How WTC 7 was pulled down

[kylebisme]

Since the truth movement has been unwilling to suggest examples, what example would you suggest as a precedent of a steel framed building coming down from thermite being used to sever support members?

Regardless of how support members might be severed, there are many examples to demonstate the fact that building can come down much like WTC did when support members are intentally severed, such as the ones in these side by side comparisons which I presented previously:



On the other hand, where is any example of a building without such systematic severing of support members comeing down anything like WTC 7 did to compare side by side like that? We don't have anything more than NIST's word that their model does, do we?

 

[Sabretooth]

Regardless of how support members might be severed, there are many examples to demonstate the fact that building can come down much like WTC did when support members are intentally severed, such as the ones in these side by side comparisons which I presented previously:



On the other hand, where is any example of a building without such systematic severing of support members comeing down anything like WTC 7 did to compare side by side like that? We don't have anything more than NIST's word that their model does, do we?

Nice dodge!

 

[twinstead]

So now is the time to provide evidence to support the idea that the WTC collapsed because the support members were intensionally severed, because NIST's "word" about the fact that the fire and damage caused the collapse apparenely isn't being contested by any respectged engineering or scientific group anywhere in the world. Somebody needs to tell them that the NIST is either incompetent or 'in on it' before those EuroCodes get changed any more or many more journals get published in legitimate peer-reviewed journals about the collapse.

They really should know.

 

[kylebisme]

None of us really have anything more to support the notion that impact damage and fire could cause such a rapped collapse of a building other than NIST's word that their model does, do we? How many people, those writing the Eurocodes or otherwise, have actually seen NIST's model come down? Also, I'm not aware of anything getting published in any peer-reviewed journals about the collapse of WTC 7, what are you referencing with that comment specifically?

 

[excaza]

I'm half tempted to bring my laptop 20 feet down the hall and show #151 to the WPI FPE department, I'm sure it would brighten up their Thursday afternoon

 

[twinstead]

None of us really have anything more to support the notion that impact damage and fire could cause such a rapped collapse of a building other than NIST's word that their model does, do we? How many people, those writing the Eurocodes or otherwise, have actually seen NIST's model come down? Also, I'm not aware of anything getting published in any peer-reviewed journals about the collapse of WTC 7, what are you referencing with that comment specifically?

I'll leave all that sciencey stuff for those on the forum who know that (there's a crapload of them), but frankly, until a respected engineering or scientific organization has a problem with NIST, all you are is some guy posting stuff on a relatively obscure internet forum. Lot's of crazy stuff on the 'net, for sure, huh?

The commonly-held narrative of WTC7 stands.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'm half tempted to bring my laptop 20 feet down the hall and show #151 to the WPI FPE department, I'm sure it would brighten up their Thursday afternoon

Why the Fire Protection Engineering department? Even the undergraduate physics department needs yuks every once in a while, and this'll serve to show the young 'uns just how far pseudoscience can go.

------

I mean, yes, I'm joking. But I'm also serious about the concept of illustrating to folks unexplosed to woo just how far it goes sometimes. Most people don't have a clue just how convoluted some pseudoscience woo peddlers go, or how deep their convoluted explanations get. That's why even people with a science background appropriate to their age and educational level (raises hand, because the following applies to me back in my second year high school, and just starting some advanced, college prep science courses) sometimes give such pseudoscience peddling slack because they figure "no one would go that far with something unless there was something legitimately there". Then, they take hours reading von Daniken and Velikovsky only to find out that yes, some cranks are industrious with their crankness, and no, there is not something legitimately there.

Remember what General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord said. He only intended to apply it to the military, but really, it's an observation about society:

“I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!”

Since I'm applying this outside military life and society, I don't think the concept of having the stupid yet industrious "removed immediately" is appropriate. In an army, sure, kick the incompetent out, but not general society; you don't rid yourselves of citizens simply because they're philisophically attached to lunacy. Yet, the point is made: Stupidity elevates itself to a whole new level when it's combined with industriousness. And yes, people do indeed go quite far in building, "studying", and distributing woo; see these truther gatherings, or AE911T, Scholars for 911 Truth, etc. for examples. And that is why I feel that critical thinking and scientific method is such an important element of basic education. I wouldn't call these lunacies malicious (not in the face of anti-medical woo, and conversely Holocaust denial). But they are most certainly contradictory to the notion of enlightenment.

Anyway, rant over. Give the unsung undergrad instructors some fun too, will ya?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I'll leave all that sciencey stuff for those on the forum who know that (there's a crapload of them), but frankly, until a respected engineering or scientific organization has a problem with NIST, all you are is some guy posting stuff on a relatively obscure internet forum. Lot's of crazy stuff on the 'net, for sure, huh?

The commonly-held narrative of WTC7 stands.

Remember, though: There are respected engineering or scientific individuals (and one engineering organization) that does indeed have a disagreement with NIST. We've talked about all of them before: Drs Astaneh-Asl and James Quintiere. And the corporation that disagrees with an element of the NIST theory is the Arup firm that our poster Architect has mentioned before.

But what's the difference between them? Asataneh-Asl, Quintiere, and Arup base their differences in fundamental engineering principles, sound logic, and rational, supported arguments. And they take the trouble to actually present their differences in ways that matter; Quintiere doing so in those Congressional hearings, Astaneh-Asl incorporating that into his academic work, and Arup sending attendants to engineerig conferences and workshops to present their own findings and illuminate their differences with the NIST theory. They don't abuse, misuse, or ignore engineering and physical principles to forward their claims, nor do they misrepresent or distort the other sides arguments, evidence, or conclusions. They instead disagree, make clear the fundamental differences, and accept that working with NIST and the academic engineering community is the way to correctly criticize and fix problems they see.

Oh, and they don't argue from paranoid viewpoints or discard established facts either.

Anyway, what truthers simply fail to see is that there is indeed a robust hashing out of problems others see with NIST's explanations. Just look at the two individuals and Arup as an example. But they fail to see it because they're not looking. It fits their worldview too neatly to act as though there is indeed some vast conspiracy to ignore challenges to NIST, rather than accept that their failures are due to the insufficiency of their argument to begin with.

(The above is of course not aimed at Twinstead, who's seen me make these sorts of posts before and has been around long enough to realize this himself. Rather, I put it here for other readers and the occasional lurker who might happen by. It's worth understanding.)

 

[twinstead]

Indeed. Nobody disagrees with the fact that none of the buildings collapsed due to anything except fire and damage. I guess that's a better way of putting it.

If one asked Asataneh-Asl, Quintiere, and Arup if they thought 9-11 was an inside job they certainly wouldn't agree.

 

[Miragememories]

I'm still waiting for a serious reply to this post;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

I was under the impression that the thread topic would get discussed?

MM

 

[DGM]

I'm still waiting for a serious reply to this post;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6478555&postcount=120

I was under the impression that the thread topic would get discussed?

MM

A serious reply to what? Is there actually a point to the post? Are you disputing the building fell back as it fell?

 

[mzelinski]

Very good! You have identified a large reservoir of potential energy in that system: the chemical energy of the propellant.

To understand why that analogy was relevant to the collapse of a building, you should look for an analogous reservoir of potential energy in an uncollapsed building.


No. You're overlooking the gravitational potential energy that WTC7 possessed prior to its collapse. Please try again.


Yes. You've been given many broad hints, such as:

This may come as a surprise to you, but you can increase the entropy of a system by converting some of its potential energy into heat. Among people who actually understand thermodynamics, that is considered to be one of the more obvious ways to increase the entropy of a system.

The building's collapse converts its gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is short-lived. What happens to it?

Some of that kinetic energy is transferred to the earth, but the earth is so massive that its change in velocity is too small for anyone to notice. Some kinetic energy goes into breaking things. The kinetic energy that doesn't go into changing the velocity of the earth or breaking things or other dissipative activities turns into heat, which increases the entropy of (what's left of) the building.

(Breaking the building into smaller pieces also increases the entropy of the building, but that's a more sophisticated analysis so we'll save it for some other day.)

We can estimate the increase in entropy by calculating the potential energy that was converted into kinetic energy and then into heat and other less useful forms of energy. Oystein has already done that for us:

That's a lot of potential energy. I don't know how you managed to forget about it.

When you modify your calculation to take into account the conversion of that potential energy into heat (et cetera), you will arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to your incorrect conclusions in post #151.

If you need more help with your calculations, please let us know.

Correct, as many here point out, buildings have plenty of potential energy, but what we want to know is whether an input of energy can do sufficient damage to bring on instability and set the building motion, thus converting the potential energy to kinetic energy.

My simple analysis is essentially no different than an energy imbalance approach (First Law). Using this approach, work is still assumed to be reversible, so the work available can be equated with the heat input (not realistic!), ΔW = ΔQ = 6.4E+08 J < KE_{upper section} = 2.263E+10 J. For our purposes, this energy difference is sufficient to show that an additional source of energy had to have been involved in the collapse.

The motivation for using the entropy regime, however, is that in reality work is not reversible, and the damage of shearing columns, etc., comes only from the internal entropy production, which is the actual quantity sought. In general, the energy deficit won’t be as obvious as it is for WTC7, in which case the internal entropy production is needed to determine if collapse is spontaneous. For example, in the Twin Towers, the internal entropy production associated with the alleged creep buckling would have to be calculated in order to determine if conditions were reached sufficient to cause instability and collapse. For this, the Second Law is needed.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

A serious reply to what? Is there actually a point to the post? Are you disputing the building fell back as it fell?

Let's also remember: His post was replied to 3 times in the 7 posts following it. Two by AJM8125, and one by GlennB. The point of the rebuttals was that the very video used did indeed show the effect being denied: That the north face was indeed not falling in unison with the other 3 faces, but was indeed ahead of them.

Granted, posts after those are superfluous, but if he wants to complain, the report button's right there on the left.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Correct, as many here point out, buildings have plenty of potential energy, but what we want to know is whether an input of energy can do sufficient damage to bring on instability and set the building motion, thus converting the potential energy to kinetic energy.

To put it more plainly, all you need to know is whether there was enough energy to pull the trigger. To put it more specifically, did the fires generate enough heat to cause the hypothesized thermal expansion?

Yes, they did. That doesn't mean NIST got the details right, but it does mean that NIST's hypothesis can't be refuted by any general calculation based upon overall energy or entropy.

I see, however, that the impossibility of making your argument stick hasn't discouraged you. You're still trying:

My simple analysis is essentially no different than an energy imbalance approach (First Law). Using this approach, work is still assumed to be reversible, so the work available can be equated with the heat input (not realistic!), ΔW = ΔQ = 6.4E+08 J < KE_{upper section} = 2.263E+10 J. For our purposes, this energy difference is sufficient to show that an additional source of energy had to have been involved in the collapse.

Nonsense. You're still arguing that the energy required to pull the trigger was less than the kinetic energy imparted to the bullet, so the gun couldn't have gone off.

That's an idiotic argument. It fooled Miragememories, and it may fool others who are looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of their prejudices, but it has not fooled and will not fool readers who are scientifically literate.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Let's also remember: His post was replied to 3 times in the 7 posts following it. Two by AJM8125, and one by GlennB. The point of the rebuttals was that the very video used did indeed show the effect being denied: That the north face was indeed not falling in unison with the other 3 faces, but was indeed ahead of them.

Granted, posts after those are superfluous, but if he wants to complain, the report button's right there on the left.

Psst, that's the nominate button.


Oh.

I see what you did there.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Psst, that's the nominate button.


Oh.

I see what you did there.

LOL! I mean farther to the left!

Although it'd be freakin' hilarious if all those posts in that thread got put up for the TLA!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

To put it more plainly, all you need to know is whether there was enough energy to pull the trigger. To put it more specifically, did the fires generate enough heat to cause the hypothesized thermal expansion?

Yes, they did. That doesn't mean NIST got the details right, but it does mean that NIST's hypothesis can't be refuted by any general calculation based upon overall energy or entropy.

I see, however, that the impossibility of making your argument stick hasn't discouraged you. You're still trying:

Nonsense. You're still arguing that the energy required to pull the trigger was less than the kinetic energy imparted to the bullet, so the gun couldn't have gone off.

That's an idiotic argument. It fooled Miragememories, and it may fool others who are looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of their prejudices, but it has not fooled and will not fool readers who are scientifically literate.

The "additional" source of energy he's referring to is gravitational PE. Why is he ignoring that? [/rhetorical question]

 

[Furcifer]

The motivation for using the entropy regime, however, is that in reality work is not reversible, and the damage of shearing columns, etc., comes only from the internal entropy production, which is the actual quantity sought.

That's lie, you think it sounds fancy to go on about the first and second law when all you're really talking about is conservation of energy.

Because it's not a closed system your approach is useless, and wrong.

The energy from the sun hitting the East face of the building from the time of the first impact to the time WTC7 fell is more than enough to bend a beam and cause the intiating event.

Same goes for the breeze blowing on the leeward side.

And actually a cigarette butt thrown by a passing pedestrian would suffice.

 

[Miragememories]

To put it more plainly, all you need to know is whether there was enough energy to pull the trigger. To put it more specifically, did the fires generate enough heat to cause the hypothesized thermal expansion?

Yes, they did. That doesn't mean NIST got the details right, but it does mean that NIST's hypothesis can't be refuted by any general calculation based upon overall energy or entropy.

I see, however, that the impossibility of making your argument stick hasn't discouraged you. You're still trying:

Nonsense. You're still arguing that the energy required to pull the trigger was less than the kinetic energy imparted to the bullet, so the gun couldn't have gone off.

That's an idiotic argument. It fooled Miragememories, and it may fool others who are looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of their prejudices, but it has not fooled and will not fool readers who are scientifically literate.

Speak for yourself.

I never spoke to that argument.

I criticized Newton's Bit for his bad manners in the way he mockingly responded to it.

MM

 

[W.D.Clinger]

That's an idiotic argument. It fooled Miragememories, and it may fool others who are looking for pseudoscientific confirmation of their prejudices, but it has not fooled and will not fool readers who are scientifically literate.

Speak for yourself.

I never spoke to that argument.

I criticized Newton's Bit for his bad manners in the way he mockingly responded to it.

I stand corrected. Please accept my apologies.

With that correction, it appears I should have said mzelinski's technobabble didn't even fool Miragememories.