How WTC 7 was pulled down

[twinstead]

Yes, although I personally wouldn't know the difference, I've just showed it to somebody whom I trust would know, and he says it's gibberish. I don't expect that to hold any weight with people here, but it does to me.

 

[ozeco41]

Gibberish it is.

 

[TJM]

What's this? A troofer posted gibberish? How'd that happen?

 

[Newtons Bit]

There's nothing to debunk, it's nonsense.

My best guess is that the poster intended to show how clueless people are and willing to believe just about anything.

Comparing what basically amounts to the loss of potential energy with the thermal energy required to initiate that collapse is about as nonsensical as one can get.

I wonder what mzelinski thinks would happen if one were to attach a large heavy weight on a crane over the Grand Canyon and then light the rope on fire with a match. Would he inevitably conclude that it took explosives to propel the weight downwards because the final kinetic energy of the weight far exceeds the thermal energy of the rope?

 

[Furcifer]

Comparing what basically amounts to the loss of potential energy with the thermal energy required to initiate that collapse is about as nonsensical as one can get.

I wonder what mzelinski thinks would happen if one were to attach a large heavy weight on a crane over the Grand Canyon and then light the rope on fire with a match. Would he inevitably conclude that it took explosives to propel the weight downwards because the final kinetic energy of the weight far exceeds the thermal energy of the rope?

When I read it I envisioned the Hollywood classic "car teetering on the edge of a cliff" and then the seagull lands on the hood and causes it to fall off.

If you consider it an essay on how not all zeros are created equal and the importance of units it's a rather profound post. Intentional or otherwise.

 

[GlennB]

Rather than chortle, why not display your structural engineer prowess and actually debunk mzelinski's work?

MM

Newtons Bit's analogy is all the debunking required. I was about to suggest you stand beneath a bowling ball suspended by nylon line and get someone to melt the line with a lighter, but it's the same thing.

You neither read nor understood a single word of mzelinski's little analysis, did you? My guess is you just saw the conclusion preceded by some nice equations and though "whoopee! Actual science validates me". Right?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Rather than chortle, why not display your structural engineer prowess and actually debunk mzelinski's work?

Among the more obvious screwups are the assumption that the entire mass of the building was moving at the final velocity of the north face, the complete neglect of the contribution of the fracture energy of the structure, the complete neglect of any heating of any other part of the structure than the steel, and the fact that the entire basis of the analysis is utter bollocks with no foundation in the actual laws of physics whatsoever. Apart from that, there may be some lesser errors that I haven't bothered to look for.

Dave

 

[fallout]

Among the more obvious screwups are the assumption that the entire mass of the building was moving at the final velocity of the north face, the complete neglect of the contribution of the fracture energy of the structure, the complete neglect of any heating of any other part of the structure than the steel, and the fact that the entire basis of the analysis is utter bollocks with no foundation in the actual laws of physics whatsoever. Apart from that, there may be some lesser errors that I haven't bothered to look for.

Dave

You don't know what you are talking about. You never seen AND will never see the entire data we need in order to independently rebuild the model that the NIST INVENTED to carry on their lies about WTC7. You guys should stop pretending you are the smart ones and on the "side of the evidence" and start admitting that you are basing your beliefs on pure faith and wishful thinking. You should hush until all the data would be released or at least be honest that you are just giving your opinion and nothing else.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You don't know what you are talking about. You never seen AND will never see the entire data we need in order to independently rebuild the model that the NIST INVENTED to carry on their lies about WTC7. You guys should stop pretending you are the smart ones and on the "side of the evidence" and start admitting that you are basing your beliefs on pure faith and wishful thinking. You should hush until all the data would be released or at least be honest that you are just giving your opinion and nothing else.

Well, that was an entertaining, if utterly irrelevant, rant.

Would you like to enlighten us all with your explanation of the somewhat enigmatic statement that "the entropy of a system cannot be maximised more than the maximum available to the system", and go on to explain how this equates to a statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? In particular, comment on how the above statement implies an upper limit on the final entropy of a system, whereas the Second Law can only conceivably be interpreted as imposing a lower limit?

Dave

 

[fallout]

Well, that was an entertaining, if utterly irrelevant, rant.

Would you like to enlighten us all with your explanation of the somewhat enigmatic statement that "the entropy of a system cannot be maximised more than the maximum available to the system", and go on to explain how this equates to a statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? In particular, comment on how the above statement implies an upper limit on the final entropy of a system, whereas the Second Law can only conceivably be interpreted as imposing a lower limit?

Dave

See how you are pretending you are doing science over a cynicism forums? That is even more entertainment to me than you reading my "rant". Skip the blablabla and build a model, let us to submit your whole model with all the details to an independent team, and see if it stands up to reality. Let's see if you got physics.

To make things easier, follow the model of NIST but this time do not hide any bits of data like they did, in a clear attempt to keep anyone from reproducing their fantasy-driven model.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Utterly clueless, then.

Dave

 

[TJM]

Utterly clueless, then.

Dave

I'm not buying that.

I fully expect you to unhide your bits and drive that fantasy model immediately.

 

[fallout]

Utterly clueless, then.

Dave

Yeah, in the end, this is all the "scientists"can do over here. When there is no argumentation left, you are threatened by ignore or the above joke.

When your model is ready, let me know, I will submit it to a local board of civil and fire engineers for them to take a look.

 

[triforcharity]

You don't know what you are talking about. You never seen AND will never see the entire data we need in order to independently rebuild the model that the NIST INVENTED to carry on their lies about WTC7. You guys should stop pretending you are the smart ones and on the "side of the evidence" and start admitting that you are basing your beliefs on pure faith and wishful thinking. You should hush until all the data would be released or at least be honest that you are just giving your opinion and nothing else.

When should we expect your pape proving NIST wrong? Do you anticipate it to be published this year?

I, as can some others, can reccomend some good peer-reviewed journals that are highly respected in the engineering community.

Do you have your abstract?

 

[Dave Rogers]

When your model is ready, let me know, I will submit it to a local board of civil and fire engineers for them to take a look.

Make sure you've got the model with the silent explosives ready by then too.

Dave

 

[fallout]

When should we expect your pape proving NIST wrong? Do you anticipate it to be published this year?

I, as can some others, can reccomend some good peer-reviewed journals that are highly respected in the engineering community.

Do you have your abstract?

How can anyone ever prove NIST wrong if their nonsense is not even clear. Where is the data for anyone to evaluate their bull? I mean, how can you not see it and still think you are smart?

I see that the only ones who are going wrong over here is the people who claimed to have debunked the controlled demolition hypothesis on WTC7 without moving a single yard in real life. All you do is sit here and spew arrogancy, lies, prejudice, and cynicism. Want to definetly prove the demolition hypothesis wrong? Built up a whole model of fire induced and publish it. Because the NIST model can't be tested and you know it can't due to the convenient upholding of important data.

 

[fallout]

Make sure you've got the model with the silent explosives ready by then too.

Dave

Hey youre the one who "got physics"over here. I'm waiting for your efforts to support the unsuportable. Go on champion. Bring the full model on, so I can submit it to real scientists who does not subscribe to any belief system of utter denial and prejudice.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I see that the only ones who are going wrong over here is the people who claimed to have debunked the controlled demolition hypothesis on WTC7 without moving a single yard in real life.

Sadly, every controlled demolition hypothesis ever proposed for WTC7 has been so utterly ridiculous that it doesn't take any effort whatsoever to demonstrate to anyone prepared to apply a shred of reasoning ability to it that it's utterly indefensible in the light of the available evidence. There's no need to present a detailed model to compete with nonexistent ones; the simple truth is that fire and structural damage from debris are the only conceivable causes of WTC7's collapse.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Hey youre the one who "got physics"over here. I'm waiting for your efforts to support the unsuportable. Go on champion. Bring the full model on, so I can submit it to real scientists who does not subscribe to any belief system of utter denial and prejudice.

And by "real scientists who does not subscribe to any belief system of utter denial and prejudice" you of course mean "anybody who could even be remotely be considered a scientist who tells me what I want to hear whether they're actually qualified or not", right?

 

[Oystein]

Rather than chortle, why not display your structural engineer prowess and actually debunk mzelinski's work?

MM

I never took a class on thermodynamics, but I think it is fairly obvious, that its principles are grossly misapplied in that nonsense piece. Here is what I came iup with (already wrote) before reading Newton's Bit's and Dave Roger's refutations on the next page:

For starters, freefall, while it occurs, does not change the entropy of the system, precisely because it is reversable. At least, it is WRONG to include the term "ΔS_f = (KE_{upper section})/T" and its value " 7.17E+07 J/K" before the freefall phase ended. Entropy changes the moment that Kinetic Energy gets converted into heat - when rubble piles up on the ground. However, the assumption that it gets converted into heat is WRONG. Only a minor part will be heat. Much more goes into fracturing and deformation, a little also into seismic and sound waves. So the formula is mostly misapplied.
It is NONSENSICAL to only look at the freefall phase, as that is the only phase where entropy does not change in any appreciable magnitude. Looking at the entire collapse process, ALL the Potential Energy gets converted into deformation, heat and waves, most of it via Kinetic Energy.
It is NONSENSICAL to connect this conversion of energy and increase of entropy during the collapse with any heating by fires before, during or after. That conversion of energy and increase of entropy goes on independently, and neither process puts any limits on the other.
[ETA] Lastly: Even if it made any sense at all that the entropy increase caused by the fires would preclude freefall, it would not help the Truther case for Controlled Demolition, because the exact same argument would also hold for any explosives or exotic incendiaries such as thermaite: These, too, increase the entropy of the steel and would preclude freefall.[/ETA]

In short, someone went to great lengths to produce utter nonsense.


it is very telling that you, MM, did not spot that while reading mzelinski's post. It makes anyone with the slightest grasp of thermodynamics and mechanics think that you have no such grasp at all. It follows that the relevance of any argument about the physics of 9/11 made by you might be minimized but such ignorance of basic science. You'd been wiser if you had taken it upon yourself to explain to mzelinski where he went wrong. See, Newton's Bit, in another thread, debunked a debunker (lefty's "resonance" theory). Cause that's how we here at JREF function: We argue the arguments based on their own merit, and not based on our desired conclusions.