Metatheory and the NIST report

[TerryUK]

A few other findings that could falsify NIST's collapse theory:

- Tests showing that the bolts connecting the floor trusses to the outer columns would have broken rather than transfer torque from sagging floors to the outer columns.

- Tests showing that the spray-on fireproofing was resistant to mechanical abrasion, instead of sensitive to it.

- Dynamical analysis showing that the collapse initiation mechanism they describe would not produce the observed rotations of the upper masses.

- Evidence that the entire contents of the impact floors were noncombustible.

- Evidence that the buildings' sprinkler systems were in working order and had adequate capacity to control the fires.

The fact that evidence exists to the contrary of each of these possibilities for falsification does not make the theory unfalsifiable. It makes it, instead, extremely likely to be correct.

Respectfully,
Myriad

How does that make it extremely likely to be correct?

 

[GregoryUrich]

You're just tapdancing now. I didn't say that the NIST theory falsified the "pancake" theory. I said that they were tested, that one was falsified, that different results of the test would have falsified the other, and this process proves that both are falsifiable.

Ergo, the NIST theory is falsifiable, and my use of the "pancake theory" example is correct.

Now, please, get on with whatever you had to say about the NIST theory.

Please describe the test?

Edit:

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."

Point 2 does not apply. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge this.

 

[GlennB]

How about a genuine test to see if an initially slow moving short distance collapse would immediately pulverize the first things it struck. Take a look at the beginnings of the collapse of WTC2 again to get an idea.

Like an avalanche, you mean?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Like an avalanche, you mean?

Avalanches of rock, not snow, do not immediately produce the kind of dust we see coming out of that building as soon as it starts to fall. Even with a snow avalanche the smaller particles don't start emanating until well past initiation. Except of course when they are intentionally started by explosives, for safety. Otherwise, the initial gravity slide starts out slowly and builds momentum and the greater forces of impact further down the line in the avalanche then generate dust or clouds.

Additionally, avalanches fall at freefall speed because there is essentially nothing in front of them on a slope to resist the fall.

Have you ever heard of or seen a completely vertical avalanche where the mountain below just collapses straight down because its top came loose? This is essentially what we are being asked to believe.

 

[beachnut]

smoke = pulverized, to truthers

How about a genuine test to see if an initially slow moving short distance collapse would immediately pulverize the first things it struck. Take a look at the beginnings of the collapse of WTC2 again to get an idea.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/--=Close-up%20of%20south%20tower%20collapse.mpg

Hey realcddeal, it is smoke not pulverized building that first comes out. And it is not coming out due to explosions. Wow, your video supports gravity only collapse. Watch it, I have.

Are you able to find some facts? Pulverization? What are you talking about? The energy of the WTC collapse was based on gravity. You have no explosives, no thermite, and no clue. I have read your paper, you can not even get the impact design correct, there is no hope for the rest. Slow moving short distance, I love it. Seems like ordinary houses that fall have dust. BTW, most of the dust was insulation at the WTC. Research could cure your inability to find the truth.

Plague Puppy? Have to love your sources, got some more tin foil hat web sites? lol

 

[beachnut]

understanding falsification; the failure of jay, greg, terry, and 9/11 truth

Please describe the test?

Edit:
Mackey has stated:

Point 2 does not apply. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge this.

The combined critical thinkers, Jay, Greg, and Terry, are unable to understand a minor point. falsification

This is very simple stuff and since you guys fail to see it, you may not have a grasp of reality. It comes down to the point that you can say it and rational people with some basic knowledge on the method and topic will agree without example. And for some of you, claims of being engineers, failure on this point is very illuminating. But I expected such quibbling at the OP.

 

[R.Mackey]

Please describe the test?

Certainly.

In consideration of the two hypotheses, we have a number of observations and experiments. I will select a few of them though there may be others as well. The observations and experiments are as follows:

1. Observations of bowing perimeter columns -- location, duration, and magnitude -- indicative of either inward pull or progression towards buckling through gravity loads if unrestrained
2. Estimated strength and strength vs. temperature of floor to perimeter wall connections
3. Observations of the perimeter-floor connection failure modes for recovered perimeter sections on the impact floors but not themselves impacted
4. Visible evidence of the floor structure condition and location as the fires progressed
5. Thermal simulation of the floor responses to the fires

1: Simulations demonstrated that the gravity-driven buckling mode of the perimeter columns was not expected to produce the amount of bowing seen, even with lateral restraint removed. In contrast, simulations with moderate (5 kip) amounts of inward pull easily replicated the bowing in both location and magnitude.

2: Simulations and material component testing of the truss structures verified that their connections could easily support 5 kip or much more lateral force before these connections would be expected to fail, even at elevated temperatures.

3: Recovered perimeter sections displayed deformation of the connection tabs rather than bolt shear or bolt hole pullout, reinforcing the contention that floors remained attached even after the floors themselves experienced deformation.

4: Photographs show "hanging objects," either floors or materials attached to them, grossly deformed out of their original positions but nonetheless still attached. This further reinforces the contention that floors did not pull free prior to collapse, even those which had suffered heavy damage and in the thick of the fires.

5: Fire modeling applied to single floors demonstrated the likelihood for such large deformations while still not exceeding the limits of the connections in nearly all locations. Simplified and applied to the global model, the model demonstrated that the "pull-in" theory was reasonable. NIST was admittedly unable to predict the actual magnitude of pulling forces owing to uncertainties, but the magnitude required is credible. See also the Arup results presented to NIST in September 2005.

All five of these observations support the NIST theory, and are difficult to reconcile with the "pancake theory." Had these observations been otherwise -- pull-in forces not credible or exceeding the expected strength of connections, different failure modes present in recovered debris, failure of thermal or structural modeling to concur, etc. -- then either the "pancake model" or neither one would be acceptable.

Very simple.

Point 2 does not apply. I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge this.

If you're talking about (a) the falsifiability of the NIST hypothesis and/or (b) its comparison to the "pancake theory," then you're wrong. If you're not, I have no idea what you're talking about. Going to be a long wait.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Another test would be to challenge NIST, or anyone else for that matter, to show the inward buckling of the perimeter columns occurring minutes before the collapses as alleged by them and others. There are many videos on which this would be evident if true.

The inward bowing of the perimeter columns is only ever shown in photos, which could be frozen frames taken from videos at the collapse initiation.

 

[twinstead]

Another test would be to challenge NIST, or anyone else for that matter, to show the inward buckling of the perimeter columns occurring minutes before the collapses as alleged by them and others. There are many videos on which this would be evident if true.

The inward bowing of the perimeter columns is only ever shown in photos, which could be frozen frames taken from videos at the collapse initiation.

IIRC, the bowing is quite clearly shown from video, and in fact the stills are stills from those videos.

But, until I can remember where those videos were, I will not make that claim. Stay tuned...

 

[Tony Szamboti]

IIRC, the bowing is quite clearly shown from video, and in fact the stills are stills from those videos.

But, until I can remember where those videos were, I will not make that claim. Stay tuned...

I certainly agree that bowing of the perimeter columns is evident in the photos and there is a video which shows inward bowing of the perimeter columns in the South Tower several seconds before full collapse is visually seen. None of that is in dispute.

It is the allegation that the perimeter columns were inwardly bowing minutes prior to collapse which is in dispute and if the stills are stills from those videos, as you apparently also believe, then they should show whether or not the bowing occurs minutes beforehand. To my knowledge NIST has not released these videos.

 

[R.Mackey]

I certainly agree that bowing of the perimeter columns is evident in the photos and there is a video which shows inward bowing of the perimeter columns in the South Tower several seconds before full collapse is visually seen. None of that is in dispute.

It is the allegation that the perimeter columns were inwardly bowing minutes prior to collapse which is in dispute and if the stills are stills from those videos, as you apparently also believe, then they should show whether or not the bowing occurs minutes beforehand. To my knowledge NIST has not released these videos.

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

All the bowing you could ask for, with full timelines. No need to thank me.

 

[OldSchool]

Darn, I guess your inability to do proper research affects your ability to fly a plane as well as kids off the street with no flying background. It must be a personal problem. The kids hit the building first time. The p4t are as challenged at flying as you are, go join them. Pilots for truth are unable to hit buildings too. Sad, you, p4t, are not as good as murdering terrorist. Who would guess?

You forgot to read NIST, and you forgot to check those independent sources. You even ignore the Lead Structural Engineer of the WTC. Fire destroys the strength of steel, you are trying to make up stuff and lie about CD. Sorry, you are wrong again.

In less than 2 hours the Madrid steel was "exploding" all over the place as it was destroyed, the strength, from fire. Check your facts, you seem to mess up flying and research equally bad. Facts?

No you seem to forget, CD does not happen if there is no gravity. Gravity is the main energy behind all CD, and as you see on 9/11 as over 200 tons of TNT energy was released from impact and fire. Your inability ot understand physics and your BS paper are proof you have some bias toward the facts and the truth. Your paper can not even get the design impact correct. Why? Slow speed impact. You sure are stubborn being wrong.

Beechnut considering you're, supposedely, an engineer. I'm going too ask you a few questions.

Do you believe the NIST report is accurate and was released without any political corruption?

Given the ammount of classfied data from the events of 911, Do you believe an outside opinion can be made given the lack of facts?

Do you believe all of our Politicians and members of the government are saints, and there is no such thing as corruption?

Do you believe in the Constitution?

Do you believe wire tapping is un-constitutional?

 

[stateofgrace]

Beechnut considering you're, supposedely, an engineer. I'm going too ask you a few questions.

Do you believe the NIST report is accurate and was released without any political corruption?

Given the ammount of classfied data from the events of 911, Do you believe an outside opinion can be made given the lack of facts?

Do you believe all of our Politicians and members of the government are saints, and there is no such thing as corruption?

Do you believe in the Constitution?

Do you believe wire tapping is un-constitutional?

Off topic, totally irrelevant and nothing whatsoever to with the subject matter being discussed. Some of us are actually interested in this discussion, please stop derailing and take your questions to the relevant thread or start a new one.

Back to the popcorn for me, please carry on.

 

[OldSchool]

Off topic, totally irrelevant and nothing whatsoever to with the subject matter being discussed. Some of us are actually interested in this discussion, please stop derailing and take your questions to the relevant thread or start a new one.

Back to the popcorn for me, please carry on.

All the questions are relevant. Since he's an extreme opinion on the subject i'm just trying determine his credibility, not only as a professional but as an American. If he can't answer the questions his opinion doesn't hold any weight of credibility.

 

[stateofgrace]

All the questions are relevant. Since he's an extreme opinion on the subject i'm just trying determine his credibility, not only as a professional but as an American. If he can't answer the questions his opinion doesn't hold any weight of credibility.

Incorrect, this as nothing what so ever to do with this thread or the subject being discussed, if you have an issue with credibility of a member of this forum take it to the MODs, PM him or start another thread.

END.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

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

All the bowing you could ask for, with full timelines. No need to thank me.

I am asking about video showing the perimeter columns bowing minutes before the collapses.

The link you provided only showed photos with times claimed.

I am saying there are no videos which are shown which would verify that the columns were bowing for minutes before collapse. In other words one should be able to watch the videos for minutes with the columns being obviously bowed as in the photos. Videos would prove it and I am wondering why there aren't any available.

 

[T.A.M.]

Plague Puppy? Have to love your sources, got some more tin foil hat web sites? lol

If I am not mistaken, Plague Puppy is in fact Jeff King, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, and full blow, as deep down the rabbit hole as they can reach, WOO!!

TAM

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Off topic, totally irrelevant and nothing whatsoever to with the subject matter being discussed. Some of us are actually interested in this discussion, please stop derailing and take your questions to the relevant thread or start a new one.

Back to the popcorn for me, please carry on.

Why don't you let Beachnut defend himself. He says he is a big boy.

 

[twinstead]

In other words one should be able to watch the videos for minutes with the columns being obviously bowed as in the photos. Videos would prove it and I am wondering why there aren't any available.

So. Are you suggesting that bowing didn't take place, and the images of bowing are falsified?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

If I am not mistaken, Plague Puppy is in fact Jeff King, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, and full blow, as deep down the rabbit hole as they can reach, WOO!!

TAM

What's with the ad hominem? Are you claiming the video is not real?

You should address the subject. If it is proven wrong then you can address the individual. Less than that makes these type of comments unworthy of further discussion.