Metatheory and the NIST report

[pomeroo]

How? What conditions would demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

You too will be unable to show this. You too will likely not even attempt to answer this question.

Show me this, and you win. I go away with my tail between my legs!

When people answer your disingenuous question, you simply repeat it and pretend that it hasn't been answered. Should I recap all the ways the NIST Report has been shown to be falsifiable? You can read the posts in this thread for yourself. Your premise is bogus and, as a twoofer, you are incapable of taking a backward step.

 

[GlennB]

How? What conditions would demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

You too will be unable to show this. You too will likely not even attempt to answer this question.

Show me this, and you win. I go away with my tail between my legs!

"What conditions..." suggests you want *all* conceivable conditions.

Or would one do? Such as .... "The Towers are still standing" ???

Please be clear.

Meanwhile --- 8th time --- what is your explanation of the supposed unfeasibly high temperatures at WTC ?

 

[beachnut]

been there, done that

How did you manage to miss the fact that these references to ferrous microspheres were from the USGS?

Are you willfully ignoring the fact that the United States Geological Survey found tiny, iron-based spherules?

The reason I didn't bring up Jones is because no one here accepts his science to begin with. Therefore, I didn't bring him up. Do you dismiss the existence of these spheres from the USGS as well?

I visited that site before you ever became a Jones's cheerleader. Yes USGS has lots of elements found in the WTC concrete, wallboard, ceiling tiles, insulation, fireproofing, coatings on steel, Paint, and other stuff that was all in the dust. You are confused and believe the ranting of a fool, an old fool who made up thermite in 2005 out of the blue. Oh, go ahead try to distance yourself from Jones, just explain the iron. BTW, you better read all of the USGS stuff and you can see where the iron comes from. (do not forget blood).

So what is up with the iron? BTW, steel is made of lots of Fe, Iron.

What does the iron mean? (if you actually did research you would understand this stuff)

So when will you explain why you keep bringing up the iron stuff? (you know there is iron in concrete? sad)

 

[jay howard]

When people answer your disingenuous question, you simply repeat it and pretend that it hasn't been answered.

Why is this a "disingenuous" question? Is it a disingenuous question when applied to the mini-nukes hypothesis? No. So why does it become disingenuous when asked of the NIST theory?

Should I recap all the ways the NIST Report has been shown to be falsifiable?

Just one.

 

[beachnut]

If you can not show NIST meets Falsifiability you are not very honest

Really? How. Maybe you could expand on that just a nudge?

What conditions could demonstrate the NIST theory to be false? What would have to be the case in order for a rational person to say "hey, that a lousy explanation for what happened on 9/11."?

Give it a try. You will fail. More likely you will put words in my mouth and declare victory.

If you can not show NIST Falsifiability, why did you even post the OP.

I do not need to show this, others have done it a few time and you have done it yourself in your posts but you are not able to see it.

This is your final exam. Does the NIST theory meet Falsifiability?

 

[jay howard]

"What conditions..." suggests you want *all* conceivable conditions.

Just one would do.

Or would one do? Such as .... "The Towers are still standing" ???

"The Towers are still standing" would only falsify the theory that the towers in fact fell. There is no dispute about that. The dispute is about the cause(s) of the collapses.

Part of the problem with falsifying the NIST theory is that we must first know specifically what it claims. I've quoted their generalized explanations many times. That isn't enough because they aren't specific enough about time and temperature conditions to make a testable claim about them.

To be falsifiable, a theory must present a testable claim. Show me a testable claim.

Meanwhile --- 8th time --- what is your explanation of the supposed unfeasibly high temperatures at WTC ?

If the NIST theory is complete and coherent, we don't need an alternate theory. We need to get past NIST's explanation before we start dismissing other theories as ludicrous. Blink twice if you get this.

 

[jay howard]

If you can not show NIST Falsifiability, why did you even post the OP.

Because I don't believe it can be falsified. It is not a failing on my part not to show something I don't believe exists. Do you ask atheists to prove the existence of god? When they fail to prove god's existence, do you believe that god must therefore exist?

Put your crayons away, turn off Springer and try to comprehend this before posting another example of our failed education system.

I do not need to show this, others have done it a few time and you have done it yourself in your posts but you are not able to see it.

Please, humor me. Go ahead and repost anything someone said here (or anywhere for that matter) which demonstrates the falsifiability of NIST's position.

This is your final exam. Does the NIST theory meet Falsifiability?

You mean, "is it falsifiable"? If you could demonstrate it, be my guest.

 

[Gravy]

We need to get past NIST's explanation before we start dismissing other theories as ludicrous. Blink twice if you get this.

Correction: you need to understand NIST's theory before you dismiss it as ludicrous. You have shown neither the desire nor the ability to do so. Perhaps you should ask R. Mackey for a copy of his new paper.

 

[jay howard]

Correction: you need to understand NIST's theory before you dismiss it as ludicrous.

We need to understand NIST's theory to show it is falsifiable. Do you think their position is falsifiable?

If so, you must have found at least ONE testable proposition. Please share it with the group. If you don't, you are likely participating in an article of faith. Which is it?

 

[Gravy]

Jay, you cannot think of your own tests that could be run?
You can't think of ways to ascertain the accuracy and relevance of the tests that NIST did run?
You can't think of ways to analyze their computer models for accuracy?
You can't think of ways to compare your observations of the damage, fires, and collapses to theirs?
You can't think of other hypotheses that NIST has tested?
You can't envision the possibility of superior hypotheses to those of NIST?

Then I don't think you've read much of their reports, and I don't think you've understood what's been explained to you time and again in this thread. Seems like willful ignorance to me, Jay, as we've said since the first pages. Denialism.

 

[twinstead]

We need to understand NIST's theory to show it is falsifiable. Do you think their position is falsifiable?

Who's this "we"? NIST is understood quite well by many posters in this forum, even a couple who disagree with its conclusions.

You are not one of them; you're just raging against the machine.

 

[beachnut]

so you can not apply your own methods without bias?

Because I don't believe it can be falsified. It is not a failing on my part not to show something I don't believe exists. Do you ask atheists to prove the existence of god? When they fail to prove god's existence, do you believe that god must therefore exist?

Put your crayons away, turn off Springer and try to comprehend this before posting another example of our failed education system.

Please, humor me. Go ahead and repost anything someone said here (or anywhere for that matter) which demonstrates the falsifiability of NIST's position.

You mean, "is it falsifiable"? If you could demonstrate it, be my guest.

I am an engineer, I earned my degree in 1974.. I earned a masters degree in Engineering in 1981. I have worked in Labs and if you were in my lab, I would have to send you back to school if this is the best you can do failing to apply your own criteria set out in your OP.

I do not like falsifiable as a method when I do engineering work, because my work has always been seated in reality. I have no need to use falsifiable junk. I can read the NIST theory and quickly see it is falsifiable. I think I could teach my 5th graders how to apply falsifiable methods and they can show NIST is falsifiable. Sad that you fail to apply the falsifiable junk to the NIST theory showing you are just misleading other by not even being able to truthfully apply your own methods to a theory that is so easy to see as falsifiable.

It is your problem, you failed and now you are actually posting to me, and I will not show you how simple it is to do the thing you can't do.

OMG, you do not understand falsifiable. It has been shown to you and you want me to post the links. Do your own research for once, you could learn something. (people have actually teased you by posting it in your face and you missed it, it just happened again; you have even made posts that show the NIST theory to be falsifiable.)

 

[GlennB]

How? What conditions would demonstrate the falsity of the NIST report?

You too will be unable to show this. You too will likely not even attempt to answer this question.

Show me this, and you win. I go away with my tail between my legs!

OK ... you were asking for one condition ...

NISTNCSTAR1 Final Report, p123-126 The "3 workstation fire tests" .. ceiling temperatures between 800°C and 1,100°C.

Falsifiable (though totally in line with theory, many other controlled studies, and real-life experience).

 

[rwguinn]

OK ... you were asking for one condition ...

NISTNCSTAR1 Final Report, p123-126 The "3 workstation fire tests" .. ceiling temperatures between 800°C and 1,100°C.

Falsifiable (though totally in line with theory, many other controlled studies, and real-life experience).

Also:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2821059#post2821059
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2822087#post2822087
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2822982#post2822982
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2825463#post2825463
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2827380#post2827380

and that's just thye first 5 pages of this marathon of denial...

 

[jay howard]

I do not like falsifiable as a method when I do engineering work, because my work has always been seated in reality. I have no need to use falsifiable junk. I can read the NIST theory and quickly see it is falsifiable.

Seriously, you "do not like falsifiable as a method"? What exactly does that mean? Do you mean you don't like falsifiable theories? If so, then maybe you should become an astrologist, or join John Edwards in helping people get in contact with their deceased relatives. What do your tea leaves tell you? If you don't understand falsifiability, at least in concept if not by name, then you have no business running a lab of any kind.

It has been shown to you and you want me to post the links. Do your own research for once, you could learn something. (people have actually teased you by posting it in your face and you missed it, it just happened again; you have even made posts that show the NIST theory to be falsifiable.)

Yes, please. Just post a simple link where someone has successfully shown any conditions by which the NIST theory of collapse could be shown to be false. Saying "if the towers still stood, the theory would be wrong" doesn't count because that falsifies the theory that the towers fell. NIST is saying much more than "the towers fell". That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is WHY they fell.

Talking to you is a waste of time as this is not a simple matter of miscommunication: you just don't know what we're talking about.

Answer the question (which won't happen), or admit you can't.

 

[beachnut]

Seriously, you "do not like falsifiable as a method"? What exactly does that mean? Do you mean you don't like falsifiable theories? If so, then maybe you should become an astrologist, or join John Edwards in helping people get in contact with their deceased relatives. What do your tea leaves tell you? If you don't understand falsifiability, at least in concept if not by name, then you have no business running a lab of any kind.

Yes, please. Just post a simple link where someone has successfully shown any conditions by which the NIST theory of collapse could be shown to be false. Saying "if the towers still stood, the theory would be wrong" doesn't count because that falsifies the theory that the towers fell. NIST is saying much more than "the towers fell". That isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is WHY they fell.

Talking to you is a waste of time as this is not a simple matter of miscommunication: you just don't know what we're talking about.

Answer the question (which won't happen), or admit you can't.

Are you really this challenged to do your own work or even understand, or even look at the post above your junk?

You are so lacking in any ability to comprehend NIST, 9/11, or reality. Good luck with your Jones Theory, it is total bs.

I worked in reality at the Lab, when we did studies and developed concepts for future cockpits we did not need your OP concepts to see we were REAL. I did not need your OP junk. We worked in reality, we worked with real stuff, not made up junk by Jones. Sorry, I think you do not have a firm grasp on reality.

Originally Posted by GlennB
OK ... you were asking for one condition ...

NISTNCSTAR1 Final Report, p123-126 The "3 workstation fire tests" .. ceiling temperatures between 800°C and 1,100°C.

Falsifiable (though totally in line with theory, many other controlled studies, and real-life experience).

Also:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...59#post2821059
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...87#post2822087
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...82#post2822982
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...63#post2825463
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...80#post2827380

 

[jay howard]

Jay, you cannot think of your own tests that could be run?

To know what tests could be run would require knowing what conditions NIST posits for the collapse of the towers. If you know what they are, please let the cat outta the bag: what are they?

Then I don't think you've read much of their reports, and I don't think you've understood what's been explained to you time and again in this thread. Seems like willful ignorance to me, Jay, as we've said since the first pages. Denialism.

Maybe I'm just thick-skulled. Could you please explain the specific conditions required for the collapse to occur from aircraft impact and fire?

How hot did the exposed steel have to get? We know the time constraints, so this shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
What specific floor truss components failed?
What temperature did these components get to in order to fail?
How many truss sections had to fail in order to initiate the global collapse?
or
How far did the truss sections have to sag in order to pull the perimeter columns in 1 inch?
and
How hot did these trusses have to get to sag this far?

If we knew these things, we could design a test to try to corroborate this.

You can insult me all you want, but ultimately, I know you can't answer these questions. By answering them, you put the NIST myth in jeopardy. Please prove me wrong.

 

[jay howard]

Are you really this challenged to do your own work or even understand, or even look at the post above your junk?

So you go back and quote all of Mackey's posts and think that answers the question? Weak tits, tommy.


Par:

"Presumably, any one or more of these being true would falsify the NIST report:

* No planes hit the buildings – it was all an illusion."

Not in dispute.

"* No fires burned in the buildings – it was all an illusion."

Not in dispute.

"* The fires never burned hot enough to weaken the steel."

I'll take it. But to be fair to this claim, let me clarify: I'm not claiming that heat doesn't weaken steel. To be more effective as a criteria of falsifiability, the claim should say something to the effect of "the steel was not weakened enough for long enough for a minimum number of members to fail and initiate global collapse."

or, to put it in testable terms:

"In order for the trusses to sag to x inches, the steel in question would have to get to t degrees for m minutes."

You work in a lab. You understand what I'm saying here, right? So far so good?

"* All the fire-proofing remained intact throughout."

This is another statement of the heat-to-strength ratio of steel. But it is related, so let's go over this. The significance of the fireproofing is a question of the time it takes for the steel to heat up, right? (SFRM does not provide direct structural strength--no controversy here.)

In other words, SFRM doesn't change the load-bearing properties of steel at any temperature, it just allows steel to remain at lowers temps for longer in increased thermal environments, right?

So, a bare steel beam with a temps of 800C through the whole piece has the same structural properties as a steel beam coated with SFRM which is 800C through the whole piece. Agreed?

The major difference between these pieces is likely the amount of time they have been exposed to these increased temperatures.

 

[beachnut]

...? Weak tits, tommy.

That is the most scientific thing you have said. Bravo!

 

[rwguinn]

cos(T)=(Ltruss-1/Ltruss)
Y=Ltruss*sin(T)
Where Ltruss is the span of a truss in inches.

Next.