Hello all. Wanted to have a mature discussion regarding the merits of the NIST report with a group who might be more receptive to basic scientific standards like falsifiability and experimental repeatability.
I've studied the report and the sub-sections relevant to the Tower structures and their collapse explanation thereof.
Given all the data and all the analysis of the reports, what testable hypothesis do they offer?
Probably most feel like this issue has been beat to death. If you're interested in actually answering this question, you will likely find the official theory not just lacking in substance, but anti-scientific.
I've had this discussion on a few different forums under this same name and no one yet has been able to provide an answer to this seemingly simple question.
Falsifiable?
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
The only REASONABLE way to do this within their budget and time constraints was primarily by computer simulations.
In this regard they did (IMHO) an admirable job.
They prepared multiple FEA models of the towers and the planes and used state of the art FEA software to evaluate the range of damage to the towers and then used their extensive video/photographic analysis to aid in their reconstruction of the fires and the fire damage to come up with a reasonable HYPOTHESIS for the key elements that led to the initiation of the collapse.
What do you find WRONG with how they attacked the problem?
What would YOU have done instead?
Arthur
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
The only REASONABLE way to do this within their budget and time constraints was primarily by computer simulations.
In this regard they did (IMHO) an admirable job.
They prepared multiple FEA models of the towers and the planes and used state of the art FEA software to evaluate the range of damage to the towers and then used their extensive video/photographic analysis to aid in their reconstruction of the fires and the fire damage to come up with a reasonable HYPOTHESIS for the key elements that led to the initiation of the collapse.
What do you find WRONG with how they attacked the problem?
What would YOU have done instead?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 04:45 AM)
Falsifiable?
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
The only REASONABLE way to do this within their budget and time constraints was primarily by computer simulations.
In this regard they did (IMHO) an admirable job.
They prepared multiple FEA models of the towers and the planes and used state of the art FEA software to evaluate the range of damage to the towers and then used their extensive video/photographic analysis to aid in their reconstruction of the fires and the fire damage to come up with a reasonable HYPOTHESIS for the key elements that led to the initiation of the collapse.
What do you find WRONG with how they attacked the problem?
What would YOU have done instead?
Arthur
Were the physical events of that day somehow outside the scope of modern science to investigate?
No, you don't believe that. Nor should you. The collapse of the WTC towers should be completely within the realm of 21st century science to explain. Don't you agree?
Hell, we can explain why radiation is emitted from black holes. We don't have to build a black hole to build an experiment to demonstrate this.
Yet, you feel like the lack of a testable hypothesis is completely acceptable in regard to the collapse of the WTC towers because why?
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
The only REASONABLE way to do this within their budget and time constraints was primarily by computer simulations.
In this regard they did (IMHO) an admirable job.
They prepared multiple FEA models of the towers and the planes and used state of the art FEA software to evaluate the range of damage to the towers and then used their extensive video/photographic analysis to aid in their reconstruction of the fires and the fire damage to come up with a reasonable HYPOTHESIS for the key elements that led to the initiation of the collapse.
What do you find WRONG with how they attacked the problem?
What would YOU have done instead?
Arthur
Were the physical events of that day somehow outside the scope of modern science to investigate?
No, you don't believe that. Nor should you. The collapse of the WTC towers should be completely within the realm of 21st century science to explain. Don't you agree?
Hell, we can explain why radiation is emitted from black holes. We don't have to build a black hole to build an experiment to demonstrate this.
Yet, you feel like the lack of a testable hypothesis is completely acceptable in regard to the collapse of the WTC towers because why?
Guess you missed that part about a budget and a timeline.
Considering the point where NIST started and within the imposed constraints, the physical events of that day were outside of the ability of ANYONE to say EXACTLY how the towers fell.
That said, NIST has provided a VERY EXCELLENT insight into the LIKELY events leading up to the collapse.
So well that NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE has found ANY serious issues with their overall conclusions.
Arthur
Considering the point where NIST started and within the imposed constraints, the physical events of that day were outside of the ability of ANYONE to say EXACTLY how the towers fell.
That said, NIST has provided a VERY EXCELLENT insight into the LIKELY events leading up to the collapse.
So well that NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE has found ANY serious issues with their overall conclusions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 05:03 AM)
Guess you missed that part about a budget and a timeline.
Considering the point where NIST started and within the imposed constraints, the physical events of that day were outside of the ability of ANYONE to say EXACTLY how the towers fell.
That said, NIST has provided a VERY EXCELLENT insight into the LIKELY events leading up to the collapse.
So well, that NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE has found ANY serious issues with their overall conclusions.
Arthur
No Arthur, I didn't miss it. They had $20 Million to come up with a testable hypothesis. I'll bet many reading this could at least come up with a testable theory (right or wrong) for less than $20M.
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
Considering the point where NIST started and within the imposed constraints, the physical events of that day were outside of the ability of ANYONE to say EXACTLY how the towers fell.
That said, NIST has provided a VERY EXCELLENT insight into the LIKELY events leading up to the collapse.
So well, that NO PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE has found ANY serious issues with their overall conclusions.
Arthur
No Arthur, I didn't miss it. They had $20 Million to come up with a testable hypothesis. I'll bet many reading this could at least come up with a testable theory (right or wrong) for less than $20M.
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
QUOTE (jay howard to adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 05:18 AM)
No Arthur, I didn't miss it. They had $20 Million to come up with a testable hypothesis. I'll bet many reading this could at least come up with a testable theory (right or wrong) for less than $20M.
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
Hi jay howard!
The only choices for a theory come under the two headings: normal (given the structure/energies present) or not normal under the circumstances.
In either case, one would have to prove/disprove all the PATENTLY unnatural aspects/hypotheses/claims (piloted plane impacts; planted explosives etc.).
These threads have discussed BOTH these classes of possible 'falsifiable theories' and shown that NATURAL energies/stresses AFTER the UNNATURAL plane impacts/fires could account for what was observed for COLLAPSE INITIATION and subsequent PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.
What the NIST could ONLY do AFTER the event was to gather as much facts and simulate accordingly....and allow THE RESULTS of that exercise to imply the conclusions.
Unless they re-created the whole event (buildings plans and all) for EVERY possible hypothesis both natural/unnatural, they would still not be able to posit the definitive falsifiable theory you want.
Besides, perhaps, once the new administration is voted in, they will fund further long-term research/testing etc so that some 'falsifiable' theory can be output from a greater-scope exercise.
Gotta go now. Going to Sydney for medical checks on my optics, so Cheers for now, jay howard, y'all!
RC.
.
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
Hi jay howard!
The only choices for a theory come under the two headings: normal (given the structure/energies present) or not normal under the circumstances.
In either case, one would have to prove/disprove all the PATENTLY unnatural aspects/hypotheses/claims (piloted plane impacts; planted explosives etc.).
These threads have discussed BOTH these classes of possible 'falsifiable theories' and shown that NATURAL energies/stresses AFTER the UNNATURAL plane impacts/fires could account for what was observed for COLLAPSE INITIATION and subsequent PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.
What the NIST could ONLY do AFTER the event was to gather as much facts and simulate accordingly....and allow THE RESULTS of that exercise to imply the conclusions.
Unless they re-created the whole event (buildings plans and all) for EVERY possible hypothesis both natural/unnatural, they would still not be able to posit the definitive falsifiable theory you want.
Besides, perhaps, once the new administration is voted in, they will fund further long-term research/testing etc so that some 'falsifiable' theory can be output from a greater-scope exercise.
Gotta go now. Going to Sydney for medical checks on my optics, so Cheers for now, jay howard, y'all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 8 2007, 05:38 AM)
Hi jay howard!
The only choices for a theory come under the two headings: normal (given the structure/energies present) or not normal under the circumstances.
In either case, one would have to prove/disprove all the PATENTLY unnatural aspects (piloted plane impacts; planted explosives etc.).
These threads have discussed BOTH these classes of possible 'falsifiable theories' and shown that NATURAL energies/stresses AFTER the UNNATURAL plane impacts/fires could account for what was observed for COLLAPSE INITIATION and subsequent PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE.
What the NIST could ONLY do AFTER the event was to gather as much facts and simulate accordingly....and allow THE RESULTS of that exercise to imply the conclusions.
Unless they re-created the whole event (buildings plans and all) for EVERY possible hypothesis both natural/unnatural, they would still not be able to posit the definitive falsifiable theory you want.
Besides, perhaps, once the new administration is voted in, they will fund further long-term research/testing etc so that some 'falsifiable' theory can be output from a greater-scope exercise.
Gotta go now. Going to Sydney for medical checks on my optics, so Cheers for now, jay howard, y'all!
RC.
.
Hi RealityCheck.
That's not a good reason for a lack of a testable hypothesis. As mentioned above, there are all kinds of complicated and unusual events (black holes emitting radiation for example, or solving a murder from 50 years ago, or figuring out what fossilized, extinct creatures once ate) without having to recreate those events in their entirety.
Do you believe the collapse of the WTC towers are beyond the pale of modern science to explain? If so, why? You shouldn't. There isn't anything beyond the ability of modern science to explain in this case.
There are only two choices for a scientific theory:
False or
Possible.
That's it. If your theory is neither false nor possible, then it's not a scientific theory. If it's false (presumably because it's been ruled out by a test or two), then we can leave it behind or revise it to fit the data.
If it's possible, (presumably because further testing has not ruled it out) then we can proceed to build an explanation upon it.
One need not rule out all possible scenarios in order to make a case. If you think the official explanation can completely account for the collapses, then please, state your testable hypothesis. I don't care where you got it from nor what your credentials are. If it's a good theory, it will stand on its own.
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 8 2007, 12:18 AM)
No Arthur, I didn't miss it. They had $20 Million to come up with a testable hypothesis. I'll bet many reading this could at least come up with a testable theory (right or wrong) for less than $20M.
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
No, their goal was not to come up with a "testable hypothesis". That's your strawman.
They wanted to come up with the most likely explanation that they could working with the evidence they had within their budget and timeline . (they also had other important safety issues to deal with besides just why the towers collapsed)
The costly, but incredibly detailed FEA/FDS analysis that they did do was obviously the smart approach to the structural and fire analysis of the towers and the effects of the planes impact.
As to
Well that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS.
Which tests do not conform?
Oh, and PLEASE, don't spout that BOGUS bit about the floors not failing during the ASTM tests. NIST does NOT claim that the floors failed or collapsed, in fact their analysis shows that they DIDN'T collapse (which is why they discounted the previous FEMA "pancake" initiation idea).
As to Quintere, he has NOT written a peer reviewed paper critical of the NIST report and he is NOT an impartial observer, he is a consultant to a group with a VESTED interest in seeing the DESIGN be held at least partially accountable.
Still, in his congressional testimony and his writings he does NOT disagree with the fundamental aspect that the FIRES and the PLANES ALONE caused the collapse of the towers, he just believes that the fires WERE HOTTER than NIST's models showed because he believes the FUEL LOAD was HIGHER than the relatively LOW number (4 lbs per sq ft) that NIST used.
Its LIKELY, because they MODELED the towers and the plane and the impact and the fires to a very high degree and then coupled with the detailed video and photographic analysis showing the slow bowing in of a side of each of the towers they came up with a likely explanation that accounted for what the FEA analysis showed and what the visual evidence showed.
Their report has also stood the test of time as now almost two years since its release no PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL has shown any serious issue with any of its findings.
Arthur
No need to know "exactly" how the towers fell. All we need is one testable proposition. Something to the effect of
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
They offer no such sentence in the entire report. What they do offer is a lot of insinuation. These insinuations do not conform to the tests they commissioned.
As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
I'm also curious how you came to the conclusion that NIST's explanation was "likely"? To be a "likely" explanation it would have to have sifted from "unlikely" explanations. The only way to do this is to test the explanation. What explanation do you think they tested?
No, their goal was not to come up with a "testable hypothesis". That's your strawman.
They wanted to come up with the most likely explanation that they could working with the evidence they had within their budget and timeline . (they also had other important safety issues to deal with besides just why the towers collapsed)
The costly, but incredibly detailed FEA/FDS analysis that they did do was obviously the smart approach to the structural and fire analysis of the towers and the effects of the planes impact.
As to
QUOTE
"It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
Well that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS.
Which tests do not conform?
Oh, and PLEASE, don't spout that BOGUS bit about the floors not failing during the ASTM tests. NIST does NOT claim that the floors failed or collapsed, in fact their analysis shows that they DIDN'T collapse (which is why they discounted the previous FEMA "pancake" initiation idea).
As to Quintere, he has NOT written a peer reviewed paper critical of the NIST report and he is NOT an impartial observer, he is a consultant to a group with a VESTED interest in seeing the DESIGN be held at least partially accountable.
Still, in his congressional testimony and his writings he does NOT disagree with the fundamental aspect that the FIRES and the PLANES ALONE caused the collapse of the towers, he just believes that the fires WERE HOTTER than NIST's models showed because he believes the FUEL LOAD was HIGHER than the relatively LOW number (4 lbs per sq ft) that NIST used.
Its LIKELY, because they MODELED the towers and the plane and the impact and the fires to a very high degree and then coupled with the detailed video and photographic analysis showing the slow bowing in of a side of each of the towers they came up with a likely explanation that accounted for what the FEA analysis showed and what the visual evidence showed.
Their report has also stood the test of time as now almost two years since its release no PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL has shown any serious issue with any of its findings.
Arthur
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 8 2007, 05:52 AM)
Hi RealityCheck.
That's not a good reason for a lack of a testable hypothesis. As mentioned above, there are all kinds of complicated and unusual events (black holes emitting radiation for example, or solving a murder from 50 years ago, or figuring out what fossilized, extinct creatures once ate) without having to recreate those events in their entirety.
Do you believe the collapse of the WTC towers are beyond the pale of modern science to explain? If so, why? You shouldn't. There isn't anything beyond the ability of modern science to explain in this case.
There are only two choices for a scientific theory:
False or
Possible.
That's it. If your theory is neither false nor possible, then it's not a scientific theory. If it's false (presumably because it's been ruled out by a test or two), then we can leave it behind or revise it to fit the data.
If it's possible, (presumably because further testing has not ruled it out) then we can proceed to build an explanation upon it.
One need not rule out all possible scenarios in order to make a case. If you think the official explanation can completely account for the collapses, then please, state your testable hypothesis. I don't care where you got it from nor what your credentials are. If it's a good theory, it will stand on its own.
Hi again jay howard!
Just surfing by before logging off and caught your reply.
The problem is that the scenarion involves SCALE factors and POTENTIAL VARIABLES on a vast/dispersed EVENT SYSTEM that effectively SEPARATED into TWO 'effectively isolated' systems when the floor-to-wall connectors could not transmit the force STRENGTH/SPEED between the floors that INTEGRALLY and CRITICALLY supported the 'tube within tube' design for stability EVEN IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES....let alone in the VAST and OVERWHELMING CHOATIC events/processes we all saw that day.
Be fair, this was no easily-scaled, perfectly paramter-controllable dinky toy event to be simplistically looked at and say:
"Hmmmm, what ONE THING can we say about it as a likely hypothesis for what happened next"?
Now is it?
Be fair, it's all well and good WANTING a simple yes/no 'testable hypothesis', but in REALITY no ONE simple hypothesis is possible.
Only ONGOING hypotheses and REFINING/RETESTING etc can ever hope to get to the 'multi-faceted likelihoods' in the matter/events.
What true scientist (individually or collectively would offer such a 'simplistic' and ONE-DIMENSIONAL hypothesis as your posited 'sample' of one in such circumstances that NO MATTER what was offered, it would be torn to bits by the COMPLEXITYIES INVOLVED....and so make it already useless to be going on with?
I'm a reasonably DISINTERESTED observer. No axe to grind either way. And I myself would not like to have to put fortward such 'simplistic' and one-dimensional hypotheses just because someone WANTS me to for their own simplistic satisfaction, heh!
So I don't blame NIST for not doing so either, hehehe.
Anyhow, cheers, good luck and good thinking, jay, everyone! See y'all when I get back and surf this way again.
RC.
.
That's not a good reason for a lack of a testable hypothesis. As mentioned above, there are all kinds of complicated and unusual events (black holes emitting radiation for example, or solving a murder from 50 years ago, or figuring out what fossilized, extinct creatures once ate) without having to recreate those events in their entirety.
Do you believe the collapse of the WTC towers are beyond the pale of modern science to explain? If so, why? You shouldn't. There isn't anything beyond the ability of modern science to explain in this case.
There are only two choices for a scientific theory:
False or
Possible.
That's it. If your theory is neither false nor possible, then it's not a scientific theory. If it's false (presumably because it's been ruled out by a test or two), then we can leave it behind or revise it to fit the data.
If it's possible, (presumably because further testing has not ruled it out) then we can proceed to build an explanation upon it.
One need not rule out all possible scenarios in order to make a case. If you think the official explanation can completely account for the collapses, then please, state your testable hypothesis. I don't care where you got it from nor what your credentials are. If it's a good theory, it will stand on its own.
Hi again jay howard!
Just surfing by before logging off and caught your reply.
The problem is that the scenarion involves SCALE factors and POTENTIAL VARIABLES on a vast/dispersed EVENT SYSTEM that effectively SEPARATED into TWO 'effectively isolated' systems when the floor-to-wall connectors could not transmit the force STRENGTH/SPEED between the floors that INTEGRALLY and CRITICALLY supported the 'tube within tube' design for stability EVEN IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES....let alone in the VAST and OVERWHELMING CHOATIC events/processes we all saw that day.
Be fair, this was no easily-scaled, perfectly paramter-controllable dinky toy event to be simplistically looked at and say:
"Hmmmm, what ONE THING can we say about it as a likely hypothesis for what happened next"?
Now is it?
Be fair, it's all well and good WANTING a simple yes/no 'testable hypothesis', but in REALITY no ONE simple hypothesis is possible.
Only ONGOING hypotheses and REFINING/RETESTING etc can ever hope to get to the 'multi-faceted likelihoods' in the matter/events.
What true scientist (individually or collectively would offer such a 'simplistic' and ONE-DIMENSIONAL hypothesis as your posited 'sample' of one in such circumstances that NO MATTER what was offered, it would be torn to bits by the COMPLEXITYIES INVOLVED....and so make it already useless to be going on with?
I'm a reasonably DISINTERESTED observer. No axe to grind either way. And I myself would not like to have to put fortward such 'simplistic' and one-dimensional hypotheses just because someone WANTS me to for their own simplistic satisfaction, heh!
So I don't blame NIST for not doing so either, hehehe.
Anyhow, cheers, good luck and good thinking, jay, everyone! See y'all when I get back and surf this way again.
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 06:00 AM)
No, their goal was not to come up with a "testable hypothesis". That's your strawman.
They wanted to come up with the most likely explanation that they could working with the evidence they had.
The costly, but incredibly detailed FEA analysis that they did do was obviously the smart approach to the problem.
As to
Well that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS.
Which tests do not conform?
Oh, and PLEASE, don't spout that BOGUS bit about the floors not failing during the ASTM tests. NIST does NOT claim that the floors failed or collapsed, in fact their analysis shows that they DIDN'T collapse (which is why they discounted the previous FEMA "pancake" initiation idea).
As to Quintere, he has NOT written a peer reviewed paper critical of the NIST report and he is NOT an impartial observer, he is a consultant to a group with a VESTED interest in seeing the DESIGN be held at least partially accountable.
Still, in his congressional testimony and his writings he does NOT disagree with the fundamental aspect that the FIRES and the PLANES ALONE caused the collapse of the towers, he just believes that the fires WERE HOTTER than NIST's models showed because he believes the FUEL LOAD was HIGHER than the relatively LOW number (4 lbs per sq ft) that NIST used.
Its LIKELY, because they MODELED the towers and the plane and the impact and the fires to a very high degree and then coupled with the detailed video and photographic analysis showing the slow bowing in of a side of each of the towers they came up with a likely explanation that accounted for what the FEA analysis showed and what the visual evidence showed.
Their report has also stood the test of time as now almost two years since its release no PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL has shown any serious issue with any of its findings.
Arthur
Sorry Arthur, you cannot have it both ways. You can't say "they have no responsibility to come up with a testable hypothesis" and say "that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS."
Either they had a testable hypothesis or they didn't.
If you want to say their hypothesis is only testable within the computer simulations, then you've already given up. There is no guarantee that the parameters they put in the simulations had anything to do with the buildings that day.
In fact, it's revealing that you quote the 4lb/sq ft statistic as their fuel load. That is the number they substantiated several times in the report for what appear to be good reasons. Yet, when they apply that fuel load to the simulated buildings, what happens? They DO NOT FAIL. They must increase this fuel load by 25% get what they call "collapse initiation"--a thing which may or may not have any connection to "global collapse".
So tell me Arthur, if you have so much confidence in the official stance, what testable hypothesis do they propose?
They wanted to come up with the most likely explanation that they could working with the evidence they had.
The costly, but incredibly detailed FEA analysis that they did do was obviously the smart approach to the problem.
As to
Well that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS.
Which tests do not conform?
Oh, and PLEASE, don't spout that BOGUS bit about the floors not failing during the ASTM tests. NIST does NOT claim that the floors failed or collapsed, in fact their analysis shows that they DIDN'T collapse (which is why they discounted the previous FEMA "pancake" initiation idea).
As to Quintere, he has NOT written a peer reviewed paper critical of the NIST report and he is NOT an impartial observer, he is a consultant to a group with a VESTED interest in seeing the DESIGN be held at least partially accountable.
Still, in his congressional testimony and his writings he does NOT disagree with the fundamental aspect that the FIRES and the PLANES ALONE caused the collapse of the towers, he just believes that the fires WERE HOTTER than NIST's models showed because he believes the FUEL LOAD was HIGHER than the relatively LOW number (4 lbs per sq ft) that NIST used.
Its LIKELY, because they MODELED the towers and the plane and the impact and the fires to a very high degree and then coupled with the detailed video and photographic analysis showing the slow bowing in of a side of each of the towers they came up with a likely explanation that accounted for what the FEA analysis showed and what the visual evidence showed.
Their report has also stood the test of time as now almost two years since its release no PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL has shown any serious issue with any of its findings.
Arthur
Sorry Arthur, you cannot have it both ways. You can't say "they have no responsibility to come up with a testable hypothesis" and say "that's EXACTLY the question the FEA analysis coupled with the FDS simulation ANSWERS."
Either they had a testable hypothesis or they didn't.
If you want to say their hypothesis is only testable within the computer simulations, then you've already given up. There is no guarantee that the parameters they put in the simulations had anything to do with the buildings that day.
In fact, it's revealing that you quote the 4lb/sq ft statistic as their fuel load. That is the number they substantiated several times in the report for what appear to be good reasons. Yet, when they apply that fuel load to the simulated buildings, what happens? They DO NOT FAIL. They must increase this fuel load by 25% get what they call "collapse initiation"--a thing which may or may not have any connection to "global collapse".
So tell me Arthur, if you have so much confidence in the official stance, what testable hypothesis do they propose?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 8 2007, 12:38 AM)
Gotta go now. Going to Sydney for medical checks on my optics, so Cheers for now, jay howard, y'all!
RC.
.
Good luck RC, hope your optics continue to improve (and you should limit yourself to one Pub Crawl per visit to Sydney).
Arthur
RC.
.
Good luck RC, hope your optics continue to improve (and you should limit yourself to one Pub Crawl per visit to Sydney).
Arthur
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 8 2007, 06:11 AM)
Hi again jay howard!
Just surfing by before logging off and caught your reply.
The problem is that the scenarion involves SCALE factors and POTENTIAL VARIABLES on a vast/dispersed EVENT SYSTEM that effectively SEPARATED into TWO 'effectively isolated' systems when the floor-to-wall connectors could not transmit the force STRENGTH/SPEED between the floors that INTEGRALLY and CRITICALLY supported the 'tube within tube' design for stability EVEN IN THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES....let alone in the VAST and OVERWHELMING CHOATIC events/processes we all saw that day.
Be fair, this was no easily-scaled, perfectly paramter-controllable dinky toy event to be simplistically looked at and say:
"Hmmmm, what ONE THING can we say about it as a likely hypothesis for what happened next"?
Now is it?
Be fair, it's all well and good WANTING a simple yes/no 'testable hypothesis', but in REALITY no ONE simple hypothesis is possible.
Only ONGOING hypotheses and REFINING/RETESTING etc can ever hope to get to the 'multi-faceted likelihoods' in the matter/events.
What true scientist (individually or collectively would offer such a 'simplistic' and ONE-DIMENSIONAL hypothesis as your posited 'sample' of one in such circumstances that NO MATTER what was offered, it would be torn to bits by the COMPLEXITYIES INVOLVED....and so make it already useless to be going on with?
I'm a reasonably DISINTERESTED observer. No axe to grind either way. And I myself would not like to have to put fortward such 'simplistic' and one-dimensional hypotheses just because someone WANTS me to for their own simplistic satisfaction, heh!
So I don't blame NIST for not doing so either, hehehe.
Anyhow, cheers, good luck and good thinking, jay, everyone! See y'all when I get back and surf this way again.
RC.
.
I'm not saying there weren't a complex set of circumstances that day, or that one, simple hypothesis will answer all the questions.
I'm saying, nowhere in the 10,000 plus pages of the NIST explanation is there one single testable hypothesis for the collapse of the buildings.
At least one is needed (although I agree, it would likely be more if they attempted to do so). However, none are found.
Don't you find that strange at all?
I'd love to "refine and retest" some position regarding the collapse of the towers, however, we have no parameters from the official report to even start from.
Why, if they do not offer one, testable hypothesis, are you and others so eager to agree with the official explanation? If they don't have a testable hypothesis, whatever they say is indistinguishable from complete bull. If I say "I'm the reincarnation of Ghandi" what difference does it make?
None. Why?
Because it's not a testable proposition. The same is true for any proposition. Try it and see for yourself. If you cannot test a proposition, it's worthless as an explanation. You might as well say magic corn demons brought down the towers. It's as testable.
It should not be too much to ask for at least one testable proposition for why the towers fell. Once we have it, we can test it and see if it holds water. We don't need to build a scale model of the towers for the same reason we don't have to kill someone to figure out how a murder took place.
If we don't have a testable proposition, we have nothing but speculation--however fancy the packaging.
No Jay, (quickly becoming king of the strawmen) you apparently don't get it, the FEA analysis, assuming an accurate model of the structure and the plane and the fire, only works in the realm of WHAT IS REASONABLE.
As you put it:
Answer based on the FEA/FDS model is YES.
Now you say, but they needed to increase the fuel load in their simulation for the Model to fail.
Is that REASONABLE?
Answer YES, there are MANY other contemporary estimates of HIGHER fuel loads for typical offices.
Arthur
As you put it:
QUOTE
It is reasonable that the steel in question would fail under x load for t time and h heat."
Answer based on the FEA/FDS model is YES.
Now you say, but they needed to increase the fuel load in their simulation for the Model to fail.
Is that REASONABLE?
Answer YES, there are MANY other contemporary estimates of HIGHER fuel loads for typical offices.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 06:26 AM)
No Jay, (quickly becoming king of the strawmen) you apparently don't get it, the FEA analysis, assuming an accurate model of the structure and the plane and the fire, only works in the realm of WHAT IS REASONABLE.
As you put it:
Answer based on the FEA/FDS model is YES.
Now you say, but they needed to increase the fuel load in their simulation for the Model to fail.
Is that REASONABLE?
Answer YES, there are MANY other contemporary estimates of HIGHER fuel loads for typical offices.
Arthur
Alright, Arthur, so you're saying that if the steel members in question could have been heated to the temperatures in the simulations and loaded to the appropriate amounts, we should see the steel fail?
As you put it:
Answer based on the FEA/FDS model is YES.
Now you say, but they needed to increase the fuel load in their simulation for the Model to fail.
Is that REASONABLE?
Answer YES, there are MANY other contemporary estimates of HIGHER fuel loads for typical offices.
Arthur
Alright, Arthur, so you're saying that if the steel members in question could have been heated to the temperatures in the simulations and loaded to the appropriate amounts, we should see the steel fail?
Jay,
I'm saying that when NIST built accurate FULL SIZE FEA models which they verified several different independent ways and LOADED them as they were that day with workstations and estimated fuel loads and then ran a FULL SIZE FEA model of the airplanes into the towers at the same speeds and angles of impact and then used the debris path to model the damage to the structure, the floors and the amount of area that lost SFRM and then modeled the progress of the fires and the heat transfer from the fires to the remaining structure based on the FDS (which they verified against their workstation tests) and then applied pull in forces equal to the bowed in long sides of the towers that were observed and measured from the videos taken that day, then after all that and in approximately the same time as on 9/11, that the FEA models of the buildings became unstable and collapse ensued.
As to
That is CLEARLY not true as the structural database that NIST used is available (and you can get it off the Web), and the FEA software is a readily available commercial software package etc etc.
If you want more details simply READ the NIST reports.
Clearly they have been prepared by men far more versed in these matters than you or I and so far, nearly 2 years since their release, there is yet to be a single PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER that has shown any serious issue with any of its key findings.
What you ignore is that the whole POINT of an FEA is to TEST the hypothesis. If the model doesn't behave like reality (and you read the reports you can see where they compare the observables with the modeled results througout the NIST report) and if the tower doesn't become unstable in roughly the time frame and in roughly the same manner, then they would have had to look for another source of energy.
But it did.
Arthur
I'm saying that when NIST built accurate FULL SIZE FEA models which they verified several different independent ways and LOADED them as they were that day with workstations and estimated fuel loads and then ran a FULL SIZE FEA model of the airplanes into the towers at the same speeds and angles of impact and then used the debris path to model the damage to the structure, the floors and the amount of area that lost SFRM and then modeled the progress of the fires and the heat transfer from the fires to the remaining structure based on the FDS (which they verified against their workstation tests) and then applied pull in forces equal to the bowed in long sides of the towers that were observed and measured from the videos taken that day, then after all that and in approximately the same time as on 9/11, that the FEA models of the buildings became unstable and collapse ensued.
As to
QUOTE
I'd love to "refine and retest" some position regarding the collapse of the towers, however, we have no parameters from the official report to even start from.
That is CLEARLY not true as the structural database that NIST used is available (and you can get it off the Web), and the FEA software is a readily available commercial software package etc etc.
If you want more details simply READ the NIST reports.
Clearly they have been prepared by men far more versed in these matters than you or I and so far, nearly 2 years since their release, there is yet to be a single PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER that has shown any serious issue with any of its key findings.
What you ignore is that the whole POINT of an FEA is to TEST the hypothesis. If the model doesn't behave like reality (and you read the reports you can see where they compare the observables with the modeled results througout the NIST report) and if the tower doesn't become unstable in roughly the time frame and in roughly the same manner, then they would have had to look for another source of energy.
But it did.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
I'm waiting out a terrific thunderstorm/deluge before driving off to Sysdney. So naturally I logged back in and surfed by....and saw your good wishes and 'advice' below, hehehe.
Good luck RC, hope your optics continue to improve (and you should limit yourself to one Pub Crawl per visit to Sydney).
Arthur
Thanks.
And I wish!...says me....who is allergic to practically everything! hehehe. Can you just imagine me sinking 'lots' of those chemical-laden 'modern' beers? hehehe.
No pub crawls for ME (how very UN-Australian am I! hehehe)....unless I want to come back worse than I went!
Thanks for the good advice, anyway, mate!
Storm passing through quickly and going southwest. Good. I'll be off soon.
Cheers!
I'm waiting out a terrific thunderstorm/deluge before driving off to Sysdney. So naturally I logged back in and surfed by....and saw your good wishes and 'advice' below, hehehe.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 8 2007, 06:16 AM)
QUOTE
RealityCheck @ Dec 8 2007, 12:38 AM]Gotta go now. Going to Sydney for medical checks on my optics, so Cheers for now, jay howard, y'all!
RC.
RC.
Good luck RC, hope your optics continue to improve (and you should limit yourself to one Pub Crawl per visit to Sydney).
Arthur
Thanks.
And I wish!...says me....who is allergic to practically everything! hehehe. Can you just imagine me sinking 'lots' of those chemical-laden 'modern' beers? hehehe.
No pub crawls for ME (how very UN-Australian am I! hehehe)....unless I want to come back worse than I went!
Thanks for the good advice, anyway, mate!
Storm passing through quickly and going southwest. Good. I'll be off soon.
Cheers!
QUOTE (andoucette+)
I'm saying that when NIST built accurate FULL SIZE FEA models which they verified several different independent ways and LOADED them as they were that day with workstations and estimated fuel loads and then ran a FULL SIZE FEA model of the airplanes into the towers at the same speeds and angles of impact and then used the debris path to model the damage to the structure, the floors and the amount of area that lost SFRM and then modeled the progress of the fires and the heat transfer from the fires to the remaining structure based on the FDS (which they verified against their workstation tests) and then applied pull in forces equal to the bowed in long sides of the towers that were observed and measured from the videos taken that day, then after all that and in approximately the same time as on 9/11, that the FEA models of the buildings became unstable and collapse ensued.
So why did you say earlier:
So why did you say earlier:
QUOTE (andoucette+)
No, their goal was not to come up with a "testable hypothesis". That's your strawman.
What are you saying? Either they meant to come up with a scientific hypothesis or they didn't. Please clarify what you are trying to argue.
This wobbling back and forth between whatever is a safer position at the time isn't getting us any closer to a testable hypothesis.
If you think they had a testable hypothesis, just tell me what you think it is. It is the question I asked in the OP and if you want to have a discussion about it, then just quit beating around the bush and come out with it. I'm not interested in why you feel convinced of their conclusions. That is irrelevant. The collapse of the Twin Towers is not some unexplainable event that can never be understood. It is a physical event that happened in front of millions of witnesses.
A few weeks ago, an astronomer discovered a star system 40 light years away that has 5 planets in orbit around a star not unlike our own. He couldn't see the planets but had to infer their existence by decoding the slight inconsistencies, or "wobbles" in the wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the star caused by the gravitational pull of the planets using fourier analysis. Don't pretend that the collapse of the towers is some unknowable mythical event that could only be explained by computer simulations.
That is CLEARLY not true as the structural database that NIST used is available (and you can get it off the Web), and the FEA software is a readily available commercial software package etc etc.
If you want more details simply READ the NIST reports.
Yes, I've heard that line plenty from those who have no interest in reading the reports critically. Have you read this:
“A number of preliminary simulations had been performed to gain insight into the factors having the most influence on the severity of the fires. The most influential was the mass of combustibles per unit of floor area (fuel load)….”(NCSTAR 1, 126)
or this:
“NIST estimated the combustible 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 minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences.”(NCSTAR 1, 77)
This one's good too:
“The principal combustibles on the fire floor were workstations. The total combustible fuel load on the WTC floors was about 4 lb/ft2. Higher combusted fuel loadings resulted in slower fire spread rates that did not match the patterns observed in the photographic evidence. Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause inward bowing and collapse initiation.”(NCSTAR 1, 183)
Yet, when they perform the simulations, the use of 4 lbs/ft2 produces no such "collapse initiation". So what do they do?
“For WTC 1, the changes made [to the simulation] were designed to create a ‘more severe’ fire.”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 78)
and,
“In Case D, the furnishings were restored to their ‘undamaged’ state, except in the immediate vicinity of the airplane impact, to create a more severe fire.”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 87)
But you already know this, because you've read all the reports, right? So how do you justify the fact that they had to ignore their own estimations in order to get "collapse initiation"?
What are you saying? Either they meant to come up with a scientific hypothesis or they didn't. Please clarify what you are trying to argue.
This wobbling back and forth between whatever is a safer position at the time isn't getting us any closer to a testable hypothesis.
If you think they had a testable hypothesis, just tell me what you think it is. It is the question I asked in the OP and if you want to have a discussion about it, then just quit beating around the bush and come out with it. I'm not interested in why you feel convinced of their conclusions. That is irrelevant. The collapse of the Twin Towers is not some unexplainable event that can never be understood. It is a physical event that happened in front of millions of witnesses.
A few weeks ago, an astronomer discovered a star system 40 light years away that has 5 planets in orbit around a star not unlike our own. He couldn't see the planets but had to infer their existence by decoding the slight inconsistencies, or "wobbles" in the wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the star caused by the gravitational pull of the planets using fourier analysis. Don't pretend that the collapse of the towers is some unknowable mythical event that could only be explained by computer simulations.
QUOTE (andoucette+)
That is CLEARLY not true as the structural database that NIST used is available (and you can get it off the Web), and the FEA software is a readily available commercial software package etc etc.
If you want more details simply READ the NIST reports.
Yes, I've heard that line plenty from those who have no interest in reading the reports critically. Have you read this:
“A number of preliminary simulations had been performed to gain insight into the factors having the most influence on the severity of the fires. The most influential was the mass of combustibles per unit of floor area (fuel load)….”(NCSTAR 1, 126)
or this:
“NIST estimated the combustible 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 minimal amount of combustible interior finish, and the limited bookshelf space account for much of the differences.”(NCSTAR 1, 77)
This one's good too:
“The principal combustibles on the fire floor were workstations. The total combustible fuel load on the WTC floors was about 4 lb/ft2. Higher combusted fuel loadings resulted in slower fire spread rates that did not match the patterns observed in the photographic evidence. Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause inward bowing and collapse initiation.”(NCSTAR 1, 183)
Yet, when they perform the simulations, the use of 4 lbs/ft2 produces no such "collapse initiation". So what do they do?
“For WTC 1, the changes made [to the simulation] were designed to create a ‘more severe’ fire.”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 78)
and,
“In Case D, the furnishings were restored to their ‘undamaged’ state, except in the immediate vicinity of the airplane impact, to create a more severe fire.”(NCSTAR 1-5F, 87)
But you already know this, because you've read all the reports, right? So how do you justify the fact that they had to ignore their own estimations in order to get "collapse initiation"?
QUOTE (andoucette+)
Clearly they have been prepared by men far more versed in these matters than you or I and so far, nearly 2 years since their release, there is yet to be a single PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC PAPER that has shown any serious issue with any of its key findings.
Well, that's sweet that you put so much faith into the experts, but I don't give a good goddamn about credentials. What I want to see is a testable hypothesis that could be performed by an independent lab and produce the same results IN THE REAL WORLD, not just a computer simulation. Either they can reproduce the "collapse initiation" or they cannot. If they can, then NIST is vindicated and their theory stands triumphant. If not, we need to look deeper for an explanation of one of the most profound events of our lives. There is no middle ground on this one.
Their report is 1 big falsifiable hypothesis. It make many assuptions, has developed models, and through analysis, reaches conclusions. Each of those elements and steps can be challenged.
Unfortunately given the complexity of the incident. there are many contributiong factors. There is not 1 nice clean fact or assumption that, in and of itself, makes an absolute conclusion. There are many that add up to a final conclusion.
So, the question you are asking is kind of unfair, in that you want someone to state one irrefutable assumption that in and of itself adds up to what happened. That doesn't exist, and that is why there is so much confusion.
Again, the report in and of itself is a falsifiable hypothesis.
Their report is 1 big falsifiable hypothesis. It make many assuptions, has developed models, and through analysis, reaches conclusions. Each of those elements and steps can be challenged.
Unfortunately given the complexity of the incident. there are many contributiong factors. There is not 1 nice clean fact or assumption that, in and of itself, makes an absolute conclusion. There are many that add up to a final conclusion.
So, the question you are asking is kind of unfair, in that you want someone to state one irrefutable assumption that in and of itself adds up to what happened. That doesn't exist, and that is why there is so much confusion.
Again, the report in and of itself is a falsifiable hypothesis.
What does that mean "it's one big falsifiable hypothesis"?
Every theory--regardless of how complex the phenomena it's describing is--can be broken down into a set of falsifiable hypotheses--or at least one falsifiable hypothesis.
If a theory doesn't have one, it's not a real theory--it is indistinguishable from pure speculation.
Do you understand this? This isn't "my" rule that I'm making up for the purpose of this debate. This is a long standing principle of what constitutes a scientific theory.
If you know this and are just stalling in order to avoid admitting the fact that the NIST report contains no such proposition, then come out with it so we can have a discussion about what a real theory about the collapse of the towers should look like.
It should:
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
.
Well, that's sweet that you put so much faith into the experts, but I don't give a good goddamn about credentials. What I want to see is a testable hypothesis that could be performed by an independent lab and produce the same results IN THE REAL WORLD, not just a computer simulation. Either they can reproduce the "collapse initiation" or they cannot. If they can, then NIST is vindicated and their theory stands triumphant. If not, we need to look deeper for an explanation of one of the most profound events of our lives. There is no middle ground on this one.
QUOTE (andoucette+)
What you ignore is that the whole POINT of an FEA is to TEST the hypothesis. If the model doesn't behave like reality (and you read the reports you can see where they compare the observables with the modeled results througout the NIST report) and if the tower doesn't become unstable in roughly the time frame and in roughly the same manner, then they would have had to look for another source of energy.
But it did.
Arthur
Why are you so opposed to testing their simulated data in the real world? Shouldn't it conform? If it doesn't wouldn't you agree that there might be, just maybe, something wrong with the simulations? I know the twin towers didn't just fall in a simulation, they fell in real life--bound to the same physical principles that we deal with every day. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to perform a test and narrow down the parameters of what would indeed brought those buildings down.
So I ask again: WHAT IS NIST'S TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS?
But it did.
Arthur
Why are you so opposed to testing their simulated data in the real world? Shouldn't it conform? If it doesn't wouldn't you agree that there might be, just maybe, something wrong with the simulations? I know the twin towers didn't just fall in a simulation, they fell in real life--bound to the same physical principles that we deal with every day. There is no reason we shouldn't be able to perform a test and narrow down the parameters of what would indeed brought those buildings down.
So I ask again: WHAT IS NIST'S TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS?
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 8 2007, 07:57 PM)
What I want to see is a testable hypothesis that could be performed by an independent lab and produce the same results IN THE REAL WORLD, not just a computer simulation. Either they can reproduce the "collapse initiation" or they cannot. If they can, then NIST is vindicated and their theory stands triumphant. If not, we need to look deeper for an explanation of one of the most profound events of our lives. There is no middle ground on this one.
What do you have in mind that is going to be built in a lab and tested to see if it collapses?
If you can suggest some OTHER reasonable approach to determining how much a 767 would damage the towers, how the fire would grow and spread, how much heat the structure would absorb and then how the towers structure would react as an interconnected system and then finally how the collapse began I'd (and I suspect the people at NIST) would LOVE to hear it.
Otherwise, why not stick to discussing the WORK they did do, since your strawman argument about what they didn't do is pointless.
Arthur
What do you have in mind that is going to be built in a lab and tested to see if it collapses?
If you can suggest some OTHER reasonable approach to determining how much a 767 would damage the towers, how the fire would grow and spread, how much heat the structure would absorb and then how the towers structure would react as an interconnected system and then finally how the collapse began I'd (and I suspect the people at NIST) would LOVE to hear it.
Otherwise, why not stick to discussing the WORK they did do, since your strawman argument about what they didn't do is pointless.
Arthur
Arthur:
It is remarkable that in this thread, first you insist that the NIST Report provides the "MOST LIKELY" explanation of how and why the Twin Towers collapsed ..... then, later on, you say that the NIST Report was "a likely" explanation.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Arthur, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY NIST did this. Thus NIST's collapse hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as you suggest, the most likely hypothesis.
What is more, NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis is un-verifiable because it is based on the caveat that a critical amount of SFRM had been removed from steel surfaces in the impact zones. (In this way NIST built the ANSWER into the QUESTION so to speak).
But the pre-supposition about the state of the SFRM in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 is clearly an ad hoc ASSUMPTION that is demonstrably unknown and unknowable, as NIST themselves admit! Thus NIST's theory truly is, as jay howard suggests, a THEORY that is incapable of being falsified and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC!
Arthur, please PROVE to me that NIST's version of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11 was the most likely of all possible versions of what happened, not simply some sort of maximum entropy convergence point within the self-fulfilling confines of a computer model.
It is remarkable that in this thread, first you insist that the NIST Report provides the "MOST LIKELY" explanation of how and why the Twin Towers collapsed ..... then, later on, you say that the NIST Report was "a likely" explanation.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
Arthur, for the NIST Report to be the MOST LIKELY of all possible explanations, NIST must have thought about and tested every possible explanation. There is NO WAY NIST did this. Thus NIST's collapse hypothesis - because that's all it is - is just one possible hypothesis, NOT, as you suggest, the most likely hypothesis.
What is more, NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis is un-verifiable because it is based on the caveat that a critical amount of SFRM had been removed from steel surfaces in the impact zones. (In this way NIST built the ANSWER into the QUESTION so to speak).
But the pre-supposition about the state of the SFRM in the fire-affected zones of WTC 1 & 2 is clearly an ad hoc ASSUMPTION that is demonstrably unknown and unknowable, as NIST themselves admit! Thus NIST's theory truly is, as jay howard suggests, a THEORY that is incapable of being falsified and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC!
Arthur, please PROVE to me that NIST's version of what happened to WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11 was the most likely of all possible versions of what happened, not simply some sort of maximum entropy convergence point within the self-fulfilling confines of a computer model.
Neu,
NIST states that their work deals in what is PROBABLE.
And they fully acknowledged that there is much that is UNCERTAIN.
And NO, they did not say that they had come up with the MOST LIKELY.
I said it.
I said it because having studied their work I believe that their experiments, their research, their detailed crash and fire simulations using their very detailed FEA models DID figure out how and why the collapse was initiated.
Oh, and if you think FEA analysis is unscientific, that's fine, it just means you are stuck back in the 20th century.
Arthur
NIST states that their work deals in what is PROBABLE.
And they fully acknowledged that there is much that is UNCERTAIN.
And NO, they did not say that they had come up with the MOST LIKELY.
I said it.
I said it because having studied their work I believe that their experiments, their research, their detailed crash and fire simulations using their very detailed FEA models DID figure out how and why the collapse was initiated.
Oh, and if you think FEA analysis is unscientific, that's fine, it just means you are stuck back in the 20th century.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 9 2007, 04:41 AM)
Neu,
NIST states that their work deals in what is PROBABLE.
And they fully acknowledged that there is much that is UNCERTAIN.
And NO, they did not say that they had come up with the MOST LIKELY.
I said it.
I said it because having studied their work I believe that their experiments, their research, their detailed crash and fire simulations using their very detailed FEA models DID figure out how and why the collapse was initiated.
Oh, and if you think FEA analysis is unscientific, that's fine, it just means you are stuck back in the 20th century.
Arthur
newton was 'stuck' a few centuries further back than that.
doesn't make his laws obsolete(in a 'real world' sense).
NIST states that their work deals in what is PROBABLE.
And they fully acknowledged that there is much that is UNCERTAIN.
And NO, they did not say that they had come up with the MOST LIKELY.
I said it.
I said it because having studied their work I believe that their experiments, their research, their detailed crash and fire simulations using their very detailed FEA models DID figure out how and why the collapse was initiated.
Oh, and if you think FEA analysis is unscientific, that's fine, it just means you are stuck back in the 20th century.
Arthur
newton was 'stuck' a few centuries further back than that.
doesn't make his laws obsolete(in a 'real world' sense).
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 8 2007, 10:17 PM)
Thus NIST's theory truly is, as jay howard suggests, a THEORY that is incapable of being falsified and therefore UNSCIENTIFIC!
Horse pucky.
You could build a MORE ACCURATE FEA model of the towers (particularly since some data has come out that NIST didn't have) and with the eventual conversion of the FEA software to utilize 64 bit computing you could make use of much faster processors using many times as much memory and thus avoid having to make a number of simplifing assumptions to the model and/or run the FDS in a non messaging manner with far smaller slices of time etc etc etc.
Heck, using 64 bit addressing you could probably build a global model with the level of detail of the NIST impact/fire floor model.
Finally you could refine the various influencing variables and increase the number of cases and thus potentially getting an ever closer match to the visual evidence.
Now if you do this its POSSIBLE that you will come to a different explanation of how the towers fell.
So, YES their FEA simulation of the impact/fires and structural damage leading to global instability (not Theory) can be falsified simply by building a BETTER tower and fire model (and Better can be shown to more closely follow the visual evidence and timeline, pull in of exterior columns, tilt, window breakage etc etc etc.)
So Neu, if you decide to do this, let us know how it turns out.
Arthur
Horse pucky.
You could build a MORE ACCURATE FEA model of the towers (particularly since some data has come out that NIST didn't have) and with the eventual conversion of the FEA software to utilize 64 bit computing you could make use of much faster processors using many times as much memory and thus avoid having to make a number of simplifing assumptions to the model and/or run the FDS in a non messaging manner with far smaller slices of time etc etc etc.
Heck, using 64 bit addressing you could probably build a global model with the level of detail of the NIST impact/fire floor model.
Finally you could refine the various influencing variables and increase the number of cases and thus potentially getting an ever closer match to the visual evidence.
Now if you do this its POSSIBLE that you will come to a different explanation of how the towers fell.
So, YES their FEA simulation of the impact/fires and structural damage leading to global instability (not Theory) can be falsified simply by building a BETTER tower and fire model (and Better can be shown to more closely follow the visual evidence and timeline, pull in of exterior columns, tilt, window breakage etc etc etc.)
So Neu, if you decide to do this, let us know how it turns out.
Arthur
"fine element" this.
from back in the day when reality was real.
from back in the day when reality was real.
So what?
Its an evenly loaded column.
Big deal.
Arthur
Its an evenly loaded column.
Big deal.
Arthur
jay howard seems to miss the whole point.
The NIST report is one big falsifiable hypothesis, or theory, in and of itself. It is fully scientific in the sense that it supplies data, models, and assuptions, and simulates conclusions. Just because one disagrees with the conclusions doesn't make it invalid, or unscientific. It could be wrong. Science can be wrong.
Anyone that wants to can get the data, the assumptions, and build tests to question the conclusions. It contains many assumptions. And, its conclusions can only be so accurate as its assumptions and models.
That no one credible has done so is significant, but of course that is no proof the data and assumtions, and especially the conclusions are the correct ones. They are only be best conclusions of those that did the most work.
It is a totally false assertion that there is nothing falsifiable in the NIST report. Just because YOU can't falsify its conclusions or credibly question its assumptions does not make it invalid.
The NIST report is one big falsifiable hypothesis, or theory, in and of itself. It is fully scientific in the sense that it supplies data, models, and assuptions, and simulates conclusions. Just because one disagrees with the conclusions doesn't make it invalid, or unscientific. It could be wrong. Science can be wrong.
Anyone that wants to can get the data, the assumptions, and build tests to question the conclusions. It contains many assumptions. And, its conclusions can only be so accurate as its assumptions and models.
That no one credible has done so is significant, but of course that is no proof the data and assumtions, and especially the conclusions are the correct ones. They are only be best conclusions of those that did the most work.
It is a totally false assertion that there is nothing falsifiable in the NIST report. Just because YOU can't falsify its conclusions or credibly question its assumptions does not make it invalid.
QUOTE (meBigGuy+)
The NIST report is one big falsifiable hypothesis, or theory, in and of itself. It is fully scientific in the sense that it supplies data, models, and assuptions, and simulates conclusions. Just because one disagrees with the conclusions doesn't make it invalid, or unscientific. It could be wrong.
Time and again, when asking this question it's like pulling freaking teeth to get an answer. At least you seem to understand what "falsifiability" is and why it's important. Other apologists here aren't even sure what that word means or why a scientific theory must have it.
So please explain what their falsifiable hypothesis is.
If I've been unclear about what I'm asking for, then I apologize. To clarify once again, if you believe NIST provided a falsifiable theory, don't keep us in suspense: WHAT IS IT?
.
Time and again, when asking this question it's like pulling freaking teeth to get an answer. At least you seem to understand what "falsifiability" is and why it's important. Other apologists here aren't even sure what that word means or why a scientific theory must have it.
So please explain what their falsifiable hypothesis is.
If I've been unclear about what I'm asking for, then I apologize. To clarify once again, if you believe NIST provided a falsifiable theory, don't keep us in suspense: WHAT IS IT?
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 9 2007, 05:06 AM)
Horse pucky.
You could build a MORE ACCURATE FEA model of the towers (particularly since some data has come out that NIST didn't have) and with the eventual conversion of the FEA software to utilize 64 bit computing you could make use of much faster processors using many times as much memory and thus avoid having to make a number of simplifing assumptions to the model and/or run the FDS in a non messaging manner with far smaller slices of time etc etc etc.
Heck, using 64 bit addressing you could probably build a global model with the level of detail of the NIST impact/fire floor model.
Finally you could refine the various influencing variables and increase the number of cases and thus potentially getting an ever closer match to the visual evidence.
Now if you do this its POSSIBLE that you will come to a different explanation of how the towers fell.
So, YES their FEA simulation of the impact/fires and structural damage leading to global instability (not Theory) can be falsified simply by building a BETTER tower and fire model (and Better can be shown to more closely follow the visual evidence and timeline, pull in of exterior columns, tilt, window breakage etc etc etc.)
So Neu, if you decide to do this, let us know how it turns out.
Arthur
What are you trying to test by getting "more accurate" with the input data?
If you're willing to expend all that time, money and effort developing more accurate computer models of the structures, why not test the theory in question by means of a physical model?
Again, it does no good to object that "you have to build the towers in their entirety to get a good test". That's total nonsense. If you just explain the principle you are trying to test, i.e. that HSLA steel of similar dimensions will critically fail under similar loads given the thermal conditions of the towers, then you can reasonably build a scale model (in real life) to test that theory.
Of course, I'm fully aware that you are unable to provide any testable hypothesis from the NIST report. I've been through the thing, and sure, it's possible I missed it, but not likely. For all your posturing, I'm pretty sure you haven't read any more than the average NIST apologist. But please feel free to prove me wrong: SHOW ME THEIR TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS.
.
You could build a MORE ACCURATE FEA model of the towers (particularly since some data has come out that NIST didn't have) and with the eventual conversion of the FEA software to utilize 64 bit computing you could make use of much faster processors using many times as much memory and thus avoid having to make a number of simplifing assumptions to the model and/or run the FDS in a non messaging manner with far smaller slices of time etc etc etc.
Heck, using 64 bit addressing you could probably build a global model with the level of detail of the NIST impact/fire floor model.
Finally you could refine the various influencing variables and increase the number of cases and thus potentially getting an ever closer match to the visual evidence.
Now if you do this its POSSIBLE that you will come to a different explanation of how the towers fell.
So, YES their FEA simulation of the impact/fires and structural damage leading to global instability (not Theory) can be falsified simply by building a BETTER tower and fire model (and Better can be shown to more closely follow the visual evidence and timeline, pull in of exterior columns, tilt, window breakage etc etc etc.)
So Neu, if you decide to do this, let us know how it turns out.
Arthur
What are you trying to test by getting "more accurate" with the input data?
If you're willing to expend all that time, money and effort developing more accurate computer models of the structures, why not test the theory in question by means of a physical model?
Again, it does no good to object that "you have to build the towers in their entirety to get a good test". That's total nonsense. If you just explain the principle you are trying to test, i.e. that HSLA steel of similar dimensions will critically fail under similar loads given the thermal conditions of the towers, then you can reasonably build a scale model (in real life) to test that theory.
Of course, I'm fully aware that you are unable to provide any testable hypothesis from the NIST report. I've been through the thing, and sure, it's possible I missed it, but not likely. For all your posturing, I'm pretty sure you haven't read any more than the average NIST apologist. But please feel free to prove me wrong: SHOW ME THEIR TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS.
.
QUOTE
So please explain what their falsifiable hypothesis is.
Their report is 1 big falsifiable hypothesis. It make many assuptions, has developed models, and through analysis, reaches conclusions. Each of those elements and steps can be challenged.
Unfortunately given the complexity of the incident. there are many contributiong factors. There is not 1 nice clean fact or assumption that, in and of itself, makes an absolute conclusion. There are many that add up to a final conclusion.
So, the question you are asking is kind of unfair, in that you want someone to state one irrefutable assumption that in and of itself adds up to what happened. That doesn't exist, and that is why there is so much confusion.
Again, the report in and of itself is a falsifiable hypothesis.
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 9 2007, 08:22 PM)
What are you trying to test by getting "more accurate" with the input data?
If you're willing to expend all that time, money and effort developing more accurate computer models of the structures, why not test the theory in question by means of a physical model?
Again, it does no good to object that "you have to build the towers in their entirety to get a good test". That's total nonsense. If you just explain the principle you are trying to test, i.e. that HSLA steel of similar dimensions will critically fail under similar loads given the thermal conditions of the towers, then you can reasonably build a scale model (in real life) to test that theory.
.
Again, horse pucky.
You can't build a physical model of the towers and test it in any reasonable amount of time and budget.
Scaling creates its OWN set of issues which are formidable/costly as steel structural members don't come in a set of easily scaled sizes and making nonstandard size steel columns/trusses etc is cost prohibitive.
Then there is the problem that you STILL need essentially the same computer modeling effort to:
A ) Predict the DAMAGE to the structure caused by the plane's impact so you can predict the redistribution of loads.
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
Arthur
If you're willing to expend all that time, money and effort developing more accurate computer models of the structures, why not test the theory in question by means of a physical model?
Again, it does no good to object that "you have to build the towers in their entirety to get a good test". That's total nonsense. If you just explain the principle you are trying to test, i.e. that HSLA steel of similar dimensions will critically fail under similar loads given the thermal conditions of the towers, then you can reasonably build a scale model (in real life) to test that theory.
.
Again, horse pucky.
You can't build a physical model of the towers and test it in any reasonable amount of time and budget.
Scaling creates its OWN set of issues which are formidable/costly as steel structural members don't come in a set of easily scaled sizes and making nonstandard size steel columns/trusses etc is cost prohibitive.
Then there is the problem that you STILL need essentially the same computer modeling effort to:
A ) Predict the DAMAGE to the structure caused by the plane's impact so you can predict the redistribution of loads.
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
Arthur
QUOTE (meBigGuy+Dec 10 2007, 07:32 AM)
Their report is 1 big falsifiable hypothesis. It make many assuptions, has developed models, and through analysis, reaches conclusions. Each of those elements and steps can be challenged.
Unfortunately given the complexity of the incident. there are many contributiong factors. There is not 1 nice clean fact or assumption that, in and of itself, makes an absolute conclusion. There are many that add up to a final conclusion.
So, the question you are asking is kind of unfair, in that you want someone to state one irrefutable assumption that in and of itself adds up to what happened. That doesn't exist, and that is why there is so much confusion.
Again, the report in and of itself is a falsifiable hypothesis.
What does that mean "it's one big falsifiable hypothesis"?
Every theory--regardless of how complex the phenomena it's describing is--can be broken down into a set of falsifiable hypotheses--or at least one falsifiable hypothesis.
If a theory doesn't have one, it's not a real theory--it is indistinguishable from pure speculation.
Do you understand this? This isn't "my" rule that I'm making up for the purpose of this debate. This is a long standing principle of what constitutes a scientific theory.
If you know this and are just stalling in order to avoid admitting the fact that the NIST report contains no such proposition, then come out with it so we can have a discussion about what a real theory about the collapse of the towers should look like.
It should:
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
.
YAWN
Arthur
Arthur
Jay/Arthur:
I have been reading several fire-codes, and especially Eurocode 3, Parts 1-2: General Rules of Structural Fire Design.
I think I finally understand how engineers calculate the temperature of fire-exposed steel structures... It all depends on the "massivity" or section factors....
You know if you look at the dimensions of core columns in rows 500 or 1000 of the twin towers on floors 80 - 95, the "massivity" or section factors are as low as 15 m^-1.
The fire-resistance times for such columns are well over 60 minutes. Now since NIST used fuel loads of only 20 kg/m^2 in their FDS models, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 lasted no more than 20 minutes at any particular location in these buildings. It is then relatively easy to determine that the core columns in question, even if these columns were heated WITHOUT thermal insulation, could NOT have reached temperatures above 350 deg C.
I have been reading several fire-codes, and especially Eurocode 3, Parts 1-2: General Rules of Structural Fire Design.
I think I finally understand how engineers calculate the temperature of fire-exposed steel structures... It all depends on the "massivity" or section factors....
You know if you look at the dimensions of core columns in rows 500 or 1000 of the twin towers on floors 80 - 95, the "massivity" or section factors are as low as 15 m^-1.
The fire-resistance times for such columns are well over 60 minutes. Now since NIST used fuel loads of only 20 kg/m^2 in their FDS models, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 lasted no more than 20 minutes at any particular location in these buildings. It is then relatively easy to determine that the core columns in question, even if these columns were heated WITHOUT thermal insulation, could NOT have reached temperatures above 350 deg C.
Neu,
The 20 min in one area for fire spread does NOT describe the thermal effects of a LARGE MULTI FLOOR fire.
See NIST NCSTAR-5 Chapter 6
Arthur
The 20 min in one area for fire spread does NOT describe the thermal effects of a LARGE MULTI FLOOR fire.
See NIST NCSTAR-5 Chapter 6
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 10 2007, 11:57 PM)
Again, horse pucky.
You can't build a physical model of the towers and test it in any reasonable amount of time and budget.
Scaling creates its OWN set of issues which are formidable/costly as steel structural members don't come in a set of easily scaled sizes and making nonstandard size steel columns/trusses etc is cost prohibitive.
Then there is the problem that you STILL need essentially the same computer modeling effort to:
A ) Predict the DAMAGE to the structure caused by the plane's impact so you can predict the redistribution of loads.
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
Arthur
Quit trying to weasel out of doing real science. Either they have a scientific theory they are testing (within the model or in the real world) or they are just playing a 20$ million version of Rampage!
Even in the simulation, they must have some set of parameters dealing specifically with time, heat, material and load, upon which their analysis makes some kind of sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they used FEA to heat a floor truss up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it sagged 42 inches. Right?
If that is indeed the case, then if we take a floor truss of similar dimensions, load the corresponding weight, and heat it up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it should sag 42 inches, correct?
If it does not, then either there is a problem with the simulation conforming to the physics of the real world, or a problem with the real world conforming to the physics of the simulation.
If you think the results of the simulation trump the results of a real-world test, then you have no interest in answering why the towers fell.
So Arthur, what takes precedence? Simulations or real-world tests?
You can't build a physical model of the towers and test it in any reasonable amount of time and budget.
Scaling creates its OWN set of issues which are formidable/costly as steel structural members don't come in a set of easily scaled sizes and making nonstandard size steel columns/trusses etc is cost prohibitive.
Then there is the problem that you STILL need essentially the same computer modeling effort to:
A ) Predict the DAMAGE to the structure caused by the plane's impact so you can predict the redistribution of loads.
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
Arthur
Quit trying to weasel out of doing real science. Either they have a scientific theory they are testing (within the model or in the real world) or they are just playing a 20$ million version of Rampage!
Even in the simulation, they must have some set of parameters dealing specifically with time, heat, material and load, upon which their analysis makes some kind of sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they used FEA to heat a floor truss up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it sagged 42 inches. Right?
If that is indeed the case, then if we take a floor truss of similar dimensions, load the corresponding weight, and heat it up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it should sag 42 inches, correct?
If it does not, then either there is a problem with the simulation conforming to the physics of the real world, or a problem with the real world conforming to the physics of the simulation.
If you think the results of the simulation trump the results of a real-world test, then you have no interest in answering why the towers fell.
So Arthur, what takes precedence? Simulations or real-world tests?
Arthur:
Yes, do indeed read NCSTAR 1-5!
For in that Report we read:
* There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread.
* The fires peaked at a given location for 15 - 20 minutes.
* The workstation burn tests were used to validate the FDS model.
* The upper layer temperatures were highest near the windows and about 200 degrees C cooler inside the buildings.
Thus I see no reason for you to say as you do: "The 20 min in one area for fire spread does NOT describe the thermal effects of a LARGE MULTI FLOOR fire."
Please see Section 6.7.2 on page 141 before replying!
Yes, do indeed read NCSTAR 1-5!
For in that Report we read:
* There was no evidence of floor-to-floor fire spread.
* The fires peaked at a given location for 15 - 20 minutes.
* The workstation burn tests were used to validate the FDS model.
* The upper layer temperatures were highest near the windows and about 200 degrees C cooler inside the buildings.
Thus I see no reason for you to say as you do: "The 20 min in one area for fire spread does NOT describe the thermal effects of a LARGE MULTI FLOOR fire."
Please see Section 6.7.2 on page 141 before replying!
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 11 2007, 09:58 PM)
Quit trying to weasel out of doing real science. Either they have a scientific theory they are testing (within the model or in the real world) or they are just playing a 20$ million version of Rampage!
Even in the simulation, they must have some set of parameters dealing specifically with time, heat, material and load, upon which their analysis makes some kind of sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they used FEA to heat a floor truss up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it sagged 42 inches. Right?
If that is indeed the case, then if we take a floor truss of similar dimensions, load the corresponding weight, and heat it up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it should sag 42 inches, correct?
If it does not, then either there is a problem with the simulation conforming to the physics of the real world, or a problem with the real world conforming to the physics of the simulation.
If you think the results of the simulation trump the results of a real-world test, then you have no interest in answering why the towers fell.
So Arthur, what takes precedence? Simulations or real-world tests?
No one is trying to weasel out of anything.
Well EXCEPT YOU.
I notice you ignore the fact that the Models are STILL required to:
As to your lastest ill thought out ideas, they couldn't do a full scale test because of the size limitations of the ovens.
So, I guess they could have blown their budget on a building an oven large enough to test a 60' span truss, or they could believe the FEA analysis software which of course HAS been tested.
Arthur
Even in the simulation, they must have some set of parameters dealing specifically with time, heat, material and load, upon which their analysis makes some kind of sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when they used FEA to heat a floor truss up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it sagged 42 inches. Right?
If that is indeed the case, then if we take a floor truss of similar dimensions, load the corresponding weight, and heat it up to 700 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes, it should sag 42 inches, correct?
If it does not, then either there is a problem with the simulation conforming to the physics of the real world, or a problem with the real world conforming to the physics of the simulation.
If you think the results of the simulation trump the results of a real-world test, then you have no interest in answering why the towers fell.
So Arthur, what takes precedence? Simulations or real-world tests?
No one is trying to weasel out of anything.
Well EXCEPT YOU.
I notice you ignore the fact that the Models are STILL required to:
QUOTE
A ) Predict the DAMAGE to the structure caused by the plane's impact so you can predict the redistribution of loads.
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
B ) Predict the fire behaivor and heat release rates so you can determine the thermal energy transfer to the structure
As to your lastest ill thought out ideas, they couldn't do a full scale test because of the size limitations of the ovens.
So, I guess they could have blown their budget on a building an oven large enough to test a 60' span truss, or they could believe the FEA analysis software which of course HAS been tested.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 11 2007, 11:34 PM)
Thus I see no reason for you to say as you do: "The 20 min in one area for fire spread does NOT describe the thermal effects of a LARGE MULTI FLOOR fire."
Please see Section 6.7.2 on page 141 before replying!
I've read it.
It was a GENERAL statement.
Now look at the SIMULATED fire spread and Temps on the floors and then see the modeled estimates of the Column temps (figure 6-37) and you will find a number of them which exceed your 350C limit.
Arthur
Please see Section 6.7.2 on page 141 before replying!
I've read it.
It was a GENERAL statement.
Now look at the SIMULATED fire spread and Temps on the floors and then see the modeled estimates of the Column temps (figure 6-37) and you will find a number of them which exceed your 350C limit.
Arthur
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 11 2007, 06:55 PM)
What does that mean "it's one big falsifiable hypothesis"?
Every theory--regardless of how complex the phenomena it's describing is--can be broken down into a set of falsifiable hypotheses--or at least one falsifiable hypothesis.
If a theory doesn't have one, it's not a real theory--it is indistinguishable from pure speculation.
Do you understand this? This isn't "my" rule that I'm making up for the purpose of this debate. This is a long standing principle of what constitutes a scientific theory.
If you know this and are just stalling in order to avoid admitting the fact that the NIST report contains no such proposition, then come out with it so we can have a discussion about what a real theory about the collapse of the towers should look like.
It should:
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day,
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
.
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day,
1, How much energy was contained in the structure along with chemical energy that could be released in the collapses themselves?
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
Unless you can prevent the buildings from falling those will occur in the collapse, interestingly I have just managed to cause occurrences of those reactions, in a way I never thought of before using carbons and fly ash.
From brown paper, with other compounds in the buildings and metals from the planes it seem that brown paper as well as white paper contain aluminum chloride, brown paper also contains Iron chloride and oxide.
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
See above.
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
That question depends on the total available fuels and the maximum temperature that is developed from the particular fuel in question at the location in question.
For carbons alone that would be improbable, however it is not impossible.
I believe there are other fuels at play now more than ever, Before, during and after the collapses, all you need is a trigger source to activate the energy and there are several fuels that have a greater heat value than carbon.
5. Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
Yes however only if other fuels were involved, the carbons although capable are unlikely source for the necessary energy alone.
Nist is falsifiable hypothesis because NIST bases much of the Hypothesis on visual evidence, I believe I have found problems in that evidence, mostly having to do with the truss pull in theory.
Tilting columns do to off center loading can cause the same pull in effects, as seen in the videos, if the towers could be shown to be tilting do to column failure, effecting both sides of the building, and not pull in forces from truss thermal expansion then the The Nist Hypothesis is falsified.
However I do not know if such video evidence exists.
That is the problem with NIST most of it is a hypothesis based on visual recordings that are not precise, so a lot of it is guess work, because there is a lot going on that can not be seen.
It is hard for a hypothesis largely based on computer modeling from video with a lot of gee I saw this so this happened guess work to be falsifiable.
There are basically two unscientific routes that we are left with then,
Nist is the best hypothesis of the cause and effects of a plane hitting a building and creating multi story fires, inducing heating with loss of fireproofing from the video evidence and data.
NIST is Crap, because it fails the test of Falsifiability because it is in large part based on cause and effect data from a video, and because we lack more video information, and better modeling, NIST is unfalsifiable.
However if it could be determined that the fuel load was not sufficient and temperatures reached in the buildings could not have weakened the steel, or that fireproofing was not removed then, Nist would be Falsified such evidence is merely lacking and unlikely to be found.
On the other side, Inside Job theories can never be Falsified fiction can not be Falsified because theories are constantly changing day by day as people make up wilder and crazier theories each time a particular theory is shot down.
It also much be noted where a particular theory originates as a lot of what has been published is merely now political propoganda.
Every theory--regardless of how complex the phenomena it's describing is--can be broken down into a set of falsifiable hypotheses--or at least one falsifiable hypothesis.
If a theory doesn't have one, it's not a real theory--it is indistinguishable from pure speculation.
Do you understand this? This isn't "my" rule that I'm making up for the purpose of this debate. This is a long standing principle of what constitutes a scientific theory.
If you know this and are just stalling in order to avoid admitting the fact that the NIST report contains no such proposition, then come out with it so we can have a discussion about what a real theory about the collapse of the towers should look like.
It should:
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day,
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
.
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day,
1, How much energy was contained in the structure along with chemical energy that could be released in the collapses themselves?
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
Unless you can prevent the buildings from falling those will occur in the collapse, interestingly I have just managed to cause occurrences of those reactions, in a way I never thought of before using carbons and fly ash.
From brown paper, with other compounds in the buildings and metals from the planes it seem that brown paper as well as white paper contain aluminum chloride, brown paper also contains Iron chloride and oxide.
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
See above.
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
That question depends on the total available fuels and the maximum temperature that is developed from the particular fuel in question at the location in question.
For carbons alone that would be improbable, however it is not impossible.
I believe there are other fuels at play now more than ever, Before, during and after the collapses, all you need is a trigger source to activate the energy and there are several fuels that have a greater heat value than carbon.
5. Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
Yes however only if other fuels were involved, the carbons although capable are unlikely source for the necessary energy alone.
Nist is falsifiable hypothesis because NIST bases much of the Hypothesis on visual evidence, I believe I have found problems in that evidence, mostly having to do with the truss pull in theory.
Tilting columns do to off center loading can cause the same pull in effects, as seen in the videos, if the towers could be shown to be tilting do to column failure, effecting both sides of the building, and not pull in forces from truss thermal expansion then the The Nist Hypothesis is falsified.
However I do not know if such video evidence exists.
That is the problem with NIST most of it is a hypothesis based on visual recordings that are not precise, so a lot of it is guess work, because there is a lot going on that can not be seen.
It is hard for a hypothesis largely based on computer modeling from video with a lot of gee I saw this so this happened guess work to be falsifiable.
There are basically two unscientific routes that we are left with then,
Nist is the best hypothesis of the cause and effects of a plane hitting a building and creating multi story fires, inducing heating with loss of fireproofing from the video evidence and data.
NIST is Crap, because it fails the test of Falsifiability because it is in large part based on cause and effect data from a video, and because we lack more video information, and better modeling, NIST is unfalsifiable.
However if it could be determined that the fuel load was not sufficient and temperatures reached in the buildings could not have weakened the steel, or that fireproofing was not removed then, Nist would be Falsified such evidence is merely lacking and unlikely to be found.
On the other side, Inside Job theories can never be Falsified fiction can not be Falsified because theories are constantly changing day by day as people make up wilder and crazier theories each time a particular theory is shot down.
It also much be noted where a particular theory originates as a lot of what has been published is merely now political propoganda.
Chainsaw:
I agree with you about the extra chemical energy that was largely ignored by NIST. The NIST workstation mock-ups appear to have had no electrical wiring, window blinds, etc, and hence were very light on PVC. Similarly, NIST's comparments had floor truss assemblies without plenum or floor "raceway" wiring, so again were light on PVC.
But this brings up another point:
NIST used two sets of experimental data to validate its FDS models:
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
I agree with you about the extra chemical energy that was largely ignored by NIST. The NIST workstation mock-ups appear to have had no electrical wiring, window blinds, etc, and hence were very light on PVC. Similarly, NIST's comparments had floor truss assemblies without plenum or floor "raceway" wiring, so again were light on PVC.
But this brings up another point:
NIST used two sets of experimental data to validate its FDS models:
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 12 2007, 08:08 PM)
Chainsaw:
I agree with you about the extra chemical energy that was largely ignored by NIST. The NIST workstation mock-ups appear to have had no electrical wiring, window blinds, etc, and hence were very light on PVC. Similarly, NIST's comparments had floor truss assemblies without plenum or floor "raceway" wiring, so again were light on PVC.
But this brings up another point:
NIST used two sets of experimental data to validate its FDS models:
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
NIST seems to be about as bad at correlating observed or modeling data with experiential results as Dr. Jones.
What I have been doing recently is seeing what the effects of water flowing on to cooled aluminum-Iron Chloride would do when the fires died down.
I have also looked into water absorbing HCl, leaking down on Aluminum and Zinc around and below the fire zone.
The experimental results of real world tests, can be varied by just a few basic subtle changes in the experiments.
The temperatures attained can very dependent on the reactions present.
The problem is we do not know the full extent of those reactions because the tests were not done appropriately.
There is so much Chemistry occurring in those buildings that extreme reactions are almost 100% certain to have occurred.
Even shock wave initiated combustion of Aluminum Chlorides, Iron Chlorides, and Carbonized papers, in the collapses.
Such would have added some energy to the effects seen during the collapses.
The fire fighters descriptions of explosions in the buildings it looking like the forth of July fire works are absolutely true, there would have been explosions in the collapse there has to have been. High energy environments create high energy reactions.
I believe that NIST failed in the sciences because they rely to much on the Video data, and less on actual science.
They seemed to believe their mission was the debunking of controlled demolition theories, via video evidence, rather than actually explaining the true science of collapse initiation or what happened in the collapses.
I think NIST for what they have done, it is a plausible hypothesis, however I do not believe that it contains all the answers that are sought by those who have actually been researching this.
What I have found is that aluminum chloride falling though steam will oxidize, when it hits water it explodes. such and event could push a building over the edge if enough energy is released at one time in a weakened structure.
The Chemical energy sources in the buildings are far more than the Jet fuel or the plastics and the paper in air.
Even the carbon Black smoke is ignitable, in the right conditions.
I just can not see why accurate modeling and experimentation in this universe was not done.
I mean If I can do it why not NIST, they had a lot more resources then I will ever have, and they did flawed tests just like Dr. Jones.
It seems NEU that you and I are in the middle between people on both sides only trying to debunk each other with science and truth lost in the debunking efforts for sake of the better argument based on mere speculation.
Sorry to Rant I am just now more confused than ever after rereading the Nist report sections that you and Arthur suggested, here.
I agree with you about the extra chemical energy that was largely ignored by NIST. The NIST workstation mock-ups appear to have had no electrical wiring, window blinds, etc, and hence were very light on PVC. Similarly, NIST's comparments had floor truss assemblies without plenum or floor "raceway" wiring, so again were light on PVC.
But this brings up another point:
NIST used two sets of experimental data to validate its FDS models:
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
NIST seems to be about as bad at correlating observed or modeling data with experiential results as Dr. Jones.
What I have been doing recently is seeing what the effects of water flowing on to cooled aluminum-Iron Chloride would do when the fires died down.
I have also looked into water absorbing HCl, leaking down on Aluminum and Zinc around and below the fire zone.
The experimental results of real world tests, can be varied by just a few basic subtle changes in the experiments.
The temperatures attained can very dependent on the reactions present.
The problem is we do not know the full extent of those reactions because the tests were not done appropriately.
There is so much Chemistry occurring in those buildings that extreme reactions are almost 100% certain to have occurred.
Even shock wave initiated combustion of Aluminum Chlorides, Iron Chlorides, and Carbonized papers, in the collapses.
Such would have added some energy to the effects seen during the collapses.
The fire fighters descriptions of explosions in the buildings it looking like the forth of July fire works are absolutely true, there would have been explosions in the collapse there has to have been. High energy environments create high energy reactions.
I believe that NIST failed in the sciences because they rely to much on the Video data, and less on actual science.
They seemed to believe their mission was the debunking of controlled demolition theories, via video evidence, rather than actually explaining the true science of collapse initiation or what happened in the collapses.
I think NIST for what they have done, it is a plausible hypothesis, however I do not believe that it contains all the answers that are sought by those who have actually been researching this.
What I have found is that aluminum chloride falling though steam will oxidize, when it hits water it explodes. such and event could push a building over the edge if enough energy is released at one time in a weakened structure.
The Chemical energy sources in the buildings are far more than the Jet fuel or the plastics and the paper in air.
Even the carbon Black smoke is ignitable, in the right conditions.
I just can not see why accurate modeling and experimentation in this universe was not done.
I mean If I can do it why not NIST, they had a lot more resources then I will ever have, and they did flawed tests just like Dr. Jones.
It seems NEU that you and I are in the middle between people on both sides only trying to debunk each other with science and truth lost in the debunking efforts for sake of the better argument based on mere speculation.
Sorry to Rant I am just now more confused than ever after rereading the Nist report sections that you and Arthur suggested, here.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 12 2007, 03:08 PM)
NIST used two sets of experimental data to validate its FDS models:
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
A load of Neu Poo.
NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg xli
NIST used the workstation tests to determine heat release rates.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E
BOTH sets of experimental data (and MANY others) were used to properly set up the FDS and the FSI.
Finally, during the global runs, unlike Neu's suggestion, the hydrocarbon fires were NOT used.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chap 6.
Arthur
1. Workstation fires using WTC-type office furniture, panels, paper, etc,
See NCSTAR 1-5E
2. Comparment fires using liquid hydrocarbon fuelled fires.
See NCSTAR 1-5B
Now compare the temperature vs. time profiles for these tests. The fires for the compartment tests had flat temperature profiles that were above 600 Deg C for almost 1 hour, (See Figure 10-12 in NCSTAR 1-5B). By comparison, the workstation fires had erratic temperature profiles with the temperature above 600 Deg C for only ~ 20 minutes, (See Figures 6-13 and 6-14 of NCSTAR 1-5E). The real WTC fires were obviously closer to the workstation fires. Nevertheless, NIST used the unrealistic compartment fires to predict the structural steel temperatures.
However this appears to be SOP for NIST - See the paper entitled "Experiments and Modeling of Unprotected Structural Steel Elements Exposed to a Fire" by A. Hamins et al. issued in 2005.
A load of Neu Poo.
NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg xli
NIST used the workstation tests to determine heat release rates.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E
BOTH sets of experimental data (and MANY others) were used to properly set up the FDS and the FSI.
Finally, during the global runs, unlike Neu's suggestion, the hydrocarbon fires were NOT used.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 Chap 6.
Arthur
Arthur:
You claim: "NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator."
But Arthur, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 were NOT steady, as you well know, so this was not the appropriate way to calibrate a DYMAMIC fire model. The REAL fires burned for only about 20 minutes in any given location which was confirmed by the behavior of the workstation fire tests.
Arthur, please take a look at the Fire Resistance Classification, BMS92, as modified by NIST in NIST GCR-04-872, published in 2004. In this document the severity of a building fire is rated in hours based on fuel loading. The scale goes from 0.5 hours to 7.5 hours.
Now, guess what, the WTC fuel load in WTC 1 & 2 was estimated by NIST to be 4 - 5 lb/ft^2..........
5 lb/ft^2 CORRESPONDS TO THE LOWEST FIRE SEVERITY RATING OF 1/2 HR!
If any WTC fires burned longer than this at any particular location it could only be from the chemical "fuels" discussed by Chainsaw.... fuels that NIST completely ignored.
You claim: "NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator."
But Arthur, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 were NOT steady, as you well know, so this was not the appropriate way to calibrate a DYMAMIC fire model. The REAL fires burned for only about 20 minutes in any given location which was confirmed by the behavior of the workstation fire tests.
Arthur, please take a look at the Fire Resistance Classification, BMS92, as modified by NIST in NIST GCR-04-872, published in 2004. In this document the severity of a building fire is rated in hours based on fuel loading. The scale goes from 0.5 hours to 7.5 hours.
Now, guess what, the WTC fuel load in WTC 1 & 2 was estimated by NIST to be 4 - 5 lb/ft^2..........
5 lb/ft^2 CORRESPONDS TO THE LOWEST FIRE SEVERITY RATING OF 1/2 HR!
If any WTC fires burned longer than this at any particular location it could only be from the chemical "fuels" discussed by Chainsaw.... fuels that NIST completely ignored.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 11 2007, 09:13 PM)
It is then relatively easy to determine that the core columns in question, even if these columns were heated WITHOUT thermal insulation, could NOT have reached temperatures above 350 deg C.
And interestingly the test data support it:
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors..." (NIST)
(and yes I know it is "limited in number" but it is hard data. Not some speculations.)
And interestingly the test data support it:
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors..." (NIST)
(and yes I know it is "limited in number" but it is hard data. Not some speculations.)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 12 2007, 07:42 PM)
Arthur:
You claim: "NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator."
But Arthur, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 were NOT steady, as you well know, so this was not the appropriate way to calibrate a DYMAMIC fire model. The REAL fires burned for only about 20 minutes in any given location which was confirmed by the behavior of the workstation fire tests.
Arthur, please take a look at the Fire Resistance Classification, BMS92, as modified by NIST in NIST GCR-04-872, published in 2004. In this document the severity of a building fire is rated in hours based on fuel loading. The scale goes from 0.5 hours to 7.5 hours.
Now, guess what, the WTC fuel load in WTC 1 & 2 was estimated by NIST to be 4 - 5 lb/ft^2..........
5 lb/ft^2 CORRESPONDS TO THE LOWEST FIRE SEVERITY RATING OF 1/2 HR!
If any WTC fires burned longer than this at any particular location it could only be from the chemical "fuels" discussed by Chainsaw.... fuels that NIST completely ignored.
Neu, please read NIST NCSTAR 1-5 B.
It will explain why they ran these set of experiments at a CONTROLLED burn rate.
I repeat though, that is NOT how the final WTC fire simulations were done.
They simulated the fires burning in the towers with the cubicles as fuel.
Thus it was the heat release rates in the ACTUAL simulated fire that influenced how hot various structures got.
Finally, even though a fire would only burn in an area for ~ 20 min, since the floors were VAST open areas, this did not mean that temps fell drastically because the fire moved a few feet.
As to BMS92, you should have KEPT READING.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/PDF/b04047.pdf
Neu, QUIT CHERRY PICKING.
It would HELP if you actually took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the extensive experimentation that NIST did PRIOR to running the WTC fire simulations.
You would be better off without your continual jumping to conclusions and making of rash judgments simply because your erroneous interpretations meet your preconceived conclusions.
Arthur
You claim: "NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator."
But Arthur, the fires in WTC 1 & 2 were NOT steady, as you well know, so this was not the appropriate way to calibrate a DYMAMIC fire model. The REAL fires burned for only about 20 minutes in any given location which was confirmed by the behavior of the workstation fire tests.
Arthur, please take a look at the Fire Resistance Classification, BMS92, as modified by NIST in NIST GCR-04-872, published in 2004. In this document the severity of a building fire is rated in hours based on fuel loading. The scale goes from 0.5 hours to 7.5 hours.
Now, guess what, the WTC fuel load in WTC 1 & 2 was estimated by NIST to be 4 - 5 lb/ft^2..........
5 lb/ft^2 CORRESPONDS TO THE LOWEST FIRE SEVERITY RATING OF 1/2 HR!
If any WTC fires burned longer than this at any particular location it could only be from the chemical "fuels" discussed by Chainsaw.... fuels that NIST completely ignored.
Neu, please read NIST NCSTAR 1-5 B.
It will explain why they ran these set of experiments at a CONTROLLED burn rate.
I repeat though, that is NOT how the final WTC fire simulations were done.
They simulated the fires burning in the towers with the cubicles as fuel.
Thus it was the heat release rates in the ACTUAL simulated fire that influenced how hot various structures got.
Finally, even though a fire would only burn in an area for ~ 20 min, since the floors were VAST open areas, this did not mean that temps fell drastically because the fire moved a few feet.
As to BMS92, you should have KEPT READING.
QUOTE
Knowledgeable fire safety professionals have recognized for many years that the fuel load concept developed by Ingberg has technical shortcomings. Ingberg himself recognized some of the shortcomings in the fuel load concept even as he developed and promoted it. As noted in the commentary to the ASTM E119 standard, “It is now generally conceded that fire severity as well as the temperature-time relationship of a fire depends on several factors, including:
1. Fire load—Amount and type.
2. Distribution of this fire load.
3. Specific surface characteristics of the fire load.
4. Ventilation, as determined by the size and shape of openings.
5. Geometry of the fire compartment—Size and shape.
6. Thermal characteristics of the enclosure boundaries.
1. Fire load—Amount and type.
2. Distribution of this fire load.
3. Specific surface characteristics of the fire load.
4. Ventilation, as determined by the size and shape of openings.
5. Geometry of the fire compartment—Size and shape.
6. Thermal characteristics of the enclosure boundaries.
http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/PDF/b04047.pdf
Neu, QUIT CHERRY PICKING.
It would HELP if you actually took the time to READ and UNDERSTAND the extensive experimentation that NIST did PRIOR to running the WTC fire simulations.
You would be better off without your continual jumping to conclusions and making of rash judgments simply because your erroneous interpretations meet your preconceived conclusions.
Arthur
QUOTE (Daru+Dec 12 2007, 07:43 PM)
And interestingly the test data support it:
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors..." (NIST)
(and yes I know it is "limited in number" but it is hard data. Not some speculations.)
And that limited finding doesn't run counter to the NIST fire simulations which found NONE of the columns with SFRM attached reached over 300C even in the most severe cases.
And that was at least half of the columns on the fire/damage floors.
Arthur
"Similar results, i.e., limited exposure if any above 250 °C, were found for two core columns from the fire-affected floors..." (NIST)
(and yes I know it is "limited in number" but it is hard data. Not some speculations.)
And that limited finding doesn't run counter to the NIST fire simulations which found NONE of the columns with SFRM attached reached over 300C even in the most severe cases.
And that was at least half of the columns on the fire/damage floors.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 02:21 AM)
And that limited finding doesn't run counter to the NIST fire simulations which found NONE of the columns with SFRM attached reached over 300C even in the most severe cases.
And that was at least half of the columns on the fire/damage floors.
Arthur
Arthur were you intending to lose the argument from the start, either NIST is falsifiable, or it is not science, there must be a way the theory can be tested, and the fire temperature data might just be that test.
I believe in cause and effect Arthur, the planes hit the buildings, fires broke out in said buildings, however how much fireproofing was removed, and how much heat was released and how much heat was lost though cooling is debatable, because it is based on Assumption not science.
If your going to use NIST of the bible of engineers then engineering can not be considered science any more than some of he religious stuff that creationism spews can be considered science.
NIST is simply a hypothesis, a good Hypothesis, however I believe it is time for other work to follow up on NIST, because NIST as you point out can not be falsified and was never intended to be science, from your own words.
[U] You can not have it both ways, either Nist is falsifiable or it is not science, and real science has to go on looking into the collapses.
This is a Science forum if NIST Is not Science why is it discussed here so much?
And that was at least half of the columns on the fire/damage floors.
Arthur
Arthur were you intending to lose the argument from the start, either NIST is falsifiable, or it is not science, there must be a way the theory can be tested, and the fire temperature data might just be that test.
I believe in cause and effect Arthur, the planes hit the buildings, fires broke out in said buildings, however how much fireproofing was removed, and how much heat was released and how much heat was lost though cooling is debatable, because it is based on Assumption not science.
If your going to use NIST of the bible of engineers then engineering can not be considered science any more than some of he religious stuff that creationism spews can be considered science.
NIST is simply a hypothesis, a good Hypothesis, however I believe it is time for other work to follow up on NIST, because NIST as you point out can not be falsified and was never intended to be science, from your own words.
QUOTE
Falsifiable?
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
Hardly.
The NIST report was not attempting to come up with a SCIENTIFIC THEORY.
They were trying to come up with the most likely explanation for the collapse.
[U] You can not have it both ways, either Nist is falsifiable or it is not science, and real science has to go on looking into the collapses.
This is a Science forum if NIST Is not Science why is it discussed here so much?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 12 2007, 01:53 PM)
No one is trying to weasel out of anything.
Then why can't you answer a simple question? Does the NIST report contain a falsifiable hypothesis?
Then why can't you answer a simple question? Does the NIST report contain a falsifiable hypothesis?
Seriously? And you accuse me of not reading the report? Are you aware that 2 of the 4 floor truss system tests they did were in fact 35 ft long? And that 35 ft was the span of the shorter of the two floor truss lengths in the towers?
The other 2 were 17 ft long, but for what appears to be circular reasoning, they did not count the findings from those tests because "they were not scalable" according to the official report. But somehow a 35 ft section doesn't count as a "real" test for you.
I'm really tired of childish exchanges. Just answer the question posed in the OP or admit the NIST report does not contain a falsifiable hypothesis.
Yes, the entire report consists of many experiments/simulations etc that can be shown to be wrong.
Which is the essense of what you are missing.
The idea of "falsifiable" is that a hypothesis is not scientific if THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY to show it it false.
This criteria CLEARLY does NOT apply to the NIST report.
One can show that the Model of the towers is incorrect.
One could show that the Model of the Plane is incorrect.
One could show that the range of values for the plane's speed and trajectory are incorrect.
One could show that the simulated damage to the towers was incorrect.
One could show that the simulated loss of SFRM was incorrect.
One could show that the Global Heat Release rates for workstation fires were incorrect.
One could show that the Thermal Transfer of energy to the structure was incorrect.
One could show that the FDS and FSI produced incorrect results.
One could show that the structural modeled response to the heat and damage were incorrect.
ETC ETC ETC.
So your continual assertion that the many tests/experiments/simulations that make up the NIST report are unfalsifiable is clearly FALSE.
Yes, I am aware of the modeled size of the trusses.
Are you aware that the ONLY trusses that NIST said sagged and created pull in forces were the LONG trusses?
So, NO, the existing ovens were FAR too small to test the LONG trusses.
No, it was NOT circular reasoning, NIST wanted to find out the EFFECT of SCALE on the tests, to see if one could rely on SCALE models. What they found is the reduced scale versions out performed the full scale model, so the answer was no.
Arthur
Then why can't you answer a simple question? Does the NIST report contain a falsifiable hypothesis?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 12 2007, 01:53 PM)
As to your lastest ill thought out ideas, they couldn't do a full scale test because of the size limitations of the ovens.
So, I guess they could have blown their budget on a building an oven large enough to test a 60' span truss, or they could believe the FEA analysis software which of course HAS been tested.
Seriously? And you accuse me of not reading the report? Are you aware that 2 of the 4 floor truss system tests they did were in fact 35 ft long? And that 35 ft was the span of the shorter of the two floor truss lengths in the towers?
The other 2 were 17 ft long, but for what appears to be circular reasoning, they did not count the findings from those tests because "they were not scalable" according to the official report. But somehow a 35 ft section doesn't count as a "real" test for you.
I'm really tired of childish exchanges. Just answer the question posed in the OP or admit the NIST report does not contain a falsifiable hypothesis.
So, I guess they could have blown their budget on a building an oven large enough to test a 60' span truss, or they could believe the FEA analysis software which of course HAS been tested.
Seriously? And you accuse me of not reading the report? Are you aware that 2 of the 4 floor truss system tests they did were in fact 35 ft long? And that 35 ft was the span of the shorter of the two floor truss lengths in the towers?
The other 2 were 17 ft long, but for what appears to be circular reasoning, they did not count the findings from those tests because "they were not scalable" according to the official report. But somehow a 35 ft section doesn't count as a "real" test for you.
I'm really tired of childish exchanges. Just answer the question posed in the OP or admit the NIST report does not contain a falsifiable hypothesis.
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 13 2007, 01:47 PM)
Then why can't you answer a simple question? Does the NIST report contain a falsifiable hypothesis?
Seriously? And you accuse me of not reading the report? Are you aware that 2 of the 4 floor truss system tests they did were in fact 35 ft long? And that 35 ft was the span of the shorter of the two floor truss lengths in the towers?
The other 2 were 17 ft long, but for what appears to be circular reasoning, they did not count the findings from those tests because "they were not scalable" according to the official report. But somehow a 35 ft section doesn't count as a "real" test for you.
I'm really tired of childish exchanges. Just answer the question posed in the OP or admit the NIST report does not contain a falsifiable hypothesis.
Yes, the entire report consists of many experiments/simulations etc that can be shown to be wrong.
Which is the essense of what you are missing.
The idea of "falsifiable" is that a hypothesis is not scientific if THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY to show it it false.
This criteria CLEARLY does NOT apply to the NIST report.
One can show that the Model of the towers is incorrect.
One could show that the Model of the Plane is incorrect.
One could show that the range of values for the plane's speed and trajectory are incorrect.
One could show that the simulated damage to the towers was incorrect.
One could show that the simulated loss of SFRM was incorrect.
One could show that the Global Heat Release rates for workstation fires were incorrect.
One could show that the Thermal Transfer of energy to the structure was incorrect.
One could show that the FDS and FSI produced incorrect results.
One could show that the structural modeled response to the heat and damage were incorrect.
ETC ETC ETC.
So your continual assertion that the many tests/experiments/simulations that make up the NIST report are unfalsifiable is clearly FALSE.
Yes, I am aware of the modeled size of the trusses.
Are you aware that the ONLY trusses that NIST said sagged and created pull in forces were the LONG trusses?
So, NO, the existing ovens were FAR too small to test the LONG trusses.
No, it was NOT circular reasoning, NIST wanted to find out the EFFECT of SCALE on the tests, to see if one could rely on SCALE models. What they found is the reduced scale versions out performed the full scale model, so the answer was no.
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 13 2007, 11:12 AM)
Arthur were you intending to lose the argument from the start, either NIST is falsifiable, or it is not science, there must be a way the theory can be tested, and the fire temperature data might just be that test.
I believe in cause and effect Arthur, the planes hit the buildings, fires broke out in said buildings, however how much fireproofing was removed, and how much heat was released and how much heat was lost though cooling is debatable, because it is based on Assumption not science.
If your going to use NIST of the bible of engineers then engineering can not be considered science any more than some of he religious stuff that creationism spews can be considered science.
NIST is simply a hypothesis, a good Hypothesis, however I believe it is time for other work to follow up on NIST, because NIST as you point out can not be falsified and was never intended to be science, from your own words.
[U] You can not have it both ways, either Nist is falsifiable or it is not science, and real science has to go on looking into the collapses.
This is a Science forum if NIST Is not Science why is it discussed here so much?
Chainsaw,
I object to the use of the term "Scientific Theory"
General Relativity is a Scientific Theory.
Natural Selection is a Scientific Theory.
What NIST or the NTSB or any other investigative body does is NOT the same as producing a Scientific Theory.
Which is why this whole thing is a strawman that Jay is trying to peddle as a way of casting doubt on the validity of the NIST report.
Yes, the NIST report is a SCIENTIFIC WORK.
Yes, the NIST report outlines the means and methods and values etc etc etc of what it did and how it did it so one can STUDY its methods, review its assumptions and if desired REPRODUCE the work they did as well as vary variables and assumptions to see if you come up with similar or different conclusions.
So your statement:
Is true, but just because you make assumptions does not mean the work is not scientific (unless your assumptions are shown to be derived in an unscientific manner).
Arthur
I believe in cause and effect Arthur, the planes hit the buildings, fires broke out in said buildings, however how much fireproofing was removed, and how much heat was released and how much heat was lost though cooling is debatable, because it is based on Assumption not science.
If your going to use NIST of the bible of engineers then engineering can not be considered science any more than some of he religious stuff that creationism spews can be considered science.
NIST is simply a hypothesis, a good Hypothesis, however I believe it is time for other work to follow up on NIST, because NIST as you point out can not be falsified and was never intended to be science, from your own words.
[U] You can not have it both ways, either Nist is falsifiable or it is not science, and real science has to go on looking into the collapses.
This is a Science forum if NIST Is not Science why is it discussed here so much?
Chainsaw,
I object to the use of the term "Scientific Theory"
General Relativity is a Scientific Theory.
Natural Selection is a Scientific Theory.
What NIST or the NTSB or any other investigative body does is NOT the same as producing a Scientific Theory.
Which is why this whole thing is a strawman that Jay is trying to peddle as a way of casting doubt on the validity of the NIST report.
Yes, the NIST report is a SCIENTIFIC WORK.
Yes, the NIST report outlines the means and methods and values etc etc etc of what it did and how it did it so one can STUDY its methods, review its assumptions and if desired REPRODUCE the work they did as well as vary variables and assumptions to see if you come up with similar or different conclusions.
So your statement:
QUOTE
however how much fireproofing was removed, and how much heat was released and how much heat was lost though cooling is debatable, because it is based on Assumption not science.
Is true, but just because you make assumptions does not mean the work is not scientific (unless your assumptions are shown to be derived in an unscientific manner).
Arthur
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
1. explain all expressions of energy witnessed that day,
1, How much energy was contained in the structure along with chemical energy that could be released in the collapses themselves?
That is a good question that it appears you are attempting to answer. I can appreciate that.
1, How much energy was contained in the structure along with chemical energy that could be released in the collapses themselves?
That is a good question that it appears you are attempting to answer. I can appreciate that.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
2. explain evidence of eutectic reactions
Unless you can prevent the buildings from falling those will occur in the collapse, interestingly I have just managed to cause occurrences of those reactions, in a way I never thought of before using carbons and fly ash.
From brown paper, with other compounds in the buildings and metals from the planes it seem that brown paper as well as white paper contain aluminum chloride, brown paper also contains Iron chloride and oxide.
Are you saying eutectic reactions capable of melting structural steel are common occurrences in office fires? That seems unlikely--however, not impossible. Again, a testable claim, so good on you.
Unless you can prevent the buildings from falling those will occur in the collapse, interestingly I have just managed to cause occurrences of those reactions, in a way I never thought of before using carbons and fly ash.
From brown paper, with other compounds in the buildings and metals from the planes it seem that brown paper as well as white paper contain aluminum chloride, brown paper also contains Iron chloride and oxide.
Are you saying eutectic reactions capable of melting structural steel are common occurrences in office fires? That seems unlikely--however, not impossible. Again, a testable claim, so good on you.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
3. explain ferrous microspheres in WTC dust
See above.
The microsphere evidence may or may not be related to eutectic reactions. Let us not assume before we have good tests from which to make an assessment.
See above.
The microsphere evidence may or may not be related to eutectic reactions. Let us not assume before we have good tests from which to make an assessment.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
4. explain how the thermal conditions of that day could have (or could not have) caused the failure of the steel in the towers.
That question depends on the total available fuels and the maximum temperature that is developed from the particular fuel in question at the location in question.
For carbons alone that would be improbable, however it is not impossible.
I believe there are other fuels at play now more than ever, Before, during and after the collapses, all you need is a trigger source to activate the energy and there are several fuels that have a greater heat value than carbon.
Then the central issue becomes one of catalyzation. Eutectic reactions are difficult enough to explain, much less the energy source necessary to initiate those reactions. Either way, you are also an advocate (willing or not) of an energy-deficit theory. I am as well. We seem to differ on what that source is likely to have been, however, I am very interested in your work on this question.
That question depends on the total available fuels and the maximum temperature that is developed from the particular fuel in question at the location in question.
For carbons alone that would be improbable, however it is not impossible.
I believe there are other fuels at play now more than ever, Before, during and after the collapses, all you need is a trigger source to activate the energy and there are several fuels that have a greater heat value than carbon.
Then the central issue becomes one of catalyzation. Eutectic reactions are difficult enough to explain, much less the energy source necessary to initiate those reactions. Either way, you are also an advocate (willing or not) of an energy-deficit theory. I am as well. We seem to differ on what that source is likely to have been, however, I am very interested in your work on this question.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
5. Let me ask you this: Do you think the fires were hot enough to cause the steel in the towers to fail?
Yes however only if other fuels were involved, the carbons although capable are unlikely source for the necessary energy alone.
"ONLY if other fuels were involved..." Me too.
Yes however only if other fuels were involved, the carbons although capable are unlikely source for the necessary energy alone.
"ONLY if other fuels were involved..." Me too.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
Nist is falsifiable hypothesis because NIST bases much of the Hypothesis on visual evidence, I believe I have found problems in that evidence, mostly having to do with the truss pull in theory.
Did you mean to say "NIST is [b]not falsifiable..."?
Did you mean to say "NIST is [b]not falsifiable..."?
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
Tilting columns do to off center loading can cause the same pull in effects, as seen in the videos, if the towers could be shown to be tilting do to column failure, effecting both sides of the building, and not pull in forces from truss thermal expansion then the The Nist Hypothesis is falsified.
However I do not know if such video evidence exists.
That is the problem with NIST most of it is a hypothesis based on visual recordings that are not precise, so a lot of it is guess work, because there is a lot going on that can not be seen.
It is hard for a hypothesis largely based on computer modeling from video with a lot of gee I saw this so this happened guess work to be falsifiable.
There are basically two unscientific routes that we are left with then,
Nist is the best hypothesis of the cause and effects of a plane hitting a building and creating multi story fires, inducing heating with loss of fireproofing from the video evidence and data.
NIST is Crap, because it fails the test of Falsifiability because it is in large part based on cause and effect data from a video, and because we lack more video information, and better modeling, NIST is unfalsifiable.
However if it could be determined that the fuel load was not sufficient and temperatures reached in the buildings could not have weakened the steel, or that fireproofing was not removed then, Nist would be Falsified such evidence is merely lacking and unlikely to be found.
Well, either it is falsifiable or it's just speculation. On this, it seems we agree. Now, I do not believe there is anything mystical or unanswerable about the collapse of the towers. We are smart people and there are plenty of much smarter people among us. There is a reason why the towers fell and anyone who wants to say "we just can't know because of the complexity of the situation" is just an obstacle to a real investigation.
Very complicated questions get answered on a regular basis: airline crashes, train wrecks, murders, behaviours of subatomic particles, relation between personality and genetics, etc., etc.
Whether the collapses of the WTC towers was the result of an unexpected reaction between chemicals in the towers or of purposeful planning by interested 3rd parties is still wide open for debate. The ONLY way a meaningful distinction can be made--as you are well aware--is by testing hypotheses until they can be narrowed down to "likely" versus "unlikely".
That is my interest.
However I do not know if such video evidence exists.
That is the problem with NIST most of it is a hypothesis based on visual recordings that are not precise, so a lot of it is guess work, because there is a lot going on that can not be seen.
It is hard for a hypothesis largely based on computer modeling from video with a lot of gee I saw this so this happened guess work to be falsifiable.
There are basically two unscientific routes that we are left with then,
Nist is the best hypothesis of the cause and effects of a plane hitting a building and creating multi story fires, inducing heating with loss of fireproofing from the video evidence and data.
NIST is Crap, because it fails the test of Falsifiability because it is in large part based on cause and effect data from a video, and because we lack more video information, and better modeling, NIST is unfalsifiable.
However if it could be determined that the fuel load was not sufficient and temperatures reached in the buildings could not have weakened the steel, or that fireproofing was not removed then, Nist would be Falsified such evidence is merely lacking and unlikely to be found.
Well, either it is falsifiable or it's just speculation. On this, it seems we agree. Now, I do not believe there is anything mystical or unanswerable about the collapse of the towers. We are smart people and there are plenty of much smarter people among us. There is a reason why the towers fell and anyone who wants to say "we just can't know because of the complexity of the situation" is just an obstacle to a real investigation.
Very complicated questions get answered on a regular basis: airline crashes, train wrecks, murders, behaviours of subatomic particles, relation between personality and genetics, etc., etc.
Whether the collapses of the WTC towers was the result of an unexpected reaction between chemicals in the towers or of purposeful planning by interested 3rd parties is still wide open for debate. The ONLY way a meaningful distinction can be made--as you are well aware--is by testing hypotheses until they can be narrowed down to "likely" versus "unlikely".
That is my interest.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 12 2007, 03:45 PM)
On the other side, Inside Job theories can never be Falsified fiction can not be Falsified because theories are constantly changing day by day as people make up wilder and crazier theories each time a particular theory is shot down.
It also much be noted where a particular theory originates as a lot of what has been published is merely now political propoganda. [/b]
True. Please note that I'm not advocating "inside job" or whatever--at least not yet. That debate can only take place after we've come to terms with what the NIST report is saying.
Glad to have a rational interlocutor.
.....
It also much be noted where a particular theory originates as a lot of what has been published is merely now political propoganda. [/b]
True. Please note that I'm not advocating "inside job" or whatever--at least not yet. That debate can only take place after we've come to terms with what the NIST report is saying.
Glad to have a rational interlocutor.
.....
QUOTE (jay howard+Dec 13 2007, 02:46 PM)
Are you saying eutectic reactions capable of melting structural steel are common occurrences in office fires? That seems unlikely--however, not impossible.
The only eutectic reactions that I am aware of that were found at the WTC site were in the WTC 7 site that were described by Barnett and Bierdeman.
Because of the nature of the steel in the WTC 7 site, it was also not identifiable as to location within the tower.
But WTC 7 was hit by debris from the other two falling towers (primarily from debris from WTC 1) and also burned for 7 hours so extrapolating from that small sample of a steel member that came from an unknown location to issues with what caused the twin towers to collapse is pointless.
Arthur
The only eutectic reactions that I am aware of that were found at the WTC site were in the WTC 7 site that were described by Barnett and Bierdeman.
Because of the nature of the steel in the WTC 7 site, it was also not identifiable as to location within the tower.
But WTC 7 was hit by debris from the other two falling towers (primarily from debris from WTC 1) and also burned for 7 hours so extrapolating from that small sample of a steel member that came from an unknown location to issues with what caused the twin towers to collapse is pointless.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 08:00 PM)
The only eutectic reactions that I am aware of that were found at the WTC site were in the WTC 7 site that were described by Barnett and Bierdeman.
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. The samples tested by WPI include a piece from WTC 7 and one from either WTC 1 or 2.
Of course, the fact that you are flat out wrong won't change your mind.
Nor the fact that you have no reasonable explanation for eutectic reactions occurring in the WTC towers.
You must ignore this and other evidence in order to make the official explanation make any sense. Did they find ANY steel heated above 600 C for more than 15 minutes? No. Yet their explanation rests firmly on the existence of steel that must have gotten hotter than that for longer than that.
Their theory depends on the existence of evidence that has NOT BEEN FOUND. It may well not even exist. But that doesn't stop you from believing them anyway.
You are a simple apologist with no substance or rationality behind your beliefs.
.......
You might think that, but you'd be wrong. The samples tested by WPI include a piece from WTC 7 and one from either WTC 1 or 2.
Of course, the fact that you are flat out wrong won't change your mind.
Nor the fact that you have no reasonable explanation for eutectic reactions occurring in the WTC towers.
You must ignore this and other evidence in order to make the official explanation make any sense. Did they find ANY steel heated above 600 C for more than 15 minutes? No. Yet their explanation rests firmly on the existence of steel that must have gotten hotter than that for longer than that.
Their theory depends on the existence of evidence that has NOT BEEN FOUND. It may well not even exist. But that doesn't stop you from believing them anyway.
You are a simple apologist with no substance or rationality behind your beliefs.
.......
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 07:27 PM)
Yes, the entire report consists of many experiments/simulations etc that can be shown to be wrong.
Which is the essense of what you are missing.
The idea of "falsifiable" is that a hypothesis is not scientific if THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY to show it it false.
This criteria CLEARLY does NOT apply to the NIST report.
The criteria applies whether the report meets it or not.
Please clean up your sentences. If you want to prove a point about how I don't know what I'm talking about, try not to get confused making it.
Which is the essense of what you are missing.
The idea of "falsifiable" is that a hypothesis is not scientific if THERE IS NO CONCEIVABLE WAY to show it it false.
This criteria CLEARLY does NOT apply to the NIST report.
The criteria applies whether the report meets it or not.
Please clean up your sentences. If you want to prove a point about how I don't know what I'm talking about, try not to get confused making it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 07:27 PM)
One can show that the Model of the towers is incorrect.
One could show that the Model of the Plane is incorrect.
One could show that the range of values for the plane's speed and trajectory are incorrect.
One could show that the simulated damage to the towers was incorrect.
One could show that the simulated loss of SFRM was incorrect.
One could show that the Global Heat Release rates for workstation fires were incorrect.
One could show that the Thermal Transfer of energy to the structure was incorrect.
One could show that the FDS and FSI produced incorrect results.
One could show that the structural modeled response to the heat and damage were incorrect.
ETC ETC ETC.
How can we do that if, as you claim, all the computer simulations were validated by the experiments as you did in response to Neufonze:
One could show that the Model of the Plane is incorrect.
One could show that the range of values for the plane's speed and trajectory are incorrect.
One could show that the simulated damage to the towers was incorrect.
One could show that the simulated loss of SFRM was incorrect.
One could show that the Global Heat Release rates for workstation fires were incorrect.
One could show that the Thermal Transfer of energy to the structure was incorrect.
One could show that the FDS and FSI produced incorrect results.
One could show that the structural modeled response to the heat and damage were incorrect.
ETC ETC ETC.
How can we do that if, as you claim, all the computer simulations were validated by the experiments as you did in response to Neufonze:
QUOTE (adoucette+)
NIST used the hydrocarbon fires to create a STEADY heat environment in order to model heat transfer into various steel structures (with and without insulation) as a means of calibrating the Fire Dynamics Simulator.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg xli
NIST used the workstation tests to determine heat release rates.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E
BOTH sets of experimental data (and MANY others) were used to properly set up the FDS and the FSI.
If these correlations between physical tests and computer simulations is as rigorous as you suggest, how, specifically can the simulations be wrong?
There isn't a good way to tell. That's why it's called a "non-falsifiable theory". Look it up. Astrology is a non-falsifiable theory, as is reincarnation, as is marxism. You get the idea, maybe. Now, if somewhere in the 10,000 plus pages of the NIST report there existed a testable sentence, we wouldn't be wasting my time cleaning up your sentences in hopes that you could understand why you want to believe the report. We could simply test what they said and see if it held water or not.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg xli
NIST used the workstation tests to determine heat release rates.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5E
BOTH sets of experimental data (and MANY others) were used to properly set up the FDS and the FSI.
If these correlations between physical tests and computer simulations is as rigorous as you suggest, how, specifically can the simulations be wrong?
There isn't a good way to tell. That's why it's called a "non-falsifiable theory". Look it up. Astrology is a non-falsifiable theory, as is reincarnation, as is marxism. You get the idea, maybe. Now, if somewhere in the 10,000 plus pages of the NIST report there existed a testable sentence, we wouldn't be wasting my time cleaning up your sentences in hopes that you could understand why you want to believe the report. We could simply test what they said and see if it held water or not.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 07:27 PM)
So your continual assertion that the many tests/experiments/simulations that make up the NIST report are unfalsifiable is clearly FALSE.
Why? Because you say so? Is this what counts as a good argument for you? Try again.
Why? Because you say so? Is this what counts as a good argument for you? Try again.
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 07:27 PM)
Yes, I am aware of the modeled size of the trusses.
Are you aware that the ONLY trusses that NIST said sagged and created pull in forces were the LONG trusses?
So, NO, the existing ovens were FAR too small to test the LONG trusses.
So in your mind, there is no possible way to test to see if heat actually induced the collapses of the towers?
Are you aware that the ONLY trusses that NIST said sagged and created pull in forces were the LONG trusses?
So, NO, the existing ovens were FAR too small to test the LONG trusses.
So in your mind, there is no possible way to test to see if heat actually induced the collapses of the towers?
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 13 2007, 07:27 PM)
No, it was NOT circular reasoning, NIST wanted to find out the EFFECT of SCALE on the tests, to see if one could rely on SCALE models. What they found is the reduced scale versions out performed the full scale model, so the answer was no.
Arthur
How do they know the reduced scale model "outperformed" the full scale model if they never tested a full scale model? From the fact that the towers collapsed? If that is indeed where they get that notion, that is a textbook example of circular reasoning.
Blink twice if any of this is getting through that brick-crushing skull.
...........
Arthur
How do they know the reduced scale model "outperformed" the full scale model if they never tested a full scale model? From the fact that the towers collapsed? If that is indeed where they get that notion, that is a textbook example of circular reasoning.
Blink twice if any of this is getting through that brick-crushing skull.
...........
.
G'day all!
Chaps and Chapesses, I think this topic/discussion is based on an arse-about view of what NIST actually is.
What it is, is an INVESTIGATIVE SERIES of repeatable/refinable REAL and SIMULATED EXPERIMENTS which attempt to FALSIFY all those HYPOTHESES and THEORIES 'doing the rounds' in the public and scientific arena.
It is the NIST investigations/experiments/simulations etc that was actually doing the 'falsification' of OTHERS' theories/hypotheses....and NOT the other way round! hehehe.
See the arse-about premise of this whole thread?
Anyway, having said that, may I point all to MY hypotheses regarding heat production and heat effects processes and situations which GIVE MUCH HOTTER/SEVERE fire/damage IN ISOLATED SPOTS near CRITICAL STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS/CONNECTIONS.
In earlier posts (in the main thread), I have pointed out the LOCALISED BLOWTORCH conditions which would INEVITABLY ARISE at various locations across those vast multi-floor fires....simply because of all the 'flue' and 'drafting' and high-energy fuel COMBINATION OF FACTORS.....as well as the chemical effects of various INEVITABLE catalysed/localised attacks on critical CONNECTORS/BOLTS etc.
Remember the earlier fires when the firemen described the 'blowtorch' -like flames issuing from cable risers etc? And THOSE FIRES were just pissy NORMAL office fires on a couple of floors without all the damage to shafys/windows and FIREFIGHTING SPRINKLERS....and there WERE firemen FIGHTING the fires. So if such 'puny' fires could produce blowtorch situations, imagine what was probable in the 9/11 situation!
Imagine how severe the 9/11 'blowtorch' flames would have been in the areas where the conditions were right.....like BROKEN SHAFTS AND CONDUITS of all sizes going UP THROUGH the upper floors and DRAWING PRE-SUPERHEATED AIR from the lower floors and feeding the PRE-PYROLISED (CHARCOALED/CARBONISED) 'office/plane-kero) fuels hHEAPED UP AGAINST CORE/PERIMETER WALL STRUCTURES and forced into nooks and crannies between floors and walls where CONNECTORS/INSULATOR-MATERIAL ect would also be 'blowtorched' as the superheated air and 'high-energy' pre-pyrolised fuels burned MORE fiercely than the NIST 'general data' could possibly show in the absence of LOCALISED HEAT/FIRE DETECTOR/SENSOR data.
So, when we come to it, NIST is merely a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION using a series of PARTIAL/REPRESENTATIVE real/simulations to 'narrow down' and otherwise HOME IN ON various possibilities/likelihoods, and whose RESULTS MAY OR MAY NOT 'FALSIFY' any one or more PRE-EXISTING HYPOTHESES/THEORIES even BEFORE that (perforce) LIMITED and RUSHED preliminary INVESTIGATION got under way.
And anyway, the NIST could only have ever been able to be an INTERIM MEASURE under the circumstances, and so obviously could only ever have been ONLY A FIRST RESPONSE attempt at trying to get a 'feel' for what could have happened in such a vast set of scenario/circumstance given the structure/plane/fire damage and variopus possible further/ongoing loadshifting and failure modes etc.
I suspect that for reasons of future safety of high rise design/structues of steel/other materials, there MUST be some further more deliberate and detailed investigation/tre
G'day all!
Chaps and Chapesses, I think this topic/discussion is based on an arse-about view of what NIST actually is.
What it is, is an INVESTIGATIVE SERIES of repeatable/refinable REAL and SIMULATED EXPERIMENTS which attempt to FALSIFY all those HYPOTHESES and THEORIES 'doing the rounds' in the public and scientific arena.
It is the NIST investigations/experiments/simulations etc that was actually doing the 'falsification' of OTHERS' theories/hypotheses....and NOT the other way round! hehehe.
See the arse-about premise of this whole thread?
Anyway, having said that, may I point all to MY hypotheses regarding heat production and heat effects processes and situations which GIVE MUCH HOTTER/SEVERE fire/damage IN ISOLATED SPOTS near CRITICAL STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBERS/CONNECTIONS.
In earlier posts (in the main thread), I have pointed out the LOCALISED BLOWTORCH conditions which would INEVITABLY ARISE at various locations across those vast multi-floor fires....simply because of all the 'flue' and 'drafting' and high-energy fuel COMBINATION OF FACTORS.....as well as the chemical effects of various INEVITABLE catalysed/localised attacks on critical CONNECTORS/BOLTS etc.
Remember the earlier fires when the firemen described the 'blowtorch' -like flames issuing from cable risers etc? And THOSE FIRES were just pissy NORMAL office fires on a couple of floors without all the damage to shafys/windows and FIREFIGHTING SPRINKLERS....and there WERE firemen FIGHTING the fires. So if such 'puny' fires could produce blowtorch situations, imagine what was probable in the 9/11 situation!
Imagine how severe the 9/11 'blowtorch' flames would have been in the areas where the conditions were right.....like BROKEN SHAFTS AND CONDUITS of all sizes going UP THROUGH the upper floors and DRAWING PRE-SUPERHEATED AIR from the lower floors and feeding the PRE-PYROLISED (CHARCOALED/CARBONISED) 'office/plane-kero) fuels hHEAPED UP AGAINST CORE/PERIMETER WALL STRUCTURES and forced into nooks and crannies between floors and walls where CONNECTORS/INSULATOR-MATERIAL ect would also be 'blowtorched' as the superheated air and 'high-energy' pre-pyrolised fuels burned MORE fiercely than the NIST 'general data' could possibly show in the absence of LOCALISED HEAT/FIRE DETECTOR/SENSOR data.
So, when we come to it, NIST is merely a PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION using a series of PARTIAL/REPRESENTATIVE real/simulations to 'narrow down' and otherwise HOME IN ON various possibilities/likelihoods, and whose RESULTS MAY OR MAY NOT 'FALSIFY' any one or more PRE-EXISTING HYPOTHESES/THEORIES even BEFORE that (perforce) LIMITED and RUSHED preliminary INVESTIGATION got under way.
And anyway, the NIST could only have ever been able to be an INTERIM MEASURE under the circumstances, and so obviously could only ever have been ONLY A FIRST RESPONSE attempt at trying to get a 'feel' for what could have happened in such a vast set of scenario/circumstance given the structure/plane/fire damage and variopus possible further/ongoing loadshifting and failure modes etc.
I suspect that for reasons of future safety of high rise design/structues of steel/other materials, there MUST be some further more deliberate and detailed investigation/tre