Metatheory and the NIST report

[pomeroo]

Absolutely wrong. I would have thought you knew more about logic and science.

Example:

Theory 1 The World Trade Center had a masculine soul.

Theory 2 The World Trade Center had a soul named Irene.

Neither theory is falsifiable. Test one against the other and theory 1 is better because the chances of the World Trade Center having a masculine soul are 50/50 while the chances of the soul being named Irene are much less.

Regardless, the NIST theory can be shown to be false in absence of any alternative theory. Any theory can fail on its own premises due to mistakes (i.e. a wrong calculation, misapplication of rules of physics, etc.), incorrect logic or self-contradiction.

I hope this is the end of the argument.

Your sophistry shows that you fail to comprehend R. Mackey's point. We all get the idea that a theory "can fail on its own premises."

 

[pomeroo]

Are you asserting, or are you going to assert, that such physical evidence exists?

Of course he is. He just can't tell us what that evidence might be.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Greg,
You are completely missing the concept of "falsifiability".

(ref to Daves post)

This too is a misunderstanding of the concept. Falsifiability is a quality of theories that is irrelevant to the existence of other theories. Falsifiability is a quality of a theory whereby is has the ability to be unequivocally demonstrated to be false (by some set of criteria).

OK Jay, I can agree to that. Please keep in mind that we all have different backgrounds and have different understandings of the meanings of certain words.

Mackey has stated:

The falsifiability criterion for the NIST report is the same as for any other hypothesis:

1. If the NIST report can be found to be grossly inconsistent with one or more major observables, subject to consideration of the accuracy of those observables, or

2. The NIST report is found to be materially deficient compared to another, superior hypothesis in matching known observables, then
the NIST report is "falsified."

Thus given Jay's definition, point 2 does not apply. Are you OK with this Mackey?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Your sophistry shows that you fail to comprehend R. Mackey's point. We all get the idea that a theory "can fail on its own premises."

That was only a ridiculous example to show the absurdity of NIST's sophistry whereby they compare unfalsifiable theories to identify which is best.

Don't get me wrong, there are falsifiable claims in the NIST reports. Nonetheless, the NIST theory as a whole, as Dr. Greening has pointed out, is unfalsifiable.

 

[beachnut]

That was only a ridiculous example to show the absurdity of NIST's sophistry whereby they compare unfalsifiable theories to identify which is best.

Don't get me wrong, there are falsifiable claims in the NIST reports. Nonetheless, the NIST theory as a whole, as Dr. Greening has pointed out, is unfalsifiable.

No it is not. Greening is wrong and he even said he was but you have to use your head and put the posts together. The NIST report meets the criteria of F. If you fail to see that you are lost and unable to make rational decisions since you signed up to the conclusions of 9/11 truth.

You have failed to show it, and missed the error of logic made my Greening.

After your errors on flight 93, and your failure to account for all the wallboard in the WTC, you now add this. It seems logic and reason go out the window when one signs up to the conclusions of 9/11 truth as you have done.

I have a question of why you joined the 9/11 truth scholars? They are just making up all the stuff about 9/11, why are you unable to see the Journal they put together was because no one will publish their lies and misinformation? How can you be fooled by the thermite theory Jones made up with no facts? Why join a fringe group over 4 years after 9/11?

 

[Par]

That was only a ridiculous example to show the absurdity of NIST's sophistry whereby they compare unfalsifiable theories to identify which is best.

No. In your examples there are no phenomena that need explaining. In the case of the collapses, there are.

 

[pomeroo]

That was only a ridiculous example to show the absurdity of NIST's sophistry whereby they compare unfalsifiable theories to identify which is best.

Don't get me wrong, there are falsifiable claims in the NIST reports. Nonetheless, the NIST theory as a whole, as Dr. Greening has pointed out, is unfalsifiable.

The NIST theory, as has been pointed out repeatedly by other posters, rests on interdependent assumptions: planes hit the buildings, causing widespread fires and dislodging fireproofing. To falsify this theory, we could go the Morgan Reynolds-Judy Wood-Ace Baker route and deny that planes were involved. Rejecting that approach as insane, we can deny the effects of the fires or argue that little or no fireproofing was dislodged.

Dr. Greening proposes that chemical reactions largely ignored by NIST provided a significant source of heat. Permit me to use a boxing analogy to illustrate the difficultiess I'm having with his suggestion.

A fight ends suddenly as the champ unleashes a combination that kayos his opponent. The initial impression is that a left hook to the body followed by a straight right to the head accounted for the knockout. But slow-motion replays reveal that a third punch, a solid left to the chin, landed almost simultaneously with the right.

Were the first two punches sufficient for the knockout? Were all three necessary? Could the third punch have done the job by itself? How about the second punch alone?

Dr. Greening obviously doesn't deny the impact of the planes. He seems to minimize the effects of the loss of fireproofing without ever getting around to telling us why. Does he have a reason for thinking that less fireproofing was removed than NIST would have us believe? Would his additional heat source have weakened the structural steel even in the presence of intact fireproofing? Is he (as I suspect he is) saying that in the absence of those chemical reactions he has identified the factors considered by NIST would have been insufficient to produce the collapse mechanism?

So, how many punches landed? Were they all necessary?

 

[David Wong]

Okay, wait.

Am I off base here to assume that Jay and Gregory are suggesting explosives in the towers?

Reading their remarks so far, it sounds like they may merely be suggesting that the fireproofing was insufficient, or that the buildings were not as structurally sound as they should have been. Maybe they agree that 19 Hijackers flew planes into them, and that this was the sole cause of the collapse. But maybe they believe the "conspiracy" lies in an effort by NIST and the WTC builders to cover up the fact that the towers were not as resistant to damage and fire as they should have been, and in fact should have remained standing if not for the shoddy workmanship?

That itself would be a fascinating area of study. When they talk about an "alternative" to the NIST report, maybe that's all they mean.

It would advance the discussion greatly if they could clarify that point. After all, if we find the NIST report deficient, that does not suddenly make all of the alternative conspiracy theories (bombs in the towers, lasers from space, cruise missiles with holograms) automatically true. If we discover the roadmap is wrong and does not display the first exit to Cleveland where it should be, we must find an alternate route so that the map can be improved. We must not automatically assume that Cleveland does not exist.

But maybe that's not what they're suggesting.

 

[twinstead]

Can't say anything about Jay, but I think Gregory has made his position clear in previous threads.

 

[e^n]

A graph of momentum transfer is shown as a function of time on p. 178. The diagrams above that show debris first exiting the core at 0.40 seconds. At 0.40 seconds the graph shows 10% of momentum remaining. Since the mass is constant (may need to be corrected based on Apollo's new theory) the average velocity is 10% of the original velocity = 43.3 mph. Actually due to temporal displacement a good portion of the debris exits the core after 0.40 seconds with even less energy.

Well Gregory I said I wouldn't accuse you of being deliberately obtuse but I cannot understand how an engineer would not recognize the problem with these two statements:

At 0.40 seconds the graph shows 10% of momentum remaining.

the average velocity is 10% of the original velocity = 43.3 mph.

You are implying two things by using this logic, first is that the relationship between momentum and velocity is linear with respect to the overall momentum and individual velocity of debris. This is clearly false as demonstrated by the eventual debris layout.

The second thing you are implying is that NISTs FEA simulation of impact is somehow flawed. The fireproofing loss used in the reports was determined only to occur when office workstations directly below were damaged. Given that the energies required are in the same order of magnitude, am I to assume you question the accuracy of NISTs FEA?

 

[chipmunk stew]

This too is a misunderstanding of the concept. Falsifiability is a quality of theories that is irrelevant to the existence of other theories. Falsifiability is a quality of a theory whereby is has the ability to be unequivocally demonstrated to be false (by some set of criteria).

OK Jay, I can agree to that. Please keep in mind that we all have different backgrounds and have different understandings of the meanings of certain words.

Mackey has stated:

The falsifiability criterion for the NIST report is the same as for any other hypothesis:

1. If the NIST report can be found to be grossly inconsistent with one or more major observables, subject to consideration of the accuracy of those observables, or

2. The NIST report is found to be materially deficient compared to another, superior hypothesis in matching known observables, then
the NIST report is "falsified."

Thus given Jay's definition, point 2 does not apply. Are you OK with this Mackey?

R.Mackey's falsification method 2 is a valid alternative to method 1 (key word "or"). Jay needn't restrict himself to method 1. It appears as though he has an argument in mind using method 1, though. If it's a sound argument, he can stop there--he's not required to also supply a superior hypothesis.

I think the major players are all in agreement on the ground rules for falsifiability. So: enough foreplay, let's get it on.

Jay, this is your thread, and you're representing the challenge to the status quo, so let's hear your opening salvo.

 

[beachnut]

Can't say anything about Jay, but I think Gregory has made his position clear in previous threads.

Give the runner a chance.

Jay is all too clear.

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

You see this is the whole point of this thread!

NIST cannot demonstate how much insulation was lost, where it was lost, and if those areas were also subject to severe heating. NIST makes the assumtion that the loss of insulation is correlated with the damage to the furniture, and NIST is able to model this damage. However, we have no way of checking the correctness of the furniture damage model because the degree and location of the furniture damage is also unknown! Thus we have a theory that depends on two assumptions, both of which cannot be verified or negated. What is more, I have shown that there are ways to generate localized heating that are not considered by NIST, and do not depend on the damage to the furniture. So, Pomeroo, how do we know which theory is correct when both predict the same collapse behavior?

Nevertheless, Occam's razor says: "TAKE OUT THE FURNITURE!"

 

[e^n]

You know Apollo20, you are one of the most difficult people to read but you make some very very good points some of the time

NIST cannot demonstate how much insulation was lost, where it was lost, and if those areas were also subject to severe heating. NIST makes the assumtion that the loss of insulation is correlated with the damage to the furniture, and NIST is able to model this damage. However, we have no way of checking the correctness of the furniture damage model because the degree and location of the furniture damage is also unknown!

This is an utterly unfair characterisation of the NIST report. You know full well that every relevant external observable was matched where possible and that there are ways of potentially falsifying both. For example

• Predicted fire where none observed
• Fire where none predicted
• Substantial smoke differences
• Fireproofing being intact on visible exterior columns
• Floor sag differences
• Entrance hole differences

While I agree with the point of your post, you do misrepresent the amount of verification NIST undertook, they did the absolute best they could (IMHO) but yet you portray it as if they did nothing. Your chemical heating theory is very interesting, but it is also entirely speculation for the moment, while you have some interesting results and evidence of sulfidation or chlorination this will take time before it becomes its own theory. When it does and you have testable predictions you can expect a split of opinion on here

 

[jay howard]

Because it's too complicated, and because it's unnecessary.

Why are tests that confirm or discount a theory "unnecessary"? Why are they not very necessary in this, of all cases? Hell, even if it cost $100M to perform these tests, wouldn't you want to see the results? Especially if they demonstrated the official theory to be right?

The tests were not run to failure because that would destroy the test cell. The furnaces are not designed to have multi-ton steel structures collapse upon them. Cleanup after such a test is hazardous. Remember, this is not a tiny benchtop experiment we're talking about -- each of the short-span full-scale truss tests involved roasting a structure bigger than my house.

Yet, NIST cites the failure of these trusses as "imminent." As if that word were some kind of satisfactory criteria of the truth of their theory. What criteria is "immanent" calibrated against? Does it mean it will fail in 5 minutes under the identical conditions? 40 minutes? We do not know because they do not define "imminent". Again, we must take their word for the results in the report.

There's no need to run the tests further, anyway. Elementary structural mechanics will tell you what will happen next to a high degree of accuracy. The difference between the stopping point in the UL furnace tests and what happened in the WTC Towers is whether or not the diagonal elements buckled. Up until that point, the NIST models can be verified against the truss tests in terms of displacement as a function of steel temperature, and they were, and the fit was excellent.

Except in the NIST lab tests, the trusses did not fail, and in the simulations, they did fail. The only meaningful difference imaginable. There are some definite problems with the interpretation of the data here.

All of the computer models created were verified (that means "tested against known cases") against simple test cases, such as the NCSTAR1-6C tests. They were also tested for sensitivity and validated (that means "tested to show the correct behavior within a bounding envelope of conditions") independently, by varying each of the input conditions and verifying the effect of each, giving us a way to estimate the error for any given test case. The structural models, in total, are simply not all that sensitive to the kinds of errors you suppose. Minor variations in heating or even in displacement are not significant to the overall structure.

But when we examine the actual model they used to demonstrate the failure of the truss systems, we see that it is dependent on heating the entire structure to 700C--a premise for which there is absolutely no corroborative evidence.

“A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 °C (300 °C at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min…. Figure 6–11 shows that the diagonals at the core (right) end of the truss buckled and caused an increase in the floor system deflection, ultimately reaching approximately 42 in.”(96)

Not only is there no corroborative evidence of this, but in another statement, they clarify that

“The use of an ‘average’ gas temperature was not a satisfactory means of assessing the thermal environment on floors this large and would also have led to large errors in the subsequent thermal and structural analyses. The heat transferred to the structural components was largely by means of thermal radiation, whose intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the gas temperature. At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below.”(127)

So, given 1000C for 20 minutes, there is no way the floor systems could have entirely heated to 700C for 30 minutes, yet they combine these data as if there were no contradiction between them, in order to produce the lynch pin of their position: that the floor trusses sagged from the heat and initiated the "global collapse."

Does this sound like a consistent integration of data?

Regarding the fireproofing, that's a totally separate issue. It is difficult to be certain of the fireproofing damage. This is why NIST used conservative estimates of the damage, and also ran two fire cases for each tower, verifying the results against the many observations including extent of "hanging objects," appearance and progression of inward bowing at exterior walls, and measured lean of the tower superstructures. What the results show is that there is a minimum of fireproofing damage expected, but that within a wide envelope of performance, the fine details really make little difference.

Sure, that sounds fair. But if anyone asks me to take their results as truth, but is unable to produce a test to back them up because "it would be too costly or difficult," then they are, in fact, asking me to take some results as gospel.

It's certainly possible that I may be at fault for misunderstanding the data. Stranger things have happened, but so far, it is the structure of the NIST argument to which I take objection. (And that is my background.)

 

[jay howard]

Apollo,

given that we have no photos, witness testimony or live temperature readings from inside the WTC collapse zone, assumptions must be made based on other evidence.

What we know for sure:

- a plane hit the WTC
- a massive fire raged
- trusses were warping and columns were bending inwards along the facade at the exact area of collapse

Given these facts, is it plausible to assume that enough fireproofing would be dislodged by a jet impact to result in the fire's heat warping the trusses and columns? I'd say so.

You might say so, but do we have corroborative evidence of this? I mean, if the trusses were the weak point that bent and initiated a "global collapse" then shouldn't we be able to test this theory by heating steel with similar properties with similar stresses for a similar amount of time and see corresponding results?

If the NIST theory is falsifiable, then a test either confirms or discounts this theory. Yet, there has been no test to confirm it, only to discount it. If it is in fact falsifiable, then a negative test result means one of two things:

1. either the theory is wrong or,
2. the test did not properly account for at least one variable.

Personal opinions about whether the observed phenomena fits with the reconstruction are irrelevant to the plausibility of the NIST theory.

Anyone opposing this theory had better be able to explain the known facts in their alternative explanation.

One is not required to have an alternative theory in order to criticize a theory. Once a theory is demonstrated to be inadequate, then a new theory or a modified theory will come into play, but it is not required to exist by virtue of the fact that the inadequacies of a theory are being exposed.

 

[jay howard]

Are you asserting, or are you going to assert, that such physical evidence exists?

What if it does exist, and it came from an unbiased and verifiable source? Would you change your theory to account for the evidence or would you dismiss the existence of the evidence anyway?

 

[jay howard]

After all, if we find the NIST report deficient, that does not suddenly make all of the alternative conspiracy theories (bombs in the towers, lasers from space, cruise missiles with holograms) automatically true.

Yes, David. That's true, and it is what I'm trying to get at. Please read the thread and you will see that I'm laying out criteria which helps us sift a good theory from scientific-sounding babble. It does not matter what the political implications are, these criteria will help us decipher meaningful, testable assertions from comfortable banter.

 

[jay howard]

I think the major players are all in agreement on the ground rules for falsifiability. So: enough foreplay, let's get it on.

Jay, this is your thread, and you're representing the challenge to the status quo, so let's hear your opening salvo.

I've laid out the definitions for use here in the opening post. Did you read that?

A lot of people want to accuse me of not reading the NIST report for one reason or another. I would point out that reading something and understanding something do not necessitate one another.

I've tried several times to clarify that "falsifiability" is a quality of theories that does NOT depend on the existence of other theories. It is a binary quality: either a theory has it or not.

Creationism is the paradigm example of a non-falsifiable theory because no criteria exist for which a creationist would say "oh, in that case, my theory must be wrong."

For a theory to be a contender explanation, there MUST exist some criteria by which it could be demonstrated to be false. We want our theories to be falsifiable, but not false. A non-falsifiable theory is not a theory at all, but simply a matter of faith. Faith has no place in science--at least not at this level.

 

[jay howard]

Do you hold the position that the NIST theory is unfalsifiable? For some reason I am under the impression that you were arguing that the NIST theory is not falsifiable. You seem to be implying the opposite, now. Maybe I've misinterpreted your argument.

My conclusions are not the issue here. Let's take a serious look at the structure of the NIST argument in order to determine whether:
A. it is or is not falsifiable,
This will require knowing their exact theory about the collapse, i.e.: the floor trusses failed after being exposed to 1000 C temperatures for 50 and 90 minutes respectively--or something to that effect. I haven't found anything that precisely described in the report, although it's certainly possible I just missed it.

or

B. whether it is non-falsifiable.
If no specific criteria for the collapse sequence can be elucidated, or if the conditions for the collapse are not reproducible for whatever reason, then we are left to taking someone's word for what happened. This amounts to no such explanation at all for the collapse--just noise.

The towers were not made of some alien compound that we cannot reproduce, nor is this a special case where the tenets of logic and good science do not or should not apply.

First, and most importantly, the test you mention has never been performed. If you'd like to perform it, I'd be all ears. The test NIST performed that you are likely referring to did -not- test what you claim it did.

“All four test assemblies were able to withstand standard fire conditions for between 3⁄4 hour and 2 hours without exceeding the limits prescribed by ASTM E 119."(141)

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.”(141)

Also, I consider the maximum temperatures attained in the WTC to be a better temperature to perform this test as opposed to the maximum temperature of the steel recovered. They aren't the same and I suspect you know that which is why you've chosen the one that you believe will give you the results you want.

So, how do you and ONLY you know what temperatures were attained in the WTC? This is what NIST said:

"It is possible to reconstruct a complex fire in a large building, even if the building is no longer standing. However, this requires extraordinary information to replace what might have been gleaned from an inspection of the post-fire premises."

In other words, they had to make up a lot of the input for their simulations. The question at issue for the twoofers like me is whether they had a predetermined conclusion or did they approach this case with real scientific rigor? Did they take into account all the evidence? Does their theory stand up to some dumb caterer's questions?