Selection bias

[scooter]

gillianren said:

Will somebody please explain to me why it's so hard to believe that being smashed into by a big frickin' plane and set on fire is a reasonable explanation for a building to collapse?

Yeah...what she said...
The impact was extreme, and no doubt did notable damage to the core. The fires in the building grew over time. If anything, the stresses on the structure were growing over time, not diminishing or remaining static.
Trying to extrapolate or estimate what was happening in that building during that time is just that, but it obviously wasn't a stable situation.
If it was a viable CD op, where are all the present day CD operators agreeing with the theory? Seems they would be coming out of the woodwork.

[papageno]

Quoting a website about scientific method is a dead give-away of never having practiced science.

Now, turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?

[turbonium]

nomuse said:

Ah. Just so we're clear, then. You do accuse NIST of deliberately lying.

I accuse NIST of lying? Regarding what, exactly?

I contend their criteria for steel collection (for analysis) was unscientific and biased. They only looked for evidence which supported their hypothesis, and excluded any evidence which weakened / invalidated it.

It's also a fact that they have refused to release their "adjusted" input data for their computer models.

nomuse said:

(And by extension, that other investigative bodies and engineering and architectural firms are deliberately lying:

No.

nomuse said:

because if there was no place within the range of possible input assumptions that led to the collapse, then alternate methods of determining if there was a collapse would reveal the secret.

Only if the other firms also refuse to release their input data, like NIST.

nomuse said:

(Again, I'd hate to live in your world. In mine, there are some people with a conscience, and with pride of workmanship as well.)

There's only one world, and all of us live in it. There are, however, different personal views of our world.

You've got mine all wrong, btw. I consider the vast majority of people to have a conscience, and pride of workmanship.

Why not address the actual points I've raised about NIST's methods?

[turbonium]

papageno said:

Quoting a website about scientific method is a dead give-away of never having practiced science.

No, it's a dead give-away that all previous efforts to generate a response to the issues have been fruitless.

And if you've practised science, you wouldn't have to resort to irrelevant, diversionary comments.

papageno said:

Now, turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?

Yes.

Will you address the specific issues I've raised?

[nomuse]

No way.

If I am a fire inspector hired to make a safety inspection of a facility, then I violate the ethics of my profession, the contract with the client, and my own morals if all I do is sit in my car for two hours and then file a "no problems found" report.

If I am an investigator allowed some time at CERN, and I claim to have recorded the Higg's Boson not once but several times, but I can only support this claim by ignoring every other more likely explanation for what I got on my runs, I am violating the ethics of my profession, the trust of my colleagues, and the scientific method itself.

You can't weasel around it. The people who prepared the NIST report are not allowed to knowingly do a half-assed job. A half-assed job in science or in engineering is a job done not at all. It is not possible to take insufficient data, make unsupportable assumptions, and claim you did either science or engineering.

To say you had, when you had full knowledge of how the job should be done and you shirked or avoided doing it, is lying. No amount of weaseling will get around that.



And you backed off from answering the related claim. I know you like to stop just short of committing yourself, and you generally avoid saying that the official story of the collapse was clearly impossible; just that it hasn't shown possible beyond a doubt and that we should "keep an open mind" for other possible explanations (despite the paucity of alternatives that share even a fraction of the plausibility of the official story).

Will you commit, ever, to a claim that the official story was clearly impossible? That the only model assumptions that gave NIST the simulation they were looking for were, not just "unsupported by direct evidence" (your usual claim) but beyond any possibility of occurring in reality?

Again, the problem is simple. If you can't bring down a building with a fire, why is anyone paying for fire cladding? If the story of the WTC is unbelievable, why the confidence over at Taipei 101? If the rest of the world of architecture and engineering and fire safety and a host of related fields knows NIST and their report are full of it, why are they silent?

Surely a Chinese architect, for instance, has little to fear for what the big bad US thinks of him. He's got work for the rest of his life putting up monsters in Hong Kong -- or Beijing. And it isn't like the Chinese government is going out of their way to make nice with the US right now. Heck...there's a lot of Europe that hasn't been hesitant to call our current administration names. So why the big silence on 9-11, if the official story is so clearly wrong?

Oh, right. Because it isn't clearly wrong. Because your wriggle room is in never going all the way and saying that NIST's input conditions were fantasy. Instead you allow that maybe it could have happened, but we will never know for sure because of some niggling inconsistencies.

It's annoying, is what it is.

[papageno]

turbonium said:

papageno said:

Now, turbonium, have you read the reports NCSTAR 1-5, 1-5A, B, C, D, E, F, G?

Yes.

Will you address the specific issues I've raised?

So far you have not raised issues, you only displayed your stubborn ignorance.

If you have read the reports, as you claim, show us specifically what data would independent engineers need to evaluate the NIST investigation, but are not presented in the reports.

[turbonium]

nomuse said:

You can't weasel around it. The people who prepared the NIST report are not allowed to knowingly do a half-assed job.

"Are not allowed to"? Exactly what is your evidence for that claim?

Certainly, they should not be allowed to. Nor are they supposed to. Nevertheless, I contend that they did.

nomuse said:

A half-assed job in science or in engineering is a job done not at all. It is not possible to take insufficient data, make unsupportable assumptions, and claim you did either science or engineering.

I completely agree with those statements.

nomuse said:

To say you had, when you had full knowledge of how the job should be done and you shirked or avoided doing it, is lying.

No, it isn't. In regard to the steel collection criteria, and the unreleased input data for the simulations - whether it was intentional or not, it's shoddy, unprofessional science, imo.

Lying is something else. If the input data was released and found to not be within "range of reality", that would mean they lied.

If they had said the steel samples had reached above 600 C, that would also be a lie.

nomuse said:

And you backed off from answering the related claim. I know you like to stop just short of committing yourself, and you generally avoid saying that the official story of the collapse was clearly impossible; just that it hasn't shown possible beyond a doubt and that we should "keep an open mind"; for other possible explanations (despite the paucity of alternatives that share even a fraction of the plausibility of the official story).

No, I believe the official collapse story is impossible.

nomuse said:

Will you commit, ever, to a claim that the official story was clearly impossible? That the only model assumptions that gave NIST the simulation they were looking for were, not just "unsupported by direct evidence"; (your usual claim) but beyond any possibility of occurring in reality?

As I said, above.

nomuse said:

Again, the problem is simple. If you can't bring down a building with a fire, why is anyone paying for fire cladding?

You mean a steel framed building, I assume? Fire cladding, to protect the steel from sagging, etc. is reason enough to justify the expense. The issue isn't about whether or not global collapse could occur.

nomuse said:

If the story of the WTC is unbelievable, why the confidence over at Taipei 101?

Please explain in what way these two cases are so related.

nomuse said:

If the rest of the world of architecture and engineering and fire safety and a host of related fields knows NIST and their report are full of it, why are they silent?

This issue has been discussed before. Silence is neither approval or disapproval. However, there are some people/groups in these fields who have criticized and questioned NIST's report.

nomuse said:

Surely a Chinese architect, for instance, has little to fear for what the big bad US thinks of him. He's got work for the rest of his life putting up monsters in Hong Kong -- or Beijing. And it isn't like the Chinese government is going out of their way to make nice with the US right now. Heck...there's a lot of Europe that hasn't been hesitant to call our current administration names. So why the big silence on 9-11, if the official story is so clearly wrong?

As I said, silence doesn't necessarily mean approval.

nomuse said:

Oh, right. Because it isn't clearly wrong. Because your wriggle room is in never going all the way and saying that NIST's input conditions were fantasy.

"NIST's input conditions" are unknown. We don't know if they are "fantasy" or not.

[nomuse]

You just don't get it. It is no more possible for a team of experienced investigators to do a slipshod job with obvious holes in it and NOT KNOW IT, then it is for me to jump on a cross-town bus during the Boston Marathon and not realize I was cheating. They lied and they knew it. Simple as that.

And that's the problem you are up against. Okay, maybe the dynamics in one team, in one investigation, even though that one involved a number of professionals with reputations to protect (and egos to support) might knowingly turn in a false report. What I find difficult to imagine is that every group that has looked at the mechanics of the WTC collapse was somehow "got to" as well.

Again, you try to end-run around this by painting the actions of the investigators as having been nothing more than half-hearted. What you don't grasp is that you can't be half-hearted in that situation. Do you want a half-hearted attempt to check fire extinguishers? How about a half-hearted effort by your belay partner to check his harness and the system? How about a half-hearted effort by an MD to diagnose what appears to be a life-threatening condition?

There is no half-hearted in these jobs. There is doing the job right, and there is failing. Lying, cheating, abusing the public trust, whatever you call it. No doctor, fire inspector, or even a lowly belay partner can complete the minimal training and not understand this.

NIST can't fake it or do it slipshod. They can conduct a thorough and proper investigation, or they can knowingly lie by claiming to have done so (and in the process violate every legal, ethical, and moral tenet of their profession.)

Do you understand my point yet?

[turbonium]

nomuse said:

NIST can't fake it or do it slipshod. They can conduct a thorough and proper investigation, or they can knowingly lie by claiming to have done so (and in the process violate every legal, ethical, and moral tenet of their profession.)

OK. So this is what you're after: whether I think they are "lying" about their claim of conducting a proper investigation.

Then yes, I believe they are lying.

(I assumed it was in regard to the steel collection / input data issues.)

A proper investigation means being impartial, releasing all the evidence, data, etc. Clearly, they have failed in those aspects.

[turbonium]

Do you believe NIST's steel collection criteria was completely valid for a thorough and proper investigation? If so, why?

[gillianren]

turbonium said:

No, I believe the official collapse story is impossible.

For the love of Gods, why? What, exactly, is so hard to believe about it? And what qualifies you to know?

[nomuse]

They didn't get the results he wants to hear.

Seriously.

That's why I hammered on my point above. If NIST's findings do not match up with reality, they have knowingly committed at least a sin of omission, if not one of commission. Every investigator on that panel, by accepting the fee and by signing their name to it, said, if effect "I attest that to the best of my ability to determine it this is what happened." That is what goes with the territory of being a professional. If the NIST report does not match reality, then each and every one of these investigators knowingly lied. They either lied because they made no effort to actually make a determination, or because they knew what actually happened but let something different be put in the report.

I have trouble believing that would happen. Sure, one team, one investigative body could manage to have a strong leader, a hand-picked group of yes-men, and manage to get a result on cue like this. Heck, the old Soviet regime managed entire universities on this principle! Two teams, a little harder. The number of teams that have looked at different aspects of the collapse, and have turned in different descriptions that are nevertheless in solid general agreement -- well, that's a little mind-boggling.

I have a hard time imagining either some world-wide Illuminati-like organization that can dictate to NIST specialists, MIT students, and architectural firms in Shanghai. I have a hard time imagining people at the tops of their professions deciding to risk public safety and the collapse of their own buildings (as well as the ruin of their own reputation should the truth ever come out) in order to prop up a fairy-tale promulgated by some Washington-based warmongers. I have a particularly hard time trying to imagine what exactly you offer to a hotshot young engineer to make him lie to Congress and keep silent for life, actively supporting with his intellect as well as his professional reputation the underhanded murder of thousands of his fellow citizens. And I find it particularly hard to believe that any bonehead would go NEAR this plan when the "truth" is apparently obvious to anyone with a couple of minutes to watch a YouTube video.

[turbonium]

papageno said:

So far you have not raised issues, you only displayed your stubborn ignorance.

If you still can't understand the fact that I have raised specific issues, then you should really look to yourself for a fitting display of "stubborn ignorance".

Since nomuse appears to have no desire to address my question, let me ask you the same thing....

Do you believe NIST's steel collection criteria was completely valid for a thorough and proper investigation? If so, why?

papageno said:

If you have read the reports, as you claim, show us specifically what data would independent engineers need to evaluate the NIST investigation, but are not presented in the reports.

All of the data.

"The input files for the computer model contained about 20,000 records.."

"Dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations, plus hundreds of smaller, shorter calculations...performed to assess the sensitivity of the input parameters."

On top of that, the core damage estimates were extremely critical factors in the fire simulations....

"The amount of damage to the core also affected the results of the fire simulations in a noticeable way, but it was not possible to say which of the core damage estimates was better or worse."

"Of the fire-related parameters studied. the distribution and condition of the furnishings and the damage to the core walls/shafts had the greatest influence on the model outcome.."

"...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations."

The impact damage simulations....

In WTC 1...

"...nine of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."

(6 severed, 3 heavily damaged in severe case)
(3 severed, 4 heavily damaged in base case)

In WTC 2...

"..11 of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."

(10 severed, 1 heavily damaged, in severe case)
(5 severed, 4 heavily damaged, in base case)

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf (pgs. 1iii, 1vii)

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf (pgs.303,304)

Consider that NIST's own simulations found that, at most, only one core column could be severed by one of the engines. (ie: in a direct impact). The other sections of the plane (fuselage, wings, etc.) were incapable of causing even heavy damage to a core column.

It's obvious that one plane impacted a tower off-center, so only one engine - at most - could have directly hit and severed a core column. The other tower had two core columns - at most - being hit and severed.

Yet NIST had up to 10 core columns being severed in their simulations!!

And again, as NIST stated....

"...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations."

So, they combine ridiculous damage estimates with tweaked up input data, for their fire simulations.

And then they claim the collapse models are realistic, and the most probable scenarios for what actually happened?

Um, sure. I'm convinced.

[papageno]

turbonium said:

papageno said:

So far you have not raised issues, you only displayed your stubborn ignorance.

If you still can't understand the fact that I have raised specific issues, then you should really look to yourself for a fitting display of "stubborn ignorance".

You have presented "If I ran the zoo" arguments, which are worthless because you have shown little understanding of the relevant subjects.

turbonium said:

Since nomuse appears to have no desire to address my question, let me ask you the same thing....

Do you believe NIST's steel collection criteria was completely valid for a thorough and proper investigation? If so, why?

Are you trying to shift the burden of proof?

You say you read the reports, so it is up to you to show what is wrong with them.

turbonium said:

papageno said:

If you have read the reports, as you claim, show us specifically what data would independent engineers need to evaluate the NIST investigation, but are not presented in the reports.

All of the data.

Sorry, are you saying that no data are presented in the reports?

If so, you have to look no further than NCSTAR 1-5C and E, which describe the tests of workstation burns. These test can be replicated independently and their results have been used for the simulations.

turbonium said:

"The input files for the computer model contained about 20,000 records.."

"Dozens of full-scale, full-length calculations, plus hundreds of smaller, shorter calculations...performed to assess the sensitivity of the input parameters."

Sorry, where do you show that engineers need those files to evaluate the simulation?

turbonium said:

On top of that, the core damage estimates were extremely critical factors in the fire simulations....

"The amount of damage to the core also affected the results of the fire simulations in a noticeable way, but it was not possible to say which of the core damage estimates was better or worse."

"Of the fire-related parameters studied. the distribution and condition of the furnishings and the damage to the core walls/shafts had the greatest influence on the model outcome.."

"...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations."

Where do you show that there are data necessary to replicate the simulations which are not reported?

turbonium said:

The impact damage simulations....

In WTC 1...

"...nine of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."

(6 severed, 3 heavily damaged in severe case)
(3 severed, 4 heavily damaged in base case)

In WTC 2...

"..11 of 47 core columns were severed or heavily damaged."

(10 severed, 1 heavily damaged, in severe case)
(5 severed, 4 heavily damaged, in base case)

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf (pgs. 1iii, 1vii)

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2.pdf (pgs.303,304)

Consider that NIST's own simulations found that, at most, only one core column could be severed by one of the engines. (ie: in a direct impact). The other sections of the plane (fuselage, wings, etc.) were incapable of causing even heavy damage to a core column.

Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports?

turbonium said:

It's obvious that one plane impacted a tower off-center, so only one engine - at most - could have directly hit and severed a core column. The other tower had two core columns - at most - being hit and severed.

Yet NIST had up to 10 core columns being severed in their simulations!!

Maybe if I repeat it often enough it'll start to sink in...
Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports?

turbonium said:

And again, as NIST stated....

"...the core damage was to be provided by the impact analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-2)..Ultimately, the impact analysis was to provide a range of damage estimates that were to be input into the fire simulations."

So, they combine ridiculous damage estimates with tweaked up input data, for their fire simulations.

Which data are not presented?

turbonium said:

And then they claim the collapse models are realistic, and the most probable scenarios for what actually happened?

Um, sure. I'm convinced.

Sorry, turbonium, but you have completely evaded my question.

I did not ask you to quote mine the reports and repeat your usual and worthless "If I run the zoo" complaints.

Now, show us specifically which data are necessary to evaluate the NIST investigation and are not presented in the reports.

[turbonium]

papageno said:

You say you read the reports, so it is up to you to show what is wrong with them.

I already have. I've repeatedly pointed out to you what was wrong with NIST's steel collection criteria. It's quite obvious that you can't (or won't) address the issue.

Do you agree or disagree with NIST's steel collection criteria?

papageno said:

Sorry, are you saying that no data are presented in the reports?

No. Certainly, there is some data in the reports. But a great deal of the data is not.

papageno said:

Where do you show that there are data necessary to replicate the simulations which are not reported?

What about reporting the adjusted data? For example, the range of values for the "adjusted" pulling forces, and the sub-calculations used to derive those values (as noted below)? Are you claiming they aren't necessary to replicate the simulations?

papageno said:

Which data necessary to evaluate the simulations are not presented in the reports?

NIST stated.......

To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted within the range of values derived from the subsystem computations.

wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf (pg. 144)

Did they publish the subsystem computations, and the range of values derived from them? Have I overlooked it all in the reports?

Where else has NIST "adjusted the input" when the simulations "deviated from the photographic...or eyewitness evidence"?

And, can you point out where NIST has published the "range of values" and subsystem computations for these other "adjustments"?