Metatheory and the NIST report

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo:

The NIST "story" on the thermal insulation damage in WTC 1 & 2 is not capable of being falsified because it requires/assumes knowledge of the physical locations of fireproofing damage... something that is unknown and unknowable in a chaotic system such as the impact zones of a Twin Tower.

Thus on the critically important damage to the SFRM in the Twin Towers, NIST has this to say: “Fireproofing thickness and fireproofing damage due to aircraft impact is identified as the single most important parameter in the fire simulations”, (See NCSTAR 1-5G). NIST postulate that some SFRM may have been dislodged by impact-induced vibrations of the buildings even outside the directly impacted floors of each tower. But in NCSTAR 1-2 NIST confess that no visible information could be obtained on the extent of damage to the interior of the towers from the video or photographic record. Hence it is no surprise that NIST ultimately admit it was unable to estimate SFRM damage outside of the aircraft debris impact zone. Worse yet, even for surfaces within this zone we read: “thermal insulation was NOT included in the aircraft impact model”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 130). But reading further in NCSTAR 1-6 we discover that NIST assumed without proof that SFRM was considered to have been removed “if the room furnishings were damaged”, (See NCSTAR 1-6 page 129).

In NCSTAR 1 NIST claims that SFRM was dislodged on five floors (94 – 98) of WTC 1 and six floors (78 – 83) of WTC 2. Unfortunately this assertion is contradicted by the figures given in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-6 that show significant SFRM removal was confined to four floors of WTC 1 and five floors of WTC 2. But perhaps this uncertainty is to be expected when we read on page 190 of NCSTAR 1-2 that the physics of the fuel impact and dispersion in the WTC aircraft impact events was not analyzed because “no single analysis technique was available… (to deal with) … fuel dispersion without significant uncertainties”.

UNFALSIFIABLE INDEED!

Well, Frank, your campaign to ingratiate yourself with irrational anti-intellectuals will remain a mystery and a source of frustration to people who admired you for advancing our knowledge of the science of 9/11.

I suppose we can reasonably ask you to conceive of an aircraft impact that does NOT dislodge any fireproofing.

Once we have established that it is possible--however remotely--that a fully-fueled Boeing 767 could have crashed into a building at approximately 500 mph WITHOUT removing any fireproofing, we can proceed to examine collapse mechanisms that assume the fireproofing was unaffected by the impact. You can establish that, right, Frank? A commercial airliner hits a building at high speed and dislodges no, or insignificant amounts of, fireproofing.

It would appear that for falsification purposes we are required to show that NIST contends that the removal of fireproofing was necessary for a collapse to occur, that the collapse could not have occurred otherwise.

Mike Newman has stated to me that NIST believes that without the removal of fireproofing, the building "probably" would have remained standing. NIST, then, regards the removal of fireproofing as an important factor in explaining the collapse, but the agency stops short of insisting that it was essential.

Now, you assert that certain chemical reactions would have produced a release of heat not considered by NIST. Are you arguing that the additional heat would have caused the building to collapse even if no fireproofing had been dislodged?

Does that explanation strike you as more parsimonious than assuming that an indeterminate amount of fireproofing was dislodged, thereby facilitating the weakening of the steel?

Why do you claim that the NIST Report is unfalsifiable when, clearly, a more parsimonious explanation would falsify it?

 

[Gravy]

Philosophical question for the board: Suppose we have a hypothesis that is "correct" -- somehow, through some twist in the fabric of space, we know that it is absolutely perfect in every detail. Is such a hypothesis falsifiable? Yes or no?

My initial reaction to this is "yes," because scientific falsifiability isn't about the ultimate truth of a hypothesis but about whether a test can be conceived that would disprove it. Then again, I'm no philosopher of science. I've got a call in to Dr. Fetzer.

 

[AZCat]

Gregory's Model: Aircraft debris is treated as ballistic projectiles, affected only by gravity, but with a steeply decelerating horizontal velocity as predicted by NIST. These chunks of debris all follow uniform curves reminiscent of a parabola, caternary, or brachistochrone. There is no way for these curves to remove fireproofing in a wide area as predicted by NIST, as structure would interfere with the trajectories.

I know this is pathetically pedantic, but wouldn't the path of a ballistic projectile be an ellipse rather than any of the curves you list?

 

[R.Mackey]

No. You need to read Gregory's model carefully. He assumes a horizontal velocity profile as predicted by NIST, not a free-flying object, but never bothers to articulate (a) why he takes that part of the NIST model, while rejecting the rest; or (b) what leads to that trajectory in the first place, and why it can't have any effect on the vertical speed as well.

All in all, a rather bizarre and clumsily simplified argument, perfect for demonstrating the process of falsification.

 

[AZCat]

No. You need to read Gregory's model carefully. He assumes a horizontal velocity profile as predicted by NIST, not a free-flying object, but never bothers to articulate (a) why he takes that part of the NIST model, while rejecting the rest; or (b) what leads to that trajectory in the first place, and why it can't have any effect on the vertical speed as well.

All in all, a rather bizarre and clumsily simplified argument, perfect for demonstrating the process of falsification.

Aarghh... And here I thought I caught you in a slip. Serves me right for thinking that.

Thanks for the clarification, as always.

 

[Apollo20]

I am NOT arguing that NO fireproofing was dislodged in the towers... where have I ever said that?

I AM arguing that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the loss of thermal insulation was the primary cause of over-heating of the steel. This error is compounded by the fact that not all the heat sources in the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2 have been quantified by NIST. The loss of thermal insulation as THE main cause of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is an unfalsifiable hypothesis because it involves an unknown quantity - AS ADMITTED BY NIST! Occam's razor requires we rid our thinking of any unnecessary "storylines" to bolster our narrative.

FIRST we have to look at the most vulnerable materials that we know WERE present in the towers: the truss rods and seats, floor pans, welds, bolts, etc! These items wound up in a high temperature environment where direct metal wastage, stress corrosion cracking, liquid metal embrittlement, etc, were promoted by the presence of HCl, Cl2, H2, SO2 derived from many sources but especially PVC combustion, leading to the formation of FeCl2, FeCl3, ZnCl2, KCl, CaCl2, etc.

An analysis of the EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS involving these LOW MELTING POINT metallic species, as studied and reported in fires, especially in waste incinerators, shows these processes were very likely the dominant factors in bringing down the towers...

Pomeroo, I am sorry to say that the Twin Towers became municipal waste incinerators.... once you appreciate that fact you will stop preaching the NISTIAN GOSPEL.

But without you showing a better understanding of the CHEMISTRY of the collapse we have nothing to discuss!

 

[pomeroo]

My initial reaction to this is "yes," because scientific falsifiability isn't about the ultimate truth of a hypothesis but about whether a test can be conceived that would disprove it. Then again, I'm no philosopher of science. I've got a call in to Dr. Fetzer.

I read Karl Popper many moons ago. Rather than ask Fetzer, I think a visit to the corner bar might prove more enlightening. I do seem to recall that even if you were objectively certain that something were true, you could still conceive of a set of criteria or a single criterion that would make it untrue. Something that is true is, by defintion, not false, but standards of falsifiability can be applied to it. I think.

 

[jay howard]

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.

Whether testing fiber identities for comparison or repeating an experiment to find neutron anomalies or timing a set of events for plausibility within time restraints, repeatability is essential. If someone claims, "well, I got these results, but it's impossible for anyone else to get them, ever", you should be extremely skeptical of his results.

There isn't a good reason why essential parts of a theory cannot be tested properly to assess the theory in question. It's simply a matter of designing a good test.

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.

There is no need to reconstruct the entire building in order to test the theory of why it collapsed. And yes, there most certainly is a scientific basis for reproducing the theory of the WTC collapse to test for its plausibility.

If someone wants to tell me I just need to take someone's word for why the towers collapsed, I will smell a rat. Why not just run the test based on the theory for which the towers collapsed and shut all the CTers down?

Don't tell me it wouldn't be enough. That's a cop out. Test the theory. If it confirms the theory, we can move on. If it's a bad test, we should ask for a redesign. If it's a good design, but does NOT confirm the theory, we have a problem with the theory.

 

[Gravy]

Whether testing fiber identities for comparison or repeating an experiment to find neutron anomalies or timing a set of events for plausibility within time restraints, repeatability is essential. If someone claims, "well, I got these results, but it's impossible for anyone else to get them, ever", you should be extremely skeptical of his results.

Sure. But that's not what The Almond said.

Don't tell me it wouldn't be enough. That's a cop out. Test the theory. If it confirms the theory, we can move on. If it's a bad test, we should ask for a redesign. If it's a good design, but does NOT confirm the theory, we have a problem with the theory.

What theory are you referring to that's untested?

 

[beachnut]

Whether testing fiber identities for comparison or repeating an experiment to find neutron anomalies or timing a set of events for plausibility within time restraints, repeatability is essential. If someone claims, "well, I got these results, but it's impossible for anyone else to get them, ever", you should be extremely skeptical of his results.

There isn't a good reason why essential parts of a theory cannot be tested properly to assess the theory in question. It's simply a matter of designing a good test.

There is no need to reconstruct the entire building in order to test the theory of why it collapsed. And yes, there most certainly is a scientific basis for reproducing the theory of the WTC collapse to test for its plausibility.

If someone wants to tell me I just need to take someone's word for why the towers collapsed, I will smell a rat. Why not just run the test based on the theory for which the towers collapsed and shut all the CTers down?

Don't tell me it wouldn't be enough. That's a cop out. Test the theory. If it confirms the theory, we can move on. If it's a bad test, we should ask for a redesign. If it's a good design, but does NOT confirm the theory, we have a problem with the theory.

There is no test, no fact, no piece of evidence to stop the idiots of 9/11 truth. Just take Dr Jones and his thermite theory. He made it up out of the blue in 2005 because he is upset about a war in Iraq. He may of been upset 19 terrorist hijacked planes and ran them into the WTC, but he was too busy to go help in NYC to make improvements in safety and buildings. So he waited until he had a good biased reason to make up lies about 9/11. He makes up a thermite theory 4 years too late. There is no fact to stop him.

Here is part of his first paper/letter. Look at the tripe mixed with BS.

Essentially none of these science-based considerations is mentioned in the Popular Mechanics article on this subject, authored by B. Chertoff (a cousin of M. Chertoff who heads the Homeland Security Dept.) (Squibs are mentioned briefly, but the brief PM analysis does not fit the observed facts.)

He is making up BS about Chertoff, and squibs. How can anyone believe this biased BS artist.

Jones is just one truther who is making up stuff. The movement is full of people who make up stuff on 9/11. It is a group of liars.

No cop out, just the truth. 9/11 truth does not want facts, they are going on 6 years of ignorant bliss and BS CTs. They are now beyond hope, just fringe idiots running around with out facts. Got facts? (did you miss all the independent investigations, they also put 9/11 truth out of business, but 9/11 truth goes on; you are proof?)

 

[jay howard]

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:

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.

NIST is clear that the damage to the towers would likely not have been sufficient to induce the collapse.

I'm not trying to deny that the towers were damaged from the impact, only that heat was the driving factor to the collapses. That's why it's the lynch pin of the NIST theory.

This isn't a trick. I'm not trying to pull a fast one here. Yes, there was damage done to the buildings in such a way to allow the fires to spread. Yes, the damage from the impacts caused structural damage. But, according to NIST, structural damage was not the primary cause of the collapse: heat was.

Now, I concede that the report says that the buildings would "not likely" collapse from fire alone, either. But at the core of the NIST theory, whether they, you or anyone else likes it or not, is the heat. It is the necessary cause for the collapse.

Would you concede that if the NIST theory was tested, and the heat did not weaken the steel to the point that it failed that the NIST theory would need to be revised? OR, would you say, "well, we can't ever know the exact conditions of the steel in question, so NIST is probably right."?

 

[pomeroo]

I am NOT arguing that NO fireproofing was dislodged in the towers... where have I ever said that?

But if you acknowledge that fireproofing was, in fact, dislodged, then the next step would be to show that NIST errs in assuming that the loss of fireproofing facilitates the transfer of heat to the steel. How could that possibly be an error?

I AM arguing that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that the loss of thermal insulation was the primary cause of over-heating of the steel. This error is compounded by the fact that not all the heat sources in the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2 have been quantified by NIST.

Sometimes you use terms strangely, Frank. Saying that the loss of thermal insulation led to the over-heating of the steel is a plausible assumption--not a "self-fulfilling prophecy." The assumption can be attacked in two ways: you could argue that it is unreasonable to suppose that any fireproofing was dislodged by the impact, or you could argue that the steel would have heated sufficiently to weaken it even if the fireproofing remained intact. All I'm suggesting is that NIST provides a parsimonious explanation.

The loss of thermal insulation as THE main cause of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is an unfalsifiable hypothesis because it involves an unknown quantity - AS ADMITTED BY NIST! Occam's razor requires we rid our thinking of any unnecessary "storylines" to bolster our narrative.

Again, you are stealing a base here. You simply haven't demonstrated that it is an "unnecessary" storyline. Why shouldn't you be required to show that the fireproofing could have remained intact after the crash, or that the steel would have heated even if the fireproofing hadn't been dislodged? I'm not attempting to argue chemistry with you. I'm disputing your assertion that NIST's claim is unfalsifiable when the means of falsifying it are apparent to everyone.

FIRST we have to look at the most vulnerable materials that we know WERE present in the towers: the truss rods and seats, floor pans, welds, bolts, etc! These items wound up in a high temperature environment where direct metal wastage, stress corrosion cracking, liquid metal embrittlement, etc, were promoted by the presence of HCl, Cl2, H2, SO2 derived from many sources but especially PVC combustion, leading to the formation of FeCl2, FeCl3, ZnCl2, KCl, CaCl2, etc.

An analysis of the EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS involving these LOW MELTING POINT metallic species, as studied and reported in fires, especially in waste incinerators, shows these processes were very likely the dominant factors in bringing down the towers...

Quite possibly you are correct. I'm not qualified to debate the question of whose model, yours or NIST's, weights the factors causing the collapses most precisely.

Pomeroo, I am sorry to say that the Twin Towers became municipal waste incinerators.... once you appreciate that fact you will stop preaching the NISTIAN GOSPEL.

But without you showing a better understanding of the CHEMISTRY of the collapse we have nothing to discuss!

Frank, you seek enemies where none are hiding. I have relied on you for my understanding of the chemistry of the collaspe. NIST designed its report as an explanation, consistent with the available evidence, for the collapses of the Twin Towers. If your criticisms prove valid, then you will have modified the NIST Report by making it more accurate. Is it your purpose to show that the loss of fireproofing had NOTHING to do with the collapses, or are you restricting yourself to the more modest goal of demonstrating that NIST overestimated the role of the loss of fireproofing at the expense of other, more important factors? In the latter case, we are no longer talking about falsification.

 

[jay howard]

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.

How about a test that heats the floor truss systems for 2 hours under hotter conditions than for which any of the recovered steel got to, but didn't fail?

Why doesn't that test discount the NIST theory?

 

[Gravy]

How about a test that heats the floor truss systems for 2 hours under hotter conditions than for which any of the recovered steel got to, but didn't fail?

Why doesn't that test discount the NIST theory?

Jay, I'm not trying to be snarky here. You really need to read the report you think you're critiquing.

 

[Gravy]

NIST is clear that the damage to the towers would likely not have been sufficient to induce the collapse.

Is there any part of "interdependent" that you don't understand?

This isn't a trick. I'm not trying to pull a fast one here.

I know.

 

[AZCat]

Jay, I'm not trying to be snarky here. You really need to read the report you think you're critiquing.

Why is this such a common problem? I'm serious - it seems as if the majority of people who criticize the NIST investigation haven't read the report. And I don't mean they skimped on some of the sections - they haven't read the bulk of it. It's like the kids in your grade school class who would try to do their book reports on books they hadn't read. You, your classmates, and the teacher were all aware of deficiency - the kid wasn't hiding anything (and if he thought he was then he wasn't paying attention). Why would it be any different as adults?

 

[R.Mackey]

How about a test that heats the floor truss systems for 2 hours under hotter conditions than for which any of the recovered steel got to, but didn't fail?

Why doesn't that test discount the NIST theory?

Several reasons.

The tests were not intended for that purpose at all. They were designed to see whether or not, as built, the floor truss assemblies would meet their intended fire rating.

The results are not directly comparable to the actual fires in the WTC Towers because (a) the floor assemblies in the Towers did not have intact fireproofing, while the test articles did; (b) two of the controlled tests were stopped before diagonal members buckled, rather than being run to their full durations, whereas the WTC Towers ran until total failure; and (c) the WTC Towers included truss spans that were nearly double the size of the longest article tested.

The test actually verifies some of the NIST simulation results. It doesn't dispute it at all.

Details are found in NIST NCSTAR1-6C. Read up on it and ask again if you're still confused.

 

[David Wong]

I am not a trained scientist. Can someone explain to me at what point in this process Jay will be required to submit a competing theory as to why the towers collapsed, so that it can be compared with NIST in terms of how it aligns with existing evidence?

It doesn't seem like the discussion will progress measurably until that point.

 

[R.Mackey]

In the first post.

We can have, yet again, another discussion of "anomalies," viz. misperceptions of the NIST report itself, though. So long as everybody learns something.

 

[hellaeon]

Philosophical question for the board: Suppose we have a hypothesis that is "correct" -- somehow, through some twist in the fabric of space, we know that it is absolutely perfect in every detail. Is such a hypothesis falsifiable? Yes or no?

If you change any one of those perfect details surely this renders the conclusion moot, thus falsifying the original outcome. But you need to be certain that the 'perfect details' were in fact, perfect in the first place, because you may inadvertently not only falsify your original arguement, but perhaps strengthen it.

....er....I think....let me put down my glass and think about this...

Edit: Now I gone and confused myself.