How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Miragememories]

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

"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 "ΔSf = (KEupper 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."

Very telling?

Thanks for the lecture on how you supposedly function in JREF.

I suggested that Newton's Bit should actually address the post and not chortle.

Or is this no longer a discussion forum?

Having nothing to say means you should say nothing.

I am still waiting for someone to address this earlier post of mine which is to the point and far more succinct;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

MM

 

[DGM]

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?

Very telling?

Thanks for the lecture on how you supposedly function in JREF.

I suggested that Newton's Bit should actually address the post and not chortle.

Or is this no longer a discussion forum?

Having nothing to say means you should say nothing.

I am still waiting for someone to address this earlier post of mine which is to the point and far more succinct;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

MM

Why did you skip over his reply? Did you just not like it?

 

[Furcifer]

Sigh. Now I look like an idiot. Why is a thread from 2007 on the front page?

I wouldn't go beating myself up over this bro, the carbon copy arguments collectively known as the truth movement hasn't changed one iota since well before 2007

 

[Oystein]

Very telling?

Yes.

Thanks for the lecture on how you supposedly function in JREF.

You are welcome.

I suggested that Newton's Bit should actually address the post and not chortle.

No one is bound by your suggestions.
Why did you not address the post?

Or is this no longer a discussion forum?

It is. Why did you not discuss mzelinski's post? Did you not see how it was nonsense?

Having nothing to say means you should say nothing.

But I did have something to say. I raised about 4 issues to refute mzelinski's post. You have yet to even address it at all. Do you have nothing to say?

I am still waiting for someone to address this earlier post of mine which is to the point and far more succinct;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

I don't think I'll waste my time on posts made by someone who apparently has not the slightest grasp of physics and yet litters the forum with chortle.
You are moving the goal post, too.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why did you skip over his reply? Did you just not like it?

Wait. Does MM seriously think that the entropy calculation needs a rebuttal? I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the actual calculation or the fact that "truthers" automatically believe it is true.

I've never seen a more convincing case of confirmation bias.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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

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?

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?

Absolutely. Miragememories has demonstrated that he can't tell the difference between a legitimate technical argument and a joke.

If mzelinski's analysis were correct, we could use exactly the same argument to prove that pulling a gun's trigger cannot possibly cause a bullet to leave the gun's barrel at 1000 feet per second. It'd just be a matter of changing the numbers and a few words.

In reality, however, it is not a good idea to stand in front of a gun while someone pulls the trigger. That means there must be something wrong with mzelinski's argument. As Newtons Bit said, mzelinski's most important mistake was to assume the kinetic energy all came from the trigger.

I suggested that Newton's Bit should actually address the post and not chortle.

He did address the post without chortling.

Which couldn't have been easy, because mzelinski's argument was a joke.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Which couldn't have been easy, because mzelinski's argument was a joke.

I may not have been chortling, but I wasn't keeping a straight face.

 

[Furcifer]

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".

Classic newbie mistake. You're so familiar with conspiracy websites and YouTube you actually think people around here are just "pretending".

As if anyone around here would,even if they could, "pretend" to know more than they actually know.

As one man to another, all conspiracy talk aside, take a closer look at what people are telling you and be honest with yourself. You aren't in any position to be calling Dave's knowledge into question. It's blatantly obvious to anyone following the discussion familiar with basic mechanics.

It's almost utterly impossible to "pretend you are doing science" around here. There's just too many people too well versed in the topics to get away with it.

If you don't believe me try it. Try making a claim or evaluating some equation you know isn't true and see if you can find anybody "pretending" to know more than they actually do. At least try and catch Dave or somebody "pretending" and calling them on it with actual evidence to support your claim instead of assuming, like I mentioned before, this is YouTube where everyone is just lying their asses off.

I'm just saying this in hopes you desire to be respected around here. It's pretty simple, if you show a little respect and integrity, despite your opinion, it's quite possible to get a little back if you so desire. If you couple that with a little intelligence it will go that much further. Just sayin.

 

[Furcifer]

Wait. Does MM seriously think that the entropy calculation needs a rebuttal? I'm not sure which is more ridiculous, the actual calculation or the fact that "truthers" automatically believe it is true.

I've never seen a more convincing case of confirmation bias.

Knowing how to use LaTex is the Truther equivalent of having multiple doctorates.

(he actually integrated properly, while I doubt it was anything more than a "copy and paste" it does suggest the woo is exceptionally strong in this one)

What is the change in temperature of the upper block during free fall anyways?

 

[excaza]

what on earth did I just read...

 

[twinstead]

Something about latex, doctors, temperature. Kinky stuff.

 

[ozeco41]

...I am still waiting for someone to address this earlier post of mine which is to the point and far more succinct;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

MM

Wait no longer. This is the claim you made:

...The profile of the WTC7 collapse clearly shows that the 3 sides were falling in unison.

MM

That claim is false - the video clearly shows that the central portion was falling ahead of the two flank sections.

So that's your "earlier post" addressed and succinctly. Expressed even more sucinctly - "You are wrong!"

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But I'm too far from U.S.

In the not too distant past, a technology was invented that made the world a much, much smaller place. Believe it or not, you're actually using it right now. Yes... right now. It's formal name is the Internet. In groups displaying the same maturity level as your own, it's often referred to as "the Net", "teh interwebs", or simply "online".

See how you are pretending you are doing science over a cynicism forums?

Please... I'm sure most of us are in no need of a live demonstration of the Dunning–Kruger effect. Spare your energy for something more constructive.

 

[Reactor drone]

Tell me then, what does NIST claim the point of their model is, and what was the point of them repeatedly claiming the manor in which their model comes down is consistent with the video evidence?

No, it isn't. It was obvious long before NIST carried out their analysis that some combination of fire and debris impact was the only possible cause of collapse.

Dave

So, as it seems you don't believe NIST analysis with their model was even intended to prove this claim, what analysis do you believe proves it?

The point of the model was to try and determine the exact cause of the collapse in order to help predict fire risk to other structures and suggest possible remedial actions that might be taken to reduce future fire risks in similar structures.

The fact that the building collapsed due to fire and damage was self evident but the exact details couldn't be determined without the ANSYS analysis and the accompanying fire analysis. The end result was close enough to the observed event to give high confidence in its accuracy as it shows all the major observed features, collapse of the east penthouse, east to west progression of failure, multistory buckle that allows for the period of near freefall and the general southward collapse of the building.

 

[mzelinski]

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

That’s the apparent paradox of the NIST’s collapse mechanism, that far more work was delivered at the output than potential work was supplied at the input (First Law). The Second Law would predict that such a situation is not the result of a spontaneous process, that collapse would not proceed in the forward direction.

Even classical buckling theory is very successful at predicting whether a building will collapse due to fires. For example, see Robert Gilmore’s Catastrophe Theory, ch 11, "Structural Mechanics" for a concise treatment of buckling modes in elastic theory. Even he concludes that such a structure will merely sag but not collapse (see page 261). So when people say “no steel frame highrise has ever completely collapsed due to fires” that is not just an empty slogan – it is rigorously derived from theory as well as tested in practice.

At very least, we wouldn’t expect the internal collapse of structural members as seen in the LS-DYNA simulation, that resembles more of an inverted pachinko machine than a steel-frame building.

In post #151 I demonstrated that the official explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Can you show, to within a reasonable uncertainty, that the NIST’s mechanism does not violate the Second Law?

 

[excaza]

In post #151 you wrote a bunch of nonsensical garbage hoping that it sounded sciency enough to impress people.

This comes to mind: http://xkcd.com/687/

 

[mzelinski]

Here is what I came iup with (already wrote) before reading Newton's Bit's and Dave Roger's refutations on the next page:

. . . .

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

. . . .

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.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s "Credible Utility" clause is used to reject as pseudoscience any application that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This criterion serves as a good reality check. Do you know if anyone has attempted to show that the NIST’s collapse model does not violate the Second Law?

 

[triforcharity]

In post #151 I demonstrated that the official explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Can you be more specific? Which second law of thermodynamics.

ETA: Are we talking statistical, or classical?

ETA: It also says if it violates any law of nature.

See here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2107_02.htm

 

[dtugg]

That’s the apparent paradox of the NIST’s collapse mechanism, that far more work was delivered at the output than potential work was supplied at the input (First Law). The Second Law would predict that such a situation is not the result of a spontaneous process, that collapse would not proceed in the forward direction.

Even classical buckling theory is very successful at predicting whether a building will collapse due to fires. For example, see Robert Gilmore’s Catastrophe Theory, ch 11, "Structural Mechanics" for a concise treatment of buckling modes in elastic theory. Even he concludes that such a structure will merely sag but not collapse (see page 261). So when people say “no steel frame highrise has ever completely collapsed due to fires” that is not just an empty slogan – it is rigorously derived from theory as well as tested in practice.

At very least, we wouldn’t expect the internal collapse of structural members as seen in the LS-DYNA simulation, that resembles more of an inverted pachinko machine than a steel-frame building.

In post #151 I demonstrated that the official explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Can you show, to within a reasonable uncertainty, that the NIST’s mechanism does not violate the Second Law?

How about we go to the top of the Empire State building and I push you off. According to your retarded logic you will walk away unscathed because there is no way that the energy output (you hitting the ground) could be greater than the input (me pushing you off).

 

[Newtons Bit]

In post #151 I demonstrated that the official explanation violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Can you show, to within a reasonable uncertainty, that the NIST’s mechanism does not violate the Second Law?

No you didn't. You ignored the energy released through change in potential energy. The system has a net increase in entropy due to frictional losses.