Metatheory and the NIST report

[chipmunk stew]

Why don't Cases A and C count? Because they didn't produce a collapse initiation?

Because all the cases together are a set. They all used parameters within the same envelope. One of them produced a collapse initiation. That's all that's required to validate the plausibility of the theory.

 

[chipmunk stew]

What choice am I leaving out?

Did NIST provide good data? Yes or no.

Yes. But good doesn't always mean precise. When you have imprecise data, you test iteratively over a range defined by the uncertainty of the data.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes. But good doesn't always mean precise. When you have imprecise data, you test iteratively over a range defined by the uncertainty of the data.

Pointing out that precision and accuracy are not the same thing. You can be very precise, and not at all accurate-and vice-versa.
Precision: we put a 7.620 mm hole 1.02 mm from the exact center of the target.
Accuracy: We were aiming for the 6-ring.

 

[jay howard]

Because all the cases together are a set. They all used parameters within the same envelope. One of them produced a collapse initiation. That's all that's required to validate the plausibility of the theory.

One set didn't produce collapse initiation. That set more closely resembled both the photographic evidence and the fire-spread rate.

The one that produced the collapse initiation not only did NOT match the photographic evidence, the NIST authors said this version didn't burn fast enough in WTC 1 to reach the south side in time to initiate the collapse.

But you can overlook that because "they're a set"? What kind of nonsense reason is that?

Why is it you dismiss the results of Cases A and C? Do you have a good reason to? They did not produce collapse initiation. You agree that the data NIST used to produce them was reasonable. They matched observations and fire-spread rates. But they did not produce a collapse. By what reasoning do you dismiss them?

If you want to take them as a "set" then you can't dismiss the ones that didn't give you the expected results. How do you reconcile the fact that when they input "reasonable" estimates that corroborated photos and fire-spread rates, the program demonstrated no collapse?

 

[GlennB]

One set didn't produce collapse initiation. That set more closely resembled both the photographic evidence and the fire-spread rate.

The one that produced the collapse initiation not only did NOT match the photographic evidence, the NIST authors said this version didn't burn fast enough in WTC 1 to reach the south side in time to initiate the collapse.

But you can overlook that because "they're a set"? What kind of nonsense reason is that?

Why is it you dismiss the results of Cases A and C? Do you have a good reason to? They did not produce collapse initiation. You agree that the data NIST used to produce them was reasonable. They matched observations and fire-spread rates. But they did not produce a collapse. By what reasoning do you dismiss them?

If you want to take them as a "set" then you can't dismiss the ones that didn't give you the expected results. How do you reconcile the fact that when they input "reasonable" estimates that corroborated photos and fire-spread rates, the program demonstrated no collapse?

This is how science progresses, jay :

NIST's is the currently accepted, and widely respected, theory.

After countless posts where you nit-pick NIST's methodology and parameters, maybe it's time to propose your superior theory - accompanied by detailed evidence and analysis - with which to supplant NIST's.

Looking forward to hearing from you, although I must admit I'm not holding my breath. Personally I think you're full of hot air and self-important pseudo-science. But maybe you can surprise us by progressing beyond destructive argument and into productive argument?

 

[jay howard]

Looking forward to hearing from you, although I must admit I'm not holding my breath. Personally I think you're full of hot air and self-important pseudo-science. But maybe you can surprise us by progressing beyond destructive argument and into productive argument?

You accuse me of "pseudo-science"? Yet, you cannot even admit the possibility that the "highly regarded" theory you've been all too eager to uncritically accept just might be incomplete, and might even be completely bunk.

Given well-reasoned argument, consistent explanations, and a failure of anyone to successfully defend pivotal flaws in the NIST report, your weak excuses to believe NIST's explanation come off like a child grasping at a safety blanket. And you want to accuse me of pseudo-science?

Gravy, time and again wants to call me a "denialist". Yet, in doing so, he ends up pointing his finger at himself along with all of you who claim you will only consider rational explanations when tossing out "conspiracy theories" one by one.

In a large way, this thread was test of whether you were willing to put your own theories to the same, agreed-upon standards of theoretical adequacy. If so, then it would become apparent that the official explanation was seriously lacking. If not, then those who still chose to support it would expose themselves as dogmatic and hypocritical--choosing to hold their own theory to a different set of standards than those of their interlocutors.

You can cling to the results of the NIST report--as you most certainly will--however, you cannot claim that the conclusion within it are "credible" or "scientific" no matter how many experts agree with, or refuse to disagree with them. By your own accounts, there is no clearly defined way the NIST conclusions could be refuted. They are definitively non-falsifiable.

Over 1000 posts and several weeks later, no one can produce specific, testable criteria with which to apply to the NIST theory. This is a fundamental failing.

Why have so many experts not spoken out? Many have. Unanimous dissent is a bit much to ask, but the report seems to have worked well enough to convince a swath of the public that the government did their job in looking into the collapses. Most people here--even the engineers--don't know falsifiability from their anus, so it's no surprise the general public couldn't express a specific criticism of the report. As a PR piece, the report was a success. As science, the final conclusions leak like a sieve.

 

[pomeroo]

You accuse me of "pseudo-science"? Yet, you cannot even admit the possibility that the "highly regarded" theory you've been all too eager to uncritically accept just might be incomplete, and might even be completely bunk.

Given well-reasoned argument, consistent explanations, and a failure of anyone to successfully defend pivotal flaws in the NIST report, your weak excuses to believe NIST's explanation come off like a child grasping at a safety blanket. And you want to accuse me of pseudo-science?

Gravy, time and again wants to call me a "denialist". Yet, in doing so, he ends up pointing his finger at himself along with all of you who claim you will only consider rational explanations when tossing out "conspiracy theories" one by one.

In a large way, this thread was test of whether you were willing to put your own theories to the same, agreed-upon standards of theoretical adequacy. If so, then it would become apparent that the official explanation was seriously lacking. If not, then those who still chose to support it would expose themselves as dogmatic and hypocritical--choosing to hold their own theory to a different set of standards than those of their interlocutors.

You can cling to the results of the NIST report--as you most certainly will--however, you cannot claim that the conclusion within it are "credible" or "scientific" no matter how many experts agree with, or refuse to disagree with them. By your own accounts, there is no clearly defined way the NIST conclusions could be refuted. They are definitively non-falsifiable.

Over 1000 posts and several weeks later, no one can produce specific, testable criteria with which to apply to the NIST theory. This is a fundamental failing.

Why have so many experts not spoken out? Many have. Unanimous dissent is a bit much to ask, but the report seems to have worked well enough to convince a swath of the public that the government did their job in looking into the collapses. Most people here--even the engineers--don't know falsifiability from their anus, so it's no surprise the general public couldn't express a specific criticism of the report. As a PR piece, the report was a success. As science, the final conclusions leak like a sieve.

The reason you are widely regarded as a pompous fraud is that everyone here gets the idea that it would be necessary to rebuild the Twin Towers and fly commercial airliners into them to produce a model that might--might!--satisfy you. You are incapable or unwilling of making a phone call to NIST, but I didn't find it too difficult. Mike Newman commented on the extraordinary degree of exactitude that NIST's investigation was capable of achieving. The firm Marsh-McClennan provided data that showed exactly how much paper was present on each desk. You and your fellow fantasists pretend that real researchers function as you do--flying by the seat of your pants and fabricating whatever you require. Science doesn't work like that.

You started this thread on a bogus premise. The NIST Report is obviously falsifiable. You happen to believe that it is false, although you've failed miserably to show us why.

 

[GlennB]

....
choosing to hold their own theory to a different set of standards than those of their interlocutors.
.....

Fine.

Then please present us with an "interlocutor's" theory for analysis. If we fail to analyse it to the same standard you will be justified in pointing out our failings.

Despite many requests you've refused to do so, so it's back to the point I made. Science advances where theory A is shown to be superior to theory B.

Time to stop dancing jay. What's your superior theory???

( Though, frankly, it might be more productive to ask my dog to take up chess ).

eta: damn - the dog has gone for the Petrov defence. I hate that, but he's doing better than you.

 

[Myriad]

To make this simple:

1. Both figures for fuel loading, 4 and 5 lbs, were well within the range of uncertainty for the parameter. They are equally likely to be closer to the real value that actually existed in the towers.

2. Results that matched the key observables were obtained with parameters that were all well within their respective ranges of uncertainty.

3. If key observables in the results could not be replicated without using input parameters outside the range of uncertaintly, then the "impact damage and fire" theory of collapse initiation that was investigated by NIST would have been falsified.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

9/11 truth, the opposite of science and knowledge

You accuse me of "pseudo-science"? Yet, you cannot even admit the possibility that the "highly regarded" theory you've been all too eager to uncritically accept just might be incomplete, and might even be completely bunk.

Given well-reasoned argument, consistent explanations, and a failure of anyone to successfully defend pivotal flaws in the NIST report, your weak excuses to believe NIST's explanation come off like a child grasping at a safety blanket. And you want to accuse me of pseudo-science?

Gravy, time and again wants to call me a "denialist". Yet, in doing so, he ends up pointing his finger at himself along with all of you who claim you will only consider rational explanations when tossing out "conspiracy theories" one by one.

In a large way, this thread was test of whether you were willing to put your own theories to the same, agreed-upon standards of theoretical adequacy. If so, then it would become apparent that the official explanation was seriously lacking. If not, then those who still chose to support it would expose themselves as dogmatic and hypocritical--choosing to hold their own theory to a different set of standards than those of their interlocutors.

You can cling to the results of the NIST report--as you most certainly will--however, you cannot claim that the conclusion within it are "credible" or "scientific" no matter how many experts agree with, or refuse to disagree with them. By your own accounts, there is no clearly defined way the NIST conclusions could be refuted. They are definitively non-falsifiable.

Over 1000 posts and several weeks later, no one can produce specific, testable criteria with which to apply to the NIST theory. This is a fundamental failing.

Why have so many experts not spoken out? Many have. Unanimous dissent is a bit much to ask, but the report seems to have worked well enough to convince a swath of the public that the government did their job in looking into the collapses. Most people here--even the engineers--don't know falsifiability from their anus, so it's no surprise the general public couldn't express a specific criticism of the report. As a PR piece, the report was a success. As science, the final conclusions leak like a sieve.

Jay, you are a failure at applying your metatheory junk. You think you can talk NIST into failure, but have fallen short. You failed to realize a rational thinking human being can figure out 9/11 without NIST. Many people have shown how 9/11 really happen. I know you want to push Jones's nut case theory, without facts, without evidence. Jones failed, you failed. You are using NIST as what? I see the inability of truther to understand NIST, or their lack of ability to show the problems in NIST, or using parts of NIST to present a faulty analysis, as truthers lack of experience, knowledge, and judgment. Failure; bring on the thermite, beam weapon, no planer, nut case ideas, you are ready.

 

[rwguinn]

Every scientific theory is incomplete. That is the nature of the beast.
Newtonian physics is/was incomplete. Is it falsifiable? You betcha. Just one thing happening that violates it -- like a violation of conservation of momentum or energy in the wrong place.
Relativistic physics filled in some of the holes. and explained the anomolies while maintaining the basic concepts. E=m*C^2? That just puts a limit on the KE=1/2*M*v^2 Newtonian model. Now, through improved observation, even that is incomplete. Is it falsifiable? You betcha. Just one thing happening that violates it--some particle with mass that exceeds the C limit will do it.
Evolution has holes. We all know that. But it does explain what happende after life came to be. Just one dinosaur skeleton wrapped around a human skeleton would kill it, or at least require very major revisions.
Falsifiablilty requires just one thing that violates the theory. Steel that doesn't weaken with temperature, 3 pounds of negative entropy--any of thoise things will clobber the NIST, physical science, and engineering world's theories of how the towers came down.
These things ain't happened yet. No student of the scientific method expects them to.

 

[chipmunk stew]

You accuse me of "pseudo-science"? Yet, you cannot even admit the possibility that the "highly regarded" theory you've been all too eager to uncritically accept just might be incomplete, and might even be completely bunk.

Given well-reasoned argument, consistent explanations, and a failure of anyone to successfully defend pivotal flaws in the NIST report, your weak excuses to believe NIST's explanation come off like a child grasping at a safety blanket. And you want to accuse me of pseudo-science?

Gravy, time and again wants to call me a "denialist". Yet, in doing so, he ends up pointing his finger at himself along with all of you who claim you will only consider rational explanations when tossing out "conspiracy theories" one by one.

In a large way, this thread was test of whether you were willing to put your own theories to the same, agreed-upon standards of theoretical adequacy. If so, then it would become apparent that the official explanation was seriously lacking. If not, then those who still chose to support it would expose themselves as dogmatic and hypocritical--choosing to hold their own theory to a different set of standards than those of their interlocutors.

You can cling to the results of the NIST report--as you most certainly will--however, you cannot claim that the conclusion within it are "credible" or "scientific" no matter how many experts agree with, or refuse to disagree with them. By your own accounts, there is no clearly defined way the NIST conclusions could be refuted. They are definitively non-falsifiable.

Over 1000 posts and several weeks later, no one can produce specific, testable criteria with which to apply to the NIST theory. This is a fundamental failing.

Why have so many experts not spoken out? Many have. Unanimous dissent is a bit much to ask, but the report seems to have worked well enough to convince a swath of the public that the government did their job in looking into the collapses. Most people here--even the engineers--don't know falsifiability from their anus, so it's no surprise the general public couldn't express a specific criticism of the report. As a PR piece, the report was a success. As science, the final conclusions leak like a sieve.

Here, from someone who read and understood the report, is a repetition of the first explanation (of several) given to you of why your fuel load misunderstanding is not a "pivotal flaw":

Actually, it's simpler than that.

The quote that "the Towers would likely remain standing" is based on the preliminary models -- and also doesn't mean "likely to remain standing forever." It actually means that, under those cases, the Towers would still have collapsed, but it would have taken longer than it did in reality.

As it turns out, the fuel loading is actually not that relevant. More relevant is the fuel placement, and how the fuel load determines the location -- not the intensity -- of the fires.

An increase in fuel load from 4 lb/ft² to 5, i.e. 25%, is small compared to the increase that was tested during model sensitivity testing. That sensitivity testing, in which the fuel load was increased by 33%, found that the fuel load was relevant but only with respect to the duration of fires. See NCSTAR1-5F section 5.2 for the sensitivity analysis.

The overall effect of fuel load on the fires is described in Chapter 6 of NCSTAR1-5F:



In Case C and D, of course, there was no change in the combustible load at all:



Therefore, the complaint about increasing the fuel load in WTC 1 is groundless, and stems from lack of comprehension about the report.

It is similarly incorrect to state that the fuel loading or placement defined Cases A and C versus B and D. More importantly, B and D involved more impact damage, especially fireproofing damage. That makes a far greater difference than any change in the fuel load.

The reasons to prefer the higher impact damage estimates are given in NCSTAR1-2B. We've discussed them to death in this thread (skipping most of the crap in that thread), and besides that cases B and D were seen to better simulate the leaning and floor behavior than cases A and C. This is why A and C were rejected:


For more information about this, please see Chapter 7 of NCSTAR1-6.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

What do you think they are saying in the quote?


“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)

Having started reading the NIST report, I now see the context in which you were using this statement.

 

[jay howard]

The reason you are widely regarded as a pompous fraud is that everyone here gets the idea that it would be necessary to rebuild the Twin Towers and fly commercial airliners into them to produce a model that might--might!--satisfy you. You are incapable or unwilling of making a phone call to NIST, but I didn't find it too difficult. Mike Newman commented on the extraordinary degree of exactitude that NIST's investigation was capable of achieving. The firm Marsh-McClennan provided data that showed exactly how much paper was present on each desk. You and your fellow fantasists pretend that real researchers function as you do--flying by the seat of your pants and fabricating whatever you require. Science doesn't work like that.

You started this thread on a bogus premise. The NIST Report is obviously falsifiable. You happen to believe that it is false, although you've failed miserably to show us why.

You are just demonstrating my point that you don't understand what falsifiability is. If you are so convinced the conclusions are falsifiable, why are you unable to produce a single testable sentence from the report?

You cannot do it, yet you claim I'm the fanatic. Denial maybe?

What "bogus premise" did I start this thread on? That the NIST report is not a special case in which the principles of logic and reason do not or should not apply? What's bogus is that you think NIST's conclusions are irrefutable, yet you don't see that as a problem.

Think about it: if I told you that the towers were brought down by "mini nukes" in the basement, you'd show me tests that were done to check for levels of tritium that exceeded background levels. When no tritium was found exceeding background levels, you'd say "there could not have been any mini nukes because they would have increased tritium levels above background." If I still maintained the mini nukes position, it would no longer be based in science: I could say, "well, they used a new nuclear device that didn't create tritium". I have just made my position irrefutable, and hence, unscientific.

If you keep having to amend your position or redefine evidence so it doesn't count against your position, you may have already left the scientific field. This happens all the time in political discussions where people can get away with it more easily. In a scientific discussion, it's much more cut and dry: you either have a testable position or you don't. If you don't, you are not doing science.

You don't have to rebuild the towers to satisfy me. In fact, I'm of the opinion that the floor truss tests performed by UL do indeed satisfy the requirements of a good test. It's the people defending NIST that don't think that counts as a good test. But you are immune to reasons.

So again, can you show me a testable claim for the NIST collapse theory? This just needs to be one sentence to the effect of "floor trusses fail at x temp for t time under loading conditions and y impact damage without SFRM". Or something like that. I've looked in vain to find it. There are anecdotal versions all through it, but without time and temperature specifications.

How can a theory that cannot be shown to be false possibly be right?

 

[jay howard]

Fine.

Then please present us with an "interlocutor's" theory for analysis. If we fail to analyse it to the same standard you will be justified in pointing out our failings.

Despite many requests you've refused to do so, so it's back to the point I made. Science advances where theory A is shown to be superior to theory B.

Time to stop dancing jay. What's your superior theory???

( Though, frankly, it might be more productive to ask my dog to take up chess ).

eta: damn - the dog has gone for the Petrov defence. I hate that, but he's doing better than you.

Why do you have such a hard on for "my theory" when my theory is that NIST's conclusions are not falsifiable?

I understand that it is uncomfortable to analyze your own theory, but before we move on to "my theory," there must be a reason to. Don't you agree? If the NIST position is completely adequate to answer the question of why the towers collapsed, then why waste time and energy looking into alternatives?

Do you believe NIST's conclusions are substantiated by all the available evidence? If so, there's no need for a new theory.

If you want to start a new thread about some alternative position, that's your business, but don't derail this conversation because you're not comfortable scrutinizing your beliefs.

 

[jay howard]

To make this simple:

1. Both figures for fuel loading, 4 and 5 lbs, were well within the range of uncertainty for the parameter. They are equally likely to be closer to the real value that actually existed in the towers.

2. Results that matched the key observables were obtained with parameters that were all well within their respective ranges of uncertainty.

Then what did they mean by this:

“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)

Either they mean what they say here and the increased fuel load would not produce a collapse in the given time restraints, or none of their estimates are meaningful. Which is it?

These higher fuel loadings also "did not match the patterns observed in the photographic evidence." Either they meant what they said, or they didn't. If they did, you're plain wrong. If not, then how do we know if anything they said is useful or not?

3. If key observables in the results could not be replicated without using input parameters outside the range of uncertaintly, then the "impact damage and fire" theory of collapse initiation that was investigated by NIST would have been falsified.

Respectfully,
Myriad

YES!

Exactly. Only when they increased the fuel loads did they get collapse initiation, but at the expense of matching observable patterns of fire-spread rates. This is one of the reasons they give for substantiating their estimate of 4 lb/sq ft.

The question here is "why doesn't the incompatibility of increased fuel loads with the available evidence substantiate the middle case estimate of 4 lb/sq ft?" NIST seems to accept this as they mention above and elsewhere, however, it seems to have no effect on the defenders here. Why?

 

[jay howard]

Jay, you are a failure .... You ... failure, but have fallen short. You failed .... Jones failed, you failed.... Failure; ...

(My edit, for brevity)

 

[jay howard]

Every scientific theory is incomplete. That is the nature of the beast.
Newtonian physics is/was incomplete. Is it falsifiable? You betcha. Just one thing happening that violates it -- like a violation of conservation of momentum or energy in the wrong place.
Relativistic physics filled in some of the holes. and explained the anomolies while maintaining the basic concepts. E=m*C^2? That just puts a limit on the KE=1/2*M*v^2 Newtonian model. Now, through improved observation, even that is incomplete. Is it falsifiable? You betcha. Just one thing happening that violates it--some particle with mass that exceeds the C limit will do it.
Evolution has holes. We all know that. But it does explain what happende after life came to be. Just one dinosaur skeleton wrapped around a human skeleton would kill it, or at least require very major revisions.
Falsifiablilty requires just one thing that violates the theory. Steel that doesn't weaken with temperature, 3 pounds of negative entropy--any of thoise things will clobber the NIST, physical science, and engineering world's theories of how the towers came down.
These things ain't happened yet. No student of the scientific method expects them to.

Yes, you WANT your theory to be falsifiable. Astrology is non-falsifiable. The Bible Code is non-falsifiable. Many crappy theories exist.

And it's also true that falsifiability is no guarantee of truth. It is impossible to guarantee the truth of inductive arguments. That's the whole purpose of having metatheoretical criteria: they give us a basis from which to judge a "good" theory from the multitude of crappy ones in a world where "truth" has no capital "T".

However, if your theory isn't falsifiable, it can be immediately discarded as useless. Do you understand the importance of being able to show that the NIST theory is falsifiable?

 

[jay howard]

Here, from someone who read and understood the report, is a repetition of the first explanation (of several) given to you of why your fuel load misunderstanding is not a "pivotal flaw":

Rather than repost arguments that I've already responded to, try rephrasing his words in such a way that you show why my response failed to answer them.

Otherwise, we're wasting bandwidth reposting exact duplicates from the same thread.

 

[jay howard]

Having started reading the NIST report, I now see the context in which you were using this statement.

Good to hear it. What do you think?