Metatheory and the NIST report

[R.Mackey]

I think you're posturing because you don't have a good response. I'll take you at your word.

I'm not even sure what "posturing" you could mean. This is just another example of you leaping to conclusions, like you have done about the NIST report.

This would be the perfect place to show exactly what you mean by "wrong in some way."

Actually no. You see, jay, I've already explained what was wrong. Several times. It's all in this thread.

The effect of explaining these things to you directly has been negligible. It seems your grasp of the NIST report is so poor that you can't comprehend the explanations. That's OK, it's a technical report and well beyond anything most people have encountered before.

This is why I've changed my approach. If you and I work through it together, and you explain your thought processes, we stand a chance of catching where you've made your mistakes and correcting them. But my simply repeating the correct answer a fourth or fifth time isn't likely to help you.

They built floor truss systems--two 17ft and two 35ft--varying several factors: restrained, unrestrained, SFRM thickness, applied loads, etc., and heated them to see what would happen. On this, again, we agree.

You need to be more specific about this. "They were heated" is quite vague. Also you should go into more detail about the SFRM thickness. And give references.

NIST reports that NONE of these structures failed. On this, one need only read the bulleted points on page 143 of NCSTAR 1.

But that section also includes the following:

• For assemblies with a 3/4 in. SFRM thickness, the 17 ft assembly's fire rating was 2 hours; the 35 ft assembly's rating was 1¹/₂ hours. This result raised the question of whether or not a fire rating of a 17 ft floor assembly is scalable to the longer spans in the WTC towers.
• The specimen in Test 4, with a fire rating of 3/4 hour, would not have met the 2 hour requirementof the NYC building code.

The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the forumlation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.

(Emphasis added)

Why did you leave this part out? Complete answer, please.

We know from the NIST reports that NONE of the recovered steel got hotter than 600C for more than 15 minutes.

Focus, jay. After we understand the truss tests, we can talk about annealing. Not before. This is an unrelated topic.

We know from these reports that no definitive samples of the collapse modes were recovered.

Complete fabrication on your part. We'll discuss this later.

It gets squirrelly here because I have only seen the NIST-theorized failure modes in the simulations. That is apparently, the only place anyone has seen them. So, if you want to say that these tests bear no relevance to the NIST collapse theory, then we would have to know what that theory specifically says. If you know, please don't keep me in suspense. What exactly were the conditions of the failure?

Stuff and nonsense. The NIST report is very explicit about the conditions in its collapse model -- fully quantitative and even graphed for you in numerous dimensions, with high and low cases.

You need to find this information. Then you need to compare this to the truss tests to see if the results from the truss test have any bearing on the model. If you do this, you will find there are vast differences.

But it's all in the report. You're just being lazy now.

Every time I try to nail down what those conditions are, someone tells me I'm oversimplifying or otherwise "not getting it." This is your chance to clarify once and for all what the theory is.

I've tried telling you, and that didn't work, so you're just going to have to do your homework. The NIST theory is complicated. That's why it takes 10,000 pages to explain it in full detail. You're asking for a soundbite, and you aren't going to get one, so stop asking.

Sure, that makes sense. The analogy begs the question that the skeptics of the NIST report (such as myself) are asking, namely, does the NIST theory successfully explain the collapse of the buildings?

You aren't a "skeptic" of the NIST theory, jay. You don't understand it in enough detail to even doubt it, let alone criticize it. I'm hoping that if you start looking at it in detail, you'll begin to understand what it really says.

That's a great question. It would be approachable if we knew what exactly the collapse conditions were. You say the finite model of the floor truss heated to 700C for 30 minutes doesn't count. So, what does count?

The NIST estimates of the conditions are explained in nauseating detail in the report. Go find them. Quote them. Show me where you got them. Then we'll talk. I can't do your homework for you.

Let me repeat my questions, of which you answered none so far:

1. Identify all of the conditions of the truss tests. ALL of them, not just duration.
2. Identify which, if any, of these conditions would be different in the collapse model.
3. Describe, qualitatively, how the different conditions might lead to a different result.
4. Describe, quantitatively, whether or not the truss test models conflict with the collapse model results.

Once you've done that, you should be able to answer for yourself whether or not the truss tests are relevant, and what they mean.

I'm willing to help you with this, willing to put in as much effort as you do. But I can't do it for you. You've asked repeatedly for an explanation of the NIST hypothesis -- well, this is how you can find out. If you sincerely want to know, then you should be willing to put some work into it.

 

[GlennB]

.....
evidence of much hotter temperatures than hydrocarbon fires can get
.....

What evidence are you referring to ?

 

[cmcaulif]

Yup. He is a responsible scientist...

As I said before, I still consider this a valid alternative, and one of the very few pieces of legitimate criticism of the NIST report. I also think, for the reasons I gave above, that the NIST report is more likely to be correct. But it will take more work to answer this for sure. If Dr. Usmani has followed up on this, and if you get an answer, I'd be interested to see what they have to say.

the response wasn't that detailed:

Colin
Arup did work with Univ of Edinburgh to investigate the collapses. There was some debate about the differences with the outcomes and the NIST study and this was documented at the NIST Conference held late 2005.
Hope this helps.

regards
Chris Gildersleeve
Principal
Leader Arup Fire

I beleive this is the documentation they are referring to:

http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6Lane.pdf

Their main claim seems to be that the NIST global model is not as accurate as it should be because it does not include the thermal expansion of the floor assemblies and model these assemblies as a simple membrane, whereas there's model the floor as they were designed and include thermal expansion. So it is possible that their theory holds, though there isn't much detail on their 3D models.

 

[jay howard]

But that section also includes the following:

• For assemblies with a 3/4 in. SFRM thickness, the 17 ft assembly's fire rating was 2 hours; the 35 ft assembly's rating was 11/2 hours. This result raised the question of whether or not a fire rating of a 17 ft floor assembly is scalable to the longer spans in the WTC towers.
• The specimen in Test 4, with a fire rating of 3/4 hour, would not have met the 2 hour requirementof the NYC building code.

The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the forumlation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.

Why did you leave this part out? Complete answer, please.

This is an interesting addendum to the floor truss tests. What exactly are they saying? Are they saying that some of the results are relevant and some are not? Are they reserving the right to dismiss any results that do not fit the theory? They were "cautious" about directly using these results in formulating the collapse hypothesis, however, they do NOT say this test was not used in the formulation of the collapse hypothesis. How are we to know which parts are used and which are not? What standards did they apply to make this distinction?

You would like me to break down the tests for clarification. The problem is that even if the tests are broken down to your satisfaction, we still lack the conditions in the towers to compare it to.

Where are the conditions in the towers coming from?

How do we know what is a "good" comparison?

According to NIST, the primary yardstick is the simulations. Again, when they must ignore their own estimations to produce a simulation in which global collapse ensues, on what grounds can we distinguish good data input from faulty data input?

This argumentative structure does not change through any of the NIST supporting literature. Going to school for engineering does not change this argumentative structure. Using the floor truss test results "cautiously" does not change this structure.

On the basis of forensic evidence, there is little corroboration for a jet fuel-ignited fire collapse. The simulations show that there wasn't enough office fuel to induce a collapse by their own estimations.

They cannot find any floor truss seats or other key failure modes that definitively collapsed because of heat. You seem to be in agreement that the only place we see these failure modes is in the simulations. Shouldn't that produce a healthy amount of skepticism as to the accuracy of those results in light of the complete lack of directly corroborative forensic evidence?

 

[R.Mackey]

This is an interesting addendum to the floor truss tests. What exactly are they saying? Are they saying that some of the results are relevant and some are not? Are they reserving the right to dismiss any results that do not fit the theory? They were "cautious" about directly using these results in formulating the collapse hypothesis, however, they do NOT say this test was not used in the formulation of the collapse hypothesis. How are we to know which parts are used and which are not? What standards did they apply to make this distinction?

I'm about ready to write you off. Think about this, jay. You reference a page in the NIST overview report, and claim that it supports your inferences. I show you that the very same PAGE has NIST explaining that you can't make that inference, and briefly explains why (more detail is in the subproject reports).

What do you do? You start questioning NIST's explanation. Not on any scientific grounds, not based on any facts, just out of sheer paranoid contrarianism.

The rest of your comments are similar uneducated and erroneous speculation.

I've showed you how to learn the NIST report. I've promised to help you do so. But I cannot make you learn.

I've given you a list of questions. Write down your thought process and source your facts, and we'll soon find the problem. You've resisted doing this. I don't really care why, that's your problem if you don't want to learn.

 

[LashL]

You have been infinitely patient, R.Mackey, with someone who appears to be wilfully and deliberately obtuse. But, as you rightly acknowledge, you cannot force someone to learn. Unfortunately, not even when the recipient is graced with your expert tutelage, which has been so eloquently delivered.

Kudos to you for trying, though. And kudos to you for maintaining your professionalism and decorum in the face of... well, I'll leave it at that.

It is all clear to neutral readers and that, often, is what really matters.

 

[R.Mackey]

It isn't the first time.

A very small minority of people in this world understand Calculus. This doesn't mean that Calculus is "false."

Some people just aren't cut out for it. I've run into things that I just can't learn easily. Lots of things.

I'm a practicing engineer, four degrees in the sciences, over a decade experience, and even I miss some details in the NIST report. It's a complicated subject.

The difference, of course, is that I acknowledge my limitations, and I get help where I need it. I've spent over twenty years training myself to understand these topics, and I know that it takes still more hard work to grasp the specifics.

The problem with the Truth Movement in general is that they ask questions, but that's as far as they go. It's extremely rare for them to follow up, to actually learn, or even to acknowledge their own shortcomings. More often, they remain utterly convinced of their own impressions, as if to reinforce their "right" to question.

I still hold out some hope that jay is not one of these people, but the evidence so far is sharply against it.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Clear as the memory in a gallon of tap water!

 

[jay howard]

I'm about ready to write you off. Think about this, jay. You reference a page in the NIST overview report, and claim that it supports your inferences. I show you that the very same PAGE has NIST explaining that you can't make that inference, and briefly explains why (more detail is in the subproject reports).

What do you do? You start questioning NIST's explanation. Not on any scientific grounds, not based on any facts, just out of sheer paranoid contrarianism.

The rest of your comments are similar uneducated and erroneous speculation.

I've showed you how to learn the NIST report. I've promised to help you do so. But I cannot make you learn.

I've given you a list of questions. Write down your thought process and source your facts, and we'll soon find the problem. You've resisted doing this. I don't really care why, that's your problem if you don't want to learn.

One of my original suspicions was that the NIST theory was non-falsifiable. Anti-sophist said that if the towers were still standing, we would have falsified the NIST report. I didn't put up much of a fight here, though I see it was a mistake to let that pass as a good example of the falsifiability of the NIST report.

First off, the claim that the towers are still standing only falsifies the theory that the towers in fact, fell. This observation does not help demonstrate the falsifiability of more complex claims about the specific sequence of failures. To do that, we would need to know what exactly those specific conditions were.

When I explained that there was no specific encapsulation of the NIST theory, you replied

I've tried telling you, and that didn't work, so you're just going to have to do your homework. The NIST theory is complicated. That's why it takes 10,000 pages to explain it in full detail. You're asking for a soundbite, and you aren't going to get one, so stop asking.

As if this were a sufficient response to my claim that no such theory exists. It doesn't surprise me that you are not willing to give any criteria for NIST collapse theory--just a circumstantial ad hom--since I'm the one claiming it doesn't exist in any testable form. It doesn't help your position to ask me to look it up when I'm claiming it doesn't exist.

Regardless of the length of the NIST report, there should, at some point, be a testable statement regarding the conditions necessary for the collapse of the towers to initiate. What we have in place of this are a few paragraphs that explain the NIST theory in general terms, like this:

“1. Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
2. Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over several floors;
3. Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel;
4. Open paths for fire spread resulting from the open plan of the impact floors and the breaking of partition walls by the impact debris;
5. Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
6. Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and
7. Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads. ”(NCSTAR 1, 34)

or

“Following the impact of the aircraft, the jet-fuel-ignited fires created the sustained and elevated temperatures that heated the remaining building structure to the point of collapse initiation.”(NCSTAR 1, 121)

or

“… the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.”(NCSTAR 1, xliii, xliv)

or

“The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC 2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.”(NCSTAR 1, xliv)

In all this verbiage, I struggle to find a testable claim. Does it exist? You are certain it does. I am much less than certain. Yet, you reply it is up to me to find a claim that I do not think exists. What happens when I don't find it? I'm lazy. Of course. It couldn't be that it in fact, doesn't exist.

You are probably very smart in your area of expertise, Mackey, but no one need possess 4 engineering degrees to see that this isn't a convincing argument for your position.

Regardless of the complication involved in modeling the collapse sequence, there should still be at least one sentence with a testable claim about the collapse of the towers. When none of the forensic evidence amounts to direct evidence of a heat-initiated collapse, or even can be disambiguated from damage caused from the collapse or the clean-up, NIST relies on the simulations.

However, one of the key criticisms of this reliance has not simply been the fact that they are simulations, but that they must ignore their own office fuel-load estimations in order for the collapses to work in their own simulations. I've recounted this concern several times without so much as an acknowledgment of its existence, much less an actual reason for NIST increasing this fuel load.

It does not concern me if you feel you might "write me off." I expected as much when, taking your and others advice to look further into the NIST literature, I only found restatements of positions that confirmed my original criticisms.

At the bottom of all this is an epistemic concern: namely, that NIST must appeal to their own data--data which they must exaggerate in order for any heat-induced collapse to initiate--even when they completely take into account the damage caused by the aircraft impacts. (One cannot wiggle out the problem by appealing to unknown amounts of aircraft damage.) The nature of the problem is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the NIST approach. Not only do they lack empirical corroboration, they must actually exaggerate the office fuel load in order for their simulations to work.

Yet no supporters of the official story here, at the center of the intellectual struggle against pseudo-scientific movements, is bothered by any of this.

 

[rwguinn]

Again, you are looking for a sound bite, and there isn't one.
The entire report is testable and falsifiable. There is not a single factor which led to the collapse, but a series of events. You want a single instance that caused the collapse--it took many, many events, sequentially occurring, to cause collapse. There is no simple answer. 10,000 pages. It takes all of them--and even there, some things had to simplified...
Does elevated temperature weaken steel? Yup.
Does damage to structure cause loads to be redistributed in ways that were not considered during design? Yup.
Was there sufficient energy involved to cause damage as modeled? Yup
Does the mathematical (Finite Element) Model match reality, insofar as local conditions can be verified? Yup
Were the materials used up to spec (Steel, concrete)? Yup
Does the math model match reality up to collapse initiation, as far as can be determined? Yup

Any point in there--and that is the very simple path--there is a whole lot more involved that I have outlined--can be tested and/or falsified. So far, nobody has been able to find fault--at least, nobody competent.

 

[R.Mackey]

One of my original suspicions was that the NIST theory was non-falsifiable. Anti-sophist said that if the towers were still standing, we would have falsified the NIST report. I didn't put up much of a fight here, though I see it was a mistake to let that pass as a good example of the falsifiability of the NIST report.

We've done falsifiability to death. There isn't the faintest question of it. See this post.

You're just backpedaling now, trying to get out of doing your homework. Won't work.

As if this were a sufficient response to my claim that no such theory exists. It doesn't surprise me that you are not willing to give any criteria for NIST collapse theory--just a circumstantial ad hom--since I'm the one claiming it doesn't exist in any testable form. It doesn't help your position to ask me to look it up when I'm claiming it doesn't exist.

(Emphasis added)

Wait a minute -- did you honestly claim that the NIST collapse theory doesn't exist?

Wow! Not even Killtown would dare to utter such foolishness.

You're wrong. Evidence, see the NIST report itself. Testability, handled above. Stop wasting my time.

In all this verbiage, I struggle to find a testable claim. Does it exist? You are certain it does. I am much less than certain. Yet, you reply it is up to me to find a claim that I do not think exists. What happens when I don't find it? I'm lazy. Of course. It couldn't be that it in fact, doesn't exist.

If you can't find a testable claim, then you don't understand the report. Lazy or uneducated, your choice.

Regardless of the complication involved in modeling the collapse sequence, there should still be at least one sentence with a testable claim about the collapse of the towers. When none of the forensic evidence amounts to direct evidence of a heat-initiated collapse, or even can be disambiguated from damage caused from the collapse or the clean-up, NIST relies on the simulations.

(Emphasis added)

You lie. Simple as that. I showed you additional forensic evidence, and you ignored it completely. There's plenty contained in the report, but you won't even look for it.

However, one of the key criticisms of this reliance has not simply been the fact that they are simulations, but that they must ignore their own office fuel-load estimations in order for the collapses to work in their own simulations. I've recounted this concern several times without so much as an acknowledgment of its existence, much less an actual reason for NIST increasing this fuel load.

Others have discussed this. You grossly misinterpret the NIST fuel load estimates and their reasoning path. Not our problem.

It does not concern me if you feel you might "write me off." I expected as much when, taking your and others advice to look further into the NIST literature, I only found restatements of positions that confirmed my original criticisms.

Make up whatever excuses you like, it won't change the facts, or your own ignorance.

At the bottom of all this is an epistemic concern: namely, that NIST must appeal to their own data--data which they must exaggerate in order for any heat-induced collapse to initiate--even when they completely take into account the damage caused by the aircraft impacts. (One cannot wiggle out the problem by appealing to unknown amounts of aircraft damage.) The nature of the problem is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the NIST approach. Not only do they lack empirical corroboration, they must actually exaggerate the office fuel load in order for their simulations to work.

There's plenty. You simply refuse to listen when we show it to you, and you similarly refuse to find it for yourself.

Yet no supporters of the official story here, at the center of the intellectual struggle against pseudo-scientific movements, is bothered by any of this.

No reason we should be bothered. None of your complaints are valid.

What does bother me, however, is the stubbornness with which those in your pseudo-scientific movement cling to their own false impressions. I find it repellent, but I lack the power to change this. The best I can hope to do is teach. The best you can hope to do is learn. Don't bother replying to me again until you're ready to do so.

Best of luck to you.

 

[TerryUK]

Regardless of the length of the NIST report, there should, at some point, be a testable statement regarding the conditions necessary for the collapse of the towers to initiate.

I agree - this would sound like a reasonable expectation...?

 

[TerryUK]

Does elevated temperature weaken steel? Yup.
Does damage to structure cause loads to be redistributed in ways that were not considered during design? Yup.
Was there sufficient energy involved to cause damage as modeled? Yup
Does the mathematical (Finite Element) Model match reality, insofar as local conditions can be verified? Yup
Were the materials used up to spec (Steel, concrete)? Yup
Does the math model match reality up to collapse initiation, as far as can be determined? Yup

Well, that's ok then!
Why didn't you say so before?

 

[OldSchool]

We've done falsifiability to death. There isn't the faintest question of it. See this post.

You're just backpedaling now, trying to get out of doing your homework. Won't work.

What homework could he do when the all the evidence NIST excluded has been classified.
(Emphasis added)

Wait a minute -- did you honestly claim that the NIST collapse theory doesn't exist?

Wow! Not even Killtown would dare to utter such foolishness.

You're wrong. Evidence, see the NIST report itself. Testability, handled above. Stop wasting my time.

The theory didn't exist till the NIST report.

If you can't find a testable claim, then you don't understand the report. Lazy or uneducated, your choice.

If a testable claim doesn't exist It doesn't exist.
(Emphasis added)

You lie. Simple as that. I showed you additional forensic evidence, and you ignored it completely. There's plenty contained in the report, but you won't even look for it.

Consider the source of the evidence do you find it creditable? Possibly some of us feel as though this is your ignorance and do not.

Others have discussed this. You grossly misinterpret the NIST fuel load estimates and their reasoning path. Not our problem.

NIST altered there test to receive the results they were looking for. Why can't you just admit its a corrupt variable too support there claim.

Make up whatever excuses you like, it won't change the facts, or your own ignorance.

Statements such as these are what lead too stereotyping of JREF forum.

There's plenty. You simply refuse to listen when we show it to you, and you similarly refuse to find it for yourself.

Once again NIST changed the variable "amount of fuel" what don't you understand. Its as if you're accepting altering fixed variables within an experiment is acceptable.

No reason we should be bothered. None of your complaints are valid.

What does bother me, however, is the stubbornness with which those in your pseudo-scientific movement cling to their own false impressions. I find it repellent, but I lack the power to change this. The best I can hope to do is teach. The best you can hope to do is learn. Don't bother replying to me again until you're ready to do so.

Best of luck to you.

ROFL

 

[Gravy]

Wait a minute -- did you honestly claim that the NIST collapse theory doesn't exist?

Yes he did, twice. I bowed out after his first pronouncement.

 

[R.Mackey]

ROFL

And thank you for your astute contribution.

Seriously, if you think the laughter of an ignoramus makes any difference, you're sadly mistaken. Kids have been laughing at their betters since the dawn of the species, and always will. Stay in school, OldSchool.

 

[GlennB]

..... strange pieces of evidence that cannot be easily accounted for by jet-fuel induced office fires, evidence of much hotter temperatures than hydrocarbon fires can get, unusual elements ....

Second time - what evidence are you referring to ?

 

[Gravy]

Second time - what evidence are you referring to ?

I'd better not view this thread again. If he says, "Eroded, sulfidated super-eutecticized steel, dude!" I will actually die laughing, and I hear that's not as pleasant a way to go as one might imagine.

 

[pomeroo]

I'd better not view this thread again. If he says, "Eroded, sulfidated super-eutecticized steel, dude!" I will actually die laughing, and I hear that's not as pleasant a way to go as one might imagine.

The Conspiracy Smasher blog is also suffering from what appears to be an invasion of pre-teens. The good guys are winning.

 

[jay howard]

Second time - what evidence are you referring to ?

The wasting of the web plates most likely resulted from a high temperature, corrosion process that was exacerbated by the presence of sulfur. While not enough evidence was available to indicate whether corrosion occurred through gaseous, liquid , or solid attack (in addition to varied conditions possible in the rubble pile and lack of information associated with the recovery of the column at the WTC site), it was most likely that the degradation process was most likely a complex combination of these three....

Assuming that the original microstructure in this area was similar to that found in Fig. 6-22a, the re-distribution of pearlite and larger ferrite grain size would imply significant changes in the microstructure that could have only been achieved through austenitizing of the steel. Concomitantly, this would suggest that temperatures were much higher in this portion of the plate than found at the base of the column. With the average weight percent carbon in the material at 0.16, the plate temperature would have to exceed 830C (above the upper critical temperature [A₃]) to enter the fully austenitic region. In this region, both the original ferrite and pearlite have completely transformed. 230, 231

The NIST stance on these pieces of evidence is that they are anomalies, and hence, probably irrelevant to any conceivable collapse scenario.