The assertions put forward in the NIST report aren't based on any tangible real-world evidence.

[rollingrock]

The assertions put forward in the http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf">NIST final report of the WTC Building 7 collapse aren't based on any tangible real-world evidence. Hence, violating proper investigative and scientific procedures. I could probably say the same about their shoddy reporting of the Twin towers but in this thread I only refer to the Building 7 report so things don't get overly complicated or confusing. Let's deal with one thing at a time.

Think of any crime scene investigation, a homicide for example. The job of the forensic investigator is to collect fingerprints, blood samples, tissue samples, hair samples and what not for testing and analysis, including DNA testing. They look for the murder weapon, signs of a struggle, locate the body, perform an autopsy and so forth. if there was a firearm involved they would extract the bullets from the body and do ballistic testing. Each of these pieces of evidence are carefully collected, identified, photographed, analyzed, labeled, and preserved, for example, for later submission in a court of law. Each piece is documented and individually referenced in the investigative and forensic reports.

...that's basically the scientific method in action.

But there is no such documentation, no such referencing and cataloging of physical evidence to be found in the NIST report. What were the pieces of evidence were collected from Ground Zero? If any? Steel beams, supporting columns, trusses, bolts, dust samples, concrete samples, etc. Where is the documentation? where are the photographs? What are the descriptions, dimensions, and other properties of each piece? Why are they not identified or even pictured anywhere in the final report?

In other words, this report is a fairy tale. Without real world evidence and testing behind it, it's nothing more than meaningless, baseless speculation--a crackpot theory that would be dismissed and probably laughed out of any court of law.

If anyone wants to prove me wrong, please feel free to post where in the http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf">NIST final report this referencing and cataloging of physical evidence takes place because I don't see it in there. Include page numbers, please.

Scientific method

Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

NIST's 'computer simulations'

NIST puts forward that it bases much of its reporting of Building 7 on computer modeling. But a computer simulation or computer model has to be based on physical evidence and real-world data or otherwise you can simply punch in any numbers you want into the computer until you get the desired result. Which is why computer simulations by themselves aren't considered to be reliable evidence. There's no full disclosure of the data used in the reports.

That's called garbage in, garbage out.



------------------



ooh, and I like the answer they gave to one of their FAQs too:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
. . . "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006


So let me get this straight: Explosives had been used once before in the 1993 WTC attacks, and Building 7 collapses in the manner of a controlled demolition though it was hit by no plane, yet the government fails to do proper testing of any kind for the use of explosives on 9/11?? LOL are you kidding me? What a sham.

[bottomtheweaver]

1. Yes the NIST report is high octane corporate whitewash.

All it needs is a guy in a doctor's smock pushing the health benefits of Lucky Strikes on the front cover.

[rollingrock]

2. Or Larry Summers

selling investors on the wonders of owning mortgage-backed securities.

[NowHearThis]

4. Excellent differential diagnosis, bottomweaver. Funny, too!

NIST: If you liked the Warren Commission Report, you'll love the NIST Coverup Report.

[AZCat]

3. It is a little confusing.

You have to remember that the WTC7 report is part of the larger WTC investigation, and is supported by the various other NCSTARs. There are plenty of photographs and data from the steel collected by various organizations, but unfortunately none of the samples could be unambiguously identified as part of WTC7.

[Fainter]

46. Then What Tangible Samples...

did they use to identify the origin and spread of the fires and the weakening of the key structural members at WTC 7? Given your statement that NIST relied on ambiguous tangible evidence, how can you expect the public to endorse NIST's conclusions without reservation? No one can seriously argue that there was a paucity of physical evidence to photograph, catalog, test, reconstruct, etc. at the collapse site of WTC7. Quintierre himself, IIRC NIST's chief fire investigator, stated the best evidence is the tangible physical evidence and strongly implied NIST's (et al) development of the physical evidence at 7 was lacking. I also read his statement to strongly imply that NIST overly relied on their computer model to explain the fate of 7. The problem with overreliance on computer modeling is that it becomes too easy to make the facts fit politically expedient preconceived theories. It's a question of best evidence. At best, NIST cherrypicked some of the best evidence and wilfully ignored the rest. The OP makes a telling point which your side has totally ducked. Given the MO of the earlier attack at the WTC, how could any investigative body fail to address the possible use of explosives in the collapse of any of the three buildings that fell that day as priority number one?

[AZCat]

49. Where have I argued the public should endorse the NIST WTC 7 report without reservation?

I do expect people to read it before criticizing, though. Have you done that, at least?

[Fainter]

55. No, Does That Change The Answers To My Questions?...

AZCat actually I have read small bits, but I'm the public not an engineer. Is reading the U.S. Tax Code the road to enlightenment for the taxpayer?

I have a question concerning computer modeling about which I would appreciate your perspective:

When one goes to model structural failure wouldn't a model be more realistic that used data derived from an actual examination of the failed components than one that did not or was less reliant on actual physical datapoints? Wouldn't less have to be assumed about the failure mechanism the more real world physical data was inputted? A much easier case, but here I'm thinking of the extraordinary lengths we went to to retrieve and reassemble TWA 800 from the ocean floor. Why did we go to all that trouble?

You have reservations about the NIST report on 7? Could you spell these out in more detail?

My problem with not only the NIST report on 7 but all the official collapse investigations was the decision not to thoroughly examine the actual corpses at the world's biggest crime scene. Instead NIST et al, from a wealth of hundreds of thousands of tons of readily available physical evidence, cherrypicked a few toenails around which they virtually constructed entire computerized strawmen of the buildings instead of photographing, cataloging, testing, and reconstructing the smoking, molten, exploded remains of the actual bodies in any thoroughgoing meaningful way. Having breathed life into their golem the NIST et al pursued only a theory of death by toe-stubbing and surprise, surprise concluded the victims fell down by natural causes. Sorry, given the overbuilt massivity and safety factors of the towers and the apparently superficial damage to 7, I cannot subscribe to the OCT's Mouse Trap (Hasbro TM?) perfect storm of bad luck physics without proper forensics having been conducted, especially in light of the subsequent political advantage taken of the decedents' (the buildings) corpses.

You may not believe this, but had the NIST and the other agencies done a proper forensics investigation per Quintierre (it is customary in civil and criminal cases to assign the first importance to witness statements, other documentary evidence, and physical evidence--computer models are second order evidence) and then concluded crash damage and fire alone brought down the buildings, I could have lived with that. But because the evidence has largely been destroyed or remains under wraps, my doubts cannot be overcome. You cannot reasonably expect those who are skeptical of the official account to propose an alternate theory of collapse without having access to all the evidence. The evidence is gone along with our freedom, our money, global stability, and our national future.

One path of inquiry that is yet open is this question of nano-thermites.

[AZCat]

57. There are two separate problems here.

The first is the question of the utility of salvaging the whole remains of the collapsed buildings. Besides pieces of interest (which were preserved by SEANY and others) the rest of the steel was useless. Either the pieces were from areas that had nothing to do with collapse initiation (the interesting part) or were damaged post-collapse while in the pile or during site rescue operations and cleanup. Could they have salvaged more? Yes. Should they have salvaged more? I don't think so. I have found that there is a point where accumulation of data can begin to interfere with resolution of issues, rather than help. NIST was given a finite budget ($16 million initially - I think it was increased to $20 million by the end) and they could have spent the entire budget on cataloging and analyzing, had the majority of the steel from the towers and WTC 7 been preserved. This would have been interesting but not that useful.

The second question concerns the accuracy of computer models. Thousands of screeds have been written on the limitations of computer simulations of highly nonlinear events. I don't have the time, space, inclination or intellect to recount what has already been said by far smarter people than me. I have expressed my opinion several times here in this forum. Suffice to say that I have significant reservations about the models, particularly WTC 7. However, NIST did provide possible explanations of the causes and sequences of the collapses, if not the explanations, based on these models. They are a starting point for current and future analysis.

[rollingrock]

54. Very nicely put

thank you.

[Fainter]

56. Thanx, And There's More. Excellent OP BTW. n/t

[Realityhack]

5. That isn't entirely accurate.

The video of the collapse is real world evidence for example.

[rollingrock]

9. Exactly

and the video disproves that the collapse could have been caused by fire.

To read the NIST report, one would think that WTC7 was a towering inferno, when the video clearly shows the fire was very isolated to a couple of rooms on a handful of floors at the most, if that.

[Realityhack]

12. You must have read some different report than the one the rest of us did.

The video is right in sync with what the computer model predicts.
If the failure NIST modeled was 'impossible' than it is highly unlikely that the details of the collapse progression would line up with the videos and photographic evidence.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Bogus assumption

Add an input here, move a decimal point there... and you can make a model behave any way you like. As the OP states without full disclosure it's a black box.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. the scientific method is not just

collecting things. It is a process that does not necessarily need to involve collecting "tangible real-world evidence" as you put it. It can include observations of phenomena and behavior.

[rollingrock]

13. Empirical observation alone is unreliable

empirical observation by itself is not science.

blood found at a crime scene, for example - you can't tell who the blood belongs to simply by looking at it or touching it. you need to collect the blood after photographing it, then have it processed in a lab.

the NIST admits they refused to even test for explosive residue. they didn't even do any lab testing of the tons of dust that covered the whole of lower Manhattan on 9/11, when it should have been among the first things they did given the prior history of attack on the WTC which utilized explosives.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Cosmology is not a science right?

NIST wouldn't have tested for explosive residue, the FBI would have, they owned the crimescene.

[jschurchin]

7. To be honest RR

the point you make here,

But there is no such documentation, no such referencing and cataloging of physical evidence to be found in the NIST report. What were the pieces of evidence were collected from Ground Zero? If any? Steel beams, supporting columns, trusses, bolts, dust samples, concrete samples, etc. Where is the documentation? where are the photographs? What are the descriptions, dimensions, and other properties of each piece? Why are they not identified or even pictured anywhere in the final report?

isn't of any importance to the people whom believe the NIST. They are only interested in the final result. How they get there is of no importance to them.

[AZCat]

31. I don't think that's true at all. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Chapter 6 talks about how they built their models - over 70 pages of materials.

Much real world evidence was used to build those models. Steel was collected and analyzed to make sure that it met construction standards (it did), and those construction standards became part of the modeling. And those pieces of steel are itemized and pictured in the reports.

There is no reason on earth to have expected Ground Zero to have been frozen in time for an exhaustive crime scene analysis. Part of crime scene analysis is being able to gather evidence in a timely fashion. The sheer scope of the destruction negated this element beyond all reason. NIST's approach was the best alternative.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. This was about WTC 1 and 2.

However, WTC 7 also has an immense amount of real world evidence collected for this report.

[rollingrock]

11. Describe this evidence in detail please

in the OJ trial the prosecution went into exhaustive detail to describe each and every piece of evidence on the scene over a period of months. Heck, they put the blue stained dress and cigar among other things into evidence in the Monica Lewinsky investigation.

So let's hear it.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Copy and paste from the report?

Read it.

[rollingrock]

15. I did

each and every single page.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Then you know exactly what they based their modeling on

and you're here pretending that they didn't use evidence to build those models.

Why are you here spreading factual inaccuracies about the NIST report, rollingrock?

[rollingrock]

18. Page numbers?

or do you expect us to take your word for it?

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Don't have it right here in front of me

Take your copy out and locate the Table of contents.

[rollingrock]

22. Nothing there either

sorry.

And I provided the link, so there's no excuse for not having a copy in front of you.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. I believe you are incorrect about this.

Check again.

[rollingrock]

25. Are you referring to this?

Based on observations and analyses of photographic and video records, critical study of steel framing, and simplified and detailed anayses to investigate possible failure modes that could lead to an initiating event, NIST developed the following collapse hypothesis:

(page 25)

This is a meaningless statement, not science. I'm not going to take someone's word for it. I need to see detailed descriptions, photographs and documentation for each piece of evidence they claimed to have used to arrive to their conclusions. Show me the money.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Something tells me that they could have done exactly as you wished.

And it wouldn't have been enough for you.

[whatchamacallit]

29. A better question is

why is it good enough for you? Bias maybe?

[rollingrock]

30. You can speculate all you want about my intentions

but speculation is not science.

[AZCat]

42. You did? That's awesome!

Way to go, rollingrock! Now maybe we can have an informed discussion.

What I think you're looking for is in the first paragraph of Chapter 3 (page 25).

Similar to the investigation into the collapse of the WTC towers, data for WTC 7 were collected from a number of sources and reviewed. Much of the information on WTC 7 was gathered and published during the reconstruction of the collapses of the towers. Comparison of the various building codes in use at the time of construction was the subject of NIST NCSTAR 1-1E. Details of the fire safety provisions and systems were published in NIST NCSTAR reports 1-1D, 1-1G, 1-1I, 1-4B, 1-4C, and 1-4D. The emergency power systems were described in NIST NCSTAR 1-1J. Properties of the structural steels used in the construction were the subject of NIST NCSTAR 1-3D and NIST NCSTAR 1-3E. The SFRM properties were presented in NCSTAR 1-6A. Much of the activities of the emergency responders was reported in NIST NCSTAR 1-8. A description of the colleciton and cataloguing of the photographic and videographic evidence appeared in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. This included visuals of debris impact damage and fire spread subsequent to the collapse of the WTC towers. Additional imagery was collected subsequent to the previously reported library. While not as plentiful as the imagery for the WTC towers, the cumulative WTC 7 evidence was sufficient to guide the reconstruction of the day's events.

If you want information specifically about the WTC 7 model not included in NCSTAR 1A, you might try NCSTAR 1-9: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, and NCSTAR 1-9A: Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage (both available from NIST).

[rollingrock]

43. Cool

Just a question.

Do any of those documents explain why they refused to do testing for explosive residue? Or why they failed to collect dust samples for lab analysis? If so, page numbers please. Thanks.

[AZCat]

47. Why do you think that was part of their task? n/t

[BeFree]

45. And

They only began the investigation almost a year after the fact. And you think that was the "best alternative"?

Your problem, which has become ours', is that the support of such an investigation is given any credence whatsoever. NIST didn't even consider that it might be a crime scene, so they didn't investigate it as a crime scene. It was an incomplete and sloppily done investigation, and anyone who truly holds it up to the light can see the gaping holes.

Try it sometime if you can find the light of truth anywhere near you.

[AZCat]

48. Why do you think the NIST didn't begin the investigation until fall 2002? n/t

[BeFree]

50. Why so late?

Well, Bushco wanted no investigation whatsoever. But the force of the people seeking the truth made them do something, so a year later, once it became nearly impossible to stall any longer, the investigation started.

And then it started with a pre-conceived notion of what happened. Facts that went against the conception were discarded and hardly even explored. It was and is a failed study that was built around the Bushco OCT.

[AZCat]

51. Are you blaming NIST for this?

The National Construction Safety Team Act wasn't passed until October 2002.

[BeFree]

52. Eh?

The blame is spread so wide not one entity except Bushco is to blame. But as far as the NIST, it had a duty to uncover all the facts and it failed to do so.

It did not undertake its study in a way that would lead to the truth... it was hamstrung from the beginning much the same way as the torture program proceeded.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Thanks for posting this

Indeed there is no explanation for the lapse in scientific protocol displayed by the NIST, save one: FRAUD.

[rollingrock]

19. Yep,

they didn't test for anything, not even the dust.

why ignore the most obvious pieces of evidence staring you right in the face? that's like ignoring the gallons of blood at the scene of the OJ Simpson murders.

[LARED]

24. You are under the misguided notion the WTC was a criminal

investigation. It's not. It an investigation into the failure of the building, hence the standard you apply for a criminal investigation is pointless. Like most CT posts.

[whatchamacallit]

26. No matter what kind of investigation it is

without access to the physical evidence the collapse models were supposedly based on, the results are suspect at best.

[LARED]

32. It's unfortunate that the site was cleaned up without

gathering more evidence. But I see no cover up or malice in this, rather just people trying to cope with a never before seen disaster.

BTW, nearly all models are imperfect things and there is always a level of uncertainty. The WTC 7 collapse is a highly complex event that is incredibly difficult to model even under the best conditions.

[whatchamacallit]

34. Sorry, the innocent mistake excuse just doesn't fly (n/t)

[AZCat]

35. What "innocent mistake" excuse?

It wasn't a mistake. If such a horrible thing ever happened again, I would expect the authorities to prioritize searching for survivors over preserving the scene.

[whatchamacallit]

36. FEMA arrived the night before to "handle it" (n/t)

[AZCat]

38. I don't think we agree about that. n/t

[LARED]

40. Well, there's a shock - nt

[rollingrock]

27. I'm applying the scientific standard

NIST claims it is a scientific report, hence the standard used in the OP.

and FYI, the 9/11 attacks IS a crime.

[LARED]

33. Not really

you seem to be applying a standard that will stand up under the scrutiny of the law. The WTC reports are not those types of investigations.

[rollingrock]

37. So it isn't subject to criminal law nor the laws of science?

what standard is it subject to then? the laws of scientology?

[LARED]

39. If you would bother to

actually look at the report, right up front in the abstract it tells the reader exactly what type of report was created.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%201.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1Aindex.htm

[rollingrock]

41. The abstract = more meaningless, empty rhetoric

congrats!

[LARED]

44. No again

an abstract is a specific part of a report. Nothing at all meaningless about it.

When you look it up in the dictionary it is the noun form.