Metatheory and the NIST report

[Dave Rogers]

Not sure why you are complicating this. The whole point of performing time/temperature tests on the steel floor assemblies is to find confirmation of the official theory. If those tests do not confirm structural failure, then there is either something wrong with the test or with NIST's theory of collapse.

I wasn't talking about time/temperature tests. My point was that NIST have modelled the temperatures and times experienced by the WTC structural members, and that this is itself a falsifiable theory. Any model that disagreed with these results would also be falsifiable and have to be evaluated separately. In other words, saying "My calculations indicate that the floor joists never reached temperatures above 500ºC" does not falsify NIST; one would have to explain why these calculations were superior to NIST's.

More important than parsimony is a theory's explanatory power. If theory A explains most of the evidence and is fairly parsimonious, but must ignore some evidence, then theory B, which ignores none of the evidence, but is less parsimonious, is a better theory by these criteria. It is much more important to be able to explain all the evidence regardless of how complicated a theory gets. Parsimony will come into play after all the evidence has been taken into account.

Yes, parsimony is a secondary criterion. That's exactly what I meant by referring to a theory that explains observation "equally well". I'd have thought that was obvious. If a new theory emerges that explains more of the observed data, then I agree, parsimony is irrelevant.

You've taken two NIST statements and asserted that they disagree. I dispute this. See below:

“[...] The floor section was heated to 700 °C (300 °C at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min…. Figure 6–11 shows that the diagonals at the core (right) end of the truss buckled and caused an increase in the floor system deflection, ultimately reaching approximately 42 in.”(96)

“[...] At any given location, the duration of temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below.”(127)

So, given 1000C for 20 minutes, there is no way the floor systems could have entirely heated to 700C for 30 minutes, yet they combine these data as if there were no contradiction between them, in order to produce the lynch pin of their position: that the floor trusses sagged from the heat and initiated the "global collapse."

This is comparing apples and oranges. The first quote says that the section was heated over a period of 30 minutes i.e. that the process of heating to temperature took 30 minutes; no information is given about the time held at temperature. The second refers to duration at temperature. There isn't any inconsistency here, just incomprehension.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

Nice strawman.

I already came up with such a scenario, based on fluid dynamics. I also feel comfortable saying that, in all likelihood, everyone reading this thread -- except you -- understands that over a timescale of under half a second, gravity is negligible in the dynamics of an aircraft impact. If you don't believe me, estimate the Froude number and see what you get.

No, that's hand-waving Mr. Mackey. Most of the people here accept hand waving from "knowledgable experts". I don't.

The majority of the inital momentum (vertical approach angle = 10.6 degrees) was lateral the rest was downward so only deflections could have caused ceiling impacts on the south side.

• Debris with a mean lateral trajectory were displaced downward by gravity by more than the depth of the truss assembly.
• This also is true for debris with a mean trajectory that was even slightly downward.
• Debris that was not deflected even with a mean upward trajectory could not impact the trusses at more than a glancing blow (> 60% to perpendicular). Even at the laboratory energy levels (equivalent to debris approaching the core), an impact at 60 degrees did not remove fireproofing. Also, most of this debris would be stopped by the core floor beams.

All that is left is deflected debris or debris that suddenly got lift 18' from the south edge of the core. So let's look at deflected debris.

Deflected debris would have to bounce upward at > 30% measured relative to the floor less than 18' from the south edge of the core otherwise it hits the core floor beams or has an impact angle > 60% from perpendicular to the truss. The debris has three cases for deflection. Impacting the floor, impacting core or office contents, or a combination of these.

1. Deflection from the floor: Assuming an elastic collision (in favor of truss impact), the debris would need to impact the floor at at least 30% within 18' of the south edge of the core. The only way this can happen is if the debris is previously deflected downward at least 30%. Now in order for that to happen the debris must be deflected previously upward (again at least 30%). If this deflection is by core or office contents we are in case three. If one continues along this line we have the debris component deflecting no less than 6 times! Of course the rebounds are not anywhere near elastic so this can't even happen.
2. Deflection by core components or office components: Here we have the problem that impact with any vertical surface can not give an upward deflection. Horizontal surfaces have the ability to deflect upward and downward for that matter. The question arises, how much of the impact area is of a horizontal nature? I can think of desk tops and chairs and anything else with a "top" such as a file cabinet. Nonetheless, the vast majority of the impact area is vertical (i.e. columns, core floor beams, partitions, pipes, ducts, elevator cables and tracks, sides of desks, office dividers, etc.). From viewing the architectural drawing it is easy to conclude that there are very few "tops" within the core. Of the small portion of material impacting a "top" a little less than half will be deflected upward. Then there is the question, what is the nature of these collisions? NIST has stated that the dominant effect in these collisions is momentum transfer which further reduces the momentum of the impacting debris. Keep in mind that a desktop deflection, in this case, can only occur on the south side outside the core. On the south side of the core the energy has already been reduced to 3% of that when approaching the core. This energy is further reduced by the deflection impact.
3. Combination of floor impact and content impacts: This case is essentially the same as the content only impact except there is further energy loss due to a prior floor impact.

Mr. Mackey is conveniently ignoring the energy requirements based on laboratory tests. He is conveniently ignoring that, even at the laboratory energy levels, an impact at 60 degrees did not remove fireproofing. He is conveniently ignoring that at 70 mph fireproofing was not damaged in tests. He is conveniently ignoring that the average debris velocity was 43.4 mph upon leaving the core. He is conveniently ignoring that the truss system on the south side was mostly blocked from lateral trajectories by core beams at each column row. He is conveniently ignoring that half the mass in the core was left out of the analysis. He is conveniently ignoring the probability of any debris actually impacting the floor trusses on the south side.

Mr. Mackey will probably bring up rotational aspects, lift, and the Froude number. To which I will reply, poppy-cock. NIST has given no indication how these were handled.

Mr. Mackey will probably again bring up that no one could explain the flight 93 crater to my satisfaction. To which I will reply that his assertions regarding live-loads in the towers were easily contradicted by numerous sources including NIST. Not that either of these issues has anything to do with this thread. The point being that no one is infallible.

Not your best work Mr. Mackey!

 

[chipmunk stew]

No, that's hand-waving Mr. Mackey. Most of the people here accept hand waving from "knowledgable experts". I don't.

The majority of the inital momentum (vertical approach angle = 10.6 degrees) was lateral the rest was downward so only deflections* could have caused ceiling impacts on the south side.

*Or explosions. Oops.

 

[GlennB]

You mean NIST didn't integrate massive kerosene-based explosions into their testing?

Well, frankly, I'm shocked.

 

[jay howard]

This is totally false.

If you look at NCSTAR1-3B, you can find the original location of each recovered piece of steel. Then go look at 1-5F, the fire temperature models, and 1-5G, the structural coupling to heat.

You will discover that NIST does not require or even predict that these pieces reached higher temperatures. The observation about the recovered steel is totally consistent with the NIST models and the NIST hypothesis.

Neither of my statements are false: one is a direct quote from NIST that none of the steel reached more than 600C for more than 15 minutes, and the second is that they had to increase both the temperatures and the length of time of exposure in order for the collapse to initiate.

When you say "this is totally false" what you mean is that you do not agree with my interpretation of the data. There isn't anything false about my statements.

I'm well aware that NIST "predicts" that the recovered beams were in such a place as to not get hot enough to collapse. As if this is confirmation of their theory.

From the skeptical perspective, this corroborates the notion that NIST fit their simulation input around the recovered evidence in order to maintain theory coherence. Instead of using the recovered evidence as a baseline for their simulations, it is simply an irrelevant piece to their theory. The fact is they appeal to the non-existence of evidence to make their case.

Do you not think it's convenient that they didn't recover any steel that got hotter than 600C for more than 15 minutes, yet they are darned certain that the fires got much hotter for much longer? How do they know this? Because they ran simulations that show the building collapsed. Is that "knowledge" or "evidence"? Whether you are a skeptic or not, you cannot deny that the data used in the simulations was NOT from the recovered evidence, but in one way or another, it was made up, after the fact.

Except that NIST's answer is based on the impact model, the expected strength of the fireproofing, and kinetic energy reasoning on the debris field. Yours is merely argumentative speculation. Yours is not useful or valid.

They've already proven that the simulations will, come hell or high water, demonstrate the collapse of the towers. What we need to keep in mind from a metatheoretical approach is that for the NIST theory to come true, several factors for which we have no corroborative evidence must synchronize to produce the "global collapse":

1. Fireproofing must be dislodged at just the right places where the fire reached around 1000C.
2. The fire itself must sustain a gas temperature of nearly 1000C for at least 30 minutes.
3. Which implies a concentration of fuel in just the right places under just the right circumstances, for BOTH towers.

This is asking an awful lot for a theory which derives all of its corroboration from itself--a fact the NIST report readily admits. It calls this data "investigation-generated experimental data."(141)

In another place it calls this practice "information replacement" in order to reconstruct the fires. (My paraphrase--179).

Nonsense. There is no leap, and there is no altering of simulation inputs as you suggest. You pulled this out of thin air.

If I pulled this out of thin air, as you suggest, then show me where they came up with the temperatures at which the steel in the towers weakened to the point of collapse. Show me collapse-temperatures and I'll show you "investigation-generated experimental data."

It's spelled out in plain text in the NIST report. The reasoning to select the "most severe" impact is in 1-2B, and the reasoning for the hotter fire case is in 1-5F. The only reason you "have yet to see" it is because you didn't look.

Don't misunderstand me, I have read why they say they used the more severe cases, but the reasons they cite are simply "observed events."

"The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower."(142)

In the severe cases, NIST uses the estimate of 5lb/sq ft of office fuel, yet previously, NIST

"... estimated the fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2), or about 60 tons per floor. This was somewhat lower than found in prior surveys of office spaces. The small number of interior walls, and thus the minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences."(76)

which corresponds to the "middle case" in their scenarios. One problem with the middle cases, NIST says, is that,

"Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing."(142)

And we can't have that, because that would necessitate revamping the official theory. So, instead, they discard the middle cases based on "observed events" despite the fact they admit that 4lb/sq ft corresponds to their own estimates.

Not at all. I'm not asking you to read it to see if it convinces you a second time. I'm asking you to read it because it appears you have no idea what the report actually contains. You've consistently misrepresented NIST's reasoning, logical progression, and decision process.

What's clear from the report is that it doesn't follow a clear argumentative progression. It uses rhetorical devices--mostly arguments from illustrations--in order to make its case. And it must ignore or re-interpret its own data in order to keep from re-evaluating its theory.

I should be able to apply concepts of metatheoretic adequacy to their theory to measure the strength of their case. Regardless of whether you think I'm capable of understanding the report or not, their case rests on the results they obtained from the simulations, while simultaneously, all evidence which would seem to be in contradiction to their position is interpreted as either irrelevant or corroboration based on the simulations.

Argumentative and nonsensical. The stated purpose of the tests reveals that the test parameters had absolutely nothing to do with the conditions in the tower prior to collapse. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

You can say "You simply don't know what you're talking about" over and over again, but it's not much of an argument. I've provided reasons for why the test parameters and results demonstrate the failure of the NIST theory, and all you come back with "no it doesn't". That's simply not a very strong argument.

By the way, all four controlled tests failed in one way or another. Two were halted out of fears of collapse, and the other two halted upon exceeding the maximum measurement range of mid-span deflection. One of the four tests failed to meet its planned fire rating, although this wasn't a big surprise to the investigators.

Given enough time, there's no doubt they would fail. But did they fail in the necessary time/temp parameters? No, they didn't. Failing a fire rating is not equivalent to physically collapsing, is it?

We don't have to argue over it. The structural experts running the test said that failure was imminent. Nobody with any qualifications or valid data has said otherwise. There is no argument.

Why? Because the "experts" say so? That is a patently bad argument. Experts should have reasons just like anyone else. Like I said, they could have just as truthfully said, "the truss systems did not fail." But they chose to characterize them as "almost failing." Both statements may be true, but "imminent" has an undeniably corroborative tone to it, whereas "they did not fail" sounds like negative confirmation of the official theory.

If these tests were indeed completely unrelated to the NIST theory, why didn't they just say the floor systems did not fail in the time and temp restraints?

The purpose of this simulation, as I am now explaining for the third time, is to provide a unit test of their overall simulation. Before you run the big model, you test it out first with simple boundary conditions and simple model grids -- something easy enough that you already know the answer. That's what the floor test in 1-6C section 5.4.9 is showing, not a test of the actual collapse model.

Are you saying that the buckling of the floor trusses is completely unnecessary for the NIST collapse sequence? If so, then let us play that theory out. How does the collapse sequence initiate without reference to failing floor truss systems whatsoever?

At this point, it might be a good idea for you to tell us where you're getting your information from. So far, you haven't raised a single scientific criticism. Instead, every one of your complaints has to do with a conclusion that NIST never drew, on the basis of your connecting different parts of the report that have no relation to each other. I've also seen you quote, in this post and the last, what appear to be someone else's footnotes, notes that do not correspond to page numbers in any NIST subreport. If, as it appears, you haven't actually read the report but are instead merely echoing someone else's faulty analysis, then it's no surprise that you're having such problems.

I'm drawing from the NIST report. That's it. Not sure what you're talking about with "someone elses footnotes." If it's in quotes, I either cite it, or they're from the post preceding the quotes, or they're "scare quotes" but I try to limit the use of those as they get to sounding condescending--which I'm not a big fan of.

I got it from the report that I linked. Here, I'll make it real, real easy for you:...

NIST doesn't mention this because only one piece of steel from the WTC Towers shows this behavior, and it could have happened after collapse. Also, the temperatures seen in this piece of steel -- 850^oC or less -- are easily within those predicted by NIST. You're just plain wrong.

That's like saying "we didn't look into the possibility of murder because we only found a tiny bit of evidence for poison."

Either way, the NIST report must ignore this bit of evidence, which from a metatheoretical standpoint indicates a failure in the theory--not in the relevance of the evidence.

No. The WPI steel is evidence against molten steel. Temperatures of only 940^oC would have destroyed the eutectic mixture, and this is way, way below the melting temperature of steel. This is evidence of an interesting chemical reaction, but not great heat or melted steel.

How on Earth is this evidence against molten steel? The evidence clearly indicates that 1/2 inch steel has holes the size of silver dollars! Yet, this is evidence AGAINST molten steel? Please help me make sense of that comment.

And where did the eutectic mixture come from? Why doesn't this warrant special attention? Eutectic mixtures are not naturally occurring phenomena. Can you cite some test that demonstrates a naturally occurring eutectic reaction in an office fire? Even one doused in jet fuel? Why doesn't this cause great concern to everyone who supports the official theory?

The NIST report makes no mention of this, much less does it try to integrate it into its theory of the collapse. If there were a more clear cut case of a theory that needs to ignore evidence in order to maintain, I do not know of it.

Speculation on your part. It hasn't been proven that these microspheres require anything unusual at all. There is also no evidence or precedent that they contributed to the collapse.

Except that they are composed mostly of Fe, and they are spherical. Were they cast into those shapes? Obviously not. In order to get into that shape, they were required at one point to be molten. The surface tension then pulls them into a roughly spherical shape.

Whether a eutectic reaction was involved or not, these spheres cannot be ignored. They are clear-cut evidence of molten steel, yet you still must maintain that

There is no evidence of "molten steel." None. Case dismissed.

If evidence arises that your theory cannot explain, you have two choices:

1. Change the theory to fit the evidence, or
2. Change the evidence to fit the theory.

It seems you have chosen the latter. Unfortunately, ignoring the evidence does not make your theory stronger--it demonstrates its inherent inability to account for all the evidence.

The NIST theory is, by several standards, inadequate. There is no way around this. The question now is: do you cling to inadequate, but comfortable theories, or do you make an honest attempt to explain the evidence?

 

[jay howard]

Then indeed you have access to data I do not. I was unaware of:

1. Any evidence of molten steel (I've heard second-hand reports of molten metal, but not necessarily steel);

2. The fact that molten steel is indicative of a controlled demolition. I was aware of molten metal in intense structure fires, but had never heard of it as a side effect of the demolition process.

If you can share the evidence for these two conclusions, we can indeed move on to what the implications are.

USGS Iron-rich sphere

and

Worchester Polytechnic Institute

Again, David, I'm not advocating a CD theory here. At least not yet. What we need to do is honestly look at the evidence and come up with a theory that best fits the evidence.

Are you willing to do that?

 

[jay howard]

So Jay, are you still an unemployed caterer? Must be the new way to become an expert on structural engineering.

TAM

It's not surprising that when you have no response to my arguments, you must attack me personally.

Are you afraid of evidence too?

What happens when your theory can't account for the evidence? Do you ignore the evidence?

If you can't see it, maybe it will go away.

 

[David Wong]

USGS Iron-rich sphere

and

Worchester Polytechnic Institute

Again, David, I'm not advocating a CD theory here. At least not yet. What we need to do is honestly look at the evidence and come up with a theory that best fits the evidence.

Are you willing to do that?

You might have mis-typed your links there. The ones you posted do not suggest molten steel as an indicator that anything other than planes and the resulting fires brought down the towers.

 

[beachnut]

It's not surprising that when you have no response to my arguments, you must attack me personally.

Are you afraid of evidence too?

What happens when your theory can't account for the evidence? Do you ignore the evidence?

If you can't see it, maybe it will go away.

You support Jones. If you want to be credible, find some evidence. Jones is not credible, he started a journal so he could publish his paper because no one would publish his paper of nonsense. You have been fooled by dust and lies. It is your ideas under attack, you need to find real facts before you make up lies and try to act so intellectual.

The article you posted is cute, but there is no substance to support your ideas of thermite/thermate CD of the WTC. I hope you understand Jones did not start gong nuts over thermite and CD until 2005. Kind of late to do real research, as he grasp at dust from someone house as proof of something that never happened in the WTC. You are the one who thinks he has evidence, when will your evidence be available?

 

[twinstead]

The NIST theory is, by several standards, inadequate. There is no way around this. The question now is: do you cling to inadequate, but comfortable theories, or do you make an honest attempt to explain the evidence?

As an interested observer, but no expert, I am dubious that you have the qualifications to make this statement. I've head a lot of debate about the NIST report, and since I am no expert I must rely on experts.

Most objections to the NIST report are usually borne of either demanding that the report explain things it wasn't tasked do to, or semi-experts misinterpreting it. So far you look to be more of the latter, and your arguments so far are interesting yet unconvincing.

You basically are calling into question either the morals, qualifications, or intelligence of the HIGHLY qualified contributers to the NIST; that's nothing to be done lightly.

But, like I said, I'm not the expert. I'll leave the technical responses to them.

 

[T.A.M.]

It's not surprising that when you have no response to my arguments, you must attack me personally.

Are you afraid of evidence too?

What happens when your theory can't account for the evidence? Do you ignore the evidence?

If you can't see it, maybe it will go away.

Well given one of the best debunkers on this site is a tour guide, I would think that what you do is not important, PROVIDED you recognize your limitations in terms of EXPERTESE, and know when to defer to them...

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

It's not surprising that when you have no response to my arguments, you must attack me personally.

Are you afraid of evidence too?

What happens when your theory can't account for the evidence? Do you ignore the evidence?

If you can't see it, maybe it will go away.

The controlled-demolition theory favored by conspiracy liars has been thoroughly debunked and fails to account for the evidence. They have no problem ignoring the evidence. They do little else apart from engaging in personal attacks and fabricating support for their pernicious myths.

 

[cmcaulif]

Can someone link to or provide a general explaination of Ove Arup's hypothesis? My searches on the topic have been fruitless so far.

 

[jay howard]

You might have mis-typed your links there. The ones you posted do not suggest molten steel as an indicator that anything other than planes and the resulting fires brought down the towers.

Really? Where did the energy come from to heat the steel enough to melt it? Office fires, even with jet fuel, will not get hot enough to melt steel, by several hundred degrees Celsius. Where did that energy come from? That's a huge amount of energy to have to account for. Unless somehow a eutectic reaction was involved which would lower the melting point of steel. The question then becomes, "what circumstances produced a eutectic reaction in the WTC buildings?"

But you don't see anything strange about irrefutable evidence of molten steel? You see no need to even ask these questions.

If there isn't anything unusual about it, or it's easily explained, why didn't the NIST report take it into account in their official explanation? Would you like to say that "molten steel is irrelevant to the collapse of steel and concrete buildings"?

That too, would be an interesting argument to make.

Instead of expending all this energy trying to dismiss the evidence we can all see, why not change our theory in such a way so as to account for it? Why is that so difficult?

 

[jay howard]

You support Jones. If you want to be credible, find some evidence. Jones is not credible, he started a journal so he could publish his paper because no one would publish his paper of nonsense. You have been fooled by dust and lies. It is your ideas under attack, you need to find real facts before you make up lies and try to act so intellectual.

You've made several references to Jones in this thread. I have made ZERO. I have not cited his papers nor quoted from his lectures. Again, if you have a legitimate criticism with my work, by all means come forward with it. If I've made a leap of logic not warranted by the evidence, please point it out. But I suspect you do not have one. Please, show me where I made an argumentative error, or save your opinions for another thread.

The article you posted is cute, but there is no substance to support your ideas of thermite/thermate CD of the WTC. I hope you understand Jones did not start gong nuts over thermite and CD until 2005. Kind of late to do real research, as he grasp at dust from someone house as proof of something that never happened in the WTC. You are the one who thinks he has evidence, when will your evidence be available?

Again, you will find nowhere in this thread where I make reference to "thermite/thermate". It seems you are more interested in expressing your fear of a conclusion that does not fit your preconceived notions regarding the WTC collapses than of presenting a substantive argument one way or the other.

This thread isn't about your fears. It's about the convergence of the evidence and the theories. If you'd like to characterize evidence for molten steel at the WTC as "cute" then you are like many here, ignoring the evidence.

Present an argument or sit on the sidelines.

 

[jay howard]

As an interested observer, but no expert, I am dubious that you have the qualifications to make this statement. I've head a lot of debate about the NIST report, and since I am no expert I must rely on experts.

Most objections to the NIST report are usually borne of either demanding that the report explain things it wasn't tasked do to, or semi-experts misinterpreting it. So far you look to be more of the latter, and your arguments so far are interesting yet unconvincing.

You basically are calling into question either the morals, qualifications, or intelligence of the HIGHLY qualified contributers to the NIST; that's nothing to be done lightly.

But, like I said, I'm not the expert. I'll leave the technical responses to them.

Do you have a specific criticism with my argumentation or are you just telling me how you feel?

If it's the latter, it's irrelevant. I came to this site to express these views with the thought that intelligent people can see past honoraries and into the substance of an argument.

Look at the substance of my arguments. Look at the substance of the NIST case. Compare them. Don't let other people do your thinking for you. And don't reply that you "don't let other people think for you" because you just said you did--so long as they had the right credentials.

That may be alright for you, but "experts" can still spout scientific-looking nonsense. The only way to tell is to deconstruct their arguments and test them against objective criteria.

I'm not telling anyone what to think. Just think.

 

[jay howard]

Well given one of the best debunkers on this site is a tour guide, I would think that what you do is not important, PROVIDED you recognize your limitations in terms of EXPERTESE, and know when to defer to them...

TAM

So you do, or you do not have a specific criticism of my arguments?

 

[Apollo20]

Jay Howard:

"Why is that so difficult?"

Because the JREFers already have the Twoof, the whole Twoof and nothing but the Twoof from NIST!

 

[jay howard]

The controlled-demolition theory favored by conspiracy liars has been thoroughly debunked and fails to account for the evidence. They have no problem ignoring the evidence. They do little else apart from engaging in personal attacks and fabricating support for their pernicious myths.

Are you saying that I am basing my arguments on personal attacks and ignoring evidence, or is this an observation of some general trend?

Do you have a specific criticism of my arguments?

 

[rwguinn]

Are you saying that I am basing my arguments on personal attacks and ignoring evidence, or is this an observation of some general trend?

Do you have a specific criticism of my arguments?

Yep.
You are having to manufacture (make-up; fabricate) evidence.
No evidence exists of Molten steel, other than that which can be attributed as incidental to a steel/aluminum collision at high energy and velocity. Even that "molten steel" evidence can be attributed somewhat to rescue/recovery work post-collapse.
No evidence of explosives exists, other than elements which are commonly used in construction materials. Period. no boom stuff. none. zilch. nada. Zero.