Metatheory and the NIST report

[jay howard]

I'd also like to make a distinction between true scientific method and forensics. NIST completed a forensic study of the WTC towers. To be clear, science attempts to explain what DOES happen, whereas forensics explains what DID happen. Thus, I believe that the element of reproducibility, while possible on a small scale in a forensic investigation, is ultimately useless for determining the quality of a theory. Forensic science, by it's nature works on single events.

Not sure why you would claim this. Useful data is gathered from studying precipitation just as much as from fingerprint analysis or splatter patterns. Tests are designed to confirm or deny hypotheses about such phenomena--regardless of whether they have human causes or natural causes. The same criteria can be used to evaluate theories in medicine, astrophysics, structural failures, credit card fraud and murder.

Scientific method makes no distinction.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since we all agree that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse, their theory can be characterized as a "heat-induced collapse theory." That's all I'm getting at here. Not trying to deny that the buildings were damaged from impact, only that heat was the key.

To reiterate, we can also agree that without the iron oxide, Jones predicts no thermite reaction, therefore his theory can be characterised as an "Iron oxide induced collapse theory". Do you agree with that characterisation? Not trying to deny that there is such a thing as a thermite reaction, only that iron oxide is the key.

The point I'm trying to make is that, by characterising the NIST theory as heat-induced collapse, you are in fact misrepresenting the NIST theory, therefore any conclusions you draw about the NIST theory based in your starting characterisation will be subject to the strawman fallacy unless you first concede, as R.Mackey suggests, that NIST has correctly described the post-impact condition of the towers; in that case your analysis is of highly limited value because you are only attempting to demonstrate that NIST is partly falsifiable.

I fell that your analysis would be of infinitely greater value if you were to consider the entire NIST theory rather than focusing on a limited part of it which you mistakenly consider to be "the key".

Dave

 

[jay howard]

Welcome Jay Howard,

Your OP and discussion so far are a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately you will have to ignore 4 of 5 posts here because many of the people are just nasty hecklers who don't engage in scientific discussion. There are also a number of very knowledgable people here so I hope you don't let the aforementioned types discourage you. I am looking forward to your handling of the NIST report regardless what your conclusions may be.

Thanks, Greg. Good to hear that we are not all wed to our conclusions.

 

[T.A.M.]

The NIST Report is open to criticism more for what it doesn't say about the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, than what it does say. The NIST Report only deals with SOME aspects of collapse initiation while studiously avoiding many important areas of contention surrounding the events at the WTC on 9/11. The NIST Report has nothing of value to say about the collapse times; or about the time history of the rotational angular momentum of the upper sections; or about the impact location of the North Tower antenna and whether or not the towers collapsed into their own footprints; or about the pulverization of the concrete; or about the velocity distribution of the ejecta; or about the composition, morphology and particle size distribution of the WTC dust and debris; or about the sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile; or about the gaseous emissions from the rubble pile; or about the detection of spherical particles as evidence for molten metals.

The NIST Report is also deficient in its discussion of the initial fuel-air deflagrations and the role of reactive particulates in the evolution of the fireballs. NIST completely ignore the contribution of the shredded airframes to the development of the fires. NIST ignores the chemical effects of molten aluminum and burning plastics so that its modelled temperature-time histories are highly questionable. NIST also offer no explanation for the sulfiding/chlorination of the structural steel and fail to consider the potential for liquid metal embrittlement and ignore the possibility of other metals besides aluminum as offering better explanations for the molten metal seen flowing from WTC 2.

The NIST Report is therefore incomplete and inadequate as a scientific study of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.

Apollo20:

Welcome back. You have been quiet as of late.

That said,

(1) What significance do the collapse times have? Any answer but "none" implies you believe there was some element of an "inside job".

(2) What is the signficance of "pulverization" of concrete with respect to the collapses. Noone has denied that some of it pulverized. Do you suggest they should look into it in order to come up with a "pulverization proof" concrete? If not, what other significance to "building safety" does this issue have?

(3) So the NIST report must be ALL INCLUSIVE, or EVERY ASPECT of the collapse, in your opinion, or else it is incomplete/inadequate as a scientific study of the collapses of the WTCs?

Did they cover the effect of the collapse on the copper plumbing in the WTCs? Did they cover the emotional impact on the crowds below, who witnessed the jumpers? Did they cover melting of the windows, and what impact this might have had? The list goes on and on, doesnt it?

What I see here is someone walking along the fence between Woo and Non-Woo, implying the Woo issues should have been investigated, by a group whose mandate had nothing to do with forensics, or "whodunnit".

See what bothers me, is that you, who tries to portray himself as an honorable scientist (and I am not saying you are not), spends so much time "bashing" NIST, when instead, IMO, the honorable thing to do would be to add to the knowledge it provides, rather than CRITICIZE it for what it lacks. Because in being critical, in the way you are, is IMPLYING at least, that you feel they either "purposely" or "incompetently" left things out. That said, I acknowledge, that you have contributed considerably to the scientific knowledge of the collapses...but why all the NIST bashing?

TAM

Edit: That said, if I am wrong, prove it to me.

 

[T.A.M.]

Just about everyone here, those who do not buy the official account, and those who do, are likely wed to their conclusions, the only difference are the conclusions themselves, and the evidence, or lack there of, to back them up.

Don't kid yourself, or us.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

O.k., so according to the NIST report,

This simply isn't the definition being used here. I stipulated this from the beginning and explained it a few times since. Falsifiability is a binary quality. A theory is either falsifiable or not. If it is falsifiable, but not yet falsified, then the theory is possible. If conditions are met to falsify it, then it is not possible.

If no conditions exist to falsify it, then it is non-falsifiable and useless.

I agree that a 95% probability is pretty darn good for the world in which we live. Settled on that point.

The NIST theory for collapse initiation is capable of being shown to be false. Did the plane hit or not, did the fires actually burn or not, did the towers fall or not. I can see it easily passes this test, but then it was a theory to explain what we saw on 9/11 not fantasy to solve the cravings of dolts in 9/11 truth. The NIST theory meets Falsifiability. Plus this neat concept is really good to expose stupid theories like thermite.

Thermite is one theory that fails falsifiability.

CD is another theory that fails falsifiability.

But NIST report on WTC collapse passes falsifiability easy and quick. I was just thinking out loud how it passes very easy. If you have a problem with this you have not brought your falsifiability expertise with you. I also think you have messed up the concept in your posts. Study harder. But it is funny how the CD theories of 9/11 "truth" fail this concept as you try to find the facts on CD but there are no CD 9/11 facts to be found.

 

[CHF]

Anyone who has a problem with a heat-induced collapse theory should better be able to explain why the exterior columns were bending inwards all along the facade prior to collapse.

 

[CHF]

See what bothers me, is that you, who tries to portray himself as an honorable scientist (and I am not saying you are not), spends so much time "bashing" NIST, when instead, IMO, the honorable thing to do would be to add to the knowledge it provides, rather than CRITICIZE it for what it lacks.

Greening has added knowledge to the issue. As best I can tell, none of his work backs up the twoofers.

 

[The Almond]

Not sure why you would claim this. Useful data is gathered from studying precipitation just as much as from fingerprint analysis or splatter patterns. Tests are designed to confirm or deny hypotheses about such phenomena--regardless of whether they have human causes or natural causes. The same criteria can be used to evaluate theories in medicine, astrophysics, structural failures, credit card fraud and murder.

Scientific method makes no distinction.

While I agree that both methods overlap significantly, my point was that reproducibility is not necessarily a good metric for forensic analyses. Precipitation can be reproduced in the same way that a stone will always fall from my hand as soon as I drop it. One cannot, however, take the same gun, fingerprints and people and reproduce the murder 100 out of 100 times. In forensic science, one can only reproduce and test those variables whose properties are exactly known, can be exactly duplicated and whose outcomes are defined by physical science rather than human interaction.

To whit, there is no scientific basis for full reconstruction and physical modeling to prove that an event occurred exactly as observed. In other words, there is no scientific basis for reproducing the theory of the WTC collapse in order to test its validity.

 

[T.A.M.]

CHF:

Of course he has. He has produced solid papers on the collapses. We here have admired him for his word, repeatedly, despite his distain for many of us. Us NISTIAN's, or JREFers have stood by his work, despite his abhorance for us.

My point is that he should continue this, rather than spend so much time being critical of the honest work of other honorable scientists, bad mouthing their reports, and in so doing, indirectly bad mouthing them.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Thanks, Greg. Good to hear that we are not all wed to our conclusions.

Words, words, words, when will 9/11 truth take action? Truther, meet truther. Do you guys sense each other from a post. Greg, has no conclusions, he only nit picks stuff with no goal but "truth" and "justice", and besides, the "truth" movement can not have conclusions, they just want a new independent investigation (they must not have the money to get the journals and reports already done independently, or they are just dumb). Greg has run away from a thread where he pokes his "looks" wrong stuff, and runs away. Never posting scientific facts, just says it looks wrong, no science just talk. So he is not being as truthful as I expect people who wear the "truth" label should be. Greg has left science and joined the "truth and justice" movement, does that sound familiar? It is ironic you talk scientific discussion with a "truth" member. Please let the scientific discussion flow and we can steer clear of that old "truth" movement false information stuff.

 

[beachnut]

Ahh, my old friend probability.

One thing at a time Pomeroo, at least we know how much the Towers weighed now.

What if he doesn't?

No we can never know the weight of the towers because numbers are not real. Darn, and you thought you were so cute with " abstractions are never True (real)". I think you left out some wall board, so your numbers are less real. I guess you are right/wrong, we do not know the weight of the WTC. (joking some)

You know your own movement can not pass the scientific test this wordsmith wants to do on NIST? Yet he is not going to present scientific stuff, just a lot of big words he is looking up now. I takes him a long time to prose this stuff up cause I suspect he is missing the science part of this scientific discussion and has already begun to cover that up with big words and fluff. I hope I am wrong. When is the science stuff coming?

 

[Apollo20]

TAM:

If NIST neglected to consider certain important issues in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, then it is valid to point that out. This is NOT NIST bashing as you call it ... this is a statement of fact about omissions in the NIST Report from the perspective of SCIENCE.

Unfortunately the NIST Report was really not a scientific study of the collapse of the Twin Towers at all, but more an assessment of the building performance with respect to building and fire codes. Hence NIST's emphasis on things like the ASTM 119-E test. Now this may satisfy the politicians and lawyers, but it falls short in the eyes of many people who would like to see a full investigation of the collapse from the moment that the the aircraft impacted the towers to the moment the last particle of dust settled at Ground Zero.

So I am saying that the items I listed in my previous post, (and many others besides), are pertinent to the how and why of the collapse, and to ignore these issues is to feed the speculations of the Doubting Thomas' of this world. Take the pulverization of concrete for instance. I have looked at this in great detail, but NIST has consistently shown no interest in post-collapse initiation phenomena. It turns out that the pulverization IS an important issue because it contributes to the energy balance of a self-sustaining collapse and therefore needs to be considered in collapse calculations.

So, TAM, are you saying that NIST is beyond reproach - sounds like an appeal to authority. And TAM, do we need to go over the importance of all the points I raised, or am I to take it that you are defending the NIST Report as a knee-jerk reaction to ANY criticism of NIST.

You know a very well respected American Civil Engineering Professor told me that he thinks the NIST Report is inadequate and wishes more Civil Engineers would look at the collapse in detail...

Is he NIST bashing too?

 

[beachnut]

Where is the science stuff? I know people in 9/11 "truth" who want some more investigation. But they really do not want anything. The main 9/11 truth guys are on the circuit making a little cash selling fictional ideas to fools.

 

[Anti-sophist]

If NIST neglected to consider certain important issues in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2

This criticism is so bizarre, to me. The purpose of the NIST report wasn't to explain the "collapse" as much as explain the collapse initiation. NISTs report essentially ends the moment the collapse begins. Every "issue" you've brought up happens after this moment.

The argument that these issues are valid scientifically is fine. However, this is a fundamentally flawed characterization of the NIST report. There are literally thousands of topics that NIST doesn't cover that they "could have". Faulting NIST for not explaining phenomena that are essentially off-topic is illogical.

None of these issues that you mention seem at all relevant to the central issue of the document, namely, the sequence of events leading up to the collapse of the WTC.

 

[CHF]

Apollo,

I think I speak for many people here when I say that I don't think NIST is beyond reproach. It is by no means a 100% complete take on what happened that day. But it does answer the basics of what it was supposed to with regards to why the towers came down.

I welcome further analysis into the issues the report did and did not cover - provided it comes from qualified people of course.

For example, your research into pulverization has been of high quality by all indications. I notice that you even submit your work for peer-review; something truthers stand to learn a lot from.

What I have no time for are people like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman and the clowns at AE911 - people who are either horribly unqualified or who somehow expect everyone to take their findings as fact even though they're terrified of peer-review.

 

[BeAChooser]

Parsimony—also called Ockham’s Razor—states that of two competing theories with equal explanatory power, the simplest theory is more theoretically appealing than the more complicated one.

I have no problem with this. The CD theories are VASTLY more complicated than anything proposed by REAL experts in structures, steel, fire, impact, macro-world physics, etc.

Why don't the tests NIST did on the short lengths of the floor assemblies count as tests of their theory? The fires were hotter than any of the recovered steel NIST analyzed, and run for longer than it took for the towers to collapse.

You do understand, don't you that the analysis methods available to NIST were not geared towards revealing high temperature exposure and that the obstacles to locating the steel members exposed to the highest temperatures were staggering considering the volume of steel debris, it's condition after the collapse, the time it took to remove it and what happened to that steel before recovery.

 

[BeAChooser]

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?.

Good question. The most tiresome thing about truthers is that they never seem to read anything that isn't from a truther website. It gets old going over the same material time and again with them.

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

If NIST neglected to consider certain important issues in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, then it is valid to point that out. This is NOT NIST bashing as you call it ... this is a statement of fact about omissions in the NIST Report from the perspective of SCIENCE.

I agree that it is valid to point out what NIST has not covered. My problem is with the implication (through your attitude and tone, if not directly through your words) that things were not covered by NIST either through incompetence or intentional oversight. THAT is what I have a problem with. Even though I am a physician, and hence a clinician, My training is largely in science, and I consider myself part scientist, part artist, as both are needed in medicine. What I find hard to stomach is speculation and insinuation that the NIST scientists were anything but honest in what they did. The reason I find it abhorant is not because I feel they are above such, but because there is NO PROOF or EVIDENCE to support such things.

Unfortunately the NIST Report was really not a scientific study of the collapse of the Twin Towers at all, but more an assessment of the building performance with respect to building and fire codes. Hence NIST's emphasis on things like the ASTM 119-E test. Now this may satisfy the politicians and lawyers, but it falls short in the eyes of many people who would like to see a full investigation of the collapse from the moment that the the aircraft impacted the towers to the moment the last particle of dust settled at Ground Zero.

I would say the NIST investigation was a building performance study that involved a GREAT DEAL of SCIENCE.

The people that it "falls short" with, are mostly CTists and the paranoid. You, and a few others may be exceptions. If you tell me your reasons for trying to add to the 9/11 knowledge base, is purely in the name of science, than I will take your word, but if that is the case, why the bad mouthing of what knowledge is passed on to us by the NIST report? Why not embrace the report, and then add to it.

So I am saying that the items I listed in my previous post, (and many others besides), are pertinent to the how and why of the collapse, and to ignore these issues is to feed the speculations of the Doubting Thomas' of this world. Take the pulverization of concrete for instance. I have looked at this in great detail, but NIST has consistently shown no interest in post-collapse initiation phenomena. It turns out that the pulverization IS an important issue because it contributes to the energy balance of a self-sustaining collapse and therefore needs to be considered in collapse calculations.

Fair enough. I will join you in saying we should leave no stone unturned that could fuel the paranoia and speculation of the CTers. My arguement is not with the study of these things, provided a benign, honest reason is at the core. Once again, wouldn't it be more honorable to simply say the NIST was a fine report, covered the issues it was TASKED to cover, and did so well, but it lacks in areas that I, and others, feel are important.

I am a defender, if you want to call it that, not of the NIST Report, but of those behind it. I do so, because I have never seen a shred of evidence to make me think they were anything other than honest, hard working scientists, like you one might say, yet all I hear from CTers, and insinuated through your stance, and comments in the past, is that we should doubt their motives, doubt their competence, doubt their integrity...WHY??

So, TAM, are you saying that NIST is beyond reproach - sounds like an appeal to authority. And TAM, do we need to go over the importance of all the points I raised, or am I to take it that you are defending the NIST Report as a knee-jerk reaction to ANY criticism of NIST.

1. NIST Report is NOT beyond reproach, but I think the criticism of it should be limited to those areas, that it was TASKED to address, that you feel it did so inadequately.

2. No we do not need to go over ANY of the points, as my issue is not with that.

3. My response is not knee-jerk, but rather it is a response that has been building through the remarks from you and others, that either intentionally, or not, bad mouth men...scientists, who have shown no reason to deserve such.

You know a very well respected American Civil Engineering Professor told me that he thinks the NIST Report is inadequate and wishes more Civil Engineers would look at the collapse in detail...

Is he NIST bashing too?

No, I would suspect, however, that he would state that the NIST, for what it was TASKED to do, is a fine report, but that he wish they (NIST team) or others (the team of engineers he suggests perhaps) were TASKED with investigating the attacks/collapses in much greater detail, over a much broader spectrum of areas.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Good question. The most tiresome thing about truthers is that they never seem to read anything that isn't from a truther website. It gets old going over the same material time and again with them.

That is the truth with all CTers on many different CTs. They never learn the facts or listen to the many experts who repeat the same real truths, but their biased agenda keeps them blind and ignorant. Irony, how bizarre.