Science vs Teleology: Which lens is best for viewing 911?

[R.Mackey]

Just to address some specifics -- rapidly going off-topic...

NIST did not claim that "nearly all" the fuel aersolized within 0.5 seconds. This is totally incorrect, and I cannot imagine where anyone got that idea.

Large sections of aircraft that survived the impact, and were not either part of landing gear or engine cores, made up an insignificantly small fraction of the original mass. This is a false precision logical fallacy.

NIST's tweaking of the impact models to compare the starboard engine trajectory of AA175 prove that the behavior is plausibly consistent with NIST's model -- whether or not it exits depends on input and boundary conditions that are within the margin of error. This is typical of dynamic modeling, and since verified by Purdue. Another false precision fallacy.

I've made my own observations and criticisms of NIST, and I believe there is one major inference that they actually got wrong. But none of this casts any doubt on their method or their core conclusions. Followups to the appropriate threads.

 

[MIKILLINI]

<Snip>

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)




I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

I agree Frank they should have admitted the daunting task they had before them. Perhaps there wasn't enough debris to bring a more fruitful and satisfying conclusion to some, but they did the best they could with what they had.


As far as: "Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!"

Do you have any indisputable evidence that overshadows the official story?

Or is it lack of evidence that causes you such doubt?

 

[gumboot]

To those who suggest that photographs of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and its aftermath constitute the primary physical evidence used by NIST, I would respond with a question about the all-important WTC steel: photographs of steel recovered from GZ provide physical evidence of exactly what? So yes I agree, the NIST Report has lots of photos of pieces of steel; but what use are these images? Do NIST tell us where each steel section was first located in the rubble pile? (A useful piece of information to be sure…) No, NIST does not! Do the photos allow NIST to estimate the maximum temperatures seen by the steel? Negatory on that one too! Do the photos tell us anything about the surface chemistry of the steel? No, the photos convey no chemical information whatsoever!

And talking of chemical analysis: the NIST Report manages one table of surface analysis data, yes, just ONE TABLE, in 10,000 pages. And that table provides data for 3 samples! And does NIST have much to say about these data? Well actually, no ….. NIST comments on the high S seen on a couple of samples, but completely ignores the high Cl observed on sample K-16. So NIST really makes no use of what little chemical analysis it managed to carry out on WTC samples. But where is the chemical analysis data for even a couple of the failed welds and bolts? And where is the analytical data for the concrete?

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)

Anyway, back to the 9/11 science, or lack thereof…. Let’s be honest, the NIST 9/11 narrative is based almost entirely on computer simulations that could hardly be considered as “forensic evidence”. NIST's cartoons may be acceptable to some engineers and “kids” hooked on computer-generated Hollywood special effects, but would such simulacra "stand up in court". I think not!

Consider NIST’s aircraft impact modeling as an example: If you read NCSTAR 1-2, 1-2B, 1-5A and 1-6 you find all sorts of discrepancies between the observed behavior of the aircraft, the impact debris and NIST’s global impact analysis. NIST argue that the fuel was almost completely aerosolized within 0.5 seconds of impact, but in reality fuel is known to have poured down elevator shafts. NIST’s model says that, with the exception of the engines and undercarriage, the aircraft were shredded into “thousands of fragments”. This is contradicted by the large sections of fuselage that were found outside the towers with nary a scratch! Then we have the trajectories of the engines themselves which came out all wrong in NIST’s first simulations until those creative computer programmers “tweaked” the calculations to make an engine exit WTC 2 as observed. In what sense is NIST being scientific with all these false predictions of its models?

I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

I rest my case.

 

[Apollo20]

Well, very weak responses to my post. Plenty of "attack the poster" though.

Mackey, are we reading the same report?

Try NCSTAR 1-2B:

"The fuel starts as a continuous fluid ... and ends up ... as small droplets that interact with the atmosphere"

Try NCSTAR 1-2 Figure 5-56

Try NCSTAR 1-2B Figure E-20

Try NCSTAR 1-2B:

"At 0.3 s after impact, the aircraft fuel cloud had penetrated approximately two-thirds the distance through the core and was spreading out."

Try NCSTAR 1-5A:

"...the fireballs rapidly forced large amounts of unburned atomized aviation fuel through openings...."

I rest my case............

 

[RedIbis]

To those who suggest that photographs of the 9/11 attack on the WTC and its aftermath constitute the primary physical evidence used by NIST, I would respond with a question about the all-important WTC steel: photographs of steel recovered from GZ provide physical evidence of exactly what? So yes I agree, the NIST Report has lots of photos of pieces of steel; but what use are these images? Do NIST tell us where each steel section was first located in the rubble pile? (A useful piece of information to be sure…) No, NIST does not! Do the photos allow NIST to estimate the maximum temperatures seen by the steel? Negatory on that one too! Do the photos tell us anything about the surface chemistry of the steel? No, the photos convey no chemical information whatsoever!

And talking of chemical analysis: the NIST Report manages one table of surface analysis data, yes, just ONE TABLE, in 10,000 pages. And that table provides data for 3 samples! And does NIST have much to say about these data? Well actually, no ….. NIST comments on the high S seen on a couple of samples, but completely ignores the high Cl observed on sample K-16. So NIST really makes no use of what little chemical analysis it managed to carry out on WTC samples. But where is the chemical analysis data for even a couple of the failed welds and bolts? And where is the analytical data for the concrete?

So what I see is that the NIST Report is not scientific at all, but is perhaps better described as a feel-good narrative created by some imaginative engineers to satisfy the self-fulfilling prophecy of the warmongering oligarchs running the US of A. (How does that story go again? Oh yes, a bunch of crazy Saudi and Egyptian nationals attacked the American homeland so let’s go bomb Iraq!)

Anyway, back to the 9/11 science, or lack thereof…. Let’s be honest, the NIST 9/11 narrative is based almost entirely on computer simulations that could hardly be considered as “forensic evidence”. NIST's cartoons may be acceptable to some engineers and “kids” hooked on computer-generated Hollywood special effects, but would such simulacra "stand up in court". I think not!

Consider NIST’s aircraft impact modeling as an example: If you read NCSTAR 1-2, 1-2B, 1-5A and 1-6 you find all sorts of discrepancies between the observed behavior of the aircraft, the impact debris and NIST’s global impact analysis. NIST argue that the fuel was almost completely aerosolized within 0.5 seconds of impact, but in reality fuel is known to have poured down elevator shafts. NIST’s model says that, with the exception of the engines and undercarriage, the aircraft were shredded into “thousands of fragments”. This is contradicted by the large sections of fuselage that were found outside the towers with nary a scratch! Then we have the trajectories of the engines themselves which came out all wrong in NIST’s first simulations until those creative computer programmers “tweaked” the calculations to make an engine exit WTC 2 as observed. In what sense is NIST being scientific with all these false predictions of its models?

I believe NIST should have come clean from the very start and admitted that the building failure site it was mandated to examine was so compromised by clean-up operations of the debris and the all-important structural steel, that any report it could produce on the demise of the Twin Towers could only conclude: cause of death: “unknown”.

Dr. Greening, if this is part of a series, please post where I might fnd the rest. Your concerns are particularly plain stated, making it easy for a layman such as myself to understand that NIST's "conclusions" were not based on physical evidence. You don't have to be a chemical engineer to see that NIST's results are specious at best.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dr. Greening, if this is part of a series, please post where I might fnd the rest. Your concerns are particularly plain stated, making it easy for a layman such as myself to understand that NIST's "conclusions" were not based on physical evidence. You don't have to be a chemical engineer to see that NIST's results are specious at best.

And yet, when anybody posts simple, clear and plainly stated analyses that don't agree entirely with your predetermined conclusions, your plaudits are never so freely given. Strange, that.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

And yet, when anybody posts simple, clear and plainly stated analyses that don't agree entirely with your predetermined conclusions, your plaudits are never so freely given. Strange, that.

Dave

I don't have any predetermined conclusions and I've found NIST's to be lacking in forensic support.

 

[R.Mackey]

Well, very weak responses to my post. Plenty of "attack the poster" though.

Mackey, are we reading the same report?

Yes, but you seem to have some confusion over the word "aerosolized."

Try NCSTAR 1-2B:

"The fuel starts as a continuous fluid ... and ends up ... as small droplets that interact with the atmosphere"

Small droplets are not aerosolized. "Small' in the simulation context means particles of about a liter.

Try NCSTAR 1-2 Figure 5-56

Try NCSTAR 1-2B Figure E-20

Try NCSTAR 1-2B:

"At 0.3 s after impact, the aircraft fuel cloud had penetrated approximately two-thirds the distance through the core and was spreading out."

Hmm, nope, no "aerosolized" here either.

Try NCSTAR 1-5A:

"...the fireballs rapidly forced large amounts of unburned atomized aviation fuel through openings...."

I rest my case............

"Large amounts" != all of it.

Again, NIST estimated only 20% was consumed in the fireballs, and the other 80% remained in the structure, half on the impact floors and half draining to lower levels. Pretty strange behavior for aerosolized fuel.

I strongly suspect you already know this and are just trying to stir up controversy, but I can go into more detail on my return. In the appropriate thread.

 

[Apollo20]

RedIbis:

My comments about the NIST Report, (and other 9/11 issues), are scattered on JREF and PhysOrg forums (where I post as NEU-FONZE). Max Photon has collected some of my JREF posts on his website.

It is interesting that a lot of the responses to my recent posts are directed at me personally, not at my arguments. Typical among the recent clutch of responses is that:

1. I am an angry guy... I'm not! In fact, my family could attest to the fact that I am a very happy-go-lucky person.

2. I hate engineers ... I don't! Mind you I do think they are over-rated, especially in their own minds.

3. I'm a truther ... As I have said before, I prefer the term 9/11 agnostic, or perhaps a doubting Thomas.

I think both sides in the great 9/11 debate place too much hope on science providing an answer to some of the questions posed by the destruction of the WTC. Science can set limits on what is possible; science can evaluate probabilities of events occurring from a given set of initial conditions; but science cannot solve the many-body problem, nor produce certainty from uncertainty or find order in chaos. Thus science cannot re-create the events of 9/11 because so much of what happened is not simply unknown, but unknowable.

 

[Apollo20]

Mackey:

Since when does a "small droplet" = 1 liter?

Since when does a fuel cloud (NIST's words, not mine) drain?

NIST do use the word atomized, which I take to mean aerosolized, what do you think it means?

 

[applecorped]

RedIbis:

My comments about the NIST Report, (and other 9/11 issues), are scattered on JREF and PhysOrg forums (where I post as NEU-FONZE). Max Photon has collected some of my JREF posts on his website.

It is interesting that a lot of the responses to my recent posts are directed at me personally, not at my arguments. Typical among the recent clutch of responses is that:

1. I am an angry guy... I'm not! In fact, my family could attest to the fact that I am a very happy-go-lucky person.

2. I hate engineers ... I don't! Mind you I do think they are over-rated, especially in their own minds.

3. I'm a truther ... As I have said before, I prefer the term 9/11 agnostic, or perhaps a doubting Thomas.

I think both sides in the great 9/11 debate place too much hope on science providing an answer to some of the questions posed by the destruction of the WTC. Science can set limits on what is possible; science can evaluate probabilities of events occurring from a given set of initial conditions; but science cannot solve the many-body problem, nor produce certainty from uncertainty or find order in chaos. Thus science cannot re-create the events of 9/11 because so much of what happened is not simply unknown, but unknowable.

Wow, you can read people's minds? What are you doing here then? Go and take advantage of your powers to fight crime!

 

[Apollo20]

Mackey:

Might I recommend that you take a look at public domain reports by S. R. Tieszen who appears to be a world authority on jet fuel dispersal in post-crash situations. He has made some videos of liquid fuel dispersal under impact tests. These tests show a distinct difference in fuel dispersion behavior between low velocity, (less than 20 m/s), and high velocity, (above 50 m/s) impacts. At high velocities the fuel is completely atomized into a fine mist. The same tests showed that, regardless of the impact angle, no liquid pooling occured at 61 m/s and 91 m/s impacts.

Other tests are noted by Tieszen:

"In the 200 m/s impact velocity range, the wing structure does not qualitatively change the dispersal process. The fuel is finely atomized and no pooling will occur."

So what's the use of a model where fuel "droplets" are 1 liter and an atomized fuel mist is supposed to "drain to lower levels".

Oh, and by the way, see US Patent No. 6386462: "A Method and Apparatus for Dispersing Liquids in Aerosolized Form ..."

In this patent the words "aerosolized" and "atomized" are used interchangeably ....

 

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Since you have not responded to my last couple of posts (not sure why, as I think I did ask you a few questions within), I will ask you again...

1. Do you think that NIST did a poor job outside their mandate?

Here is the title of their Investigation/Report:

"Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the
World Trade Center Disaster"

Here is their "scope":

On August 21, 2002, with funding from the U.S. Congress through FEMA, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the WTC
disaster. On October 1, 2002, the National Construction Safety Team Act (Public Law 107-231), was
signed into law. The NIST WTC Investigation was conducted under the authority of the National
Construction Safety Team Act.
The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:
• To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that
contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.
• To serve as the basis for:
− Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
− Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
− Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
− Improved public safety.
The specific objectives were:
1. Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the
aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed;
2. Determine why the injuries and fatalities were so high or low depending on location,
including all technical aspects of fire protection, occupant behavior, evacuation, and
emergency response;
3. Determine what procedures and practices were used in the design, construction, operation,
and maintenance of WTC 1, 2, and 7; and
4. Identify, as specifically as possible, areas in current building and fire codes, standards, and
practices that warrant revision.

2. Do you think that NIST or FEMA should have been placed in harms way to map out the location of steel pieces they would need, putting additional risk on the rescue workers and others there, and likely impeding or slowing the rescue efforts themselves?

Thanks

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Mackey:



So what's the use of a model where fuel "droplets" are 1 liter and an atomized fuel mist is supposed to "drain to lower levels".

....

I think you know exactly what the use of such a theory is.

 

[Clippy]

In the cosy corners of Nistian orthodoxy the true believers worship at the alter of a "scientific authority" created by an elite group intent on legitimizing the rules of its own game - the NIST. Meanwhile, it is clear (once the veil of deception is lifted), that many Nistian JREFers, (who remain nameless while "naming" their opponents), are simply a self-appointed constabulary for the censure, admonishment and ridicule of miscreant posters - what you guys call "truthers" - declared to be so simply because they dare to ask a few questions.

Fast sieben Jahre, und nicht einmal ein neuer Gott!

 

[funk de fino]

Funk de Fino:

Please stay on topic.......

To say that the NIST Report has not been refuted is like saying that Joshua 6: 1 - 27, has not been refuted.

Either way, the walls came tumbling down!

Its you that is rambling. I was commenting on your rambling.

I have never said it was refuted or not refuted and your attempt at humour is as poor as your balancing act on that fence of yours. You keep falling on the irrational side.

 

[pomeroo]

I don't have any predetermined conclusions and I've found NIST's to be lacking in forensic support.

You have demonstrated that you know next to nothing about the contents of the NIST Report. You have "found" nothing.

 

[pomeroo]

RedIbis:

My comments about the NIST Report, (and other 9/11 issues), are scattered on JREF and PhysOrg forums (where I post as NEU-FONZE). Max Photon has collected some of my JREF posts on his website.

It is interesting that a lot of the responses to my recent posts are directed at me personally, not at my arguments. Typical among the recent clutch of responses is that:

1. I am an angry guy... I'm not! In fact, my family could attest to the fact that I am a very happy-go-lucky person.

2. I hate engineers ... I don't! Mind you I do think they are over-rated, especially in their own minds.

3. I'm a truther ... As I have said before, I prefer the term 9/11 agnostic, or perhaps a doubting Thomas.

I think both sides in the great 9/11 debate place too much hope on science providing an answer to some of the questions posed by the destruction of the WTC. Science can set limits on what is possible; science can evaluate probabilities of events occurring from a given set of initial conditions; but science cannot solve the many-body problem, nor produce certainty from uncertainty or find order in chaos. Thus science cannot re-create the events of 9/11 because so much of what happened is not simply unknown, but unknowable.

Frank, a massive, multi-agency investigation that included 7,000 agents from the FBI alone "solved" the 9/11 "mystery." Is there a reason why we should distrust the findings of that investigation?
Are you prepared to argue that the FBI somehow became a tool for the personal use of Bush and Cheney? Be specific: how did this happen? What did the Democrats in the agency have to say about it?

 

[Apollo20]

I have no idea why NIST used the approach it used. Those who ask me such questions would do better to ask NIST.

My experience with government agencies is that no one needs to tell them what to do, they already know, ... and almost always deliver!

 

[LashL]

I have no idea why NIST used the approach it used. Those who ask me such questions would do better to ask NIST.

Who asked you why NIST used the approach it did? I must have missed it whilst scanning through the thread.