Metatheory and the NIST report

[beachnut]

jones support team is back, back on topic

Gone for 30 hours and the entire debate turns into a CD slapfest.

Mackey, I'm working on a reply to your last post. Sorry for the delay.

For everyone who isn't interested in talking about the NIST report and its ability to answer the questions at issue, please, please start a new thread.

Obviously, there is enough meat on this issue alone without fattening it up with WTC 7 and CD possibilities/impossibilities.

With sincere appreciation,

jay

I can not wait for you next veiled post of thermite and micro spheres.

 

[GlennB]

I can not wait for you next veiled post of thermite and micro spheres.

I can I wish he'd just move on to his ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ CD theory. The clock is ticking. My "personal life expectancy calculator" tells me I only have 22 years to live.

 

[jay howard]

It's telling that so many here want to turn this into a CD debate so that they may shut it down.

What must happen first is to demonstrate that the current, official conspiracy theory is unable to answer the question of how the WTC buildings fell. Then and only then is a better theory necessary.

If the official conspiracy theory is a complete, falsifiable theory that explains all the evidence better than any other theory, then there is no need to appeal to alternate theories.

If the official version is deficient, then we look for an answer that is less deficient.

As I've said from the OP, these are not unrealistic conditions for a theory to meet. This is not a special case where logic and reason do not apply.

If you are unwilling to put the NIST explanation through the metatheoretical ringer, then you are maintaining an article of faith. Isn't part of the purpose of JREF to expose belief systems that pose as scientific theories?

 

[TerryUK]

not really true. for the CT premise of CD to be correct, the following had to have occured.

1. Access to the buildings for a long enough time to plant explosives in three buildings.
2. The floors to be struck by the planes had to be known before hand, as this where the initial charges had to go off (top down CD).
3. The explosives on those floors and others had to survive the impacts and the fires.

There are other things that would have needed, I will let others tackle them.

TAM

You are absolutely correct.
As to #1, we don't know the answer - that doesn't mean it's not possible.

#2 one theory is that main charges were at approx. floor level 60 - main core columns were severed here, also hat-truss, also corners.
Planes' pilots instructed to hit between top 3rd to top 4th of building- away from explosives.

#3 No explosives needed in planes target area.

 

[TerryUK]

A man lays dead on the ground.

5 witnesses testify that the man fell from a building and cracked his neck. The coroner has examined him, and the scene, and is in agreement with the witness testimony.

You come along and say "well how do we know someone didn't just come up from behind him and break his neck...much more simple.

Why do we know someone didn't break his neck purposely.

(A) No witnesses testify to this.
(B) Witnesses testify to circumstances that explain the event occuring differently.
(C) Experts examine the site, and their conclusions agree with the witness testimony.

Now we put your testimony against the witnesses that were there, and the coroners testimony...who is the jury gonna believe.

the WTC CD theory case works very similar.

Official story has witness testimony, expert investigation and opinon.

CD Theory has conjecture, speculation. No expert investigation confirming conclusions of the theory.

Show me where I am wrong.

TAM

There's a lot of stuff wrong here, and if you look at it you'll likely see that there's nothing analogous to the 9/11 case.

In your example, we have two possibilities which are 'mutally exclusive' - i.e. either "man fell from a building and cracked his neck" or someone "come up from behind him and break his neck" - they can't both be true.
But regarding NIST versus CT , there is no mutually exclusive propositions.
i.e. NIST's finding of damage/heat leading to collapse initiation does not exclude CT incendiaries/explosives - we can clearly have both of these being true.

edit: I'm not saying that is what happened

 

[jay howard]

You are absolutely correct.
As to #1, we don't know the answer - that doesn't mean it's not possible.

#2 one theory is that main charges were at approx. floor level 60 - main core columns were severed here, also hat-truss, also corners.
Planes' pilots instructed to hit between top 3rd to top 4th of building- away from explosives.

#3 No explosives needed in planes target area.

Terry and TAM,

Please take your discussion to another thread.

This isn't the place for your topic.

Thank you.

 

[TerryUK]

Originally Posted by TerryUK:
My point is that, in order for the 'official version' to be correct, virtually all of the premises they claim to be correct need to be correct, otherwise it fails.
For the CT version to be correct, only one premise needs to be proved.

Which one?

Any one of several would do.For example:

Prove (using the laws of physics) that the short 'collapse time' of WTC1 or WCT2 could not be achieved without removing a lot of resistance or supplying more energy.
This would would then prove to a very high level of probability that explosives or incediaries of some kind must have been used.

This would destroy the 'official' theory, and kill off all ideas such as " CD is impossible because..." a) they wouldn't do such a horrible thing. b)they couldn't place the explosives. c) the world media would have not let it drop d) JREFers say so etc.

 

[TerryUK]

Terry and TAM,

Please take your discussion to another thread.

This isn't the place for your topic.

Thank you.

Sorry Jay you are quite right

 

[T.A.M.]

yes my apologies, Jay, but this is a forum, and occasionally the noise derails on a given extension of the OP.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

NIST meets falsification

Terry and TAM,

Please take your discussion to another thread.

This isn't the place for your topic.

Thank you.

Jay, please just post your stuff and stop sidetracking yourself. I am waiting for you to dump the Jones thermite stuff, micro sphere and all.

So please, you can ignore everything and post your stuff, you are the one posting off topic, by saying stop posting off topic. It is self critiquing.

So far we have shown the NIST report meets falsification. NEXT

 

[T.A.M.]

Didn't we have a discussion about the microspheres elsewhere, and the conclusion that I gathered, and this was in discussions with Dr. Greening and CC, that the microspheres are just as likely have come from heated blood as from anything else...

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Didn't we have a discussion about the microspheres elsewhere, and the conclusion that I gathered, and this was in discussions with Dr. Greening and CC, that the microspheres are just as likely have come from heated blood as from anything else...
TAM

But Jones uses the micro spheres as proof of CD and thermite. Jay is slowly making his way to this conclusion on this very thread. Jay has mentioned the m-word many times in this thread. He will slowly work his way to this, after he fails to Metatheory NIST.

 

[T.A.M.]

well when he does, ask him or Jones to prove it was not the result of heated blood...there was, unfortunately, lots to go around on that tragic day.

TAM

 

[CHF]

Any one of several would do.For example:

Prove (using the laws of physics) that the short 'collapse time' of WTC1 or WCT2 could not be achieved without removing a lot of resistance or supplying more energy.
This would would then prove to a very high level of probability that explosives or incediaries of some kind must have been used.

It's been done. A dynamic load of 50,000/120,000 tons contains more than enough energy to smash its way through a structure that is 95% hollow. People far smarter than I have done such calculations but truthers aren't interested.

 

[jay howard]

I need your strict attention, jay.

Your last post contains 16 errors of fact or reasoning, and two evasions. I counted them. Nearly all of them are things that I have explained to you over and over and over and over and over and over again. This just isn't sinking in for you.

It's bouncing off because you're talking about too many things at once. I will pick out your worst mistakes only, and I will not deviate from them until you understand. If you pass this part, we can move on to something more challenging. Deal?

That certainly does sound authoritative. Or condescending. Depending on blood-alcohol levels.

I'd settle for you simply taking a statement of mine and pointing out exactly why it's mistaken. Otherwise, we're stuck listening to each other say things like

"Listen, Ryan, your last post contained 14 dissemblings, 11 failed attempts at posturing and 2 severe bamboozlings--I counted them. I will only deal with the bamboozlings as they are the most serious...."

This doesn't move the conversation forward. If you have a criticism of something I said, just explain why it's unfounded for whatever reasons, and that way everyone can see what your reasons are and if they are more compelling than mine.

This is Dreadful Mistake Number 1. You are still erroneously claiming that the UL truss tests, described in NCSTAR1-6B, conflict with the NIST global heating and structural model.

My claim is that the tests do not support the NIST theory that heat caused the structural members to fail.

Another related claim is that the simulations do not appeal to empirical evidence to produce a global collapse--they posit conditions for which there is little or no evidence to substantiate.

Now, I need you to explain, in clear phrases, the following:

• What observations you feel are important from the truss tests
• What you conclude from these observations
• How these conclusions affect the NIST theory overall
• How, quantitatively, these conclusions need to be adjusted in order to be useful

Give references for each. I need you to do this because I've been correcting you on this since page one, and you still don't get it.

The truss tests demonstrate a few relevant facts:

1. None of the truss assemblies failed within the given time/temp constraints and expected loads
2. These times exceeded the times for the collapse of both WTC 1 and 2
3. Temperatures exceeded any of the steel for which NIST recovered and applied annealing tests

These results, you full well know, are reported in table 5-5 of page 96 of NCSTAR 1-6B. The final verdict on the failure of all these floor systems?

(3) Did Not Occur.

And here is Dreadful Mistake Number 2. Somehow you think that "600C for 15 minutes" is a magical threshold at which point things collapse.

You've misunderstood me again. I do not posit 600C for 15 minutes as a failure criteria. I repeat the claims in the NIST reports that occur throughout which claim that NONE of the recovered steel reached more than 600C for more than 15 minutes based on their annealing tests.

However, nowhere are those sufficient conditions to demonstrate failure of the structural steel in question: not in the tests nor in the simulations.

I need you explain this in more detail:

Where you get the idea that 600C is the critical temperature for collapse

I don't.

Where you get the idea that 15 minutes is the critical time period for collapse

I don't.

Where NIST states that steel at lower temperatures cannot contribute to the collapse

Are you making that claim? It may be true that lower temps contribute to a collapse, but to say the entire collapse of both WTC 1 and 2 can be accounted for by these lower temperatures is a claim that even NIST is not willing to explicitly make. Again, if you've got some quote to demonstrate my ignorance on this, I'm all ears.

Your understanding of what the observed failure modes are in the steel
Your understanding of what the predicted steel failure modes are from the model

I'm open to education here. I've tried to clarify what NIST decides are the conditions of "imminent global collapse" but always seems I've got it wrong somehow. If you could show me what NIST says must happen in order for global collapse to ensue, I'll bet I can show you computer simulations.

Why you believe the failure modes do not agree

Again, full references.

My criticism on this count is that there is no key piece of recovered steel which clearly and unambiguously demonstrates the failure modes predicted in the simulations. There are plenty of failed portions of floor truss systems, but as NCSTAR 1-3C says, "...the as-built locations [of recovered floor truss materials] could not be determined. In addition, due to their light-weight construction, they were easily damaged during events associated with the collapse of the building as well as during recovery and subsequent handling phases. Thus, there was no determination of when damage occurred."(1-3C, 211, 212)

If they clearly state they can make no determinations as to when the damage occurred or where the as-built locations were, how can these pieces of evidence be used to corroborate their theory?

To their credit, they do not cite these pieces as corroboration of their theory--at least not explicitly. That seems to be what you would like to do. Is that correct?

So here we are:

Floor truss assembly tests, if they bear any relevance to the NIST theory, do not corroborate it as they were run for longer and hotter than any forensic evidence indicates--WITHOUT FAILING.

Do you take the position that these tests bear no relevance to the NIST theory?

Again, according to NIST, the only place temperatures of the WTC steel exceeds 600C for more than 15 minutes is in the simulations. On this we agree, right?

We both agree that these forensic results do not obviate the possibility that steel reached hotter temperatures in the towers. Our disagreement is on where these hotter temperatures for longer times could have come from given NIST's own estimates of 4 lb/sq ft as a reasonable office-fuel load for the towers.

In essence, I have yet to see NIST substantiate their claim that heat caused the steel in the towers to fail which led to the global collapse. They must appeal to simulations which do not match their own estimates in order to demonstrate a simulated failure.

 

[R.Mackey]

Okay, we're going to have to do this EVEN SLOWER

I tried to simplify this discussion, and it seems I didn't go far enough.

Let's stick with the relevance of the NCSTAR1-6B truss tests, and not consider anything else until you get it.

The truss tests demonstrate a few relevant facts:

1. None of the truss assemblies failed within the given time/temp constraints and expected loads
2. These times exceeded the times for the collapse of both WTC 1 and 2
3. Temperatures exceeded any of the steel for which NIST recovered and applied annealing tests

These results, you full well know, are reported in table 5-5 of page 96 of NCSTAR 1-6B. The final verdict on the failure of all these floor systems?

(3) Did Not Occur.

This is not what I asked for, jay.

Those above may be your conclusions, but they are not NIST's, and every single one of them is wrong in some way. Furthermore, you have not described how these conclusions apply to the NIST collapse model, or if they do at all.

Let me try something really, really simple. Here's a motivating anecdote, completely hypothetical:

Suppose I have two identical houses. I want to demolish them in order to build a temple to the Amazing Randi. Call them House A and House B. The City doesn't care how I demolish them, so I've decided to have some fun with them.

In House A, I start by crashing an old car into it, taking out some of the frame. Then I run around for a while with a sledgehammer, breaking windows and drywall. But then I get tired out, so I decide to toss in a jerry can of gasoline and torch the place. As House A burns, I watch it with a stopwatch, and record the time it takes to collapse -- call it t_A.

On to House B. I'm still tired from the last one. So I just skip straight ahead to the gasoline. I measure time t_B for it to collapse.

When I check my notes, I find that t_A is substantially less than t_B. Should I be surprised?​

With that motivation in mind, here is what you should do next:

1. Identify all of the conditions of the truss tests. ALL of them, not just duration.
2. Identify which, if any, of these conditions would be different in the collapse model.
3. Describe, qualitatively, how the different conditions might lead to a different result.
4. Describe, quantitatively, whether or not the truss test models conflict with the collapse model results.

And once again, full references. Quotes, page numbers, reports.

If you still don't understand after that, we'll try something else. If you do understand, then we can move on to the significance of the annealing tests.

 

[Hokulele]

Happy Birthday R.Mackey!


PS - Pardalis started a thread for you over in Community.

 

[jay howard]

Let's stick with the relevance of the NCSTAR1-6B truss tests, and not consider anything else until you get it.

I think you're posturing because you don't have a good response. I'll take you at your word.

This is not what I asked for, jay.

Those above may be your conclusions, but they are not NIST's, and every single one of them is wrong in some way.

This would be the perfect place to show exactly what you mean by "wrong in some way."

Furthermore, you have not described how these conclusions apply to the NIST collapse model, or if they do at all.

They built floor truss systems--two 17ft and two 35ft--varying several factors: restrained, unrestrained, SFRM thickness, applied loads, etc., and heated them to see what would happen. On this, again, we agree.

NIST reports that NONE of these structures failed. On this, one need only read the bulleted points on page 143 of NCSTAR 1.

We know from the NIST reports that NONE of the recovered steel got hotter than 600C for more than 15 minutes.

We know from these reports that no definitive samples of the collapse modes were recovered.

It gets squirrelly here because I have only seen the NIST-theorized failure modes in the simulations. That is apparently, the only place anyone has seen them. So, if you want to say that these tests bear no relevance to the NIST collapse theory, then we would have to know what that theory specifically says. If you know, please don't keep me in suspense. What exactly were the conditions of the failure?

Every time I try to nail down what those conditions are, someone tells me I'm oversimplifying or otherwise "not getting it." This is your chance to clarify once and for all what the theory is.

My intuition says that there is no particular specification but rather a shotgun-style formulation of so many possibilities that no specific theory can be nailed down to see if these or any other tests bear on the theory.

But, you are convinced I'm just ignorant. So please, show me their testable theory.

This isn't going to happen. I know. So, the least we can do is to look at what corroborative evidence the NIST report outlines for their theory. That will give us an idea of what kind of evidence the NIST theory is based on.

Let me try something really, really simple. Here's a motivating anecdote, completely hypothetical:

Suppose I have two identical houses. I want to demolish them in order to build a temple to the Amazing Randi. Call them House A and House B. The City doesn't care how I demolish them, so I've decided to have some fun with them.

In House A, I start by crashing an old car into it, taking out some of the frame. Then I run around for a while with a sledgehammer, breaking windows and drywall. But then I get tired out, so I decide to toss in a jerry can of gasoline and torch the place. As House A burns, I watch it with a stopwatch, and record the time it takes to collapse -- call it t_A.

On to House B. I'm still tired from the last one. So I just skip straight ahead to the gasoline. I measure time t_B for it to collapse.

When I check my notes, I find that t_A is substantially less than t_B. Should I be surprised?​

Sure, that makes sense. The analogy begs the question that the skeptics of the NIST report (such as myself) are asking, namely, does the NIST theory successfully explain the collapse of the buildings?

In your example, there's absolutely no doubt as to why the houses fell. There is no epistemic problem present in your two houses example. The NIST report, however, lacks this epistemic grounding: specifically, we must take their word as the source of knowledge for the collapse mechanisms. In your analogy, you are the source of the collapse, so no doubt exists.

However, in a much more complex situation, with much more to be lost and much more to be gained, a pile of unaccounted eye-witness reports, strange pieces of evidence that cannot be easily accounted for by jet-fuel induced office fires, evidence of much hotter temperatures than hydrocarbon fires can get, unusual elements, etc., we have need for a more complete explanation.

Examples can be useful for explaining complex problems, however, this is an unacceptable analogy for our purposes as it requires me to give up a primary problem with the NIST theory: namely that it builds conclusions without empirical corroboration.

With that motivation in mind, here is what you should do next:


1. Identify all of the conditions of the truss tests. ALL of them, not just duration.
2. Identify which, if any, of these conditions would be different in the collapse model.

That's a great question. It would be approachable if we knew what exactly the collapse conditions were. You say the finite model of the floor truss heated to 700C for 30 minutes doesn't count. So, what does count?

3. Describe, qualitatively, how the different conditions might lead to a different result.
4. Describe, quantitatively, whether or not the truss test models conflict with the collapse model results.

And once again, full references. Quotes, page numbers, reports.

If you still don't understand after that, we'll try something else. If you do understand, then we can move on to the significance of the annealing tests.

I've provided full references all the way through this discussion. More and more conditions. More insinuations that I'm "not getting it." Again, none of this changes the fact that NIST draws primary knowledge from simulations even though these simulations do not conform to their own estimates--specifically in regard to office fuel loads in the towers.

I do not think you have a good response to this. If you do, please share it. Despite the lack of corroborating forensic evidence, the lack of testable confirmation and some very strange, unaccounted evidence, you still stand behind the NIST report. There are probably still relevant reports I haven't read, but of everything I've gotten so far, 1, 1-6B, 1-6C, 1-3, 1-3C, 1-5E, none of their contents change the structure of the NIST argument or provide the epistemic lynch pin that would save their theory from my criticisms.

If you don't think the floor truss lab tests bear any relevance to the collapse, then you must know what the official theory is. Do you?

If you want to say that they bear no relevance, that's fine. You must then concede that reports of the "imminence" of the failures of the truss systems also bears no relevance to the theory. You can't have it both ways. Either it is relevant or not.

Suppose you don't want to bring the floor truss tests into the discussion, on what basis is the NIST report built?

The simulations. Do you get it?

 

[Gravy]

It gets squirrelly here because I have only seen the NIST-theorized failure modes in the simulations. That is apparently, the only place anyone has seen them. So, if you want to say that these tests bear no relevance to the NIST collapse theory, then we would have to know what that theory specifically says. If you know, please don't keep me in suspense. What exactly were the conditions of the failure?

I see. You're just trolling. Good luck with that.

 

[rwguinn]

I see. You're just trolling. Good luck with that.

Jay is just another of those people who thinks engineering is easy stuff.
They don't realize that reality can be approximated very well linearly. You build a math model of your device, following all the known laws of physics. you see how it reacts to various inputs. If you have some uncertainty, you build a real, hardware model of part of the device. you subject your math model of that chunk of it to varying conditions, load, temperature, and boundary.
You then run those conditions on the real hardware. You adjust your math model to fit reality (not the other way around--we use NASTRAN, PATRAN,I-Deas, ALGOR, ANSYS and the like. I think its TWoo-ver5.1 that adjusts reality to the wishful thought process)
You do not have to test to failure; You do not have to test the entire structure--the world prior to failure is nice and linear. When you're trying to determine how you get to failure, you are in the linear relm.
Just as you don't have to plummet to the ground to verify that you don't keep accelerating when skydiving, you do not have to test to failure-or even to full load/temperature environments, to verify the validity of your model
Any engineer knows this. Wannabes will never understand it.