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

[Apollo20]

The NIST Report: Tales of Mystery and Imagination (Part III)

To keep on topic I wish to continue an analysis of the extent to which the scientific method has been applied to the study of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7. And because the NIST Report is touted by many JREFers to be the best available scientific analysis of the behavior of buildings 1 & 2 during 9/11, I will continue to focus on that document…..

Now one of the most important issues in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 is the heat-weakening of the steel on the fire affected floors. So let’s look at NIST’s “science” dealing with this topic as presented in NCSTAR 1-3 and 1-3D. In the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-3 we discover the sad truth about NIST’s sample collection as a source of evidence of elevated temperatures experienced by WTC steel members. Thus we read on page xli:

“More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter columns; however, these columns represented only 3 % of the perimeter columns on the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C.”

Notice the “disclaimer” by NIST that the samples were not “representative” when it was NIST scientists that selected these samples and claimed they were adequate as “physical evidence” for their planned investigations.

Anyway, NIST go on to admit that it also found “limited exposure to temperatures above 250 deg C” for all the core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers.

Now you would think that such a dearth of evidence of high temperature exposures of the WTC steel would make NIST look a little harder for collapse mechanisms involving steel at low temperatures, say less than 400 deg C. But NIST does not do this, and even states in Chapter 6 of NCSTAR 1-3D:

“Creep at temperatures less than 400 deg C is insignificant, so the specifics of the behavior at low temperatures will not affect the measurable strain.”

Now this is all very sad since there are in fact PLENTY of experimental studies that show creep buckling of steel columns may be VERY significant at temperatures well below 400 deg C. (See for example Zhan-Fei Huang et al. in Engineering Structures 28, 805 (2006) and J.L. Zeng et al. in Journal of Constructional Steel Research 59, 951, (2003).)

Nevertheless, NIST, in its wisdom, carried out creep tests at temperatures as high as 650 deg C, even though it has no evidence that any WTC steel reached such temperatures. But NIST’s research only gets further from reality when we read that in its creep tests specimens were heated for at least 2 hours when we know that any individual steel member in the WTC was heated by the fires for less than an hour. Worse yet we find that NIST’s creep tests were on truss-rod “A-242 steel” which turned out to have Cr and Ni alloying additions that did not actually conform to ASTM A-242!

But buried deep within NCSTAR 1-3D, on page 137 to be precise, we find NIST’s ultimate non sequitur in its consideration of steel at high temperatures. Thus, after assuring us that steel WEAKENS when exposed to high temperatures, NIST glibly admits that:

“Some steels initially increase in strength with increasing temperature, through the process of dynamic strain-aging, but this behavior is not a priori predictable”

So let me get this straight! For NIST’s investigation of 9/11, the “scientific method” consists of:

1. Rejecting anything that is unpredictable as being unimportant.
2. Looking at the available physical evidence and when it fails to deliver on expectations conclude it is of no value because it is not statistically significant.
3. Relying on the results of tests carried out under conditions that were never realized in the towers.
4. Creating computer-generated “simulations” of the aircraft impacts and fires and tweaking them until the desired result (the towers collapse) is found. This is called “validating the simulation”.

 

[Major_Tom]

5) Willfully collecting such a scant collection of core and perimeter columns from the vital fire-affected regions that they themselves admit that such a small collection cannot give much indication as to what core and perimeter columns actually experienced. (And allowing the rest to be tossed in the trash).

 

[~enigma~]

(And allowing the rest to be tossed in the trash).

You are really gonna have to cite that before anyone dignifies that with a response.

 

[T.A.M.]

DR.GREENING/FRANK/APOLLO20:

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":



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

I know you get thrown a lot of questions, but it seems like you are purposely ignoring mine.

TAM

 

[Major_Tom]

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?

The mapping is a different issue. One could have obtained a representative collection of samples without mapping their locations at GZ. They could have been obtained after they were already moved once.

 

[~enigma~]

The mapping is a different issue. One could have obtained a representative collection of samples without mapping their locations at GZ. They could have been obtained after thay were already moved once.

Ground control to Major Tom...you gonna respond to post #143 or retract your supremely idiotic and disgusting lie in post #142?

 

[Major_Tom]

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

To the degree that it was their mandate to locate the reasons for and causes of collapse initiation in either WTC 1 and 2, they did a poor job within their mandate.

 

[T.A.M.]

The mapping is a different issue. One could have obtained a representative collection of samples without mapping their locations at GZ. They could have been obtained after thay were already moved once.

I agree, but in previous comments, Apollo20 made mention of the lack of mapping out the locations. I think you are correct, that a representative collection could have been collected from the metal once moved. Is this not what occurred?

From NIST 1-3 (page xxxviii):

E.2 INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the
impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss
seats and wind dampers.
The original, as-built locations of 42 recovered perimeter panels and 12 recovered core columns were
determined, based on markings and geometry of the columns. Samples were available of all 12 strength
levels of perimeter panel steel, the two strength levels of the core column steel that represented 99 percent
of the total number of columns, and both strength levels used in the floor trusses.
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged
regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns
located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
The collection of steel from the WTC towers was sufficient for determining the quality of the steel and, in
combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as input to models of
building performance.

TAM

 

[~enigma~]

To the degree that it was their mandate to locate the reasons for and causes of collapse initiation in either WTC 1 and 2, they did a poor job within their mandate.

Ground control to Major Tom...you gonna respond to post #143 or retract your supremely idiotic and disgusting lie in post #142?

 

[T.A.M.]

To the degree that it was their mandate to locate the reasons for and causes of collapse initiation in either WTC 1 and 2, they did a poor job within their mandate.

ok, so that is an honest answer (though the question was directed at Apollo20, who made comments concerning it). So now tell me...what aspects of the report, and concerning what particular conclusions, do you feel they did a poor job with, and why?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I would suggest, if Apollo20, or Major Tom have specific criticisms of the collection process, that they refer to which section within NISTNCSTAR1-3 Chapter 5 (pages 27 to 39) that they have fault with.

I don't have much of a background in such things, but I would think it only honest and fair that if you are going to accuse another group of your scientific colleagues of doing a poor job on something, that you point out what and where exactly.

It would also help myself and others here, better understand your bones of contention, if they were as precise as possible.

TAM

 

[~enigma~]

I would suggest, if Apollo20, or Major Tom have specific criticisms of the collection process, that they refer to which section within NISTNCSTAR1-3 Chapter 5 (pages 27 to 39) that they have fault with.

I don't have much of a background in such things, but I would think it only honest and fair that if you are going to accuse another group of your scientific colleagues of doing a poor job on something, that you point out what and where exactly.

It would also help myself and others here, better understand your bones of contention, if they were as precise as possible.

TAM

I am still waiting to hear our resident David Bowie fan's reasoning that the steel was thrown in the trash but I doubt it will be forthcoming.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am still waiting to hear our resident David Bowie fan's reasoning that the steel was thrown in the trash but I doubt it will be forthcoming.

There were four major sites where debris from the WTC buildings was shipped during the clean-up effort:
• Hugo Neu Schnitzer, Inc., Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, New Jersey,
• Hugo Neu Schnitzer East, Inc., Claremont Terminal in Jersey City, New Jersey,
• Metal Management, Inc., in Newark, New Jersey, and
• Blanford and Co. in Keasbey, New Jersey.

The volunteers searched through enormous unsorted piles of steel and other debris for pieces from the
WTC buildings, specifically searching for (McAllister 2002):
• Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed
to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft,
• Exterior column panels and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 directly above
and below the impact zones,
• Badly burned pieces from WTC 7,
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7 (e.g., seat connections, single shear plates, and column
splices),
• Bolts in all conditions,
• Floor trusses including stiffeners, seats, and other components,
• Any pieces that in the engineers’ professional opinion might be useful.

Once selected for recovery, the samples were marked as “SAVE” and given an alphanumeric code that
identified the recovery yard where they were located and an accession number. Some pieces were not
saved in their entirety, but instead, small portions were removed, hereafter called coupons and held at
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP (GMS). Coupons were also removed in the field for WTC 5 and held at
GMS (all coupons were later sent to NIST).

Facing concern that the selected steel may not be properly preserved in the recovery yards, NIST arranged
for the steel to be shipped to its campus located in Gaithersburg, MD, starting in February of 2002, about
six months before launching its investigation.

Before the samples were shipped to the NIST campus, environmental testing for asbestos and analysis of
the paint for lead was conducted. SEAoNY volunteers and NIST personnel continued to select and ship
steel specimens to NIST through October 2002. Mr. S. Cauffman of NIST coordinated all environmental
testing, transportation, and delivery of the recovered steel to NIST. The recovered structural components
constituted the material base for analysis in the NIST Investigation.

From pages 27, 28 of NISTNCSTAR1-3.

TAM

 

[Clippy]

The simple premise for this (If you can call it simple) is how are you going to get that party started?

That's the Million Dollar Question. I'm pessimistic. Barring some catastrophic and catalyzing event (to steal a phrase from that oft-quoted document), I don't see the political climate in the US permitting a new investigation. I think Steve Jones' initial goal (to show the presence of accelerants at GZ in order to force a new investigation) is an appropriate application of the scientific method to 9/11. We'll see how that works out. I'm reserving judgement on his work until he's made it open to review. Scientific analysis of 9/11 will never provide the closure that Mackey offers on his thread.

 

[~enigma~]

From pages 27, 28 of NISTNCSTAR1-3.

TAM

Hence my post #149 and #149 which I shall repeat here...

Ground control to Major Tom...you gonna respond to post #143 or retract your supremely idiotic and disgusting lie in post #142?

 

[dudalb]

Sounds to me as if the so called Teleological method,at least as intreperted by the Truthers, is simply a way of changing the rules so that they can ignore the actual physical evidence in favor of their wild theories.
When you throw out the Scientific method in a case like this, anything goes.

 

[gumboot]

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:

You don't have any arguments... all you do is spout ridiculous dogma that makes you sound like a frothing-mouthed religious zealot. There's nothing remotely coherent, scientific, quantitative, or worthwhile in your posts.

Hence the only response you get from me is:



Because that's all your posts deserve.

If you want people to address your arguments, start making some.

 

[R.Mackey]

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.

I cannot find these reports in any of the usual indexes. If you have a more proper citation, I'd appreciate it.

Without reading the report I will have to guess at the cause of the discrepancy. That guess is this: I suspect Tieszen is discussing crashes in the open. This is similar to the crash of UA 93, where indeed the overwhelming majority of fuel was atomized and did deflagrate immediately. This is a radically different situation than UA 11 and AA 175, where fuel was largely contained in a somewhat intact structure, severely inhibiting mixing of the fluid jets and providing a capture mechanism. I see no reason to doubt that much of the fuel would have remained liquid.

Besides, that isn't the point. The point is that you claimed NIST said it was all aerosolized. Whether or not Teiszen predicted it has no bearing on what NIST said. As I have explained above, NIST did not, and your claim is total nonsense.

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".

As I'm sure you are aware, the use of the impact model in NCSTAR1-2B is to estimate (a) the transfer of momentum to the structure and its contents, and (b) the final disposition of flammable office materials. The model is of almost no use in predicting the fuel distribution, a point that I criticize in my whitepaper. The fallacy is your insisting that the model is useful for predicting not only fuel distribution, but aerosolization as well. It cannot do this and it was never intended to do this.

And I have no problem with aerosolization / atomization. My point is that, again, NIST estimated 80% of the fuel was not. That is the opposite of what you claim NIST said.

Now you would think that such a dearth of evidence of high temperature exposures of the WTC steel would make NIST look a little harder for collapse mechanisms involving steel at low temperatures, say less than 400 deg C. But NIST does not do this, and even states in Chapter 6 of NCSTAR 1-3D:

“Creep at temperatures less than 400 deg C is insignificant, so the specifics of the behavior at low temperatures will not affect the measurable strain.”

This I'm sure you also know, but NIST has other evidence of exposure to temperatures above 400^oC. Just not a surviving, identifiable piece of steel with unambiguous evidence of same. The key problem is disambiguating temperatures before and after collapse.

I agree with you, however, on criticism of NIST's handling of creep. This was noted by Arup as well. NIST does include creep as a major component of its collapse model, but they plausibly underestimate its effects by only considering creep due to higher temperatures.

In sum, however, you are now committing the fallacy of hasty generalization. By misinterpreting NIST's comments such as the one above, and drawing sweeping conclusions, you then make absurd claims about rejecting contrary information as important, and tweaking models under the guise of validation. These are lies. NIST has warts, but you are deliberately mischaracterizing both the methods and the motivations.

It appears you are simply trying to rally the crushed Truth Movement by giving them some argument to take hope in. Knock it off. You're only going to further confuse those who need the most clarity.

Any additional follow-ups and I will ask a moderator to split the thread. This has nothing at all to do with Max's OP.

 

[RedIbis]

This is similar to the crash of UA 93, where indeed the overwhelming majority of fuel was atomized and did deflagrate immediately.

At the risk of sounding like the most unscientific person on the planet, how in the world do you know this?

And please don't tell me it's because there was no fuel residue in the soil sampling or burning around the crater. That would be a bit like George Bush telling us he knows Sadam was hiding WMDs because we haven't found them yet.

 

[R.Mackey]

At the risk of sounding like the most unscientific person on the planet, how in the world do you know this?

And please don't tell me it's because there was no fuel residue in the soil sampling or burning around the crater. That would be a bit like George Bush telling us he knows Sadam was hiding WMDs because we haven't found them yet.

We have a picture of the deflagration. We also have a few (very few) analogous crashes for comparison.

And, idiotic well-poisioning aside, we also know because there was very little fuel mixed in with the ground.

There is no comparison to George W. Bush and WMDs. Unlike Iraq, we know for a fact UA 93 had tons of fuel on board at the moment of impact. We do not know how many prohibited munitions were in Iraq on the dawn of the invasion, and the answer could be quite low.

Please try not to make such foolish analogies.