science yet they claim to know that 9/11 was caused by space beams/thermite/explosives etc. Experimental error was on of the first things I was taught at 16 which built upon knowledge gained at 13 and it's pretty basic stuff.

Truthers seem to have never done any science at all yet the less they know the more they seem to think it backs their claims. Surprises me there isn't a facepalm smilie on JREF.

Seismographic equipment is equivalent to a measuring cup. Cause they both measure stuff. What's not scientific about that?

 

[Hokulele]

Bah. Next someone will have to explain to the CTists the difference between accuracy and precision.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Why don't we just cut to the chase as far as this thread goes?

I mean it is into it's Part II.

Why were all the debunkers wrong about what caused WTC-7 to collapse for all the years leading up to the NIST WTC-7 report? According to the NIST report was it really the 10 story gash caused by the tower falling on it or was it just building content fire and thermal expansion? Funny I never heard thermal expansion uttered anywhere here before the release of the NIST report on WTC-7. Were all you geniuses asleep on that one?

Why did you all abandon all of your many theories on what caused the WTC-7 to collapse immediately following the release of the NIST report?

I didn't. I thought it was caused by the fire, and the NIST report confirmed that it was.

Your garbage is as silly as saying "You though the victim died of being shot, until the coroner's report showed that he was actually killed by a bullet severing his carotid artery."

Do you have any more stupid, or are you going to slink off this thread like so many others?

 

[DGM]

Does the north tower explosion look larger to you than the south tower explosion?

Are you talking about when the planes impacted the building? Other than that I don't see an "explosion".

 

[jaydeehess]

Would not measurement error be applied equally to both measurements? I fail to see how one could logically argue that 2.3 is MINUS .2 and the 2.1 is PLUS the .2 MofE. That is, unless the difference would be damning evidence against the impossible gravity driven progressive collapse. It was measured with the same equipment at the same distance +/-50M.

If you measured two bowls of sugar with the same measuring cup that was off .25 - would both bowls of sugar be off the same difference?

2.3 vs 2.1 is double the magnitude. To the naked eye it certainly appears that the north tower explodes with more robustness.

You are still attempting to garner an absolute , definitive number from two readings of separate events using equipment that is not and has never been accurate to the degree you wish it to be.

The error margin for seismic readings has been quoted as +/-0.2 or +/-0.3. Even assuming the lower number , 0.2 translates to a doubling of energy released. +/-0.3 is a multiplier of 2.8 the energy released. The equipment cannot resolve the energy released to more precision than that. What part of this do you have such complete lack of understanding of?


This is NOT a linear measurement and its margin of error is also not linear.

A magnitude 5.1 event would be 1000 times the energy of a 2.1 event but also is only precise to within a factor of 2 in linear quantification of energy release.

If you had two seismographs side by side measuring the exact same event they could still register 2.1 and 2.3. But here we have two separate events with the local ground conditions during the second event differing from the first (one tower lay in rubble), slightly different coupling of the second tower to the bedrock, and a different collapse.

Then there is the fact that Richter scale readings are "combined horizontal amplitude of the largest displacement from zero".
The horizontal energy only! This was designed with earthquakes in mind and the destructive power of an earthquake is mostly in its horizontal displacement of structures. The collapses of the towers were somewhat different and less energy in the horizontal does not mean less energy total.
One tower having a different maximum amplitude only suggests a slightly different fashion of collapse and wadda ya know the two took differing times to complete collapse and one tower was leaning more than the other as collapse began.


Adjustments to seismic measurements is often done by taking into account the readings of several sites. That is often not possible for low seismic events but if you have measurements for these collapses from other seismic facilities by all means let's compare them. I daresay that if you did you might find that the readings would be closer to each other or even reversed in which comes out as the stronger of the two.

Your incredulity born of a failure to comprehend the scientific aspects does not constitute any evidence that the towers did not collapse due to the aircraft impacts and the resultant fires.



Now, is it just me or do I recall this thread being about WTC 7 and not the towers?

Kreel, how do you feel about the fact that seismic readings for the collapse of WTC 7 show a collapse that, IIRC, took longer than either tower?

 

[GStan]

You are still attempting to garner an absolute , definitive number from two readings of separate events using equipment that is not and has never been accurate to the degree you wish it to be.

The error margin for seismic readings <snip>

Your incredulity born of a failure to comprehend the scientific aspects does not constitute any evidence that the towers did not collapse due to the aircraft impacts and the resultant fires.

He didn't get even the simple lay explanations about margin of error; he's certainly not going to get this one.

Now, is it just me or do I recall this thread being about WTC 7 and not the towers?

Kreel, how do you feel about the fact that seismic readings for the collapse of WTC 7 show a collapse that, IIRC, took longer than either tower?

In a word: suspicious.