Metatheory and the NIST report

[Myriad]

Like I said before, if you can find a quote that says one of these things, you might be right:

"a reasonable fuel load was between 60-75 tons per floor"

You mean like this?

Have you looked at the table on page 46 of NCSTAR1-5F? It lists the range of estimates for the combustible fuel load as 17 to 34 kg/m2 (3.5 to 7 lb/ft2) with a mid-range of 25 kg/m2 (5.1 lb/ft2).

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jay howard]

You mean like this?




Respectfully,
Myriad

Did you read that page? If you did, you must have come across this:

"The intent of the exercise was not necessarily to determine the best values for each, but rather to assess the influence each [of the five parameters] had on the final result."(NCSTAR 1-5, 46)

They made a determination of the fuel load estimate several times in the report as 4 lbs/sq ft. This series of tests, according to NIST, was to assess the relative sensitivities of these parameters.

Will you ever admit that they did not ever give a real reason to increase the fuel load other than to "create a more severe fire"? You and a few others have been trying to justify the increase for several pages. Despite having equal access to all the same literature I have, you have produced no justification from the NIST report for the fuel load increase and several incoherent interpretations in the attempt.

This is what Gravy calls "denialism". Despite the fact that nothing can convince you that NIST's theory might be wrong, their entire case hinges on results that they admit are not substantiated by the evidence and indeed, contradict their own estimates.

 

[Myriad]

Did you read that page? If you did, you must have come across this:

"The intent of the exercise was not necessarily to determine the best values for each, but rather to assess the influence each [of the five parameters] had on the final result."(NCSTAR 1-5, 46)

Yep. And if you read it, you must also have come across this, on the next page:

"Of the five parameters chosen for the study, two were seen to have the most significant effect on the results. Of these two, Combustible Load was the most important, followed by the damage to the core walls. The Combustible Load influenced the duration of the fires, more so than their intensity. In fact, simulations using the low (-) to mid-range (0) estimates of the Combustible Load produced results consistent with the visual evidence of the fire behavior in WTC 1 that was available at the time the study was done." (NCSTAR 1-5F, p. 47; emphasis added)

And, just to be clear here, the mid-range estimate they're referring to was 25 kg/m^2 = 5.1 psf.

So, there is the positive statement you were looking for (and yet managed to miss somehow) that 5 psf was consistent with the observed fire behavior. That makes it clear that the "higher values" of fuel loading described elsewhere as producing results inconsistent with the observed fire behavior, must refer to values higher than the midrange, that is, values higher than 5.1 psf.

Will you ever admit that they did not ever give a real reason to increase the fuel load other than to "create a more severe fire"?

Will you now admit that you have been misrepresenting NIST's rationale for using the 5 psf fuel load in some of their test cases, and that 5 psf is in fact a reasonable figure, consistent with all avaliable evidence, for the fuel load model input parameter?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Myriad]

Jay?

It's been a week now. Are we done?

Any more misconceptions about the NIST investigations I can help you clear up?

I don't suppose a thank you for taking the trouble to look up the answers you were having trouble finding on your own might be forthcoming?

Respectfully,
Myriad