I am familiar with your assertions as to "NIST stage 1" is "crap". I have been
trying to learn Major_Tom's position on the OP.
...
Yes debate is quite likely pointless but I am interested in what M_T sees as the extent of error needed to qualify as the emotive "blown" (or "blew").
I'd phrase it a bit differently.
NIST stage 1 description sucks, but their description of WTC1 early movement and collapse initiation movement sucks more.
Ozeco, the last 5 pages of this thead, various posters have weighed in on how they perceive "good enough". Some examples...
The following posts are from the "Reload this Page NIST blew WTC7 Stage 1 analysis" thread, pages 5 to 9.
Page 5:
DMG post 163: "I believe their biggest mistake was falling for the "truther" meme and bothering to explain this "free-fall". It added nothing to the report and I've never heard any building professional asking for an explanation. They saw it this way also and didn't put in much effort. I doubt it had anything to do with ability to do it correctly."
Ozeco post 168: "They tried to assist and it fed the dishonesty of the truth movement - the crap about Chandler "forced" NIST to "admit" freefall. Still we have had a bit of fun explaining the free body physics and why parts of a falling sub-system can exceed G. And, in doing that, we revealed that quite a few "debunkers" also get a bit lost in the basics so "truthers" aren't the only ones who don't comprehend basic physics". - post 168
Ozeco post 169: "Take care - misuse of the expression "good enough" is becoming an art form in other arenas.
However it is the key issue here - arguably NIST misread the required level of "good enough" needed for the audience. So it wasn't good enough for that bit of the audience. And the "cost benefit" questions of how far should a public agency go to satisfy minority groups is a more complex issue than we need to discuss here. Bottom line is no matter how far you go a determined nit picker opponent will want you to go further. And lines have to be drawn at some stage.
That much is obvious. The difficult question is where and when to say "that's enough" and draw the line."
DGM post 172: "For the people that branded them lies, nothing they could have done would change that. No one else really considered it an issue. You provided a much better data set and even that has had no effect with those that claim "free-fall" is an issue.
NIST should have ignored it and stayed with what was the important details. NIST made a wrong decision when they decided to play "debunker" for an issue that had no merit in the first place (CD)."
Ozeco post 174: "The relevant issue is what I usually frame as "understanding the mechanism"..."
Ozeco post 234: "Sure - and that is a key part of the apparent difference. There are "two sides" in effect claiming "black versus white" when reality is shades of grey. The two central issues to my observation - seem to be:
1) What level of precision is needed for any specific purpose or audience. Some purposes need higher accuracy than others Demands for near perfection being unnecessary in some cases whilst "near enough" approximations may not be "good enough"; AND
2) Issues from errors or mistakes of method - and the two can overlap - they are not mutually exclusive. The only thing they seem to share is the reluctance of opponents holding polarised views to actually address the reality that needs/objectives differ.
Is sort of appropriate. How often 9/11 arguments get lost between two objectives of:
a) Understanding the Towers collapses; OR
b) Proving NIST was wrong.
To commandeer Oystein's words for an equally valid observation "...beware of unnecessary conflation."
Even if every observation made by NIST was wrong it cannot affect the reality of what happened on 9/11. No report written years later can change the actual physical events of history."
Page 7:
Ozeco: In my opinion - expressed many times on various forums - the issues of objective setting and appropriate setting of "good enough" standards are not adequately understood. However experience tells me that attempting to discuss those matters does not get much support.
DGM post 269: "But never an engineering study to support these posts.
Maybe AE 9/11 could help out with this. I heard they have 1600 engineers.
Truth be told. All of this is to cast doubt on what is accepted. Present something that can be absorbed by the worlds engineers that significantly changes the accepted view (piece A moved causing piece B) . To date, no one has.
Do you agree?"
Beachnut post 280: "NIST saved a lot of money by not studying nonsense to the nth+1 degree. The report would be pending."
page 8:
Basquearch page 284: In addition, these distinctions without a difference don't change NIST's conclusions.
NoahFence page 286: "What's the point? The conclusions remain precisely the same.
Tall building + Massive fire = Collapse."
DGM page 288: If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't ask. I also want to know what this actually means (besides "they got it wrong). What's right?
DGM page 308: "The issue here is this is outside of the scope of their report. Because some people wanted it to match what was seen they tried to model what would really be impossible( too many variables). They should have stuck to responding to their intended audience and ignored everyone else.
The main issue. NIST tried to dumb it down and make a video. In this they failed. The report however is correct and exactly what they were tasked to do (minus the irrelevant distractions)."
Justin39640 post 310: "The NIST reports are about studying how and why these structures collapsed so that new structures can be made to prevent or at least prolong collapse in order to give time to evacuate."
DGM post: "... The report however is correct and exactly what they were tasked to do (minus the irrelevant distractions).
Depends on your definition of "correct".
NIST concludes a "probable" collapse scenario, and it is possible (femr2 seems to have done so) to show they are not exact.
So there is a chance that NIST is wrong about details of the actual collapse, and may even have the initiating event wrong. It may be impossible to know this, or perhaps it is knowable.
But what is ultimately the purpose of such investigations? -> To find out if future buildings can be made safer. Lessons learned.
And so, even if NIST is "not correct" on smaller or larger details containing the actual collapse, they did identify problems with long-span trusses that apparently had not been adequately dealt with in existing building codes. It is "probable" that expansion of trusses can induce walk-off of girders and render columns unbraced. Even if that turned out to not have happened.
If it turns out that NIST's collapse sequence is really wrong (as in "wasn't started by girder walk-off on floor 13"), then of course one should wonder what really happened, and if NIST missed another hazard that should be addressed.
None of this "proving NIST wrong" of course amounts to "proving CD right" - there isn't even a prima facie case to be answered.
At the very least, the simulation shows that, in that building, collapse can spread east-west in the core before bringing the shell down. It's my hunch that this is a good-enough confirmation - but certainly my hunch is biased."
Originally Posted by Oystein:
"If it turns out that NIST's collapse sequence is really wrong (as in "wasn't started by girder walk-off on floor 13"), then of course one should wonder what really happened, and if NIST missed another hazard that should be addressed.
This is true. One would also wonder why no one that is reporting that they are wrong has proposed any other theory or narrative to explain this progression.
At this point in the game, just arguing their wrong just doesn't cut it. Could it be that it just doesn't matter?"
DGM post 316: "Again, how does this actually effect the scope of what NIST was tasked to explain(or do). Would it effect possible codes suggested to prevent this from happening in the future?
You do know why NIST actually investigated this? It wasn't to explain why this building collapsed. Remember, this building was a one off, Think big picture."
DGM post 318: "Yes you did but, it did not actually address the picture as NIST was (initially) tasked to explain."
NoahFence post 340: "It's patently obvious that aircraft damage and-or fire felled the twin towers, and twin towers + fire felled every other building. NIST picking is just a stupid hobby for people who think they're smart."
pgimeno post 341: "To answer whether NIST blew stage 1 analysis we have to answer these questions:
1. What's the goal of such analysis?
2.What accuracy was required to accomplish that goal?
3. What accuracy was actually used?
4. Do their conclusions accomplish that goal within the methods they used?
Without 1) and 2) it makes no sense to discuss 3). And of course 4) is not being discussed at all."
Ozeco post 343: "And how far to go in pursuit of details is a personal choice and "subjective" in that aspect. BUT once that choice is made the decision as to whether NIST got it right or wrong can be based on objective facts - observations - measurements - logic.
AND demonstrating that NIST got it wrong does not mean that "NIST blew it". The claim NIST blew it can only be supported when NIST went to a depth of detail needed to suport NIST's own findings and got it wrong at that level.
If somebody personally prefers to go deeper into detail than NIST and finds that NIST was wrong at that extra depth it does not qualify as "NIST blew it" except.....
...if it can be shown that NIST needed to go to that greater detail to support NIST's own conclusions AND got it wrong at that necessary depth of detail.
And what I have just posted has been the subject of many aborted discussions I have held with another of our colleagues over the past few years."
Ozeco page 348: "I know. There is a barrier of disconnect between those who understand that the key parameter is "good enough" - good enough for purpose that is. Which is your point "2. What accuracy was required to accomplish that goal?" and my statement of the same point using different words.
You will be aware of one member posting here and elsewhere who has made an art form of denigrating "good enough" and using it as a snide insult. Totally off track. (Not femr2 - he doesn't engage in those activities.) But "good enough" is the test. However what objective numbers qualify as "good enough" depends on the goal - your point #1. And people have different goals. Legitimately different goals. Not always applied legitimately and several of our debunkers being the worst offenders. (the point probably too subtle for many truthers. )
The implied "only perfection will satisfy" does not apply to everyone. But it is legitimate for those who hold that standard for their purposes - not for imposing on others.
"Only perfection will satisfy me" could be acceptable BUT the implied "only perfection should satisfy YOU" is wrong."
All these posts touch on the question of "good enough" as different people see it. SInce the NIST descripion WTC1 movement sucks more than their description of WTC7 stage 1 movement, it is interesting to check whether the same quotes can be applied to WTC1 movement. It that good enough, too? I'll do that a bit later on the "Major Tom" book thread where WTC1 is being discussed now.
