Metatheory and the NIST report

[jay howard]

Yep.
You are having to manufacture (make-up; fabricate) evidence.
No evidence exists of Molten steel, other than that which can be attributed as incidental to a steel/aluminum collision at high energy and velocity. Even that "molten steel" evidence can be attributed somewhat to rescue/recovery work post-collapse.
No evidence of explosives exists, other than elements which are commonly used in construction materials. Period. no boom stuff. none. zilch. nada. Zero.

Except from the US Geological Survey and Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

But other than that, none, zip, zilch.

 

[Gravy]

Can someone link to or provide a general explaination of Ove Arup's hypothesis? My searches on the topic have been fruitless so far.

Here's their report (see the pdf on the right side of the page). http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267

Basically, they say that NIST underestimates or neglects to factor in thermal expansion of steel, which their simulations show could possibly have caused the towers to collapse from the fires alone, with no prior damage. Arup was a consultant on the NIST report.

 

[twinstead]

Except from the US Geological Survey and Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

But other than that, none, zip, zilch.

How are those two links in any way, shape, or form evidence of CD of the WTC, or of an inside job on 911?

 

[T.A.M.]

Jay Howard:

"Why is that so difficult?"

Because the JREFers already have the Twoof, the whole Twoof and nothing but the Twoof from NIST!

Why don't you stop being so insulting, and just name us...those you have problems with here. I do not appreciate you labeling those people in the humor or science sections here, who are JREFers, but have nothing to do with the CTs, in such an insulting fashion. And don't play innocent, a nemitode could detect the contempt and sarcasm in that comment.

I am done defending you, and I know you could care less, but I feel the need to say it. You continue to whine, and insult, despite others asking you to discontinue. Your work on 9/11 is admirable, unlike your behaviour here. If you are toying with people here, making them think you are a CTist when you are not, then you are being deceptive and mean spirited. If you are a CTist, than come out of the closet so we can at least discuss things with you in a more honest fashion.

Most of all, will you get rid of that gigantic chip, and try and contribute to the forum, like you have to the body of 9/11 scientific knowledge...please?

TAM

edit: and yes, before you post it, of course I am guilty of some of the same, but at least I make an effort to keep it to a minimum, and often am provoked into it through statements such as yours.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Except from the US Geological Survey

Which reports the presence of spherical iron particles, which are an expected result of a hot fire. Search this forum.

and Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

And had you bothered to read the paper, you'd know that it concludes the steel samples didn't get nearly hot enough to be molten. Oops.

But other than that, none, zip, zilch.

Yes, you have struck out.

 

[Apollo20]

"Spherical iron particles .... are an expected result of a hot fire."

References and proof of this assertion please.

NIST and FEMA do not mention spherical iron particles. I have discussed them a lot on this site as has Chainsaw. But the experts at JREF appear to deny that spheres are produced by fires! For example, Rwguinn tells us the spheres are from grinding and friction.... So what is it?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Jay, may I suggest the "ignore function"?

Also, please stop pointing out that NIST has false claims, conflicting claims and failed logical dependencies. It's making these guys look bad.

 

[Gravy]

In the severe cases, NIST uses the estimate of 5lb/sq ft of office fuel, yet previously, NIST

"... estimated the fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2), or about 60 tons per floor. This was somewhat lower than found in prior surveys of office spaces. The small number of interior walls, and thus the minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences."(76)

which corresponds to the "middle case" in their scenarios. One problem with the middle cases, NIST says, is that,

"Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing."(142)

And we can't have that, because that would necessitate revamping the official theory. So, instead, they discard the middle cases based on "observed events" despite the fact they admit that 4lb/sq ft corresponds to their own estimates.

Trying to catch up with my reading here and just wanted to comment on this because it caught my eye.

Jay, you're being disingenuous. NIST said the 5 lb/sq ft estimate was still significantly lower than similar tenant floors in other buildings that were studied. IIRC, the real-world consumable load in the most recent study they had access to was something like 2-3 times higher than the NIST estimate. Further, even the real-world studies had high standard deviations. Both the 4 lb and 5 lb cases were conservative estimates, with the higher being very possibly the closer to reality. You'll find this info in NCSTAR 1-5.

 

[T.A.M.]

"Spherical iron particles .... are an expected result of a hot fire."

References and proof of this assertion please.

NIST and FEMA do not mention spherical iron particles. I have discussed them a lot on this site as has Chainsaw. But the experts at JREF appear to deny that spheres are produced by fires! For example, Rwguinn tells us the spheres are from grinding and friction.... So what is it?

I thought some of us here had this discussion with you and CC, and most felt a good lead on this was that the sphericles may have been produced from heat and its application to human tissue, specifically blood...

Does this sound like a reasonable explanation to you?

TAM

 

[jay howard]

Which reports the presence of spherical iron particles, which are an expected result of a hot fire. Search this forum.

If they didn't find ferrous microspheres, you wouldn't have to say "they don't count as evidence of molten steel." But since they do in fact exist, you have to find some way to account for them. Momentary flashovers simply do not provide the energy to melt steel. These particles are positive evidence of molten steel.

If you have an argument to the contrary, please present it. This is the place for it. I haven't asked you to take my word for anything here. Nor should you ask me to take yours--not if you have an argument of any substance.

And had you bothered to read the paper, you'd know that it concludes the steel samples didn't get nearly hot enough to be molten. Oops.

Strange how the title of the article is "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel." Did the author misunderstand his own writing? Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean here?

 

[jay howard]

How are those two links in any way, shape, or form evidence of CD of the WTC, or of an inside job on 911?

Don't put words in my mouth, Twinstead. We haven't yet come to that conclusion. What we have is evidence that the NIST theory is incapable of explaining. We need to examine it to produce a theory which does account for it properly. Whether that theory will involve CD or some other explanation hasn't yet been determined, much less whether the new theories must implicate "insiders".

Look at the evidence and figure out what makes the most sense.

 

[GlennB]

Strange how the title of the article is "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel." Did the author misunderstand his own writing? Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean here?

Looks like you didn't get beyond the title of the article.

 

[twinstead]

Don't put words in my mouth, Twinstead. We haven't yet come to that conclusion. What we have is evidence that the NIST theory is incapable of explaining. We need to examine it to produce a theory which does account for it properly. Whether that theory will involve CD or some other explanation hasn't yet been determined, much less whether the new theories must implicate "insiders".

Look at the evidence and figure out what makes the most sense.

Oh come on, if you don't think 911 was an inside job you are playing the biggest game of Devil's advocate I've ever seen.

I have looked at the evidence. I understand that in any investigation there will be some unexplained issues. Al-in-all, IMO the 'official story' of 911 so far is the most rational explanation of the event, the one that covers the most data. Until something better comes along, I'm satisfied with it.

Is it perfect? No. Will there be some things that we may never know about the event? Yes. Will new things come to light? Perhaps.

Is it the unmitigated piece of garbage that some, and YOU actually, seem to want me to accept? Absolutely not!

 

[Par]

Strange how the title of the article is "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel." Did the author misunderstand his own writing? Maybe you'd like to explain what you mean here?

Well, I once read an article entitled “The Mystery of the Cottingley Fairies”. It concluded that the Cottingley Fairies didn’t exist. I can’t say the choice of title troubled me too much.

 

[twinstead]

Well, I once read an article entitled “The Mystery of the Cottingley Fairies”. It concluded that the Cottingley Fairies didn’t exist. I can’t say the choice of title troubled me too much.

Dude. The Cottingley Fairies don't exist?

Thanks for bursting my bubble!

 

[jay howard]

NIST said the 5 lb/sq ft estimate was still significantly lower than similar tenant floors in other buildings that were studied.

Yes, NIST explains the reason for this is that they

"... estimated the fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2), or about 60 tons per floor. This was somewhat lower than found in prior surveys of office spaces. The small number of interior walls, and thus the minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences."(76)

In no uncertain terms, they account for the lower quantity. And yet, they still use the "more severe" cases for the simulated fires in WTCs 1 and 2 which used 5 lb/sq ft of office fuel.

Other NIST references cite this estimate as well:

"...this suggested that the estimated overall combustible load of 4 lb/ft2 was reasonable."(126)

"The principal combustibles on the fire floors were workstations. The total fuel load on the WTC floors was low, about 4 lb/ft2."(179)

"This was consistent with the results of workstation fire tests conducted by NIST, in which the fuel load was 4 lb/ft2."(179)

What would happen if they were to use this estimate in their simulations?

"Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing."(142)

So, despite the estimates and the tests, they had to increase the office fuel loads in the simulations for no other apparent reason than they had to conclude that the office fires initiated the collapse.

Seriously, Gravy, do you believe NIST makes a "good" argument to use the more severe case? If so, on what basis do you believe that?

 

[jay howard]

Looks like you didn't get beyond the title of the article.

So, Glenn, what's your take on the article? Do you think eutectic reactions are either normal office fire events or can be easily explained by "acid rain"?

Either way, the experts at NIST don't want to go anywhere near this evidence.

 

[jay howard]

Well, I once read an article entitled “The Mystery of the Cottingley Fairies”. It concluded that the Cottingley Fairies didn’t exist. I can’t say the choice of title troubled me too much.

So, you think the article concludes that the WPI steel isn't evidence of melted steel?

Please give me a quote or something to substantiate that.

 

[jay howard]

Oh come on, if you don't think 911 was an inside job you are playing the biggest game of Devil's advocate I've ever seen.

If we are to be thorough about this, we should take all potential explanations seriously, then, narrow them down by applying metatheoretical adequacy criteria. Whatever I may be accused of, I cannot accurately be accused of jumping to conclusions. Sure, I have my conclusions, but like I said in the OP, it doesn't do any good to begin with conclusions, we must begin at the beginning.

It took a long time for me to come to the conclusions I have, but the barriers were not so much evidentiary as they were psychological.

Is it the unmitigated piece of garbage that some, and YOU actually, seem to want me to accept? Absolutely not!

Free speech and free (critical) thought win on this one. I am not a lobbyist. If I were, I'd be hiring a PR firm. As it is, I'm appealing to logic, reason and evidence.

Anyone who has to deny the existence of evidence in order to sustain their point of view is taking the matter at hand not as science, but as faith.

The Creationists are famous for this. In this, of all the cases in our lifetimes, we cannot afford to do that. I may be wrong, but so far, no one, expert or otherwise has been able to demonstrate an error in my arguments for why the official NIST explanation is internally inconsistent and incapable of explaining critical pieces of evidence.

 

[Par]

So, you think the article concludes that the WPI steel isn't evidence of melted steel?

Please give me a quote or something to substantiate that.

The article or the paper?