Metatheory and the NIST report

Hi Jay Howard, welcome to the forum.

No doubt better minds than mine will have already made this observation, but I'll continue anyway because I think it is something those on the 'truther' side of things fail to comprehend........

NIST's theory is basically a heat-induced collapse theory (HICT). Without heat weakening the steel, there is no collapse. In their words,

"...the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires."(171)

....this does not mean that the structural damage caused by the impact is to be discounted.

Yes, the tower performed well given that a large amount of damage was caused to the structure. It didn't collapse immediately.

But that damage didn't go away. The damage also wasn't just confined to removal of structural elements, but included removal of the system of protection to structural elements.

The subsequent fires, burning for a long period of time, TOGETHER with the redistribution of loads within the structure and the damage/removal of fire protection to the structural elements, is what doomed the towers.
 
Are you saying I'm wrong about the concept of falsifiability or about its application to the JFK debate?

If it's the latter, I have no horse in that race. If it's a bad example, so be it.

If you have a problem with the concept, then there is a serious issue.

Which is it?

Can you get on with your points or are you hoping we die of boredom before your "95 Theses" are posted on the JREF door?
 
I’ve laid this all out before, but the conversation has only resulted in a lot of accusations of how ignorant I am of the NIST report. Thought I’d give you guys a shot at an adult discussion.
I think the mini nuke is the easiest to prove wrong, or right based on the blast effects would be so evident, there would not be any question. The air could be sampled for nuke material before the day was done to confirm the blast. The mini-nuke would be solved in one day.

Choosing CD is only something I think only weak minded fools would pick. As a pilot and engineer and seeing the WTC collapse on 9/11, I had no question it was impact and fire that made the steel weak. I know structural wood holds up better than steel. This is why steel is fire proofed to withstand fire for so many hours. Plus I have seen many examples of steel structures fail in fire and fall. I guess kids missed seeing 9/11 on live TV, but most of us witnessed it on TV, some first hand. There were no explosive reports (sounds) that CD would give you. If you like the thermite card, it took over 4 years for Dr Jones to go nuts enough to publish his paper/letter. I doubt he knew raw thermite was a gravity event itself. I think CD people have picked a challenging thesis, CD is so far out and with zero evidence, it has become a red flag to identify people who have no facts or evidence on 9/11. I have witnessed CD people bashing their head against the rough brick wall of CD ideas from 9/11 truth.

I think NIST is not needed to prove the WTC fell due to gravity after an aircraft impact, and fires. It is neat to learn what NIST did in a broad work that covers many goals besides why the towers began to collapse. But it is clear from just observation on 9/11, the impact, and fires, worked together to destroy the towers. Or you can use hundreds of other work which confirms the same. When I came up with my own ideas on the collapse, impact, fire, collapse I did not notice the idiots making up lies, like CD about 9/11. But then I did. But I found all the 9/11 truth movement to be based on lies and false information. No facts to back up the conclusions. I thought it was neat the chief structural engineer on the WTC agrees with me. It was even better when I found papers, even papers I would have to pay for, that support the what really happen on 9/11. Not one paper supports 9/11 truth. Dr Jones had to make a peer review out of 9/11 truth people to make up a journal to publish the lies, and some papers of woo.

Not only is there no need for CD, it would not of worked. The people who set the charges would have been caught, and the charges in the area of fire would cook off early after the impact. I do not see why someone needs to discuss NIST if they already support CD, a fantasy of the 9/11 truth movement. I always see truth movement people present CD information and then apply CD it to WTC7 (They can not explain why WTC7 would have to have CD,). I look forward to seeing CD people blasted away as they try to discuss the NIST report on a intellectual level, a level well above those who believe in CD. In fact, I view all who come equipped with belief of CD to be unable to think rationally or logically. I look forward to an exception but fear no one from 9/11 truth can.

Hope you have reviewed the thousands of post on the NIST report already. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying I'm wrong about the concept of falsifiability or about its application to the JFK debate?

If it's the latter, I have no horse in that race. If it's a bad example, so be it.

If you have a problem with the concept, then there is a serious issue.

Which is it?
It was a bad, but revealing, example.
 
Can you get on with your points or are you hoping we die of boredom before your "95 Theses" are posted on the JREF door?

It looks like "jay howard" wasn't as prepared to argue his points as he thought he was. Big surprise, that.:rolleyes:
 
It looks like "jay howard" wasn't as prepared to argue his points as he thought he was. Big surprise, that.:rolleyes:



Gregory Urich is striving to reach the 500-post mark before revealing that a vast, mathematically-impossible conspiracy brought down the Twin Towers with explosives. He is a strong contender to win the coveted JREF award for Slowest Telegraphed Punch in History.

Jay Howard will, I suspect, reveal the existence of that same mathematically-impossible conspiracy more expeditiously.

I mean, he will, won't he? My God! What if he doesn't?
 
Okay. That's not a complete characterization of the NIST theory, because (as your quote notes) NIST predicts without the impact damage, the Towers wouldn't have collapsed, either.

I'd love to see a quote to back that up. Just because I haven't found it, certainly doesn't mean they didn't say it, but you sound like you're speaking from experience.

From every explanation they give, heat plays the vital role of inducing the collapse. Yes, I've read about the pathways produced from the crash debris, but like the quote above, they seem to think the crash alone would not have caused the collapse. I have yet to see anything otherwise in the official report.

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. I can answer this question in detail, but first, why do you think they did this? And what do you think this means? Do you have a superior hypothesis on the basis of this information?

My theory is that the NIST report is a brochure on simulated fires. What matters about the tests are the parameters and the results. The rest is up for interpretation. Do you agree that they tried to replicate circumstances in the towers?

No, there is wiggle room, namely precision in experimental design.

We will disagree, but we shouldn't disagree over misunderstandings. Falsifiability is the ability of a theory to be wrong. Any reliable theory must have some criteria by which, if it obtains, we can safely say that theory cannot be true. Falsifiability can tell us nothing about the precision of competing (falsifiable) theories. Beyond what it can do, it is useless.

A theory is either false or possible. In your example, Morley's theory was still possible, and apparently, both theories were/are falsifiable. I don't know enough about that specific instance to make a good example, but the fact remains that if a condition is met that would demonstrate the falsity of a theory, then that theory is false and we can move on.
and
If no such conditions exist by which a theory can be false, then it is non-falsifiable, and hence useless as an explanation.

We must be clear on this to have a discussion.



Agreed. A theory that is equally good to NIST's but contains fewer unproven mechanisms is a superior theory, at least until new data arrives.

All right.
 
Give the runner a chance.


"Do you agree that they tried to replicate circumstances in the towers?"


Nah, they tried to make the test conditions as different from the conditions in the towers as they could.

I know that Undesired Walrus has criticized me for nastiness, but, geez Louise, gimme a break!
 
Do you have a problem with the concept of "falsifiability" as I've defined it at top?



I'll bet you're a big fan of the Loose Change boys. Wanna guess how they responded when I asked them what could falsify their beliefs?
 
I'd love to see a quote to back that up. Just because I haven't found it, certainly doesn't mean they didn't say it, but you sound like you're speaking from experience.

I am. From NIST NCSTAR1-6D, page 327:

NIST said:
The structural damage alone did not cause the collapse of the towers, as they stood for periods of time and collapsed after fire-induced weakening of the cores, floor systems and exterior walls. In the absence of impact damage, there would have been no insulation damage and the likelihood of collapse of the towers under the intense fires would have been very small.
(Emphasis added)

From every explanation they give, heat plays the vital role of inducing the collapse. Yes, I've read about the pathways produced from the crash debris, but like the quote above, they seem to think the crash alone would not have caused the collapse. I have yet to see anything otherwise in the official report.

You're correct that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse. But that doesn't mean that heat alone led to the collapse. Do you see the distinction?

My theory is that the NIST report is a brochure on simulated fires. What matters about the tests are the parameters and the results. The rest is up for interpretation. Do you agree that they tried to replicate circumstances in the towers?

No, NIST is a great deal more complicated than a "brochure" on simulated fires. The fires were relegated to a single project out of nine. I do agree, of course, that NIST attempted to replicate circumstances in the Towers.

We will disagree, but we shouldn't disagree over misunderstandings. Falsifiability is the ability of a theory to be wrong. Any reliable theory must have some criteria by which, if it obtains, we can safely say that theory cannot be true. Falsifiability can tell us nothing about the precision of competing (falsifiable) theories. Beyond what it can do, it is useless.

A theory is either false or possible. In your example, Morley's theory was still possible, and apparently, both theories were/are falsifiable. I don't know enough about that specific instance to make a good example, but the fact remains that if a condition is met that would demonstrate the falsity of a theory, then that theory is false and we can move on.
and
If no such conditions exist by which a theory can be false, then it is non-falsifiable, and hence useless as an explanation.

We must be clear on this to have a discussion.

Then let me clarify. For the purposes of our discussion, or any scientific discussion, "to be falsified" means that a theory is shown to be significantly inferior to at least one other theory. If you can show me that you have a theory superior to the NIST theory, even if the NIST theory still remains vaguely possible, I will consider it falsified.

If there are no theories that can plausibly explain a given phenomenon, then any given theory may simply be incomplete.

This sentiment is consistent with your opening post where you claimed that "we will always fall short of absolute truth." We will never reach a 100% confidence level in statistics. 95% is generally good enough for anyone, as it is for me.

Are we settled, then?
 
I'd love to see a quote to back that up. Just because I haven't found it, certainly doesn't mean they didn't say it, but you sound like you're speaking from experience.
If you can't even make it as far as the second answer in NIST's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the WTC investigation, can you really expect anyone to engage in a discussion with you?

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
  • the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
  • the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Edit: cross-posted with R. Mackey, who was more succinct.
 
Last edited:
I'll bet you're a big fan of the Loose Change boys.

You'd lose that bet.

Seriously, are you here for a real discussion or to chat?

I'm not interested in chatting with you. If you have something to add to the conversation, don't keep me in suspense.
 
You'd lose that bet.

Seriously, are you here for a real discussion or to chat?

I'm not interested in chatting with you. If you have something to add to the conversation, don't keep me in suspense.
If you do not want to post to a post, do not post to it. You can save time and if off topic like this why would I care if you post to my post?

Yet it appears you are not prepared as you said you were; and posting to posts you have no interest in, shows your unprepared state. So get on to the good stuff, please. I expect an intellectual type discussion to kill off all Dr Jones and other 9/11 truth efforts toward CD. Do carry on, please. I hope the results to be shattering 9/11 truth's very foundation and show the dolts in 9/11 truth, how they make light of a serious event with lies and about 9/11 and do not hold the death of fellow citizens with any respect, but make up false information for monetary and political reasons out of ignorance.
 
Last edited:
I'll bet you're a big fan of the Loose Change boys. Wanna guess how they responded when I asked them what could falsify their beliefs?

I know the answer to that one, can I say can I say! :p
 
I'm not interested in chatting with you. If you have something to add to the conversation, don't keep me in suspense.

Take your own advice and put forth your beliefs... its been 3 hours since your OP and you have said little to nothing. Please, tell us what your problem is with NIST, what you have brought up to this point is on par with every other CT.
 

Back
Top Bottom