Metatheory and the NIST report

[rwguinn]

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

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

Notice the red part.
Conditions in materials that have been soaking in a smoldering rubble pile for some length of time are not likely to have been contributors to the initial formation of that rubble pile (google "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps")
How long had it been in the pile? What conditions were in the pile? They don't know--therfore the data are anomalies
Do twoofers take reading incomprehension pills, or what? I find it hard to believe that such misrepresentation is not deliberate.

 

[GlennB]

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

Sophism, and slightly desperate at that.

You failed to quote the explanation that followed, and the photos of K-16 (report pp 262+267)

They conclude that the corrosion occurred in the debris pile, and explain why (p229 and elsewhere)

What else have you got?

 

[rwguinn]

Sophism, and slightly desperate at that.

You failed to quote the explanation that followed, and the photos of K-16 (report pp 262+267)

They conclude that the corrosion occurred in the debris pile, and explain why.

I guess I've hit the big time: I've made everybody's "Ignore" list....

 

[jay howard]

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

Yes, I looked at it. Not surprisingly, you claim

...it is not the responsibility of NIST's proponents to derive specific means to falsify their own hypothesis

It appears that you still do not understand what falsifiability is. It most certainly is the responsibility for defenders of a theory to posit what conditions could demonstrate the falsity of their claims. [hint: you want your theory to be falsifiable. Just not false. It is in your interest to have falsifiability criteria explicit to the specifics of your theory.] But we're a ways off from that, yet.

Later in the post you claim

...the NIST theory has already demonstrated that it is falsifiable because it was compared against alternate hypotheses as it was developed. ...there is no doubt at all that the NIST theory is falsifiable. It has already been exposed to, and survived, scientific comparison against at least four competing theories.

Again, "falsifiability" is a binary quality independent of the existence of other theories. And again, this isn't a definition I made up and am using in only this argument--this is a critical concept for any inductive endeavor. Try wikipedia on falsifiability.

The primary problem, as I see it (and most here certainly don't see it this way) is that the theory must be boiled down to a testable claim. Every workable/usable theory can be boiled down to a testable claim. It does not matter HOW COMPLICATED a theory is. Good theories can, must and should be reducible to a testable proposition. If one claims "it's too complicated to be boiled down to a single sentence," then it may be that the theory in question is a matter of faith. Falsifiability criteria give us a way to test for the theory.

Someone earlier thought I had mis-spoken when I said something to the effect of "we need to try to disprove [this notion] in order to substantiate it." They apparently didn't understand this concept either.

I'm surprised, from my position of ignorance, to have to explain this notion over and over again to your expensive brain without success. It may well be that I'm not thorough enough in my explanation. But it is without doubt, not my misunderstanding on this issue, but yours, which makes progress on this topic virtually impossible.

Wink your left eye if you understand "falsifiability" and why you want your theory to have it.

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.

What I claimed was that I cannot find a testable theory in the NIST report. Please, show me I'm wrong. I don't hold out much hope on this because I've looked for it without success. It may exist. I've been wrong before. This wouldn't be the first or last time. Please, show me a testable formulation of the official collapse theory.

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

What? You "handled it" in that post you linked in which you demonstrate yet again how far you are from understanding falsifiability? Who is wasting whose time?

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.

What forensic evidence did I ignore? Please link.

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

So you finally acknowledge the discrepancy between NIST's "reasonable" or "middle cases" at 4 lb/sq ft and the "more severe cases" at 5 lb/sq ft. That's a start. If I'm misunderstanding their line of reasoning, this would be the perfect place to point out what exactly I have misinterpreted.

It's true that the "middle cases" did not demonstrate building failure.
It's also true that NIST estimated 4 lb/sq ft several times as a reasonable office fuel load.
Yet, they used a higher office fuel load estimate in order to get the buildings to collapse in their simulations.
Why? Because of "observed events."(NCSTAR 1, 144)
How did these events change the office fuel load?
Answer: "Jay, you're just ignorant."

(And I'm the one maintaining a "conspiracy theory".)

 

[R.Mackey]

If there's anyone besides jay howard who thinks that I, degreed in the sciences and practicing as a scientist, don't understand the concept of "falsifiability," please drop me a PM. I won't hold my breath.

 

[H'ethetheth]

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.

Lazy? Perhaps. You also seem to be a little unimaginative.

Let's see...

“1. Structural damage from the aircraft impact;
Testable by looking at photagraphs

2. Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over several floors;
Testable by looking at photographs and by asking aircraft manufacturers what it is they use in aircraft that's so explosive.

3. Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel;
Testable by organising a suitably huge explosion near a SFRM coated truss.

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;
Testable by looking at floor plans and reported fire progression.

5. Weakened core columns that increased the load on the perimeter walls;
Testable by comparing known structural damage to floor plans and inspecting a structural mechanics book

6. Sagging of the south floors, that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns;
Testable, at least in part, by observing the perimeter columns, the building plans and a structural mechanics book.

7. Bowed south perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads. ”(NCSTAR 1, 34)
Testable by standing on an empty soda can (carefully!), and then (carefully!) denting it.

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)
Testable by careful examination of all the available evidence in favour of this claim, forming a hypothesis and alternate ones, and if that turns out to be difficult; write the NIST report to explain it all.

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)
See above

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)
The same claims again.

 

[GlennB]

I guess I've hit the big time: I've made everybody's "Ignore" list....

Well, you're not on mine. I think you're lovely. I was just re-reading and editing. Sorry poppet

Meanwhile, I'd like jay to respond to his mistakes regarding his quote from NIST above.

 

[rwguinn]

If there's anyone besides jay howard who thinks that I, degreed in the sciences and practicing as a scientist, don't understand the concept of "falsifiability," please drop me a PM. I won't hold my breath.

Since mind-reading is not a fact, I don't think any of us know what it means if we use the "I means whatever I think it means" definition by jay howard

 

[rwguinn]

Well, you're not on mine. I think you're lovely. I was just re-reading and editing. Sorry poppet

Meanwhile, I'd like jay to respond to his mistakes regarding his quote from NIST above.

Why, thank y'all.
Let's watch that "lovely" stuff. My wife is a jealous wife...

 

[jay howard]

Sophism, and slightly desperate at that.

You failed to quote the explanation that followed, and the photos of K-16 (report pp 262+267)

They conclude that the corrosion occurred in the debris pile, and explain why (p229 and elsewhere)

What else have you got?

You asked me what evidence the NIST theory doesn't deal with. This is some of it.

From your perspective, all you need is to hear them say "it's not important."

From a skeptical perspective, it's not a surprise that the NIST theory dismisses this evidence as "irrelevant" despite the FEMA/BPAT report's admission that they could not determine if the severe sulfidation attack had occured pre- or post-collapse.

That's why we need to introduce the concept of "explanatory power" as a criteria from which to assess the theoretical fortitude of competing explanations. Our egos get in the way--mine and yours and everyone else's here.

So, wouldn't you agree that a theory that can categorize all empirical data as "expected" or "normal" is better than one that has to categorize some or most data as "anomalous" or "uncharacteristic of the norm"?

The evidence isn't changing. The only choices we have are:

1. change the evidence to fit the theory, i.e., ignore it,
or
2. change the theory to fit the evidence.

As reasons for the inability of a theory to provide a satisfactory explanation multiply, we begin to wonder if the problem is not with the evidence, but with the theory's ability to explain it.

 

[rwguinn]

You asked me what evidence the NIST theory doesn't deal with. This is some of it.

From your perspective, all you need is to hear them say "it's not important."

From a skeptical perspective, it's not a surprise that the NIST theory dismisses this evidence as "irrelevant" despite the FEMA/BPAT report's admission that they could not determine if the severe sulfidation attack had occured pre- or post-collapse.

That's why we need to introduce the concept of "explanatory power" as a criteria from which to assess the theoretical fortitude of competing explanations. Our egos get in the way--mine and yours and everyone else's here.

So, wouldn't you agree that a theory that can categorize all empirical data as "expected" or "normal" is better than one that has to categorize some or most data as "anomalous" or "uncharacteristic of the norm"?

The evidence isn't changing. The only choices we have are:

1. change the evidence to fit the theory, i.e., ignore it,
or
2. change the theory to fit the evidence.

As reasons for the inability of a theory to provide a satisfactory explanation multiply, we begin to wonder if the problem is not with the evidence, but with the theory's ability to explain it.

Ok, I'm with R.Mackey here.
There are levels of ignorance which are curable.
Intentional ignorance is not curable. Anyone who refuses to differentiate between Cause and Effect is either intentionally ignorant, or the "S" word.
Things that happened AFTER the collapse DID NOT cause the collapse.
NIST doesn't ignore these effects--They have no bearing on what caused the collapse--they are effects of the collapse--and what caused the collapse is what they were charged with doing.

 

[GlennB]

You asked me what evidence the NIST theory doesn't deal with. This is some of it.

I don't recall asking you that. I asked what was your evidence for ".. much hotter temperatures than hydrocarbon fires can get".

This was your quote .

You have utterly failed to provide such evidence, so far.

Office fires routinely hit 900°C, post-flashover. The NIST WTC study on 3-station workplace fires agrees.
The lack of office fires on the 52nd(ish) floor where this sample came from suggests strongly that the high temperature corrosion happened in the rubble-pile. Alternative ---- the outer columns on floor 52 etc were molested by incendiaries.
What do you believe?

From your perspective, all you need is to hear them say "it's not important."

Strawman.

From a skeptical perspective, it's not a surprise that the NIST theory dismisses this evidence as "irrelevant" despite the FEMA/BPAT report's admission that they could not determine if the severe sulfidation attack had occured pre- or post-collapse.

NIST explains this evidence well, including the fact that it most likely occurred in a horizontal position followed by a long period of cooling.

That's why we need to introduce the concept of "explanatory power" as a criteria from which to assess the theoretical fortitude of competing explanations. Our egos get in the way--mine and yours and everyone else's here.

So, wouldn't you agree that a theory that can categorize all empirical data as "expected" or "normal" is better than one that has to categorize some or most data as "anomalous" or "uncharacteristic of the norm"?

The evidence isn't changing. The only choices we have are:

1. change the evidence to fit the theory, i.e., ignore it,
or
2. change the theory to fit the evidence.

As reasons for the inability of a theory to provide a satisfactory explanation multiply, we begin to wonder if the problem is not with the evidence, but with the theory's ability to explain it.

blather

 

[GlennB]

Why, thank y'all.
Let's watch that "lovely" stuff. My wife is a jealous wife...

And my wife is out of town. Unfortunately we're thousands of miles apart. <sigh>

 

[beachnut]

You asked me what evidence the NIST theory doesn't deal with. This is some of it.

From your perspective, all you need is to hear them say "it's not important."

From a skeptical perspective, it's not a surprise that the NIST theory dismisses this evidence as "irrelevant" despite the FEMA/BPAT report's admission that they could not determine if the severe sulfidation attack had occured pre- or post-collapse.

That's why we need to introduce the concept of "explanatory power" as a criteria from which to assess the theoretical fortitude of competing explanations. Our egos get in the way--mine and yours and everyone else's here.

So, wouldn't you agree that a theory that can categorize all empirical data as "expected" or "normal" is better than one that has to categorize some or most data as "anomalous" or "uncharacteristic of the norm"?

The evidence isn't changing. The only choices we have are:

1. change the evidence to fit the theory, i.e., ignore it,
or
2. change the theory to fit the evidence.

As reasons for the inability of a theory to provide a satisfactory explanation multiply, we begin to wonder if the problem is not with the evidence, but with the theory's ability to explain it.

Jay, you lost; at least you have the failed theories of Thermite Jones and the Lies of 9/11 truth.

 

[GregoryUrich]

If there's anyone besides jay howard who thinks that I, degreed in the sciences and practicing as a scientist, don't understand the concept of "falsifiability," please drop me a PM. I won't hold my breath.

I don't think you get it yet. As Jay said, "Falsifiability is a quality of theories that is irrelevant to the existence of other theories." This statement in context is here. You are still klinging to that the NIST theory was compared to other theories somehow demonstrating falsifiability. It's the only (albiet bogus) falsifiability criteria you have provided. We are all learning here. Right now it's your turn.

 

[TerryUK]

I don't think you get it yet. As Jay said, "Falsifiability is a quality of theories that is irrelevant to the existence of other theories." This statement in context is here. You are still klinging to that the NIST theory was compared to other theories somehow demonstrating falsifiability. It's the only (albiet bogus) falsifiability criteria you have provided. We are all learning here. Right now it's your turn.

I think what Jay is saying is that the NIST theory remains unfalsifiable unless/until the data is clear and unamgibuous.
If there's no possibility to test the theory, it remains unfalsifiable.

Even with clear data, there's likely to be stuff that has to be
taken on faith.

 

[TerryUK]

--it took many, many events, sequentially occurring, to cause collapse.

As I'm sure you know, when "many, many events" need to happen sequentially in order to get a certain result, you would calculate or estimate a value (smaller or equal to 1) for each event, and multipy them together to give you the probability of that result occuring.

So, regarding the NIST tests - the greater the number of 'events' which need to happen sequentially in order for collapse to occur, the lower is the probability of it happening the way NIST described.

Then you have to multiply by a similar probability for the 2nd. collapse...

(and 3rd collapse)

Ever heard of the lottery?

 

[beachnut]

science, lucky the whole world is not challenged like the members of 9/11 truth

As I'm sure you know, when "many, many events" need to happen sequentially in order to get a certain result, you would calculate or estimate a value (smaller or equal to 1) for each event, and multipy them together to give you the probability of that result occuring.

So, regarding the NIST tests - the greater the number of 'events' which need to happen sequentially in order for collapse to occur, the lower is the probability of it happening the way NIST described.

Then you have to multiply by a similar probability for the 2nd. collapse...

(and 3rd collapse)

Ever heard of the lottery?

When the aircraft hit the WTC tower, it was 100 percent it was going to fall. If you had some small ability to do understand math and physics, you could understand 9/11 and not fall prey to idiots pushing false information and lies.

 

[rwguinn]

When the aircraft hit the WTC tower, it was 100 percent it was going to fall. If you had some small ability to do understand math and physics, you could understand 9/11 and not fall prey to idiots pushing false information and lies.

Remember, Beachnut--
Reality is for people who are afraid of drugs...

ETA: What these people don't understand is that an event that has actually occurred has a probability of 1.00000000 of having happened.
Regardless of how small the probability of each event occurring, it did, and all the low probability events following after the first resulting in the final event each have a 1.0 probability of having happened.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Originally Posted by NCSTAR 1-3C
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.

He did it. He really went and did it. He actually went there.

Farewell, cruel forum, for I have died laughing.