Metatheory and the NIST report

[BeAChooser]

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.

ROTFLOL! Don't be so subtle. If you wish to denigrate my assertions about the death of Ron Brown, do so, on the thread where it's a topic. Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011. All I hear over there from you are <crickets>.

And for the record, the difference between the CTer in that case (me) and the CTers in this case is that I have proven myself more knowledgeable about the topic than the detractors AND have repeatedly shown that it is the detractors who are dishonestly presenting the facts or spinning false logic. It is the detractors who are blatantly ignoring reasonable questions. So it would seem that all CTs are not alike.

Now shall we go back to talking about 911 *truth* since you previously stated that you weren't going to say another world about Ron Brown?

 

[cmcaulif]

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: This may be slightly off topic but I am quite interested nonetheless.

What information can be learned from analyzing the sulfiding and chlorination of the steel, and what conclusions could be drawn from it? Also, how much uncertainty would be associated with any potential theory that would be derived from such an analysis?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Yes. I see the difference. Thanks for the quote. 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.

No. The combination is the key.

 

[GregoryUrich]

No. The combination is the key.

If the collapse theory is dependent on both impact and fire, then without one or the other the building will not collapse. It would be sufficient to prove the fire theory false in order to disprove the collapse theory. This would have no bearing on whether impact analysis is wrong or not.

 

[twinstead]

If the collapse theory is dependent on both impact and fire, then without one or the other the building will not collapse. It would be sufficient to prove the fire theory false in order to disprove the collapse theory. This would have no bearing on whether impact analysis is wrong or not.

Conversely, proving the impact theory false would do the same thing.

There is a huge amount of evidence that supports both, though. It would be a daunting task to disprove either in an honest, scientific way.

 

[beachnut]

If the collapse theory is dependent on both impact and fire, then without one or the other the building will not collapse. It would be sufficient to prove the fire theory false in order to disprove the collapse theory. This would have no bearing on whether impact analysis is wrong or not.

At least we now have the falsifiability stuff covered.

So when do you predict this will be lived up to:

This is the new home for a restructured scholars group that welcomes scholars and all persons interested in exposing the truths of the 9/11/01 attack. Care is being taken to present the strongest, most credible research available, some of which is published on our sister site, the Journal of 9/11 Studies. For more information visit our Welcome page.

 

[jay howard]

The NIST theory for collapse initiation is capable of being shown to be false.... 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.

So what criteria would need to be met, or what evidence could demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

If it is, indeed falsifiable, there should be some unambiguous criteria that, if met would clearly show the NIST theory (specifically, the heat-induced collapse theory) to be false.

If the NIST theory does not have any criteria by which would demonstrate its falsity, then it's not a good theory to begin with.

 

[beachnut]

falsifiability

So what criteria would need to be met, or what evidence could demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

If it is, indeed falsifiable, there should be some unambiguous criteria that, if met would clearly show the NIST theory (specifically, the heat-induced collapse theory) to be false.

If the NIST theory does not have any criteria by which would demonstrate its falsity, then it's not a good theory to begin with.

The NIST theory meets and exceeds the falsifiability you stated. Why does it not meet your criteria, set by you. I looked it up and it does. Tell me why I am wrong?

CD theory does not. Thermite theory does not. Tell me why I am right? Keep it simple I am a pilot.

 

[Gravy]

Jay Howard, please explain this

Jay's posts so far are a good example of the denialist mindset. It has been repeatedly explained to him that the causes of WTC tower collapse initiation, as explained by NIST, are interdependent. Yet he insists on calling NIST's conclusions a "heat-induced collapse theory."

This is wrong. Arup's conclusion – that the towers could have collapsed from the fires alone, without impact and fire protection damage – is a "heat-induced collapse theory."

There is no need to misrepresent or omit parts of NIST's simple summary of the conditions that led 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.

Here is a summary of the exchanges. Bolding is mine.

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

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. (Also note that some dispute this result.) So I wouldn't call it a "heat-induced collapse theory." That is one facet of the NIST theory, but not the whole theory.

We can, however, restrict our observations to this part of the theory if you prefer.

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:

"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."

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?

Yes. I see the difference. Thanks for the quote. Since we all agree that without the heat, NIST predicts no collapse, their theory can be characterized as a "heat-induced collapse theory."

As I said, if you want to restrict our discussion to the post-impact phenomena, which are heat-driven, that's fine. It merely doesn't cover the entire NIST theory. To hold this discussion, we should agree that the NIST post-impact estimate of condition is acceptably accurate, and focus on what happened next.

No. The combination is the key.

SIf it is, indeed falsifiable, there should be some unambiguous criteria that, if met would clearly show the NIST theory (specifically, the heat-induced collapse theory) to be false.

Jay, I'm genuinely interested in why you continue to characterize a portion of the NIST theory as the whole. Do you agree that NIST says the collapses were caused by interdependent factors? If you do agree, then will you change how you describe their theory?

If you don't agree, then we've got some work to do.

Also, I'd like to know how much of the NIST reports you've read, and if you've read any of the other independent studies of the tower collapses.

Thank you.

 

[pomeroo]

Ahh, my old friend probability.

I must correct you: Probability is the mortal enemy of conspiracy liars.

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

Will knowing the weight of the towers make your impossible conspiracy possible?

What if he doesn't?

Then you have competition.

 

[pomeroo]

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.

Speaking as a nasty heckler, I am unimpressed to hear that a particularly disingenuous twoofer regards another fantasist as "a breath of fresh air." Let's see what new information is actually brought to the table.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ron:

i think the proper word for their behaviour is "Smarmy".

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Jay's posts so far are a good example of the denialist mindset. It has been repeatedly explained to him that the causes of WTC tower collapse initiation, as explained by NIST, are interdependent. Yet he insists on calling NIST's conclusions a "heat-induced collapse theory."

This is wrong. Arup's conclusion – that the towers could have collapsed from the fires alone, without impact and fire protection damage – is a "heat-induced collapse theory."

There is no need to misrepresent or omit parts of NIST's simple summary of the conditions that led to collapse:

Here is a summary of the exchanges. Bolding is mine.

Jay, I'm genuinely interested in why you continue to characterize a portion of the NIST theory as the whole. Do you agree that NIST says the collapses were caused by interdependent factors? If you do agree, then will you change how you describe their theory?

If you don't agree, then we've got some work to do.

Also, I'd like to know how much of the NIST reports you've read, and if you've read any of the other independent studies of the tower collapses.

Thank you.

The "inter-dependent collapse theory" then depends on structural damage and fire protection damage to establish the state in which the "heat-induced collapse theory" is applicable. Since the theory is interdependent, it is only necessary to prove any one part false while assuming the other parts to be true.

So Jay would need to assume structural and fire protection damage according to NIST, and disprove "heat-induced collapse" in that context.

All that is left is for someone to provide falsification criteria.

 

[pomeroo]

Let's acknowledge that Jay Howard is, in all probability (there's that word again), the first fantasist ever to invoke the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability is the ass-jawbone that has slain so many tinfoil-helmeted Philistines.

A thought experiment: Commercial airliners crash into the Twin Towers and the buildings collapse within an hour or so. The gubmint claims that Islamic terrorists surreptitiously planted thousands of pounds of explosives, which caused the collapses. The planes, according to an "official "report, were irrelevant.

Would our intrepid "truth-seekers" buy that? Would they agree that it must have been a demolition, or would they want some evidence for the use of explosives. Would they pass by the logistical impossibilities so readily? Would "it sure looked a demolition to me" suffice for them? Would they uncritically accept the notion that planes crashing into buildings can't cause them to fall?

Why do I heckle these frauds so nastily?

 

[T.A.M.]

They would not accept it because it came from the govt, rather than their top notch google based detective work.

TAM

 

[GregoryUrich]

Let's acknowledge that Jay Howard is, in all probability (there's that word again), the first fantasist ever to invoke the concept of falsifiability. Falsifiability is the ass-jawbone that has slain so many tinfoil-helmeted Philistines.

A thought experiment: Commercial airliners crash into the Twin Towers and the buildings collapse within an hour or so. The gubmint claims that Islamic terrorists surreptitiously planted thousands of pounds of explosives, which caused the collapses. The planes, according to an "official "report, were irrelevant.

Would our intrepid "truth-seekers" buy that? Would they agree that it must have been a demolition, or would they want some evidence for the use of explosives. Would they pass by the logistical impossibilities so readily? Would "it sure looked a demolition to me" suffice for them? Would they uncritically accept the notion that planes crashing into buildings can't cause them to fall?

Why do I heckle these frauds so nastily?

My hat is aluminum foil. It protects me from cell phone radiation.

 

[pomeroo]

My hat is aluminum foil. It protects me from cell phone radiation.

And I thought you would have nothing to say!

 

[chipmunk stew]

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?

The important thing to consider is whether NIST neglected anything that was within the scope of their investigation. There are many interesting subjects that they could have attempted to tackle, but as with any real-world problem, resources are not limitless, and so they had to make some choices about what was essential to their primary task and devote their resources to those questions. To conduct "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" is completely unrealistic as a project scope for a single organization. It would take decades and would leave NIST's other responsibilities neglected.

What's wrong with NIST ignoring things that make little to no difference in guiding the recommendations that they are responsible for? What's wrong with private scientists, universities, and organizations, continuing where NIST left off? Does the work that you have done change anything that NIST has done? Did NIST neglect these questions, or did they simply leave them unaddressed, if you catch my distinction?

 

[beachnut]

My hat is aluminum foil. It protects me from cell phone radiation.

You better make that lead. The alumninum may not protect you. Truthers? The tin foil keeps out facts and keeps in the woo.

 

[Anti-sophist]

So what criteria would need to be met, or what evidence could demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

All that is left is for someone to provide falsification criteria.

This is such a stunningly easy question to answer that it almost boggles my mind.

Here are some examples of evidence that would almost certainly make the NIST report false:

1. The WTC towers were to be found still, in fact, standing.
2. Steel vapor
3. Extremely high concentrations of radiation
4. Undetonated explosives
5. Obscenely high concentrations of unexplainable elements (ahem, barium?)
6. Evidence of a volcanic eruption on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
7. Evidence of a catastrophic earthquake on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
8. Evidence of a meteor strike on 9/11/01 in Manhattan
9. Maybe a video showing the space laser striking on 9/11/01
10. Maybe a video showing a glitch in the holographic planes

Feel free to add your own. This is a fun game.