Metatheory and the NIST report

[cloudshipsrule]

The problem with summing up the collapse mechanism with a single work is the complexity of the 'system' that was the WTC towers. It's not as simple as heat weakened the steel, or the plane caused significant damage or there was enough potential energy to sustain collapse. These tidbits of info can't be disputed.

Here's the problem:

NIST knows how the structure was supposed to be constructed from blueprints. Did the workers follow those plans to a 'T'? Did they take any shortcuts on a particular day that happened to be a working holiday? How many new holes had been drilled in the floors for wiring upgrades? Exactly how was the tons of weight distributed on the damaged floors? What damage to critical members did the plane impacts actually cause?

There are far too many questions which can never be accurately answered to give a precise answer as to EXACTLY why the towers fell.

All that can be said is this:

There was enough stored energy in the towers to bring them completely down once collapse initiated.

The towers were definitely hit with very large, commercial airliners traveling at high speeds.

The towers were damaged to some degree from the impact.

There were fires on multiple floors which WOULD have weakened the structure to SOME degree.

The towers fell because gravity wasn't on vacation that day.

THATS IT. Everything else is an educated guess or calculated estimate.

No space beam was needed. Explosives WEREN'T needed. There were more than enough 'ingredients' to cause collapse of the buildings, and they did, indeed, fall.

Deal with it.

 

[jay howard]

Here's the problem:

NIST knows how the structure was supposed to be constructed from blueprints. Did the workers follow those plans to a 'T'? Did they take any shortcuts on a particular day that happened to be a working holiday? How many new holes had been drilled in the floors for wiring upgrades? Exactly how was the tons of weight distributed on the damaged floors? What damage to critical members did the plane impacts actually cause?

There are far too many questions which can never be accurately answered to give a precise answer as to EXACTLY why the towers fell.

If I made the argument that because there isn't enough information to accurately give a precise answer as to why the towers fell they must have therefore fallen from explosives, would you count that as a "good" argument?

Not likely. Why then, when you apply the exact same argumentative structure to your preferred theory, it makes perfect sense?

Could it be that it's a poor argument in either case? Of course it is. If you want to claim a lack of knowledge about the collapses such that we are unable to determine the relevant causes, you cannot then attribute the collapses to a particular cause with any degree of certainty.

If you are so convinced that "there are more than enough ingredients" to cause the buildings to collapse, then why are you telling me it is outside the scope of our knowledge to put these ingredients together?

"There isn't enough info to make a good guess, therefore it MUST be xyz."

I hope everyone here has sense enough to see how, regardless of your theoretical affinities, this doesn't quite make any sense. Uncertainty does not imply a particular conclusion.

If you have enough information to make a probable determination of the cause, then you can perform tests based on that theory. If you do not have enough info to even design a test, then you cannot make any claims about definitive causes for the collapses.

I've "dealt with it". Your turn.

 

[Gravy]

Correction: you need to understand NIST's theory before you dismiss it as ludicrous. You have shown neither the desire nor the ability to do so.

Then I don't think you've read much of their reports, and I don't think you've understood what's been explained to you time and again in this thread. Seems like willful ignorance to me, Jay, as we've said since the first pages. Denialism.

To know what tests could be run would require knowing what conditions NIST posits for the collapse of the towers. If you know what they are, please let the cat outta the bag: what are they?

Told you so. What a ridiculous waste of time you are. DENIALISM.

 

[jay howard]

Told you so. What a ridiculous waste of time you are. DENIALISM.

So, educate me.

Give me a testable version of the NIST theory. I don't think there is one. If you do, then presumably you have worked it out. Again, I don't think you have. More likely you are participating in a kind of faith. Please prove me wrong.

 

[GlennB]

So, educate me.

Give me a testable version of the NIST theory. I don't think there is one. If you do, then presumably you have worked it out. Again, I don't think you have. More likely you are participating in a kind of faith. Please prove me wrong.

A testable version of the NIST theory ??? I suspect this might involve flying fully-fuelled planes at high speed into vast buildings.

Earlier on you were content with testable conditions, were given them (as you have been throughout this thread), and ignored them.

Ninth time (or is it tenth?) - what is your theory of what happened at WTC on 9/11???

 

[jay howard]

Earlier on you were content with testable conditions, were given them (as you have been throughout this thread), and ignored them.

If I missed one you really think ties the whole theory together, please bring it to my attention, and we'll see together if it does indeed meet the criteria established in the op.

All genuine attempts are welcome. Step right up.

If you dig through the posts, there might be a few I missed here and there. No harm in linking to them if you think they make the official position float.

I personally don't think there is one, although it may be that I'm just plain wrong. Here's your golden opportunity to shove my face in it.

Ninth time (or is it tenth?) - what is your theory of what happened at WTC on 9/11???

Ninth. Yea, Glenn, it doesn't matter. It is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the NIST position on the towers is well-formed.

This is yet another predictable attempt at ground-clearing. Before you judge the official version right, true and the best explanation, it seems, just seems like a good idea to try to poke holes in it. If your best attempts at poking hole does no good, then hey, you may indeed have a wiener.

If it does not stand up well to criticism, then maybe, just possibly, it's a good idea to construct a better theory where the old one left off. It may also be unsalvageable, thus requiring an altogether new theory. The only way we can determine this is by honestly evaluating the ability of a theory to answer legitimate criticisms--to try to poke holes in it.

Have you successfully reconciled why the NIST authors beefed up their simulations against the visual evidence for WTC 2 and against their own estimations of fuel load and fire timing for WTC 1?

I doubt it. If you have, please explain it for me.

If you have not, please explain why you think the NIST explanation shouldn't be put to the same standards of logic and rationality that any other theory is--or should be. Is the NIST theory sacred? Is the report considered a religious text? Is questioning the work of those at NIST "disrespectful" as others here have tried to claim?

Is the NIST report a special case where miracles are allowed to occur?

 

[beachnut]

jay will now present the miracle part of NIST, with facts?

If I missed one you really think ties the whole theory together, please bring it to my attention, and we'll see together if it does indeed meet the criteria established in the op.

All genuine attempts are welcome. Step right up.

If you dig through the posts, there might be a few I missed here and there. No harm in linking to them if you think they make the official position float.

I personally don't think there is one, although it may be that I'm just plain wrong. Here's your golden opportunity to shove my face in it.

Ninth. Yea, Glenn, it doesn't matter. It is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the NIST position on the towers is well-formed.

This is yet another predictable attempt at ground-clearing. Before you judge the official version right, true and the best explanation, it seems, just seems like a good idea to try to poke holes in it. If your best attempts at poking hole does no good, then hey, you may indeed have a wiener.

Is the NIST report a special case where miracles are allowed to occur?

You have failed to put a dent in NIST, and the Jones/Thermite junk is proven to be made up in 2005. What do you do now?

Please state the miracle part of NIST.

 

[pomeroo]

If I missed one you really think ties the whole theory together, please bring it to my attention, and we'll see together if it does indeed meet the criteria established in the op.

All genuine attempts are welcome. Step right up.

If you dig through the posts, there might be a few I missed here and there. No harm in linking to them if you think they make the official position float.

I personally don't think there is one, although it may be that I'm just plain wrong. Here's your golden opportunity to shove my face in it.



Ninth. Yea, Glenn, it doesn't matter. It is IRRELEVANT to whether or not the NIST position on the towers is well-formed.

This is yet another predictable attempt at ground-clearing. Before you judge the official version right, true and the best explanation, it seems, just seems like a good idea to try to poke holes in it. If your best attempts at poking hole does no good, then hey, you may indeed have a wiener.

If it does not stand up well to criticism, then maybe, just possibly, it's a good idea to construct a better theory where the old one left off. It may also be unsalvageable, thus requiring an altogether new theory. The only way we can determine this is by honestly evaluating the ability of a theory to answer legitimate criticisms--to try to poke holes in it.

Have you successfully reconciled why the NIST authors beefed up their simulations against the visual evidence for WTC 2 and against their own estimations of fuel load and fire timing for WTC 1?

I doubt it. If you have, please explain it for me.

If you have not, please explain why you think the NIST explanation shouldn't be put to the same standards of logic and rationality that any other theory is--or should be. Is the NIST theory sacred? Is the report considered a religious text? Is questioning the work of those at NIST "disrespectful" as others here have tried to claim?

Is the NIST report a special case where miracles are allowed to occur?

The NIST Report was produced by over a thousand researchers. Why do you suppose they performed their tasks so ineptly? How could a large, diverse group of scientists and engineers display such ignorance of basic science? Are they all cognizant of the deception they're attempting? Why are the Democrats in the group willing to participate in the cover-up of heinous crimes committed by men they despise?

Enlighten us.

 

[jay howard]

The NIST Report was produced by over a thousand researchers. Why do you suppose they performed their tasks so ineptly? How could a large, diverse group of scientists and engineers display such ignorance of basic science? Are they all cognizant of the deception they're attempting? Why are the Democrats in the group willing to participate in the cover-up of heinous crimes committed by men they despise?

Enlighten us.

It's a shame to have to explain the business world to an adult.

NIST gets the money through a congressional act.

They decide what kind of scenarios they need to have in order to produce an explanation.

They contract out work either from other departments within NIST or the Commerce Dept. or in the private sector.

The executive director, Philip Zelikow, has final say in how the report is constructed--not the people who did the research.

Again, this is something you probably full well understand, but have to feign incredulity at the possibility of data manipulation in our modern world of honesty and high morals. Save the boyscout mask for your other hobbies.

Seriously, do you think that each and every one of these researchers gets to knock on Zelikow's door and say "hey, that's not what I meant to say..." No. Of course not. The contractors did their job. They produced reports and tests and simulations. They got paid. It is not worth their jobs, mortgages, families, etc., to question the structure of their data in the final report.

Hell, I'd be surprised if even a majority of them read the entire thing after it was done. They may be satisfied with the final report. They may not. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The only thing they could get from voicing a dissenting opinion is fired or scorned for putting the company/group at risk of not receiving more money from this source. Really, do you need me to explain this world we live in to you?

Are you under the impression that science is never manipulated by political concerns? Or just in this case?

If you think my criticisms are simple misunderstandings that can be cleared up with some reading on my part, please feel free to give that a try: what am I misunderstanding about NIST increasing the fuel loads from Case A to Case B? What justification do they give for this increase?

 

[Concept]

The executive director, Philip Zelikow, has final say in how the report is constructed--not the people who did the research.

As I understand it, Philip D. Zelikow was the Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission. I'm not sure he had anything to do with the NIST report.

ETA: h t t p://w w w.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_zelikow.htm

 

[beachnut]

Are you under the impression that science is never manipulated by political concerns? Or just in this case?quote]
Please present evidence of this. You have non.
You have zero facts to back up anything you think about on 9/11. Jones/Thermite are junk and you have zero evidence to back up your post or your ideas on 9/11. Got facts?

You are now spreading bs. (you have failed to stick to your op)

 

[Crungy]

Seriously, do you think that each and every one of these researchers gets to knock on Zelikow's door and say "hey, that's not what I meant to say..." No. Of course not. The contractors did their job. They produced reports and tests and simulations. They got paid. It is not worth their jobs, mortgages, families, etc., to question the structure of their data in the final report.

Hell, I'd be surprised if even a majority of them read the entire thing after it was done. They may be satisfied with the final report. They may not. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The only thing they could get from voicing a dissenting opinion is fired or scorned for putting the company/group at risk of not receiving more money from this source. Really, do you need me to explain this world we live in to you?

Please stop with the speculation. This is only your paranoia speaking and nothing else. Your portrayel of engineers couldn't be further from my experience of 15 years. I have a co-worker who contributed to the NIST report and I can assure you, that not only him, but others were very interested in presenting their case to the best of their ability. He and other engineers would have no problem voicing an opinion on errors, false or misleading information presented in the report. The WTC tower collapses were of immense interest to my engineering co-workers (of all disciplines) and they devoured the information available on these events. They are not the scared, brow beaten government shills that CTers believe them to be. Former NIST employee James Quintiere had no problems criticizing the NIST report. The engineers throughout my career have never had a problem speaking out about what they believe is wrong.

Are you under the impression that science is never manipulated by political concerns? Or just in this case?

No, I do not. It has happened. Apollo 20 has given examples from his personal experience. If you believe it has happened in the WTC NIST report, then please state your evidence.

 

[JimBenArm]

It's a shame to have to explain the business world to an adult.

This isn't the business world. It's the engineering/science world. Whole different ballgame.

NIST gets the money through a congressional act.

So far, so good.

They decide what kind of scenarios they need to have in order to produce an explanation.

Really? Who is this "they"? Where is your proof of this outlandish statement? Why is it always the nebulous "they"?

They contract out work either from other departments within NIST or the Commerce Dept. or in the private sector.

The executive director, Philip Zelikow, has final say in how the report is constructed--not the people who did the research.

Again, proof?

Again, this is something you probably full well understand, but have to feign incredulity at the possibility of data manipulation in our modern world of honesty and high morals. Save the boyscout mask for your other hobbies.

I see. They COULD have, therefore they DID? No one has morals or is honest? Every one of them is a liar? REALLY? How cynical can one be?

Seriously, do you think that each and every one of these researchers gets to knock on Zelikow's door and say "hey, that's not what I meant to say..." No. Of course not. The contractors did their job. They produced reports and tests and simulations. They got paid. It is not worth their jobs, mortgages, families, etc., to question the structure of their data in the final report.

Seriously, I do believe that. They would NOT be putting anything on the line to question it. Especially since the results would be open for every other engineer and scientist in the world to see. To NOT question or correct would be putting their jobs, reputations, and standing in the outside world in jeopardy.

Hell, I'd be surprised if even a majority of them read the entire thing after it was done. They may be satisfied with the final report. They may not. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The only thing they could get from voicing a dissenting opinion is fired or scorned for putting the company/group at risk of not receiving more money from this source.

Again, your questioning of every single one of the people on the commission is absurd. It only highlights your own lack of understanding.

Really, do you need me to explain this world we live in to you?

It is extremely arrogant of you to think that you need to explain how the world works to me, or anyone else here.

Are you under the impression that science is never manipulated by political concerns? Or just in this case?

Science cannot be manipulated. The scientific process can be bastardized and ignored, but if the science is sound, it will stand. If not, it will be exposed. There are too many researchers who want to make their mark in the world to let it be any other way. If the science was manipulated, there would be too many people falling all over themselves to be published with the findings. That there is no such thing happening is the big, huge, inescapable flaw in your idea.

If you think my criticisms are simple misunderstandings that can be cleared up with some reading on my part, please feel free to give that a try: what am I misunderstanding about NIST increasing the fuel loads from Case A to Case B? What justification do they give for this increase?

This part I will leave to someone else to comment on.

So there we have it. Your post consists of nothing but questioning of the integrity, morals and work ethic of every person who composed the NIST report. Of course, no proof is offered other than your own cynicism. Great job, there! I'm sure you've convinced a grand total of zero people with this tripe. Keep up the good work!

 

[Gravy]

It's a shame to have to explain the business world to an adult.

The executive director, Philip Zelikow, has final say in how the report is constructed--not the people who did the research.

It's a shame that you don't know that Philip Zelikow was the executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, not of NIST, and that he had nothing to do with NIST's research or reports.

If you had bothered to read the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report you'd know that.

 

[pomeroo]

It's a shame to have to explain the business world to an adult.

Gee, do you know as much about business as you do about science? How did you learn so much without ever reading a book?

NIST gets the money through a congressional act.

The blind squirrel finds the acorn.

They decide what kind of scenarios they need to have in order to produce an explanation.

Do they follow the evidence, or is it all a set-up? How do you know?

They contract out work either from other departments within NIST or the Commerce Dept. or in the private sector.

The executive director, Philip Zelikow, has final say in how the report is constructed--not the people who did the research.

Really? People who work for NIST, such as Mike Newman, think you're very silly. What do you know that they don't?

Incidentally, I don't believe that Zelikow is the executive director of NIST. I think you're making this up. I'd bet that the director of NIST is James M. Turner.

Again, this is something you probably full well understand, but have to feign incredulity at the possibility of data manipulation in our modern world of honesty and high morals. Save the boyscout mask for your other hobbies.

I think you're lying. I don't believe that there is the tiniest shred of evidence suggesting that NIST manipulated any data.

Seriously, do you think that each and every one of these researchers gets to knock on Zelikow's door and say "hey, that's not what I meant to say..." No. Of course not. The contractors did their job. They produced reports and tests and simulations. They got paid. It is not worth their jobs, mortgages, families, etc., to question the structure of their data in the final report.

Hell, I'd be surprised if even a majority of them read the entire thing after it was done. They may be satisfied with the final report. They may not. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The only thing they could get from voicing a dissenting opinion is fired or scorned for putting the company/group at risk of not receiving more money from this source. Really, do you need me to explain this world we live in to you?

No, I'd rather you didn't explain the world to me. You're not very bright and you tend make up stuff.

Are you under the impression that science is never manipulated by political concerns? Or just in this case?

If you think my criticisms are simple misunderstandings that can be cleared up with some reading on my part, please feel free to give that a try: what am I misunderstanding about NIST increasing the fuel loads from Case A to Case B? What justification do they give for this increase?

I just think you're an ignoramus who imagines himself to know things he really doesn't. You are, in short, a typical twoofer.

 

[GlennB]

.....
If you think my criticisms are simple misunderstandings that can be cleared up with some reading on my part, please feel free to give that a try: what am I misunderstanding about NIST increasing the fuel loads from Case A to Case B? What justification do they give for this increase?

Have you read NISTNCSTAR1 Final report thoroughly? Start there.

NIST's base assumption of 4 lb/ft2 of fuel load was an estimate and was known to be low compared to similar office layouts. It was an average figure. Only case A assumed an even distribution of the fuel load throughout the affected floors. That figure also ignores combustibles within the aircraft. They appear to ignore paper in filing cabinets, although a greater range of cases could reasonably assume impact damage liberating some of this paper. They appear to have taken the conservative approach here. Cases B, C and D assume some redistribution of the fuel load, yet case C still - conservatively - assumes 4 lb/ft2

In short - varying the figure from 4 lb/ft2 to 5 lb/ft2 across the 4 cases is perfectly reasonable. NIST could not possibly have known the precise fuel load. In fact the number of variations of load, condition and distribution of combustibles, plus local wall damage (to vary the venting conditions) would require at least 16 cases. I'd suggest the 4 cases studied was not only massive effort but also a reasonable one.

Your paranoid outlook, however, requires this approach to be viewed as conspiratorial and unscientific and labelled as "beefing up". It's no such thing.

Tell me, jay, if NIST consciously fiddled the 4 lb/ft2 to achieve a desired outcome why the hell wouldn't they just start with 5 lb/ft2 ?? Nobody would have had any grounds to doubt it.

For the very little it's worth, it strikes me that case A in particular is very conservative.

 

[jay howard]

As I understand it, Philip D. Zelikow was the Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9/11 Commission. I'm not sure he had anything to do with the NIST report.

ETA: h t t p://w w w.9-11commission.gov/about/bio_zelikow.htm

Yes. You're right. I ate that one.

 

[jay howard]

If you believe it has happened in the WTC NIST report, then please state your evidence.

Maybe you could try reading a post or two that I've written on the ways in which the report doesn't pass basic standards of theoretical adequacy.

They are all here for you to pick at in any order you wish.

 

[jay howard]

It's a shame that you don't know that Philip Zelikow was the executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, not of NIST, and that he had nothing to do with NIST's research or reports.

If you had bothered to read the NIST report or the 9/11 Commission report you'd know that.

I admit I was wrong about that.

 

[jay howard]

Science cannot be manipulated.

Considering I've had to explain the concept of falsifiability to the same group of engineers here in this thread several times since the beginning, and even now, some just don't get it, it should come as no surprise that "scientific thought" has to be disambiguated from salesmanship on a regular basis. The NIST report has plenty of rigorous scientific findings in it. It does not follow from that, that the report is therefore a thoroughly scientific work. Sales brochures for this year's new Hyundai (or whatever) are filled with facts about it. Are you saying the scientific facts (0-60mph, fuel consumption, bhp, etc) make the brochure a bona fide scientific report?

They're not allowed to lie in the brochures, either. Doesn't mean they don't manipulate the data to present an image.

The scientific process can be bastardized and ignored, but if the science is sound, it will stand. If not, it will be exposed.

If you think my criticisms of the report are unfair in some way, please point out why.

This part I will leave to someone else to comment on.

Of course you will.