Buildings must fall straight down? Nonsense.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics, about entropy The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

• Third law of thermodynamics, about absolute zero temperature

As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate and negative temperature.

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

And what about this picture of WTC7 getting hit?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It is symmetry which requires skill and special circumstances.

I appreciate the respect. I was hoping for you to merit some in return. Are you aware that we usually (but not necessarily justly) take it as a sure sign of woism when people invoke the the 2nd law of thermodynamics ?

And when people also apply it wrongly, well, you can fill in the blanks (on second thought, maybe you can't).

OK, let us look at entropy. Of course, WTC7 is not exactly a closed system, but there is some entropy at play. The reduced entropy, and the assymetry, in WTC 7 is, like in all buildings, the fact that thousands of tons of building materials (+ furniture etc.) have been hauled up to various elevations over ground level, against gravity. This act required lots of energy. Energy which (minus losses) has been stored as potential energy, and which is retained so for as long as the supporting structures are able to withstand the pull of gravity. The moment the supporting structures fail, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the direction of the excerted force. The excerted force is called gravity, and the direction of that goes under the popular term "down".

Now, if any object in the process of increasing the local entropy by going "down" is to change its direction, you must excert a force vector on it that is of comparable strength to the "down" vector, and in a different direction, which ...... mmm, I sense I'm going over your head.

Let me try this: If you have a 100,000 ton building, 100,000 tons of force says it wants to go straight down. If it is to go elsewhere, you need to apply some force that is a significant fraction of 100,000 tons, in a different direction. OK?

Asymmetrical behavior is always more likely than symmetrical.

Yeah? Try this: Take a suitable object, say, a coffee mug (hey, NOT with coffee in it, OK?). Tie a few feet of string to it (yes, the handle will do great). Hold the other end of the string and let it hang. Which way does it hang? Yeah, right? That is the direction commonly termed "down".

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern.

No, it just requires enough of them failing that the remaining cannot support the building. Then the weight of the building will cause the remainder to fail in such a short time that there is little chance of imparting a sideways force.

Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way. Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing. Plenty of super-secret stuff in there, with the CIA, FBI, and Giuliani's command center.

In other words, you don't have a good reason.

WTC7 dropped in about 6.5 seconds.

And?

On the west end of the north face, the windows blow out in an upward sequence.

Before or after the collapse started?

THere is a tornado like plume of smoke and debris that exits the top of the building.

Yeh, you see, some 80% or more of any normal building is air. After all, that is what buildings are for: To provide some protected space of air. When the building collapses, that air has to go somewhere else. Thus, windows blow out, roofs blow up, dust and debris is thrown around.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.

Which part was recovered? The evaporated part? No, I'm not joking; when metal evaporates, it will immidiately condense on its surroundings (which, compared to evaporated metal, is always cold). The layer of condensed metal is very characteristic.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.

That building was on fire, remember? Is initiating a eutectic reaction normal procedure when doing a controlled demolition? .. No, because it cannot be timed or controlled with any kind of precision. So, assuming such a reaction happened, how is it evidence of a CD?

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before,

As I just showed you, the only resemblance was that the building fell down.

Hans

 

[qarnos]

TS, it's nice to see you know how to use Wikipedia.

Now, is there any chance of this discussion returning to the collapse of WTC7? Are you going to answer any of the questions posed to you or will you just run off and start a new thread about your next piece of irrefutable evidence?

Any luck with the experiment I proposed earlier? It has also occured to me that you could time how long it takes the container to crush you and see if that time is consistant with free-fall acceleration. You may need access to an atomic clock to obtain the required resolution. I guess you could also film it with a grainy video camera and then use a stop-watch from arbitrary start and end states. That wouldn't provide anywhere near the required accuracy, but is fully endorsed by DylanCo., so it might be worth a look.

Hey, I think I hear the sound of ice cracking... That must be the 2nd law of Thermodynamics undermining your hypothosis.

 

[qarnos]

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before,

As I just showed you, the only resemblance was that the building fell down.

Hans

Hans, you are forgetting one important thing:

Since X has happened before, Y must be X.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hans, you are forgetting one important thing:

Since X has happened before, Y must be X.

Ahh, yes, thanks for reminding me, I forgot this:

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.

Ignoring the term "exactly", with which we have already dealt sufficiently: No, so far such collapses have only been observed after large airliners have been deliberately crashed into buildings. Which has so far happened ..... only on 9/11. ...And let us hope that state of affairs does never change.

So, in your way of reasoning, we can equally well say: In all instances in history, where large airliners have been flown into buildings, the buildings have subsequently collapsed.

Hans

 

[shuize]

[Post]

Awsome.


My favorite part:

The moment the supporting structures fail, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy in the direction of the excerted force. The excerted force is called gravity, and the direction of that goes under the popular term "down".

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

second law of thermodynamics, about entropy The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

• Third law of thermodynamics, about absolute zero temperature

As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value.See Bose–Einstein condensate and negative temperature.

Entropy, of course, is the measure of disorder. There are always more disorderd states that ordered ones, and disorder tends to increase over time.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

Totally Irrelevant as the collapse of the structure is controlled by the structure itself. The collapse of the towers was a result of the funnel effect of the outer columns expanding outward as the debris rained down on them

Entropy did increase but the structures themselves and the damage to them limited the way that the energy from Gravity effected the structure.

The argument you made was fatally flawed, because you do not understand the structure of the building en ought to understand the argument, you yourself presented.

In other words the way the building is designed and built plays a key part in the way it Collapses once the point of structural integrity is compromised.
By not understanding how much the structure controlled the collapse you totally blew the argument.

 

[NDBoston]

Truthseeker:

I actually worked at WTC7 and was there on 9-11. From the minute the first plane hit the towers, WTC7 was getting hit with debris.

In fact, when I finally got down to the lobby 45 minutes later, we were all forced to leave through the back since so much debris had hit the building and blocked the entrance.

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.

 

[Oliver]

CT's point out that WTC7 fell straight down. CT's say that for a building to go straight down, all vertical supports must fail at the same time, or at least a majority must fail in a symmetrical pattern. If column failure is asymmetrical, the building will fall toward the side of the failure.
OCT's, under the guidance of Thomas Eagar, say no, that buildings have to fall straight down, they "have no other way to fall".
Who's right? Consider the demolition of the Ford building. In this one, the engineers wanted the building to fall to one side, to avoid damage to the building close by. Go to this link, and click the 2nd thumbnail on the bottom row.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

Hello Truthseeker1234:

You obviously have a problem with the controlled demolition
stuff. It seems, that you don´t understand why the buildings
fell. So i also think, that you have a problem with the official
story. On the other hand it brings me to the conclusion, that
you might believe in an involvement of the government.

So let me ask you:
What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really
want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question
you have.

Regards,
Oliver

 

[juryjone]

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end.

(bolding mine)

So it looked exactly like a controlled demolition, until the point when it didn't.

Contradicting yourself within the space of a sentence. That's a work of art, that is.

 

[CurtC]

And what about this picture of WTC7 getting hit?

You keep posting these words, but there are no pictures.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

TS, with no due respect you seem to get all your information about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics from Stephen Jones. He's very wrong, BTW, and so are you.

 

[CurtC]

TS1234, how do you fit the collapse of the East part of the mechanical penthouse into your CD idea? It falls a full six seconds before the building itself starts to fall. Isn't that right there evidence that it wasn't CD? I've never seen a CD where they take out one piece, wait several seconds, then the rest of it. CDs usually try to remove all the supports right about the same time (possibly with small timing differences to direct the fall).

 

[Belz...]

Hans, with due respect, you seem to not consider the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

What does entropy have to do with this ?

WTC7 goes very straight down, careening to the south at the end. But to drop into free fall, straingt down, requires that all the vertical supports fail at the same time, or at least that a great majority of them fail in a symmetrical pattern.

Contradiction. You just said it fell south, as others have mentioned, then go back to the "straight down" strawman.

Good question. Doubtful that the perps intended to just pull it at 5:20 for no reason. Either a plane was supposed to hit that one too, after the towers were out of the way.

HA! Hilarious. How could someone justify this ? Why would terrorists target WTC7, of all targets, with an airplane ?

Or, it was supposed to drop when the North Tower dust cloud was flowing.

So it's impossible that the damage it sustained was insufficient to bring it down immediately ?

Plenty of super-secret stuff in there, with the CIA, FBI, and Giuliani's command center.

I'm sure there's super sekrit stuff in other buildings that DIDN'T fall down that day.

Steel was recovered that had been partly evaporated.

Evaporated ? I can't begin to imagine the temperature needed for that.

The steel had a "swiss cheese" appearance from a eutectic reaction. This is when a chemical (sulfur in this case) is added to a reaction causing its melting point to lower.

It looked exactly like a controlled demolition, which we know have happened many times before, whereas complete straight down collapses of steel framed buildings have never occured for any other reason ever.

Contradiction, again. Controlled demolitions use charges, not chemicals to melt steel.

Other than that, (and the Silverstein quote), not much.

Silverstein said "pull them out of there". I hardly see how this relates to destroying the WTC. Plus he was beign recorded, and "pull" is not a demolition term.

 

[Bradk3]

I also would love to have someone tell me how the 28-44th floors were wired for demolition, when we packed like sardines after the merger with Smith Barney and most floors had people on them 7 days a week. ( A few floors were trading floors so it was 24x7 and many worked 6-7 days a week), and I never saw one construction crew in my time there doing anything significant.

Why won't CT's talk to people who worked at WTC7? My friends and I who worked with at Salomon are eager to talk but I'm guessing you won't like the answers.

Oh, but it's so much easier to say "they (teh globalists, apparently) could have installed the explosives at night and covered them up in the morning" rather than actually find out if it would have been possible. As you point out, there were people working in that building 24x7. Any attempt to wire the building at any time would have been consipicuous. It's so incredibly obvious to everyone except the CTists.

Duh!

Thanks for the contribution.

Glad you made it out all right.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Excellent, since you recognize implosionworld.com as being a relevant[fixed spelling], authoritative source of information regarding building demolitions then I highly recommend you closely examine this paper by them:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC9-6-06.pdf

This site http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm does, what I feel, is a good job of showing that WTC 7 did not fall "straight" down, aka symmetrically.

 

[kevin]

This thread was about WTC7. But yes, the towers appeared to explode outwards in all directions, very similar in appearance to a picture of a nuke I've seen. Mushroom cloud and all.

How many buildings have you seen fall by non-explosive means? If the only valid proof is things you've seen before then you need to go watch other buildings fall in the same manner before deciding what is the truth.

 

[R.Mackey]

The demolition happened in stages. First the one penthouse,then the other. When the main roofline begins dropping, it is 6.5 seconds. See Legge, see Kutler. How much time elapsed between stages is irrelevant. They could have waited an hour after dropping the penthouse. By plotting individual times and distances all the way down, and comparing that to free-fall, Legge shows that the building went into free fall.

No evidence provided, just a pile of speculation.

That's one story. Another story is the one given in the NIST prelim report. Their story has the advantage that it didn't rely on explosive charges for which you've provided no shred of evidence, that nobody saw or heard, and that would have been totally unnecessary as the structure had been burning and leaning for hours.

Support your argument, or abandon it.

The swiss cheese and eutectics and partially evaportated steel are from the Jonathan Barnett Metallurgical study, one of the only (the only??) peer reviewed paper in the whole mess. Unless you count the Scholars for Truth in-house review.

I don't. The "only" peer-reviewed paper? Not even close! Rejected until you get me a cite.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Um... this is the same paper I was talking about. Just reprinted with a CT address. You didn't even check, did you? Minus ten points for you!

I'm sorry. How else do you explain the windows blowing out in sequence with smoke billowing out. While the whole building is falling, the upper floors are not falling relative to one another, and the timing in between blasts of smoke coming out is way too fast.

I asked you to tell me where you got these, not just repeat them. Please do so or drop it.

How on earth could the floors be pancaking upwards? Unlike the twin towers, this is much more of a classic controlled demolition, with a demolition sequence proceeding upwards, slicing the the vertical columns floor by floor, proceeding upwards.

Ah, is that so? Well, if it's "more like" a "classic" controlled demolition, then you should understand why the NIST hypothesis makes sense. They propose a major failure of a central column on the 6th floor, which was cantilevered over a ConEd substation. A failure here would literally pull the floor out from under the upper structure... leading to precisely the behavior you describe.

And I put "more like" in quotes, because like I already said, demolition experts say it is not like a controlled demolition.

You haven't even addressed, let alone refuted, the comments I made in my post. Thus it still stands. You need a do-over.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit your error about the cross bracing, as I supplied both before and after pictures showing it. But that's a thread you abandoned. Let's fix thermodynamics here

I made no error, I asked you to explain (1) what bracing you mean, (2) how you know that bracing was permanent rather than temporary support for the kangaroo cranes and such, and (3) what its composition is. I asked several times. This is deception on your part.

The second law certainly means that asymmetry is the rule, symmetry must be created at great expense of disorder somewhere else. Asymmetry is always much more likely than symmetry.

To suggest that the third law contradicts this, or whatever you were tyring to bamboozle, is just wrong. See you guys next round

sigh.

My comments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics are the relevant ones.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to "symmetry" on a scale small compared with phonon wavelengths. Not with the approximate distribution of such a large and uneven object as a falling building.

If that building suddenly became "symmetric," as in one pile of pure concrete here, another pile of pure steel there, yes, that would be a gross violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

If a building more-or-less at rest collapses, leaving a more-or-less balanced pile of debris, that is not only consistent with the Second Law, but with the far, far more relevant laws of mechanics.

You don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, do you?