0
0

/r/Physics refuses to do it -- hopefully /r/AskPhysics is a different story. Let's discuss the article that's been read by 418,270 people on EuroPhysicsNews.org (self.AskPhysics)

stonetear2016 が 投稿

The article: http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2016/04/epn2016474p21/epn2016474p21.html

The organization the runs EuroPhysicsNews.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Physical_Society

The European Physical Society (EPS) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote physics and physicists in Europe through methods such as physics outreach. Formally established in 1968, its membership includes the national physical societies of 42 countries, and some 3200 individual members. The Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, the world's largest organization of physicists, is a major member. One of its main activities is organizing international conferences. Its letters journal is EPL; its other publications include Europhysics News[4] and the European Journal of Physics.

全 18 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]wonkey_monkey 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Maybe /r/Physics won't touch it because it reads like it's been written backwards from the conclusion.

CPO-RFTT

[–]stonetear2016[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you read the article?

You do know NIST did their analysis backwards from the conclusion, right?

Have you even read NCSTAR1A?

[–]BeyondWikipedia -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's how anything controversial seems when it's explained in a relatively short magazine article. That shouldn't be considered actual criticism of their treatment of the issues they raised.

[–]stonetear2016[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"it reads like it's been written backwards from the conclusion."

Well if their conclusion is correct...

I wonder if he actually read the article in it's entirety -- if so, what problems does he have with it technically speaking?

The article was sent to its membership which includes the national physical societies of 42 countries, and some 3,200 individual members.

The Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, the world's largest organization of physicists, subscribes to it.

Yet no one can articulate a real response here.

[–]BeyondWikipedia 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've heard a couple of stories about them being much more open minded to the question of controlled demolition in Europe. During the proceedings on a slander lawsuit by Neils Harrit in Sweden, the judge supposedly acted surprised and disturbed at seeing footage of the WTC 7 collapse.

[–]stonetear2016[S] -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's really intriguing, you do make a good point. Americans can't stomach this information without letting emotions get in the way. My buddies travel to Europe and always bring back stories about how most people they talked to knew about the 3rd tower and the details behind it. This past year he actually walked into pubs and people were already in a discussion about it! The EuroPhysicsNews article and the recent WTC7Evaluation.org has really pushed this controversy into the spotlight. Too bad people can't even discuss it without mentally breaking down in denial.

[–]mfb-Particle physics 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Not that nonsense again.

[–]stonetear2016[S] -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (8子コメント)

What in the article do you think is nonsense? What part did you find incorrect?

[–]mfb-Particle physics 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I guess you got explanations at /r/Physics already, but based on your post history you are not interested in a discussion anyway, you just want to spread the conclusion you reached. Further discussion would be a waste of time.

[–]stonetear2016[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Let's try again: What part of the article do you think is "nonsense"?

Please cite some reasons, it's the most popular article in EuroPhysicsNews.org history...

[–]BeyondWikipedia -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Woah, people here will find any excuse to disregard anything controversial. It's not like global warming, guys. There are a lot of crucial questions about the WTC disaster that have never been addressed in mainstream engineering literature. That, and there's been a lot of scientific literature on the collapses which has been proven to be patently false. Hopefully further research backed up by actual science solves a lot of the issues these concerned citizens raise.

[–]stonetear2016[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What I don't completely understand is why do these so called "physicists" and "engineers" let their feelings get in the way rather than citing the reasons why the article is wrong? You'd think people who live in the world of science would have something more substantial than a disparaging remark. This article is the most shared/viewed on EuroPhysicsNews.org...ever.

Yet /u/mfb- can't even articulate a point in his response to it.

Is it cognitive dissonance?

[–]BalorothCosmology 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Skilling went on to say he didn’t think a single 200-pound [90-kg] car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to either of the Twin Towers.

The planes that hit the WTC were Boeing 767-200 series aircraft. At standard cruise velocity (probably an underestimate) and weight, that's a kinetic energy equivalent to over 1 ton of TNT, probably closer to 2. That's a 2,000kg bomb, and all of that energy is kinetic (so more destructive than TNT would be). The fuel, of course, will have 2 or so orders of magnitude more energy (as that's what gave it the kinetic energy in the first place). The fact they didn't collapse after the initial impact that is a testament to how well skyscrapers are engineered. The quote is included only to introduce qualitative doubt in the mind of a reader, while carefully skipping over the quantitative scale of what actually happened. And of course the building isn't going to be able to handle a fire well after that kind of damage (the building is designed to handle fires from a malfunctioning copier or an errant cigarette, not some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. I'd be surprised if the fire suppression system was working at all after the impact).

The entire paper is speculation and innuendo. No one knows exactly how and why the building collapsed, and no one will, nor do we need to. It's an extremely specific and unusual case that isn't really worth understanding in detail, beyond the immediate question of "was the engineering at fault" (to which the answer is a decided "no").

[–]PhrygianMode 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And of course the building isn't going to be able to handle a fire well after that kind of damage (the building is designed to handle fires from a malfunctioning copier or an errant cigarette, not some 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. I'd be surprised if the fire suppression system was working at all after the impact).

To be fair, I'd just like to point out that the official story states that “the dominant fuel for the fires in the towers was the office combustibles” (perhaps like a "malfunctioning copier or an errant cigarette",) and that the 10,000 gallons did not burn in the building. NIST/FEMA estimate ~3,000 gallons burning up in the fireball outside the building and:

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."  - FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two). 

And in regards to the fuel that did remain in the building to burn:

Most of the jet fuel in the fire zones was consumed in the first few minutes after impact, although there may have been unburned pockets of jet fuel that led to flare-ups late in the morning.” Under FINDINGS — “Characteristics of the Fires” in the NC STAR1-5 Executive Summary

10,000 gallons of jet fuel didn't burn inside the building at all, let alone for a significant amount of time if we're going by the official story. Just to be fair.

[–]12-23-1913 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Have you read the report released by NIST or even the WTC7 summary?

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

You're contradicting the official conclusion, considering no plane hit the 3rd tower. You know that right?

It's the first fire induced collapse in history, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Did you actually read the article linked for the thread?