View Single Post
Old 5th August 2007, 07:08 PM   #257
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So, if we are conducting a scientific inquiry into the cause of the collapse of the buildings, we have a few pieces of evidence and some inferences we can make based on observables and calculated parameters of the impacts.

Our forensic evidence tells us: “None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600ºC for as long as 15 min. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure.”(176)

Yet, the simulations required the steel to reach hotter temperatures for longer periods of time in order to fail.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
We certainly can assume some amount of fire proofing removal from the impact greater than zero--how much, it is impossible to ascertain. You suspect they underestimated it. I suspect otherwise. Our suspicions are irrelevant.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
What we can see is that the leap between simulated collapse and the evidence for conditions of the steel in the towers immediately prior to collapse do not match up by several hundred degrees for at least 10 minutes. This leaves a lot of room for speculation as to why NIST altered their simulation input as they did.
Nonsense. There is no leap, and there is no altering of simulation inputs as you suggest. You pulled this out of thin air.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
It is unreasonable to ask a skeptic (as the Amazing Randi will surely agree) to accept the claims of an interlocutor without corresponding, public reasons that follow some logical sequence. NIST may provide public "reasons," however, I have yet to see the logical sequence by which they substantiate using the "most severe" case for the collapse of both towers.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
The best "logic" to their argument is that the severe case is the only case in which the towers collapse was "imminent" within the time parameters. The implicit structure of this argument goes from conclusion to substantiation (via computer simulation), NOT from working hypothesis to corroborative tests to final theory--as any rigorous scientific inquiry must.
This is also nonsense. The reasons to select the severe case have little to do with the collapse. Also, the severe case is not the only case that results in a collapse, according to NIST's models.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
To simply say "re-read the report" is like a twoofer asking you to simply "watch the collapse again" for confirmation of their view. It's only there if you already believe their conclusion.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
The stated purpose of the tests is also irrelevant. They could've said they were testing for floor elves. It wouldn't change the parameters or the results. Now, do these parameters fit the information we have regarding the conditions in the towers prior to the collapse?
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Given that none of the recovered steel exhibited temperatures higher than 600C, yes, they do--in fact, they exceeded temperatures of the physical evidence. Given that none of the floor truss systems in the controlled tests failed in the time parameters (by a long-shot), we should draw the conclusion that something is amiss with our theory.
As I explained above, the recovered steel is consistent with the model.

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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
If the floor truss systems had failed in the lab tests, NIST would have crowned them as the KEY finding that corroborated their theory. As they did not fail, NIST moved on to the simulations as their only means of substantiating their position.
Complete nonsense. If the floor truss systems, fireproofed and intact, had failed in the controlled tests, it wouldn't have corroborated their theory at all. This result would suggest the "Pancake Theory" was the correct one.

Your suggestion that NIST ran these tests, then changed to simulations in order to get the result that they wanted, is totally wrong and disrespectful.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
My point here is that instead of saying "failure was imminent," they could just as truthfully declared, "the trusses withstood the maximum test stresses." Both statements might be true, but which is more representative of the facts? If we have to argue over it, then perhaps the design of the test is ambiguous.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Then why do they make reference to sagging floor trusses if the only way to make them fail in an appropriate way is to heat the entire piece to 700C for 30 minutes? What possible purpose could that simulation serve if not as an attempt to corroborate their theory?
What makes you think that's the only way to make a floor truss fail? It isn't.

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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Maybe you could show me how it is you've managed to make sense of the NIST case by integrating their test data with their simulation data to their conclusion without "cherry picking".

It shouldn't be this hard to make their theory make sense with their own data.
It isn't. All you have to do is read it. I strongly suggest you read at least NCSTAR1 -- it's only about 250 pages -- and see if that doesn't answer your questions.

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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Now where did you get 850C? NIST certainly does not accept that steel got that hot, nor does it ever mention the word "eutectic" nor does it make any reference whatsoever to the WTC steel examined by the Worchester Polytechnic Institute.
I got it from the report that I linked. Here, I'll make it real, real easy for you:

Originally Posted by Dr. Biederman et. al.
The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely "eroded" regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850oC.

An examination of the "slag" that formed on the surface of the steel found iron oxides and iron sulfides. It appeared that the "slag" was liquid at high temperature and easily attacked the grain boundaries. A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940oC.
Source

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 -- 850oC or less -- are easily within those predicted by NIST. You're just plain wrong.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
In fact, NIST makes no allowance at all, at all for molten steel under any conditions--even though we have undeniable, public confirmation of such. Not only is the WPI steel evidence of molten steel, but, more strangely, it is evidence of an uncommon "eutectic" reaction whose likelihood of happening willy-nilly is less parsimonious than an artificial reaction.
No. The WPI steel is evidence against molten steel. Temperatures of only 940oC 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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
And while we're on it, the existence of ferrous microspheres must also be taken into account since the existence of such has been corroborated by the USGS.

This may turn out to be fodder for another thread, but the point remains that NIST scientists are either not capable or unwilling to even consider these pieces of evidence.
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.

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
To label them "outside the scope of the NIST report" is to admit failure of the NIST project. This is irrefutable evidence of molten steel, not just aluminum. To say "molten steel bears no relevance to the possible collapse sequence of a steel and concrete structure" is to talk nonsense.
There is no evidence of "molten steel." None. Case dismissed.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 5th August 2007 at 07:11 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top