Metatheory and the NIST report

[pomeroo]

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?

Of course you're ignoring evidence: all conspiracy liars ignore evidence. You couldn't maintain your belief in an absurd and baseless fantasy if you didn't.

You ignore the seismic data compiled by the Lamont-Doherty labs.

Your understanding of the NIST Report is clearly deficient.

You haven't explained how your imaginary, mathematically-impossible conspiracy planted thousands of pounds of explosives or managed to wire the buildings surreptitiously.

 

[pomeroo]

Jay Howard:

"Why is that so difficult?"

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

Frank, this schtick has grown really tiresome. Let's lay out the facts for everyone to see:

You came here with a well-deserved reputation for careful, thought-provoking research.

JREFers continually cited you as an authority in marshaling their arguments against conspiracy liars.

For reasons that remain obscure, you exhibited a huge chip on your shoulder and repeatedly attacked a nonexistent orthodoxy.

NO ONE here regards NIST's work as infallible. Enough already!

To the extent that your work modifies the NIST Report, providing a more accurate explanation for the collapses of the Twin Towers, people here have generally applauded it. You are not Galileo standing against obscurantist fools.

People here are having trouble figuring out where the hell you're coming from.

Are you saying that the NIST Report is worthless? No--you frequently comment that much of it is excellent science.

You claim that researchers for the agency overlooked certain chemical reactions as additional heat sources.

Have you been attacked on this forum for offering that insight?

I must have missed it.

Haven't people here commended you on advancing our knowledge of the collapses?

Where exactly is all this resistance you meet here?

Do you imagine that people should be flattered to be treated as narrow-minded dullards marching lockstep in support of an orthodoxy that only you are capable of discerning?

Would it be fair to conclude that people here resent your condescending and hostile attitude toward them, while respecting your manifest ability as a scientist?

Can we flesh out your grievance with NIST a bit?

They say that planes hit the towers. You agree.

They say that the resultant fires weakened the steel, causing inward bowing of the exterior columns, leading to a failure of the floor-trusses. You agree--right?

They say that the impacts of the planes dislodged a sufficient amount of fireproofing to facilitate heat transfer to the steel. Do you agree? Why are you so coy about this?

Tell us what part of the NIST Report we are so slavishly devoted to: All of it? The parts that accord with your own theories? The parts that don't?

Could the conspiracy liars really have something? Could they?

C'mon, Frank, you've been making insinuations for a long time.

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

 

[pomeroo]

Except from the US Geological Survey and Worchester Polytechnic Institute.

But other than that, none, zip, zilch.

Okay, we've checked out your links. Why are you lying about the melted "steel"?

 

[pomeroo]

Jay, may I suggest the "ignore function"?

Also, please stop pointing out that NIST has false claims, conflicting claims and failed logical dependencies. It's making these guys look bad.

Doesn't your transparent disingenuousness make you look bad?

 

[Drudgewire]

You're doing the Truther Tango, jay. Hopping around from one point to another as each of your precious scraps of "evidence" is debunked.

This. Exactly rule8ing this.

 

[Apollo20]

I do not believe the USGS said iron spheres were to be expected in the WTC fires ....., that was said by R. J. Lee.

Now Gravy old chap, this would mean, (if I used YOUR approach), that I should now call you a OCT liar... but I have too much respect for you to ever do that.

Nevertheless, please GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Howard, if you really want to know more about eutectic reactions, I'd suggest asking Apollo 20, he is known to post here on occasions, and who knows, he might even have written up a paper on the subject and where the possible sources of sulphur could be loacted in the building. Who knows, it might even be informative to you.

 

[hellaeon]

One thing I have learned steadfast reading this thread is that no matter how much I think it does, the world wont always work the way I expect it. Experts seem to know even more about some things then I ever realised.

Great inputs so far, its quite a decent thread amongst the LCF bashing.

 

[cmcaulif]

Here's their report (see the pdf on the right side of the page). http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267

Basically, they say that NIST underestimates or neglects to factor in thermal expansion of steel, which their simulations show could possibly have caused the towers to collapse from the fires alone, with no prior damage. Arup was a consultant on the NIST report.

Thanks, I actually read about this in the journal of engineering mechanics in a paper by an engineer called Usmani, using the same drawings as in your link. I hadn't realized this was Arup's theory.

 

[jay howard]

NIST was charged with determining the most probable causes of the tower collapses and for making building code change recommendations. They were not responsible for looking at anomalies that may have occurred long after the collapses, and that were not widespread.

How is it you know when the anomalies occurred or how widespread they were or what role they played in the destruction of the towers? FEMA, to its credit, recognizes its own limitations on these counts. And, more importantly, why is it that the evidence of high temperature structural steel corrosion is not within the boundaries of an investigation of the collapse of a steel and concrete building? That would only follow if one had a predetermined conclusion about the collapse--not a genuine scientific inquiry.

There is no indication that eutectic steel had anything to do with the collapses. It's an interesting phenomenon and worthy of more study. Given the unprecedented chemical stew, heat, and duration of fire in the piles, I'd look there for the culprit.

There is also no indication that eutectic reactions did NOT have a role in the collapses either. Making an argument from either side, before we have substantial reasons one way or the other, is simply an argument from ignorance.

FEMA is also uncertain as to whether the effect occurred before or after the collapse. They say,

"It is possible that this [high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel] is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."(C-13)

I'm aware that you would like the reactions to take place in the smoldering remains so alternative collapse theories could be dismissed, however, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other on this issue.

Do you have any desire to take a scientific stance about these issues?

 

[jay howard]

The FEMA report explains it very well. What's observed is not the melting of the steel, but an unusual corrosive effect where the steel grains, in effect, are falling apart in a slurry. It becomes liquidised at the attack boundary ( here I'll wink to Gravy's second link )

What they explain well is the reaction that occurred to produce the effect. That's quite separate from explaining what effect it may have had on the collapse of the buildings or by what means the eutectic reaction was catalyzed or the sources of sulfur necessary for the reaction.

In addition, you suggest that "eutectic reactions are not normal office fire reactions". Agreed. GZ was by no stretch of the imagination a "normal office fire".

Agreed. It was not "normal" for a number of reasons. That gives NO ONE license to dismiss "evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation..." out of hand.

This certainly seems like one of the strategies employed by some here on the JREF forum (among other places) to avoid speaking to a proper explanation of this evidence.

Do you agree that there is no good official explanation for the evidence in question? (Anyone who doubts this need only witness the absence of even the recognition of this evidence in the NIST report or the unambiguous declaration of puzzlement in the FEMA report.)

So we have evidence that no one is capable of accounting for. We have the NIST report which doesn't even mention it. Then there are several reasons the NIST report fails as a theory, and yet, even here in the heart of "debunking" territory, no one can produce a single, valid, sound, non-fallacious argument for why they continue to maintain support for the official theory--other than disdain for the twoofer movement, a completely understandable feeling.

As I've made very clear in previous posts, doubting the official theory does not necessitate the truth of any particular alternative theory. I happen to believe that many of them are holy horsehockey (can we say that?), and the people who hold them don't generally know a good theory from a hole in the ground; however, doubting the official theory does indeed necessitate a new theory which can account for all the evidence and be internally coherent, within the boundaries of the forensic evidence, etc.

Is anyone willing to look further than the official explanation? The need to do so has already been demonstrated.

No amount of putting words in my mouth, or dismissing the evidence by some semantic hocus pocus changes the failure of NIST report to properly integrate its own findings much less those of FEMA, WPI, and the USGS.

No doubt this will incite a flurry of personal attacks by those incapable or unwilling to think difficult thoughts. But again, those words do not militate against the failure of the NIST report.

 

[GlennB]

What they explain well is the reaction that occurred to produce the effect. That's quite separate from explaining what effect it may have had on the collapse of the buildings or by what means the eutectic reaction was catalyzed or the sources of sulfur necessary for the reaction.

You're beginning to make no sense. Nobody is suggesting these reactions and the corrosion that resulted were instrumental in the collapse of the buildings.

Agreed. It was not "normal" for a number of reasons. That gives NO ONE license to dismiss "evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation..." out of hand.

Even less sense there.
Nobody here is dismissing this evidence. We're agreeing with it.

The point - and the whole point - is that the study specifically rules out temperatures high enough to melt steel.

 

[Gravy]

How is it you know when the anomalies occurred or how widespread they were or what role they played in the destruction of the towers?

Since the two pieces of steel (of uncertain provenance) were saved because they were unusual, and because eutectic formations were not noted in steel known to have come from the tower fire areas, and buildings with similar fires, such as WTC 5, aren't known to produce such effects, and the duration of the tower fires was short but the duration of the fires in the piles was long, I believe mine is a reasonable assumption. I could be wrong. As I said, it's worth more study.

FEMA, to its credit, recognizes its own limitations on these counts. And, more importantly, why is it that the evidence of high temperature structural steel corrosion is not within the boundaries of an investigation of the collapse of a steel and concrete building? That would only follow if one had a predetermined conclusion about the collapse--not a genuine scientific inquiry.

False. Another reason could be that, based on all the evidence, not just that which you choose to cherry-pick, there is no reason to believe that the eroded steel resulted from the tower fires. You assume that NIST did not consider the two samples of steel in question. Have you spoken to anyone at NIST to see if they did?

Edit: I have emailed Frank Gayle with some questions about this. I'll let you know if he replies.
Edit 2: I've also emailed Jonathan Barnett.

As for me "wanting" the eutectic reactions to have happened in the piles, why in the world would it bother me if they didn't?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

There is also no indication that eutectic reactions did NOT have a role in the collapses either. Making an argument from either side, before we have substantial reasons one way or the other, is simply an argument from ignorance.

FEMA is also uncertain as to whether the effect occurred before or after the collapse. They say,

"It is possible that this [high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel] is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."(C-13)

I'm aware that you would like the reactions to take place in the smoldering remains so alternative collapse theories could be dismissed, however, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other on this issue.

Do you have any desire to take a scientific stance about these issues?

SInce you are the one who's making the claim that the NIST report is bogus, it seems to me that it's up to you to prove that the eutetic reactions were a factor, for if they weren't a factor the "fact" that the NIST didn't account for them is irrelevant. Hopefully, I won't have to wade through 9 more pages of your quote-mining before you attempt this proof.

 

[Revolutionary91]

Could the conspiracy liars really have something? Could they?

C'mon, Frank, you've been making insinuations for a long time.

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?

Pomeroo, please answer honestly. If Dr Greening did come out and say that the conspiracy patriots had something, what would you do?

 

[GlennB]

SInce you are the one who's making the claim that the NIST report is bogus, it seems to me that it's up to you to prove that the eutetic reactions were a factor, for if they weren't a factor the "fact" that the NIST didn't account for them is irrelevant. Hopefully, I won't have to wade through 9 more pages of your error-strewn and self-contradictory quote-mining before you attempt this proof.

Hope you don't mind if I discreetly edit your post ....

 

[pomeroo]

Pomeroo, please answer honestly. If Dr Greening did come out and say that the conspiracy patriots had something, what would you do?

Don't ever dare to refer to America-hating frauds and liars as "patriots." The < FACT > that America was the victim of an unprovoked attack brought this deranged and evil movement into existence and caused it to stand reality upside down to absolve the jihadists of wrongdoing.

If Dr. Greening ever said that the liars had something, I'd question his sanity.

 

[jay howard]

Nobody is suggesting these reactions and the corrosion that resulted were instrumental in the collapse of the buildings.

No one is suggesting that these reactions can be ruled out as a contributing factor to the collapse of the buildings, either. FEMA is clear on this point:

"It is also possible that the phenomenon [of high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel] started prior to collaspe and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."(C-13)

What FEMA is suggesting, in case that didn't register, is that that high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel may indeed have contributed to the collapse. But at the moment, we do not know for sure. What we cannot do, however, is rule out that possibility.

Again, you are in the theoretically uncomfortable position of having to misinterpret data in order to maintain your position. If you were approaching this data with a truly open mind, there would be no need to blatantly misunderstand or misinterpret what is clearly spelled out in the FEMA report.

On a side note, you cannot deny the failure of the NIST report to recognize this evidence whatsoever. But, not surprisingly, that has no effect on your position, does it?

Nobody here is dismissing this evidence. We're agreeing with it.

The point - and the whole point - is that the study specifically rules out temperatures high enough to melt steel.

How do you account for the high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of the steel in question? If, in one way or another, you simply say "it's irrelevant to the collapses of the WTC buildings," you are, in fact dismissing the evidence.

If you were inspecting a death, and it appears to have a natural cause, but you find evidence of poison--even if it's just a little bit, wouldn't you be inclined to test a "poisoning theory"? The existence of a little poison does not necessitate murder, but it does necessitate a good explanation.

So far, no thorough explanation exists for the eutectic reaction for which we clearly have evidence. But you don't even feel inclined to look further for an explanation. That's just not a very scientific approach.

 

[Revolutionary91]

America was the victim of an unprovoked attack

LOL

If Dr. Greening ever said that the liars had something, I'd question his sanity.

Thanks for admitting your views are unfalsifiable.

 

[pomeroo]

LOL

Stop being a jackass, kid. Why are the jihadists so proud of their victory?

Thanks for admitting your views are unfalsifiable.

Don't parrot what smarter people say unless you know what they mean by it. Your views are unfalsifiable because you are impervious to reason and evidence. The views of any rationalist on this forum can be falsified by showing real evidence. No conspiracy liar has yet shown anything that supports his absurd fantasies.