Tuesday, August 26, 2008

The NIST Tries to 'Repeal' the Laws of Entropy and the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

NIST's latest theory ignores satellite thermal photos of ground zero indicating abnormally high temperatures for months after 911. The NIST theory du jour ignores this data and fails to explain it!

Under-estimating the intelligence of the American people, the NIST persists in papering over the endless holes in Bush's officiall conspiracy theories of 911. Openly declaring that its new 'report' will finish off critics of Bush's officiall conspiracy theory of 911, NIST has presumed to repeal laws of physics --the laws of entropy as well as the First & the Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Are we to expect Bush will now try repeal the equations of Galileo and Newton which describe precisely the free fall of sabotaged towers in New York? Perhaps Bush and his NEOCON co-conspirators will re-design the universe itself!
GAITHERSBURG, Md.—The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

--NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse
NIST states as fact a baseless assumption. NIST fails to address the temperatures required to melt steel and, thus, cause the collapse! The question then is not whether but when the building was prepped for demolition!

NIST ignores the fact that WTC 7 had not been struck by airliners; the fires were secondary and comparatively cool. It has never been demonstrated that WTC 7 fires were ever hot enough to have melted steel at any time. Moreover, fires cool over time. They do not get hotter when left alone. According to the First Law of Thermodynamics, an increase in the internal energy of any 'system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings'.
The second law is a straightforward law of physics with the consequence that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with — some is always wasted. This means that a perpetual motion machine is impossible. The second law was formulated after nineteenth century engineers noticed that heat cannot pass from a colder body to a warmer body by itself.

According to philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, the second law was first put into words by two scientists, Rudolph Clausius and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), using different examples, in 1850-51 (2). American quantum physicist Richard P. Feynman, however, says the French physicist Sadi Carnot discovered the second law 25 years earlier (3). That would have been before the first law, conservation of energy, was discovered! In any case, modern scientists are in agreement about the above principles.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics is associated with increasing entropy, i.e, disorder. It states that in an isolated system, entropy will, over time, increase, reaching its maximum value at equilibrium. The fires inside the twin towers were never hot enough to have melted steel. The fires themselves cooled over time, never reaching or approaching temperatures required to melt steel. Something happened that should not have. Entropy was interfered with! Something was added to the equation. Giving the game away and exposing the officiall lie is the fact that unnatural heat persisted long after the buildings had long collapsed.
"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."

-- WMV video download (616kB)
There is no reason to suppose that anything supernatural happened at WTC 7; there is no reason to suppose that laws of physics discovered and described by William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, Newton, Galileo et al need revision. There is reason to suspect that something highly illegal happened at WTC 7. Persistent heat patterns, observed from space are big holes in Bush's officiall theory which cannot explain them innocently. If 'thermal expansion' is to be implicated, the source of additional heat MUST be considered.

The best explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is still the simplest --Silverstein's simple statement that the building had been 'pulled' following his discussion and agreement with firefighters. Silverstein is on video tape confirming that within minutes of his discussion with firefighters, in which it was agreed that the building be pulled, Building 7 was in fact 'pulled'. That's irrefutable.

'Thermal expansion' differs among various materials. The 'thermal expansion' co-efficient of steel can be looked up here for free! If you are willing to pay a small yearly subscription fee, you can plug that coefficient (for steel) into an 'online' calculator that will tell you precisely how much 'expansion' can be expected per degree of heat in various scales. The coefficients are one thing. Of more interest are the exponents which, as I recall, are always negative, as in negative 6. Any positive number to the power of negative six, for example, is very, very, very small. Any coefficient to a negative power is very, very, very small.

I dare say, the amount of steel expansion is microscopic if at all. It is doubtful that the miniscule expansion would have collapsed a building in a precise and symmetrical fashion which --even if it were true --assumes that the heat is evenly distributed.It is even questionable whether or not the 'expansion' would have militated against collapse rather than causing it.

Entropy is most simply a 'running down', an increase in 'disorder'. If by the use of the term 'heat expansion', the NIST implies that fires not enough to melt steel somehow got hot enough over time, the NIST is lying! Entropy is, technically, the very 'randomness of molecules' and the tendency of things to simply 'run down'. Unless energy is added, fires will cool. Perhaps energy was added. Perhaps fires were assisted.

Entropy is essential to the Second Law of Thermodynamics the second law of thermodynamics and the fundamental thermodynamic relation, which deal with physical processes and whether they occur spontaneously. Spontaneous changes, in isolated systems, occur with an increase in entropy. Spontaneous changes tend to smooth out differences in temperature, pressure, density, and chemical potential that may exist in a system, and entropy is thus a measure of how far this smoothing-out process has progressed.

'Thermal [heat] expansion' is fallaciously exploited for the purpose of explaining away with scientific sounding gobbledegook the fact that Building 7 looks like a controlled demolition. Building 7 looks like a controlled demolition because it was a controlled demolition.

NIST admitted that it hoped its 'findings' would finish off critiques of the officiall conspiracy theory! Guess again, NIST! The fight has not yet begun!

Just as I would not go to a doctor who tells me to keep on doing whatever it is that makes me sick, I would not patronize one who 'invents' a new disease because he doesn't know what it is that ails me. If NIST has not invented 'thermal expansion', it has, at least, applied it dubiously in order to paper over better and simpler explanations. For logical and scientific reasons, I like 'controlled demolition' because that's what the evidence proves happened.
Reports of molten steel in the foundations of the Twin Towers and Building 7 have been noted in the literature of skeptics of the officiall account of the building collapses. None of the officiall government reports have commented on these reports, although FEMA's Report contained an appendix disclosing evidence of mysterious high temperature corrosion of steel due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

--911 Research
'Thermal expansion' does not explain the persistence of 'thermal hot spots' seen in satellite photos taken five days after the event!
Results of Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations show the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the area in and around the World Trade Center on September 16 and 23, 2001. Data collected on the 16th were processed, interpreted and released to emergency response teams on the 18th of September, 2001. The September 23 data were processed, interpreted and the results released on October 12, 2001. The images of the World Trade Center site show significant thermal hot spots on Sept. 16, 2001. By Sept. 23, 2001, most of the hot spots had cooled or the fires had been put out.

The AVIRIS instrument is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) remote sensing instrument that measures upwelling spectral radiance in the visible through short-wavelength infrared. The instrument has 224 spectral channels (bands) with wavelengths from 0.37 to 2.5 microns (micrometers).

Heated objects may expand in miniscule amounts but heat itself runs down, cools, ice will melt. Disorder, i.e, entropy increases.
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520 F (825 C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.

Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 5000 F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:

"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt." [Firehouse.com]

Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...

Molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2]," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

What caused the steel to melt? How did it stay molten for months after the collapses?

--What Really Happened
'Thermal expansion' of itself does not explain or support the idea that WTC 7 collapsed as a result of fire. If anything, 'thermal expansion' raises the question: what additional source of heat was required to bring about the observed collapse? Perhaps the NIST should have perused the satellite photos of ground zero. How will the NIST respond if it should be proven that airliner fires alone could not have caused both the collapse as well as the persistent thermal patterns that were observed to have persisted for weeks, perhaps months after the towers' collapse? Will the NIST, by trying to shore up the officiall conspiracy theory, be proven to have shot itself in the foot?
Note: The letter 'A' in the pic above denotes the site of WTC 7. The warmer the color the higher the residual temperature. Clearly--these heat patterns are not only NOT explained by the official conspiracy theory, they are ignored by the NIST's latest attempt to 'paper over' yet another fatal hole in officialldom.

Larry Silverstein sez HIS building was PULLED!
Listen to the ROAR of explosions that NIST says didn't happen.

Larry Silverstein dodges questions!
Like the proverbial bad penny, Lucky Larry Silverstein keeps popping up. He’s back and he’s bad again. Not content with the nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments he received to cover his losses at the World Trade Center, he is now seeking $12.3 billion in damages from the airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack in a suit filed in 2004.

Not tainted enough by the fact that Silverstein & Partners took out a lease for 99 years in July of 2001 on the WTC, two months before the attack . . . not content Larry & Partners upped the insurance at that time to $3.5 billion and (presciently) to cover potential hits by airliners flown by “terrorist hijackers” . . .

Not content that Silverstein & Partners subsequently sued the insurers for $7 billion, considering the attack a double strike because separate liners hit Towers One and Two. Not content that Larry spent the next six years in litigation with the insurance companies, only to have the deal fortunately settled, brokered by then Governor Spitzer in 2007, yielding $4.55 to Lucky Larry and Partners . . .

Not content either that his personal stake in the lease was only some $14 million, the balance supplied by his partners. Not content that he made another $500 million on the destruction of his Tower 7, which he owned and quickly rebuilt bigger and better. Not content that no liner hit Tower 7 and that the fires were out, he announced at 3:30 p.m. on 9/11 that there had been so much pain and suffering that he and the NYFD decided to “pull it” -- Tower 7 . . .

Not content that in fact at 5 p,m,, not even two hours later . . . Tower 7 went down at the freefall speed of gravity in a matter of seconds neatly into its own footprint, a classic “internal demolition.” Not content that you can’t set up an internal demolition on a 47-story steel-framed building in less than two hours or two days, or even two weeks. Not content that his “smoking gun” has attracted the attention of every 9/11 critic around the world . . .

Not content that the BBC made an incredible gaffe as a TV [journalist] of theirs, supposedly in New York, reported that Tower 7 had fallen, that is, 26 minutes before it actually fell and with a News24 “time stamp” video to prove it. Not content that even Google had to pull the video . . . Larry Silverstein, the Oliver Twist of 9/11 disaster, is back, asking for more, sir, more please. Incredible! What colossal chutzpah!

Additional resources:


kenny said...

I have been looking forward to your critique of the new NIST report and you certainly didn't disappoint, bringing up some specific technical points that others haven't in the last few days.
Here's hoping you continue your 9/11 theme right on up to the 7th anniversary.

Anonymous said...

Hey, NIST, isn't there a contradiction in your own words about the fall of WTC 7? Here's what your report said:

"...initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”

And here's how the dictionary defines progressive:

progressive adjective
1 happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step : a progressive decline in popularity.

Uhh, NIST, wouldn't that mean that WTC 7 should collapse in STAGES or STEP by STEP?

Or is the dictionary wrong?

To anyone not being bought, bribed or threatened by the Bush/Cheney Junta, it's easy to see that WTC 7 collapsed in a simultaneous mode.

simultaneous adjective
occurring, operating, or done at the same time

Another thought, NIST.

Basically, what you attempted to do was to perform an autopsy on WTC 7.

Not a bad idea.

That way, we could get an idea of what happened and how to prevent that from happening in the future.

So tell me, NIST, since all of the steel columns, beams, cross pieces, etc. were shipped off ASAP from the WTC site and sent to recycling centers and melted down, that means you only used computer models to try and simulate what happened.

Hells Bells, in fact, the exact words from your report that shows you didn't use any of the WTC 7 steel parts, shown on page 15 of your NIST report available at:


So, NIST, how can you do an autopsy without the corpse?

This just in: I emailed NIST and asked them about WTC 6 and why that building, that sustained so much more damage, literally being sawed in half by faling debris, why that building didn't fall.

Here's their reply:

Mr. Bacon,

According to the "World Trade Center Performance Study" published by FEMA in May 2002, WTC 6 "was subjected to severe debris damage when the towers [WTC 1 and WTC 2] collapsed, as well as the fires that developed from the debris. It was able to resist progressive collapse, in spite of the extensive local collapses that occurred."

Since WTC 6 did not fall, the FEMA team was able to examine it shortly after 9/11. No research studies -- only the observations of the FEMA team -- were needed to explain what happened to the building. The debris from WTC 1 literally fell across WTC 6 and damaged it so extensively that the building had to be torn down.

On the other hand, the cause for the collapse of WTC 7 was unclear and the FEMA team did not have time to examine the building before its demise. Therefore, NIST was tasked with determining the most probable cause for the failure of the structure. It was important for us to do so because there are other high-rise buildings in the country that have similar design features to WTC 7. If there was a problem, we needed to identify it and make recommendations to change the building codes so that such a problem could be avoided. That is what we have done by determining that thermal expansion of the steel in WTC 7 led to the failure of a critical column and in turn, the complete loss of WTC 6.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for your interest in our investigation.

Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs

Unknown said...

kenny's sideshow said...

Here's hoping you continue your 9/11 theme right on up to the 7th anniversary.

Thanks kenny. I had only occasionally written about 911 until recently, referring to it only obliquely in other articles. Fact is, kenny, I am pissed off! My government has betrayed me and my fellow countrymen. Bush has thumbed his nose at truth! The GOP is a criminal conspiracy and to the extent that the GOP leadership was 'in on' Bush's plans to murder US citizens, they should be rounded up, charged, thrown in a federal lock up until a trial can be held!

Start a movement! Certainly --the naive and stupid idea that a conspiracy of incompetent pilots pulled off what ONLY the military apparatus of the US could have pulled off is kaput!

Conan Doyle via his character Sherlock Holmes said: "When you have eliminated the impossible what remains however improbable must be the truth!"

The official conspiracy theory is not merely IMPOSSIBLE, it's STUPID! And so are the GOP morons who say they believe it!

It's time Bush stood trial for his life.

Greg bacon sez...

This just in: I emailed NIST and asked them about WTC 6 and why that building, that sustained so much more damage, literally being sawed in half by faling debris, why that building didn't fall.

Great post, greg! One day, we will teach these idiots NOT TO FUCK WITH US!


timking said...

Hey all, check this out!


It's a call for 1,000,000 signatures calling for impeachment. I don't know of the man, Dennis Kucinich, and if this is a real attempt or not but I thought I'd throw it your way.

Anonymous said...

I wrote back to Mr. Newman of the NIST and pointed out the following:

Thanks so much for your timely reply, but bringing up FEMA has clouded the issue on WTC 7.

NIST says it was contents fires that caused the progressive collapse of WTC 7 and that the diesel did not contribute to this fire caused collapse.

Yet, back in 2002, FEMA did its own study of WTC 7 and said the diesel fed fires were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7.

I'm am now confused. It appears you have two federal agencies at odds with one another.

Here's part of that NYT story:

A NATION CHALLENGED: GROUND ZERO; Burning Diesel Is Cited in Fall Of 3rd Tower

Published: March 2, 2002
Massive structural beams that functioned as a sort of bridge to hold up the 47-story skyscraper known as 7 World Trade Center were compromised in a disastrous blaze fed by diesel fuel, leading to the building's collapse on Sept. 11, investigators have concluded in a preliminary report.

The tower was set on fire by debris from the twin towers and burned for about seven hours before collapsing in the late afternoon under previously unexplained circumstances. The analysis of its collapse is one of the first detailed findings by a team of engineers organized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers to understand the fate of all the buildings around the site.

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks....

Dr. John D. Osteraas, director of civil engineering practice, Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, in Menlo Park, Calif., reviewed videos of the collapse, discussed it with other engineers and came to a similar conclusion; the fuel, the trusses and the fire brought 7 World Trade down. ''The pieces have come together,'' he said. ''Without the fuel, I think the building would have done fine.''

Here's Newman's reply. Notice how he never touches on the topic that the FEMA and American Society of Civil Engineers report, written back in 2002, is in dispute with NIST's report, regarding the burning diesel fuel in WTC 7


The Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) that did the FEMA study conducted a mostly observational evaluation of Ground Zero and the buildings there. Their effort was not intended to be an exhaustive technical and scientific investigation; rather, it was intended to be the foundation for such a study. Their analysis provided the groundwork for our investigation of the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 -- the three buildings where mere observations could not suffice to define the most probable cause for collapse. Some of the BPAT's conclusions on WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 have been confirmed by our investigation and some have not. For example, the BPAT group believed that the Towers collapsed because the trusses (the steel frames upon which the concrete floors were imbedded and which connected the core columns and the perimeter columns) dropped out. Our investigation showed that the trusses did not fail. Instead, they sagged after the steel weakened from the heat of the fires but remained attached to the perimeter columns. Their pull on the perimeter columns caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and eventually lose integrity. When the perimeter columns could no longer hold up the mass of the floors above the impact sites, Towers 1 and 2 collapsed.

So, you see, the preliminary observations of the BPAT were just that: preliminary. So, it's not unusual -- and was actually expected in some cases -- that the NIST investigation might have different conclusion once the available scientific and technical evidence was thoroughly studied.

Thanks again for your interest.


One more thought: This whole bogus "War on Terror" started with the Bush/Cheney Junta wanting to get Bin Laden, "Dead or Alive," in Afghanistan.

Yet, nearly seven years later, the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist page of Bin Laden makes NO mention that he was connected to or responsible for 9/11.


Anonymous said...

Here is a link to a radio intercept of a conversation on 9/11/01, suggesting a drone airplane was going to crash into NYC -


Anonymous said...

What I want to know is what could have built up the heat over time.

Unknown said...

The heat build up over time is one of the FIRST things the "Official Conspiracy Theory" should have explained fully, beyond any reasonable or scientific doubt. It didn't!

I believe, however, that Bush critics have offered up more than adequate explanations for the build up of heat that simply COULD NOT HAVE happened if things came down the way Bush would have you believe.

PCB said...

may i paste your article on my site? i will add the source.

Unknown said...

PCB, I will be happy to publish your 'article' and give you a byline if you have information with respect to this issue.

However, BLOGGER is a pain of late! To get a decent looking page, I format everything in an HTML editor and then upload. So--if you have some relevant information on this topic, it would be easy if you just cut n' pasted your piece into an email. I will worry about the formatting on this end! If it's good, I promise I will publish.

My email address is (as you know) lennhart@gmail.com

Look forward to hearing from you.

And thanks,