Metatheory and the NIST report

[jay howard]

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.

So what? Does that mean they get to increase it at will?

It was an average figure.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious again. Do they get to increase it at will because it was an average? What kind of sense does that make?

Only case A assumed an even distribution of the fuel load throughout the affected floors.

Again, so what? Case B weighted combustibles towards the core--for what reason? Aircraft impact would not have pushed an increased pile of it towards the interior. They admit they didn't count the aircraft because the thermal modeling would only accept one fuel source, so how does one justify an increased fuel concentration in the core area? It's no secret the vast majority of combustible mass was between the core and the exterior. But you not only accept this as "good science," you use it to try to JUSTIFY the NIST report's manipulation of the data.

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

No, they appear to have increased the fuel load against their own estimates without any clear reason why. In their words:

"NIST estimated the combustible fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2)."(NCSTAR 1, 77)

“Simulations performed with doubled fuel loads slowed the fire spread well below the observed rates. Combined with the above results, this suggested that the estimated overall combustible load of 4 lb/ft2 was reasonable.”(NCSTAR 1, 129)

This one is particularly troubling for anyone who thinks NIST was justified in increasing the fuel load:

“The principal combustibles on the fire floor were workstations. The total combustible fuel load on the WTC floors was about 4 lb/ft2. Higher combusted fuel loadings resulted in slower fire spread rates that did not match the patterns observed in the photographic evidence. Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause inward bowing and collapse initiation.”(NCSTAR 1, 183)

And

“The fact that the simulated fires encircled the building in roughly the same amount of time as the actual fires supported the estimate of the overall combustible load, 20 kg/m2 (4 lb/ft2). The fires burned for roughly 20 min to 30 min in any one location, consistent with the visual evidence (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) and the multiple workstation fire experiments performed at NIST (Chapter 4).”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 107)

And what reasons do they give for the increase?

“For WTC 1, the changes made were designed to create a ‘more severe’ fire.”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 78)

Oh. That makes perfect sense.

In short - varying the figure from 4 lb/ft2 to 5 lb/ft2 across the 4 cases is perfectly reasonable.

Maybe you should read the reports before you say something completely unsubstantiated.

NIST could not possibly have known the precise fuel load.

So what? Does that mean they can increase it by 25% from their "reasonable" estimate at will and without any clear justification?

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

Do you have any reason to say that other than you want it to be true?

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.

Because "they" were several groups who were assigned a set of tasks. The leaders of those groups set out to do their jobs. This all fits into a straight-forward hierarchical-style framework. There is nothing unusual about this. When it was determined that under the "middle cases" the buildings would likely remain standing, someone was indeed tasked with increasing the fuel load.

Did that person/group ask why?

It doesn't matter what they asked. It was their job to do as they were told. Boss wants to increase the fuel loads in the scenarios; therefore they increased the fuel loads in the scenarios.

Can you find me reasonable explanation as to why? No. Should you be able to? Yes. Does that mean all the science in the NIST report is null and void? No. Does that mean the data was manipulated? It certainly looks that way. If the data was manipulated, does that mean all the people who worked on it are guilty of murder? Of course not. Are they guilty of bad science? Not likely. The people guilty of bad science are those who structured the argument.

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

How would you know what conservative is? From what the NIST report says? Did you read the other things the NIST report said about Case A? Apparently not.

 

[beachnut]

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.

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

Of course you will.

You can not even apply the concept of falsifiability. You have failed again. Why are you telling lies now?

 

[twinstead]

Jay are you implying that these 'groups' were simply automatons doing their master's bidding and following orders without understanding what they were doing?

 

[JimBenArm]

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?

So now you compare the NIST report to a sales brochure?
Science really isn't your strong suit, is it?
Cynicism and paranoia, however...

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

They also don't have the international community ready to pounce on any misstatement or misrepresentation, either. Your point is rejected yet again! So sorry!

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

I already did. You just are unable to understand it. Sorry, not my problem.

Of course you will.

Yeah, and of course you skipped the part where I asked for some kind of actual evidence to back up your slander of the people that worked so hard on the NIST report. Not that I actually thought you could...

 

[Crungy]

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.

Sorry, but I, like others here, do not agree with the arguments which you have presented here to support your statement above and you have been reapetedly called out for this.

 

[beachnut]

what?

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, you have failed to do what you said. Anyone who has the ability to think rationally knows you are wrong and have failed to show what you said.

What you are saying is a lie, you have no shown anything yet. Looking at all of your posts as an engineer, you have failed. F. If this was a student defending a thesis you would have to try again.

 

[rwguinn]

jh:

 

[rwguinn]

Jay, you have failed to do what you said. Anyone who has the ability to think rationally knows you are wrong and have failed to show what you said.

What you are saying is a lie, you have no shown anything yet. Looking at all of your posts as an engineer, you have failed. F. If this was a student defending a thesis you would have to try again.

Nope-
They'd flunk him out, permanently. Not even back to Freshman level...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I just haven't seen a convincing model that can fall down in 12 sec.

Well that's okay, because neither of the Towers fell in 12 seconds. WTC 2 took at least 16 and more likely 18, and WTC 1 took at least 18 seconds more likely closer to 20.

 

[jay howard]

So, does anyone have a real response to why NIST increased the fuel loads?

Their words:


"NIST estimated the combustible fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2)."(NCSTAR 1, 77)

“Simulations performed with doubled fuel loads slowed the fire spread well below the observed rates. Combined with the above results, this suggested that the estimated overall combustible load of 4 lb/ft2 was reasonable.”(NCSTAR 1, 129)

This one is particularly troubling for anyone who thinks NIST was justified in increasing the fuel load:

“The principal combustibles on the fire floor were workstations. The total combustible fuel load on the WTC floors was about 4 lb/ft2. Higher combusted fuel loadings resulted in slower fire spread rates that did not match the patterns observed in the photographic evidence. Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause inward bowing and collapse initiation.”(NCSTAR 1, 183)

And

“The fact that the simulated fires encircled the building in roughly the same amount of time as the actual fires supported the estimate of the overall combustible load, 20 kg/m2 (4 lb/ft2). The fires burned for roughly 20 min to 30 min in any one location, consistent with the visual evidence (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) and the multiple workstation fire experiments performed at NIST (Chapter 4).”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 107)

What reasons do they give for the increase?

 

[Skibum]

What reasons do they give for the increase?

I would guess that they were testing different amounts of fuel to see what matched up best with what was observed in real life on 9/11.

 

[jay howard]

I would guess that they were testing different amounts of fuel to see what matched up best with what was observed in real life on 9/11.

Then why do they go against those observations in order to form the more severe cases?

 

[jay howard]

I already did. You just are unable to understand it. Sorry, not my problem.

You already presented a counterargument to my criticisms of the NIST report?

Could you link to it?

 

[jay howard]

Sorry, but I, like others here, do not agree with the arguments which you have presented here to support your statement above and you have been reapetedly called out for this.

Well thanks for sharing your agreement. Do you have any legitimate reasons for believing what you do, or do you believe things in order to identify with a group?

 

[Drudgewire]

Well thanks for sharing your agreement. Do you have any legitimate reasons for believing what you do, or do you believe things in order to identify with a group?

Yes, that's it. You're the very first person on this forum to ever bring up the points you're making. They've NEVER been discussed thoroughly time and time again or anything. The only reason we believe what we do is because we're all a bunch of fuddy-duddies who don't like people exposing our hero and master George Bush for the fraud we prefer to pretend he isn't.

That's it, it has nothing to do with being able to look at the evidence as a whole instead of pick and choosing it, using the scientific method and having it stand up to rigorous peer review, taking personal agendas out of the equation before poring over it, and having all the top legitimate experts in their various fields take it at face value.

You've hit the nail on the head. Show's over kids. Pack up and go home. I TOLD you we should have used youtube and Bible experts instead.

 

[jay howard]

That's it, it has nothing to do with being able to look at the evidence as a whole instead of pick and choosing it, using the scientific method and having it stand up to rigorous peer review, taking personal agendas out of the equation before poring over it, and having all the top legitimate experts in their various fields take it at face value.

Can you answer the question of why NIST appealed to the higher fuel load of 5 lb/sq ft in WTC 1 after pointing out repeatedly that 4 lb/sq ft was the best estimate of the fuel load in the towers?

They also clearly state that increasing the fuel load would not produce the observed effects, nor would it allow for the fire to travel to the south side in time to initiate global collapse.

So why don't you question the accuracy of their "more severe case"?

Do you have a real reason? How do you reconcile the increase?

No one here can answer this question. There is no good answer in any of the NIST literature. Whether you or anyone else here likes it or not, there is no good reason to increase the fuel load in the towers by 25%, yet the NIST authors do so, and claim they've answered the question of why the buildings collapsed.

If someone created a simulation that demonstrated the buildings could NOT have collapsed from the fires and impacts, and they clearly appealed to unsubstantiated data, would you call it a good argument?

Of course not. You would dismiss it immediately as crap science. Yet, when they do exactly this to make the case that impacts/fires caused the buildings to collapse, not only don't you question the veracity of their science, you DEFEND it.

So again, if you've got a good explanation, please show me. If someone else has already given a good reason for it somewhere, please link to it. (I know this isn't going to happen. More likely there will be a fevered attempt to change the subject, or a bunch of vacuous posts, and of course, beechnut saying "Your thermite lies won't cut it around here. You fail. F" Wow. Good retort.)

The real question in all this seems to be, Why do you still believe the NIST report answered the questions posed from the collapse? It's not because of the solid case they make in the report. Is it the fear that you may have been fooled this whole time? The fear that people in official positions are not looking out for your best interests? The peace of mind that only official reports can produce? What exactly keeps you clinging to the results of a report that no one can properly make sense of?

The entire report hinges in these simulations producing this "global collapse" event from heat. No forensic evidence recognized by NIST substantiates temperatures that could weaken steel to the degree necessary in the time constraints. Yet the simulations must use increased inputs in order to show "collapse initiation". Of course, we don't get to see if the initiation actually caused the entire building to collapse because 1. they haven't released their simulations, 2. the "middle case" which uses their own reasoned estimates do not demonstrate "collapse initiation", 3. whatever happened after "initiation" was outside the scope of the report and 4. the fuel load increase is never justified.

 

[pomeroo]

[snip] Much drivel


The entire report hinges in these simulations producing this "global collapse" event from heat. No forensic evidence recognized by NIST substantiates temperatures that could weaken steel to the degree necessary in the time constraints. Yet the simulations must use increased inputs in order to show "collapse initiation". Of course, we don't get to see if the initiation actually caused the entire building to collapse because 1. they haven't released their simulations,

Whoops! Sorry, the simulations have been released.

[snip] more drivel

 

[jay howard]

Whoops! Sorry, the simulations have been released.

So, you have absolutely no response to why they increased the inputs to the collapse scenarios?

You cite one thing you disagree with--without any link or substantiation--and think this overcomes my criticisms.

Weak tits--not unlike a canine with 4 sets of weak tits.

 

[jay howard]

No one here can honestly claim they "know" that the NIST simulations are good science, because no one here can justify NIST's increased inputs for their simulations.

 

[twinstead]

No one here can honestly claim they "know" that the NIST simulations are good science, because no one here can justify NIST's increased inputs for their simulations.

Talk to NIST. Their website has every contributor. Whining about it on a relatively obscure web forum does nothing to further your movement. In fact, considering that YOU aren't any more qualified to judge the 'good science' of NIST than I am, it just makes your movement look kind of kooky.

While you're at it, you can contact the scientists at Purdue University and the experts consulted by Popular Mechanics and ask them their opinions.

You are interested in 'official' second opinions, right? I mean you wouldn't NOT contact the people actually directly involved in the development of the official version of 911 for any reason, right?