• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How WTC 7 was pulled down

You haven't provided any evidence of an explosive capable of cutting a core column.
I've provide evidence of explosions both in the form of audio recordings and witness reports from around WTC 7, while nobody has provided any evidence that such a building could come down anywhere near as quickly as completely as WTC 7 absent the systematic cutting of columns.
 
I've provide evidence of explosions both in the form of audio recordings and witness reports from around WTC 7, while nobody has provided any evidence that such a building could come down anywhere near as quickly as completely as WTC 7 absent the systematic cutting of columns.

Wrong!

Noone heard any explosive sounds 1/2 mile away. That means that people across the Hudson River would've heard the explosives going off. But behold, they heard nothing.
 
Can somebody remind me again how fast a building should come down? Is there a standard that's ever been established? :rolleyes
 
I've provide evidence of explosions both in the form of audio recordings and witness reports from around WTC 7, while nobody has provided any evidence that such a building could come down anywhere near as quickly as completely as WTC 7 absent the systematic cutting of columns.

And yet, none of those explosions could have been produced by an explosive capable of cutting a core column.

Not loud enough.

Not the correct sound.

Nothing.

And yet, the many dogs that were at GZ that were capable of detecting an explosive, not one indicated an explosive.

Again, argument from personal ignorance does not make you correct. It makes you ignorant.
 
I've provide evidence of explosions both in the form of audio recordings and witness reports from around WTC 7, while nobody has provided any evidence that such a building could come down anywhere near as quickly as completely as WTC 7 absent the systematic cutting of columns.

You are in the abject minority on this. What were your qualifications again?

With evidence like this, it should be no problem to find some respected engineering, scientific, law enforcement, or judicial organization SOMEWHERE on Earth to take up your torch, right?
 
If only it were that simple, but unfortunately most people seem intent on vesting their faith in the notion that impact damage and fire could make a building come down like like WTC buildings did despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such notions.
 
If only it were that simple, but unfortunately most people seem intent on vesting their faith in the notion that impact damage and fire could make a building come down like like WTC buildings did despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such notions.


Yea, and by most people, you must include most experts. Either they're all idiots, or maybe they know something you don't.

It's your choice, but I find the possibility that most people are wrong, but you and a few other cult members somehow have it all figured out to be a tad bit on the unbelievable side.

I guess anything's possible, though. Keep on keepin' on.
 
If only it were that simple, but unfortunately most people seem intent on vesting their faith in the notion that impact damage and fire could make a building come down like like WTC buildings did despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such notions.

By "faith" you mean "thousands of pages of documentations detailing large numbers of experiments and models" right?
 
If only it were that simple, but unfortunately most people seem intent on vesting their faith in the notion that impact damage and fire could make a building come down like like WTC buildings did despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such notions.

Like these?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm#fire

Using these
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover

Using this microscopic exam
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#metal

Concluding with these animations?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm

Yeah, and you guys have pizza boxes and serial bumbassery.
 
If only it were that simple, but unfortunately most people seem intent on vesting their faith in the notion that impact damage and fire could make a building come down like like WTC buildings did despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such notions.
You have no reality based knowledge to save you from spreading lies and failing to understand 911. You are the faith-based cult member of a movement with a solid 9 years of failure. Sad you lack evidence to back up your claims and save them from being delusions.
 
Last edited:
Rather, testing a hypothesis through experiment is a fundamental principle of the scientific method, and is what NIST claims to have done with their model, yet they've proven unwilling to even show their video of their model comming down to demonstrate as much.

Except NIST wasn't tasked with proving or disproving the conspiracy theorist flights of fancy. NIST didn't model the collapse to determine if magic explosives or ninja unicorns were responsible.

No, that's supposition.

No it isn't. The video evidence was reviewed and the velocity of the ejected material was determined. It was well below subsonic. The sound and velocity was consistent with the effects of compression.

More supposition, completely unsupported by experiment.

Incorrect. Numerous independent sources have confirmed this, all of which have withstood the scrutiny of peer review.

You're just ignorant of all the available evidence.
 
If it's "essentially no different than an energy imbalance approach", then it's trivially obvious that the additional source of energy is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Clearly, that energy is available to do work.



No, sorry, I don't believe you there. I think that the motivation for using the entropy regime is that your energy imbalance argument is so obviously absurd that some misdirection is called for, so you've divided everything by temperature so that you can talk about entropy, which people don't understand as well as energy. That way, you can take an an argument that you know is completely wrong and pretend it has some merit, and hope that it fools the people you want to mislead.


Of course, that's why everybody uses entropy.

Now, how about an entropy analysis of the release of gravitational potential energy as the building collapsed? Are you prepared to attempt that, or will you make excuses because you know it's the obvious reason why your analysis is utter rubbish?

Dave


This is an interesting problem, isn’t it? Whether or not the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 violates the Second Law. And it's directly related to the original post.

This rudimentary treatment is just a starting point in an attempt to answer that question, and so it uses many simplifying initial assumptions. For example, it assumes rigid body mechanics to find the energy needed to achieve the eight floors of free fall, but in reality a more sophisticated analysis is probably needed, such as load-deflection, etc. Also, at first glance it appears to suggest that ΔSi is the potential to do work, which is a common misconception of entropy. Entropy is better described as a measure of the energy unavailable to do work, and that's the reason for the earlier caution that the reversible work assumption is unrealistic.

It starts to make more sense when we replace ΔSi with the change in total entropy of the structure,

ΔStotal = (ΔQ)/T + ΔSinternal
where ΔSinternal is the entropy internally generated by inertia forces in thermal expansion. The heat for thermal expansion ΔQ contributes to the internal energy and is unavailable to do work, while -T*ΔSinternal represents the energy to convert damage, fracture, shearing, etc. into kinetic energy and set the structure into motion. So

ΔSinternal = ΔStotal - (ΔQ)/T​

and the structure becomes unstable (i.e. collapse ensues) when, in this relation, ΔSinternal > 0. Generally, the other condition is that the actual path followed amongst all available is the one for which ΔSinternal is maximum.

Now the problem can be more correctly stated as determining whether or not the ΔSinternal associated with the thermal expansion of the girder can – through some unspecified chain of events – result in the approximately eight floors of near free fall, to allow the potential energy of the upper section to be released in the form of kinetic energy (initially stated as ΔStotal = ΔSf).
The question remains, can the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 be shown to be consistent with the Second Law?
I don’t know the answer. When additional observable features, such as the high degree of symmetry, are included, accounting for the official explanation becomes even more complicated.
 
It’s trivial to show that the force of a finger flex acting over the distance of a trigger pull is far less energy than the kinetic energy of the fired bullet. So, yes, using my analysis above, in fact I would maintain that a bullet traveling 1000 ft/s could not possibly be caused by pulling the trigger alone; an additional energy source would have to have been involved to do the work, namely a shell full of gunpowder.

Rather, the NIST's explanation of the collapse of WTC7 is in effect postulating that the kinetic energy of the bullet is caused by pulling the trigger alone.

Bazant and Cedolin’s Stability of Structures, ch 10, presents a thorough engineering treatment of applying thermodynamics to mechanical structures.

Do you know of a way to show that thermal expansion of a girder in order to bring down WTC7 either does or does not violate the Second Law?


Debunked
 
...The question remains, can the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 be shown to be consistent with the Second Law?
I don’t know the answer. When additional observable features, such as the high degree of symmetry, are included, accounting for the official explanation becomes even more complicated.
Which naturally brings us to the question "What is the objective?"

1) If the objective is prove or disprove demolition there are far easier ways of reaching the conclusion.

2) If the objective is to prove or disprove NIST's modelling there are alternat methods but all face the barrier which NIST also faced of "too much detail hidden from sight"; WHILST

3) If the objective is interest in a method of analysis.......well whatever jerks your strings. :rolleyes:
 
This is an interesting problem, isn’t it? Whether or not the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 violates the Second Law. And it's directly related to the original post.

No it's complete rubbish, and I'm quite certain you know it.

You have to define an equilibrium state for the entire system in order to pursue your analysis. Any thermodynamic potential unaccounted for is more than enough to push the system out of equilibrium and result in increasing entropy. The size of the WTC7, and the simple fact that it's not an isolated system precludes any such analysis.

But please, don't let that stop you. It's an entirely entertaining feat of intellectual masturbation so please continue :D
 
This is an interesting problem, isn’t it? Whether or not the official explanation for the collapse of WTC7 violates the Second Law. And it's directly related to the original post.

<snip>

Instead of launching into more thermodynamics it would have been more useful to recognise the fatal flaws in your premises. You're building on quicksand, so stop building.
 
By "faith" you mean "thousands of pages of documentations detailing large numbers of experiments and models" right?
I mean NIST hasn't even shown video to support their claims that their WTC 7model comes down consistent with how the building actually did, and neither has anyone else produced a simulation to support the official story for either WTC 7 or the towers.
 
In order to do their collapse timing calculations, the NIST relied on video of the visible 18 stories of the WTC 7 north face collapse.

It is important to note that in spite of a large staff, abundant resources, and seven long years to do the calculations and analysis, the NIST in their August 2008, Final WTC 7 Report for public comment, pointedly did not include any confirmation of a period of free fall during the WTC 7 global collapse.

It could not have been through oversight or missed calculation.

Before everyone says "so what?", consideration should be given to what free fall entails.

A 47-story building dropping for a period of free fall, while maintaining a relatively level roofline, requires the near instantaneous removal of all its gravity-resisting vertical support over the distance travelled at free fall speed.

The NIST did not want this problematic information to come out at their August 2008 press conference.

The NIST presented a theory based on the idea that column 79 in the northeast corner of WTC 7 buckled over a number of floors, ultimately resulting in the collapse of the east penthouse, followed by an east-to-west progressive failure of interior columns and floor systems.

By not acknowledging the existence of free fall, the NIST theory for the collapse allowed for a fast, but still gradual failure, throughout the whole structure.

The theory did not adequately account for the possibility of significant free fall as exhibited by a relatively level descending roofline.

For the NIST explanation to hold true, the east, north and west faces, shown in videos to be solidly joined during global collapse, could not be free falling in unison.

With no free fall, the observed unison collapse of those building-faces could roughly fit into the NIST gradual collapse scenario.

What is particularly amazing, is the NIST acceptance of the idea that WTC 7, following the internal collapse of its interior columns and floor systems, was effectively reduced to a shell prior to the observed global collapse.

column79failure1.jpg

Figure 2–2. Eastward buckling of Column 79, viewed from the southeast.

During this theorized several seconds of internal devastation, the internal structure, solidly joined to perimeter walls, was supposedly being pulled downward, yet the only outward display was a few broken windows appearing on the upper east side of the north face.

Unfortunately for the NIST, in the brief period they alloted for public comment, a high school science teacher named David Chandler, using the same video data as the NIST, submitted his finding that WTC 7 underwent a period of free fall.

Shortly thereafter, the video he created to illustrate his proof went viral on YouTube.

The NIST found themselves in a position where they could no longer ignore the existence of free fall during the WTC 7 global collapse.

So what did the NIST do?

In their NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report, under TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION, the NIST now presented "A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the building in the first several seconds of descent..."

The global collapse which they had previously described as a single event, was now broken down into three stages.

"- In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.
By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

- In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

- In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft)."


bolding is mine

Note that the NIST, making their calculations from the descending north face roofline, somewhat disingenuously refer only to the "north face", when making their reference to a descent at gravitational acceleration.

Official Conspiracy Theory supporters often like to seize on this as an indication that the NIST was arguing the north face only. In doing so, they ignore the unbroken connectivity between the east, north and west building faces during the visible descent that the NIST used to base their free fall finding.

So there you have it.

The NIST were forced to concede that 1.75 seconds into global collapse, for 105 feet, 8 stories, the east, north and west faces of WTC 7 were known to be falling in unison at free fall speed. The kinked roofline remained relatively level through this descent, indicating vertical support was removed virtually instantaneously on the east, north and west sides of WTC 7.

The NIST did not update their detailed collapse scenarios to include any reference to this known free fall, so it is unknown how they feel their theory satisfactorily explains how all three sides could agree to fail at the same time.

MM
 
... Thus, the 24 core columns below floor 16 were simply simultaneously burnt off using, e.g. sol-gel nanothermites sprayed on the columns that then evaporated (!) instantaneously. That explains why no lower (below floor 16) core columns are found in the debris of WTC7 (and that the pull down of WTC 7 was an inside job, I am sorry to conclude)!
Insane claims made by people who have ideas that are made up out of ignorance.

Heiwa published his failed ideas on 911, they were found to be nonsense.

Who supports Heiwa's insane claim the core columns were cut by evaporating sol-gel nanothermites? How can anyone support any WTC 7 claims in a thread about a moronic fantasy?

When will MM publish his findings of woo, based on the delusional CD lie?
 

Back
Top Bottom