|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
4th August 2007, 05:58 PM | #241 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
|
Frank, I do understand that this is the point of the thread. That is why I keep asking you to tell us how much significance you--not the researchers at NIST--attach to the loss of fireproofing in determining the ultimate result. Is it possible, then, that damage to furniture could be uncorrelated with loss of insulation? In other words, can we separate the two? We could, for example, set off an explosive in an area where the insulation was unaffected by the impact of the plane. The blast would destroy furniture-- AND it would dislodge a certain amount of fireproofing. All of which would leave us--where? We would still be looking for residue of the explosive, no? And if we found nothing to suggest the use of an explosive, what should we conclude? Can you really mean what you seem to be saying here? Weren't the tests designed specifically to model a range of possible outcomes? Why are you presenting a false dichotomy? Your discovery of an additional heat source need not contradict NIST's explanation: it can modify or amplify it. Only if we posit that little or no fireproofing was dislodged--an extraordinary claim--can we speak of overturning the conclusion reached by NIST. To return to my boxing metaphor, we began with the statement that the champ knocked out his opponent with a combination. It turned out that there was a big punch that no one noticed. Our revised conclusion is that the champ knocked out his opponent with a combination. Do you see what I'm getting at? NIST says that the impact of the plane dislodged fireproofing thereby augmenting the effects of the fires. You say that NIST overlooked sources of heat that augmented the effects of the fires. My impression is that you've supplemented the NIST explanation, rather than challenged it. Again, what is the significance of the loss of fireproofing? Why should Occam's razor ask us to remove the furniture when it has been established beyond any conceivable doubt that the furniture was present? Surely we are not multiplying entities unnecessarily when the entities in question are not merely being postulated, but were certainly real. What possible reason could we have for assuming--indeed, for wanting to assume--that the furniture was not combustible? Did any of it survive? |
4th August 2007, 06:03 PM | #242 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
They are unnecessary because it's just not that complicated. Look, I've taken solid mechanics. I know the strength of steel as a function of temperature. I know how to set up an FEA of a truss structure. I know how to validate that FEA. Why on earth would I need to run a specific test? If I did, what would be the value of my model?
Let me say this one more time, and only one more time: The purpose of the full-scale fire tests in NCSTAR1-6B was to test the fire rating of an as-built assembly. That's it. It was not done to support the structural fire response model, nor was it needed. The fact that it verifies unit tests of the structural fire response model is an added bonus, but secondary to the purpose of the test. ETA: I may have confused 1-6B and 1-6C in previous writings... 1-6B is the full-scale tests. 1-6C is the component simulations. Sorry if I screwed that up. It's hard to keep the whole NIST report in memory. Argumentative. Take a look at the longer narratives in 1-6B. The structures were judged to be in "imminent failure" on the basis of spalling, creaking, mid-element deformation appearing in the diagonals, and reaching maximum mid-span elastic deflection. Experts running the tests made the call. You are speculating without data or training that they may have been incorrect. So, yes, you must take their word. You have no credible alternative. Apples to oranges comparison. I've already explained this. This is a different apples to oranges comparison. What you are describing above is the unit test, not the actual structural failure model. This unit test uses unrealistic and simple boundary conditions to make it directly comparable to a directly solvable or furnace-test result. NIST absolutely does not suggest that the temperature profile above is what happened in the Towers. That information comes from NCSTAR1-5F. It shows nothing at all like a constant profile, not in time or in space. NIST did not integrate data in the way you describe. The heating of steel is a function of its fireproofing as well. The fire models give us temperature, that plus fireproofing estimate gives us rate of heating, that plus steel element size gives us rate of temperature rise, integrated over time gives us steel temperature as a function of time. As before, the "entirely heated to 700 C for 30 minutes" is not and never was intended to represent actual conditions in the Towers. It's a test case. This provides our verification of the models before we do the real calculation. You've strung together several totally unrelated experiments, so it should be no surprise that it leads to no sensible conclusion. I still think the confusion is strictly on your side. Your objections thus far constitute a "cherry picking" approach, and do not follow the logical flow of the NIST investigation. I would suggest you re-read NCSTAR1-5 before proceeding. That should clear up all of the mistakes you've made here. |
4th August 2007, 06:46 PM | #243 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
The fire proofing dislodgement was first proposed by the Society of engineers the only scenario that worked in to cause collapse was the worst case scenario That is what NIST adopted.
Frank's reaction which I have also recreated to some degree in experiments would cause the trusses to bow and weaken the structure if the damage was minimal, or the insulation not degraded at all. The fire proofing may in fact have been damaged worse than NIST estimates or not Damaged at all it is simply an unknown. All we know is that NIST found no evidence of perimeter column temperatures over 250c where there was paint to test. That indicates highly localized heating. The Floor pans are gone and not accounted for and the trusses and steel in some of the buildings are Chlorinated and Sulfated, and we have some unusual metal spheres that are directly related to high temperature reactions. Hot aluminum oxide tend not to bounce off of steel, it embeds, hot aluminum oxide would have penetrated the steel floor pans as if they were tissue paper, that penetration, catalyzes Franks reaction in the early fire, by increasing the surface area for reactions to take place. If someone can correct me on any mistakes I have made please do, information correct and accurate information is always welcome. PS. I also found a place to produce more spheres, Computers thin metals in them can be ignited and produce spheres at really low temperatures, about 450c. I am also looking at other sources. |
4th August 2007, 06:57 PM | #244 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
There's a problem with that theory, though. Dr. Greening's reaction basically adds much more heat to the system, albeit in highly localized areas. But while local, you would require a lot more heat, and that would greatly increase the average heat inside the structure.
The NIST fire models can be partially verified against observation of and through the windows. The first appearance of fire at any location marks the ignition temperature contour as a function of time. Window breakage corresponds to a higher temperature contour. If there is a lot more heat input -- which would be required to defeat undamaged fireproofing -- these observations would be way off. It is uncertain, but we have photographs of some damaged fireproofing, not to mention evidence from the pieces that were knocked free. I suspect (but cannot prove) that NIST underestimated the fireproofing damage. Nope. I suspect local heating as well, but you can't use the perimeter to prove or refute that. As for the recovered core steel, we don't have enough from the fire floors to make any call about locality either. This is all fair. I wouldn't be surprised if these reactions had a slight to moderate effect on the heat budget. I merely dispute that it was such a huge increase that it could have eaten through intact fireproofing. The WPI sulfidized steel results also demonstrated that the steel, despite never exceeding 850oC, experienced some decarburation. It's not much of a stretch to suppose that spherule production was another result, and if so, it's entirely probable for significant quantities of iron spherules to appear at perfectly ordinary temperatures. This is consistent with what you've found here. |
4th August 2007, 07:27 PM | #245 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
|
Regarding evidence of explosives in the towers:
Of course it would change the theory; discovery of such physical evidence would be earth-shattering in terms of what we thought about the attack. There would be all sorts of questions as to how Al Qaeda got such access to the building, how they were able to get the bombs in and how they were able to plant the bombs undiscovered by security and bomb-sniffing dogs. Obviously if they were able to do it once, they could do it again, and we would need to take a long, hard look at security procedures. Were the charges somehow undetectable by the dogs? How were the disguised so they went unnoticed by security and maintenance staff? How were they built so that they were able to withstand the impact of the planes? How were they able to operate without the presence of det cord or detonators that could later be discovered by cleanup crews? It would open up a whole new realm of investigation and would blow the lid of what we know of Al Qaeda's capabilities. |
4th August 2007, 07:32 PM | #246 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
4th August 2007, 08:00 PM | #247 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
|
They bombed the towers once before. It's not out of the question that they'd double-up the 9/11 attack with explosives, a back-up measure to be sure the towers came down and caused maximum casualties. If, during cleanup, workers had come out of the rubble with charred detonators and frayed det cord, we would have shaken our heads and wondered how we were so vulnerable.
I'm not familiar with any record of such evidence but perhaps Jay has knowledge I do not. If so, I hope he shares it. It'll be the biggest piece of 9/11 news to come out in years. |
5th August 2007, 01:20 PM | #248 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 7,895
|
Yes it is, but the problem is some of the spheres can not form at such low temperatures. The ones from blood for instance can form in aluminum oxidation reactions or steel oxidation reactions by simply heating the Blood dropplets to above 1400c driving off the Sodium Chloride.
Dear, R.Mackey energy is the key here, because energy can not only cause extra heating but also some energy forms can cause increased surface area, and lower combustion temperatures of metals Normally hydrogen ebrittlement only occurs at 900c I got it to work at less than 700c by using non Thermal energy on the metal to increase stored energy- fractures and cracks do to wave energy and mechanical stress both at the same time. I got a Super hot H20 reaction to bounce back and forth on the metals surface-underside causing an intense reaction, I am still working on this, it is incredibly complex and I must admit It may be beyound me to understand all that I have done. I respect and apreciate your insite and advice R Macky your knowledge in this subject is valued, probibly more than you know. It has helped greatly in my understanding of the events I have witnessed. |
5th August 2007, 01:38 PM | #249 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. No prob. No miscommunication here. 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. 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? 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. |
5th August 2007, 01:51 PM | #250 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
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.
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. 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. 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. Continue here or another thread? |
5th August 2007, 02:03 PM | #251 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
This is an issue of parsimony. Once we have established that we cannot simply ignore the evidence of molten steel, we must account for it.
The metatheoretic criteria established in the OP take no account of the political ramifications of theories--only that they must make "sense". Does it make more sense to presume that al qaeda wired the building for destruction or that individuals with expertise in military demolitions got involved, or both, or some other hypothesis? You will find no predetermined conclusions from me about this matter. This is not a rhetorical question. Nor does it suffice to dismiss the evidence of molten steel because the logistical problems inherent in any CD theory. I fully admit that any CD theory is difficult to apprehend mostly because of the logistical elements. But if you would like to discount this theory on the basis that "it's just not possible that our own people would murder us to make a point", then it may be you, David, that needs to do some reading about the history of war. Again, you will not find a predetermined conclusion in any of my writings. I suggest without any sarcasm that we approach all theories with an open mind and with objective criteria of a good theory so that we may come to the conclusion that best fits all the data. "Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Doyle |
5th August 2007, 02:22 PM | #252 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
|
5th August 2007, 03:59 PM | #253 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
I sense another layman's smackdown of all those 'idiots' at NIST coming on...
|
5th August 2007, 04:27 PM | #254 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
|
Then indeed you have access to data I do not. I was unaware of:
1. Any evidence of molten steel (I've heard second-hand reports of molten metal, but not necessarily steel); 2. The fact that molten steel is indicative of a controlled demolition. I was aware of molten metal in intense structure fires, but had never heard of it as a side effect of the demolition process. If you can share the evidence for these two conclusions, we can indeed move on to what the implications are. |
5th August 2007, 04:57 PM | #255 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
I have explained that I am talking about an average velocity and that there is some distibution of velocities in the debris (for which I proposed a range similar to that given by NIST). Nonetheless, the total momentum and average velocity are linearly proportional.
It is interesting to note that for WTC1, one engine remained in the core and the second engine was determined to have a velocity of 50 mph when it was 1/3 of distance the from the core to the south exterior wall. These are the absolute heaviest and most dense debris components. I don't have enough information on which to judge the FEA simulation and I don't know if I would understand anyway. Nonetheless, I have seen no indication that NIST modelled the core contents other than partitions. The core also had elevator tracks and cables, air ducts, ac pipes, water pipes, steam pipes, sewer pipes, stairs, service rooms, storage rooms, power lines, and etc. In fact the average partition load was around 20 psf while the average SDL was around 40 psf. So the model may have left out 50% of the mass within the core which debris may have come in contact with. Regardless of what Mackey says about chaotic systems that are impossible to model, gravity is always strictly inforced. Also, every time something is deflected it loses momentum. I challenge anyone to come up with a realistic scenario by which a debris component actually hits a floor truss on the south side of the building while retaining enough momentum to damage the foreproofing. Consider any initial trajectory and then imagine things bouncing around. Keep in mind that the floor beams in the core were probably at least 24" deep and the truss system 30" deep. If anyone can find such a scenario, then try to come up with the probability that a significant portion of the debris will follow this trajectory. |
5th August 2007, 05:08 PM | #256 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
So Jay, are you still an unemployed caterer? Must be the new way to become an expert on structural engineering.
http://www.goodharborreport.com/Blinded-by-hindsight TAM |
5th August 2007, 07:08 PM | #257 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
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. 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. Nonsense. There is no leap, and there is no altering of simulation inputs as you suggest. You pulled this out of thin air. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. There is no evidence of "molten steel." None. Case dismissed. |
5th August 2007, 07:15 PM | #258 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Nice strawman.
I already came up with such a scenario, based on fluid dynamics. I also feel comfortable saying that, in all likelihood, everyone reading this thread -- except you -- understands that over a timescale of under half a second, gravity is negligible in the dynamics of an aircraft impact. If you don't believe me, estimate the Froude number and see what you get. |
5th August 2007, 07:48 PM | #259 |
Downsitting Citizen
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
|
Another detailed, informative, and factually correct smackdown by R. Mackey. Jay, his advice is good. There is no excuse for arguing from ignorance. The information to answer your questions is available to all. You only have to read it and not misrepresent what you've read.
|
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard |
|
5th August 2007, 08:37 PM | #260 |
Downsitting Citizen
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,078
|
|
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard |
|
6th August 2007, 03:15 AM | #261 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
I wasn't talking about time/temperature tests. My point was that NIST have modelled the temperatures and times experienced by the WTC structural members, and that this is itself a falsifiable theory. Any model that disagreed with these results would also be falsifiable and have to be evaluated separately. In other words, saying "My calculations indicate that the floor joists never reached temperatures above 500ºC" does not falsify NIST; one would have to explain why these calculations were superior to NIST's.
Yes, parsimony is a secondary criterion. That's exactly what I meant by referring to a theory that explains observation "equally well". I'd have thought that was obvious. If a new theory emerges that explains more of the observed data, then I agree, parsimony is irrelevant. You've taken two NIST statements and asserted that they disagree. I dispute this. See below: This is comparing apples and oranges. The first quote says that the section was heated over a period of 30 minutes i.e. that the process of heating to temperature took 30 minutes; no information is given about the time held at temperature. The second refers to duration at temperature. There isn't any inconsistency here, just incomprehension. Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
6th August 2007, 07:32 AM | #262 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
No, that's hand-waving Mr. Mackey. Most of the people here accept hand waving from "knowledgable experts". I don't.
The majority of the inital momentum (vertical approach angle = 10.6 degrees) was lateral the rest was downward so only deflections could have caused ceiling impacts on the south side.
All that is left is deflected debris or debris that suddenly got lift 18' from the south edge of the core. So let's look at deflected debris. Deflected debris would have to bounce upward at > 30% measured relative to the floor less than 18' from the south edge of the core otherwise it hits the core floor beams or has an impact angle > 60% from perpendicular to the truss. The debris has three cases for deflection. Impacting the floor, impacting core or office contents, or a combination of these.
Mr. Mackey is conveniently ignoring the energy requirements based on laboratory tests. He is conveniently ignoring that, even at the laboratory energy levels, an impact at 60 degrees did not remove fireproofing. He is conveniently ignoring that at 70 mph fireproofing was not damaged in tests. He is conveniently ignoring that the average debris velocity was 43.4 mph upon leaving the core. He is conveniently ignoring that the truss system on the south side was mostly blocked from lateral trajectories by core beams at each column row. He is conveniently ignoring that half the mass in the core was left out of the analysis. He is conveniently ignoring the probability of any debris actually impacting the floor trusses on the south side. Mr. Mackey will probably bring up rotational aspects, lift, and the Froude number. To which I will reply, poppy-cock. NIST has given no indication how these were handled. Mr. Mackey will probably again bring up that no one could explain the flight 93 crater to my satisfaction. To which I will reply that his assertions regarding live-loads in the towers were easily contradicted by numerous sources including NIST. Not that either of these issues has anything to do with this thread. The point being that no one is infallible. Not your best work Mr. Mackey! |
6th August 2007, 11:33 AM | #263 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,448
|
|
6th August 2007, 11:40 AM | #264 |
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 31,398
|
You mean NIST didn't integrate massive kerosene-based explosions into their testing?
Well, frankly, I'm shocked. |
6th August 2007, 02:40 PM | #265 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
Neither of my statements are false: one is a direct quote from NIST that none of the steel reached more than 600C for more than 15 minutes, and the second is that they had to increase both the temperatures and the length of time of exposure in order for the collapse to initiate.
When you say "this is totally false" what you mean is that you do not agree with my interpretation of the data. There isn't anything false about my statements. I'm well aware that NIST "predicts" that the recovered beams were in such a place as to not get hot enough to collapse. As if this is confirmation of their theory. From the skeptical perspective, this corroborates the notion that NIST fit their simulation input around the recovered evidence in order to maintain theory coherence. Instead of using the recovered evidence as a baseline for their simulations, it is simply an irrelevant piece to their theory. The fact is they appeal to the non-existence of evidence to make their case. Do you not think it's convenient that they didn't recover any steel that got hotter than 600C for more than 15 minutes, yet they are darned certain that the fires got much hotter for much longer? How do they know this? Because they ran simulations that show the building collapsed. Is that "knowledge" or "evidence"? Whether you are a skeptic or not, you cannot deny that the data used in the simulations was NOT from the recovered evidence, but in one way or another, it was made up, after the fact. They've already proven that the simulations will, come hell or high water, demonstrate the collapse of the towers. What we need to keep in mind from a metatheoretical approach is that for the NIST theory to come true, several factors for which we have no corroborative evidence must synchronize to produce the "global collapse": 1. Fireproofing must be dislodged at just the right places where the fire reached around 1000C. 2. The fire itself must sustain a gas temperature of nearly 1000C for at least 30 minutes. 3. Which implies a concentration of fuel in just the right places under just the right circumstances, for BOTH towers. This is asking an awful lot for a theory which derives all of its corroboration from itself--a fact the NIST report readily admits. It calls this data "investigation-generated experimental data."(141) In another place it calls this practice "information replacement" in order to reconstruct the fires. (My paraphrase--179). If I pulled this out of thin air, as you suggest, then show me where they came up with the temperatures at which the steel in the towers weakened to the point of collapse. Show me collapse-temperatures and I'll show you "investigation-generated experimental data." Don't misunderstand me, I have read why they say they used the more severe cases, but the reasons they cite are simply "observed events." "The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower."(142) In the severe cases, NIST uses the estimate of 5lb/sq ft of office fuel, yet previously, NIST "... estimated the fuel loading on these floors to have been about 4 lb/ft2 (20 kg/m2), or about 60 tons per floor. This was somewhat lower than found in prior surveys of office spaces. The small number of interior walls, and thus the minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences."(76) which corresponds to the "middle case" in their scenarios. One problem with the middle cases, NIST says, is that, "Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing."(142) And we can't have that, because that would necessitate revamping the official theory. So, instead, they discard the middle cases based on "observed events" despite the fact they admit that 4lb/sq ft corresponds to their own estimates. What's clear from the report is that it doesn't follow a clear argumentative progression. It uses rhetorical devices--mostly arguments from illustrations--in order to make its case. And it must ignore or re-interpret its own data in order to keep from re-evaluating its theory. I should be able to apply concepts of metatheoretic adequacy to their theory to measure the strength of their case. Regardless of whether you think I'm capable of understanding the report or not, their case rests on the results they obtained from the simulations, while simultaneously, all evidence which would seem to be in contradiction to their position is interpreted as either irrelevant or corroboration based on the simulations. You can say "You simply don't know what you're talking about" over and over again, but it's not much of an argument. I've provided reasons for why the test parameters and results demonstrate the failure of the NIST theory, and all you come back with "no it doesn't". That's simply not a very strong argument. Given enough time, there's no doubt they would fail. But did they fail in the necessary time/temp parameters? No, they didn't. Failing a fire rating is not equivalent to physically collapsing, is it? Why? Because the "experts" say so? That is a patently bad argument. Experts should have reasons just like anyone else. Like I said, they could have just as truthfully said, "the truss systems did not fail." But they chose to characterize them as "almost failing." Both statements may be true, but "imminent" has an undeniably corroborative tone to it, whereas "they did not fail" sounds like negative confirmation of the official theory. If these tests were indeed completely unrelated to the NIST theory, why didn't they just say the floor systems did not fail in the time and temp restraints? Are you saying that the buckling of the floor trusses is completely unnecessary for the NIST collapse sequence? If so, then let us play that theory out. How does the collapse sequence initiate without reference to failing floor truss systems whatsoever? I'm drawing from the NIST report. That's it. Not sure what you're talking about with "someone elses footnotes." If it's in quotes, I either cite it, or they're from the post preceding the quotes, or they're "scare quotes" but I try to limit the use of those as they get to sounding condescending--which I'm not a big fan of. That's like saying "we didn't look into the possibility of murder because we only found a tiny bit of evidence for poison." Either way, the NIST report must ignore this bit of evidence, which from a metatheoretical standpoint indicates a failure in the theory--not in the relevance of the evidence. How on Earth is this evidence against molten steel? The evidence clearly indicates that 1/2 inch steel has holes the size of silver dollars! Yet, this is evidence AGAINST molten steel? Please help me make sense of that comment. And where did the eutectic mixture come from? Why doesn't this warrant special attention? Eutectic mixtures are not naturally occurring phenomena. Can you cite some test that demonstrates a naturally occurring eutectic reaction in an office fire? Even one doused in jet fuel? Why doesn't this cause great concern to everyone who supports the official theory? The NIST report makes no mention of this, much less does it try to integrate it into its theory of the collapse. If there were a more clear cut case of a theory that needs to ignore evidence in order to maintain, I do not know of it. Except that they are composed mostly of Fe, and they are spherical. Were they cast into those shapes? Obviously not. In order to get into that shape, they were required at one point to be molten. The surface tension then pulls them into a roughly spherical shape. Whether a eutectic reaction was involved or not, these spheres cannot be ignored. They are clear-cut evidence of molten steel, yet you still must maintain that If evidence arises that your theory cannot explain, you have two choices: 1. Change the theory to fit the evidence, or 2. Change the evidence to fit the theory. It seems you have chosen the latter. Unfortunately, ignoring the evidence does not make your theory stronger--it demonstrates its inherent inability to account for all the evidence. The NIST theory is, by several standards, inadequate. There is no way around this. The question now is: do you cling to inadequate, but comfortable theories, or do you make an honest attempt to explain the evidence? |
6th August 2007, 02:54 PM | #266 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
USGS Iron-rich sphere
and Worchester Polytechnic Institute Again, David, I'm not advocating a CD theory here. At least not yet. What we need to do is honestly look at the evidence and come up with a theory that best fits the evidence. Are you willing to do that? |
6th August 2007, 02:57 PM | #267 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
|
6th August 2007, 03:08 PM | #268 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
|
|
6th August 2007, 03:37 PM | #269 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
You support Jones. If you want to be credible, find some evidence. Jones is not credible, he started a journal so he could publish his paper because no one would publish his paper of nonsense. You have been fooled by dust and lies. It is your ideas under attack, you need to find real facts before you make up lies and try to act so intellectual.
The article you posted is cute, but there is no substance to support your ideas of thermite/thermate CD of the WTC. I hope you understand Jones did not start gong nuts over thermite and CD until 2005. Kind of late to do real research, as he grasp at dust from someone house as proof of something that never happened in the WTC. You are the one who thinks he has evidence, when will your evidence be available? |
6th August 2007, 03:42 PM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
As an interested observer, but no expert, I am dubious that you have the qualifications to make this statement. I've head a lot of debate about the NIST report, and since I am no expert I must rely on experts.
Most objections to the NIST report are usually borne of either demanding that the report explain things it wasn't tasked do to, or semi-experts misinterpreting it. So far you look to be more of the latter, and your arguments so far are interesting yet unconvincing. You basically are calling into question either the morals, qualifications, or intelligence of the HIGHLY qualified contributers to the NIST; that's nothing to be done lightly. But, like I said, I'm not the expert. I'll leave the technical responses to them. |
6th August 2007, 03:50 PM | #271 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
|
6th August 2007, 03:52 PM | #272 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
|
The controlled-demolition theory favored by conspiracy liars has been thoroughly debunked and fails to account for the evidence. They have no problem ignoring the evidence. They do little else apart from engaging in personal attacks and fabricating support for their pernicious myths. |
6th August 2007, 10:27 PM | #273 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
|
Can someone link to or provide a general explaination of Ove Arup's hypothesis? My searches on the topic have been fruitless so far.
|
7th August 2007, 12:40 PM | #274 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
Really? Where did the energy come from to heat the steel enough to melt it? Office fires, even with jet fuel, will not get hot enough to melt steel, by several hundred degrees Celsius. Where did that energy come from? That's a huge amount of energy to have to account for. Unless somehow a eutectic reaction was involved which would lower the melting point of steel. The question then becomes, "what circumstances produced a eutectic reaction in the WTC buildings?"
But you don't see anything strange about irrefutable evidence of molten steel? You see no need to even ask these questions. If there isn't anything unusual about it, or it's easily explained, why didn't the NIST report take it into account in their official explanation? Would you like to say that "molten steel is irrelevant to the collapse of steel and concrete buildings"? That too, would be an interesting argument to make. Instead of expending all this energy trying to dismiss the evidence we can all see, why not change our theory in such a way so as to account for it? Why is that so difficult? |
7th August 2007, 12:42 PM | #275 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
You've made several references to Jones in this thread. I have made ZERO. I have not cited his papers nor quoted from his lectures. Again, if you have a legitimate criticism with my work, by all means come forward with it. If I've made a leap of logic not warranted by the evidence, please point it out. But I suspect you do not have one. Please, show me where I made an argumentative error, or save your opinions for another thread.
Again, you will find nowhere in this thread where I make reference to "thermite/thermate". It seems you are more interested in expressing your fear of a conclusion that does not fit your preconceived notions regarding the WTC collapses than of presenting a substantive argument one way or the other. This thread isn't about your fears. It's about the convergence of the evidence and the theories. If you'd like to characterize evidence for molten steel at the WTC as "cute" then you are like many here, ignoring the evidence. Present an argument or sit on the sidelines. |
7th August 2007, 12:43 PM | #276 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
Do you have a specific criticism with my argumentation or are you just telling me how you feel? If it's the latter, it's irrelevant. I came to this site to express these views with the thought that intelligent people can see past honoraries and into the substance of an argument. Look at the substance of my arguments. Look at the substance of the NIST case. Compare them. Don't let other people do your thinking for you. And don't reply that you "don't let other people think for you" because you just said you did--so long as they had the right credentials. That may be alright for you, but "experts" can still spout scientific-looking nonsense. The only way to tell is to deconstruct their arguments and test them against objective criteria. I'm not telling anyone what to think. Just think. |
7th August 2007, 12:44 PM | #277 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
|
7th August 2007, 12:45 PM | #278 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
|
Jay Howard:
"Why is that so difficult?" Because the JREFers already have the Twoof, the whole Twoof and nothing but the Twoof from NIST! |
7th August 2007, 12:46 PM | #279 |
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 627
|
|
7th August 2007, 12:55 PM | #280 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
|
Yep.
You are having to manufacture (make-up; fabricate) evidence. No evidence exists of Molten steel, other than that which can be attributed as incidental to a steel/aluminum collision at high energy and velocity. Even that "molten steel" evidence can be attributed somewhat to rescue/recovery work post-collapse. No evidence of explosives exists, other than elements which are commonly used in construction materials. Period. no boom stuff. none. zilch. nada. Zero. |
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|