What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like?

As they used to say in Parliament during Prime Minister's Question Time I refer my honorable friend to the reply I gave some moments ago. Or you can look at the 45 posts dealing with that here. This topic has been done to death.
Landru, that links to a page made up almost entirely of posts I've made myself. I challenge you again to explain how NIST was able to say it had followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA921. NFPA921 is the scientific method for fire investigation.

I'm sure we can both agree that a new investigation would follow the scientific method.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landru, that links to a page made up almost entirely of posts I've made myself. I challenge you again to explain how NIST was able to say it had followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA921. NFPA921 is the scientific method for fire investigation.

I'm sure we can both agree that a new investigation would follow the scientific method.

I previously gave you NIST's explanation. If you want to know what their reasoning was beyond that ask them when the shutdown is over.
 
I previously gave you NIST's explanation. If you want to know what their reasoning was beyond that ask them when the shutdown is over.
But I'm not asking you for NIST's explanation. I've seen it copied-pasted here on MB a hundred times (as you might say).

I was asking you what you understand the substance of NIST's excuse to be for not following the scientific method as laid out by NFPA921.

I told you I would challenge you to explain this if you appeared to accept NIST's words. It seems you made a mistake, because you evidently do but you equally evidently cannot demonstrate why.

If you are not capable of defending this part of NIST's FAQ in your own words you have my sympathy, but you cannot handwave your failure of comprehension away at this stage.

This goes to the root of the topic of the thread, I think.
 
But I'm not asking you for NIST's explanation. I've seen it copied-pasted here on MB a hundred times (as you might say).

I was asking you what you understand the substance of NIST's excuse to be for not following the scientific method as laid out by NFPA921.

I told you I would challenge you to explain this if you appeared to accept NIST's words. It seems you made a mistake, because you evidently do but you equally evidently cannot demonstrate why.

If you are not capable of defending this part of NIST's FAQ in your own words you have my sympathy, but you cannot handwave your failure of comprehension away at this stage.

This goes to the root of the topic of the thread, I think.

The root of the topic is what the people demanding a new investigation would want out of it. It is not an examination of why people accept the current investigation.
 
The root of the topic is what the people demanding a new investigation would want out of it. It is not an examination of why people accept the current investigation.
Exactly. And at the very least we would all expect an application of the scientific method in the new investigation's approach I'm sure.

So the question to Landru is: how can NIST have avoided the application of the scientific method as specified by NFPA921 and still meaningfully claim to have observed the scientific method?

As Landru is "satisfied" with NIST's explanation, I feel he should be able to explain what is so satisfactory about it.

This is relevant because NFPA921 is precisely the stipulation of how to apply the scientific method to forensic fire investigation, so it's pretty much what a new investigation should look like.
 
Exactly. And at the very least we would all expect an application of the scientific method in the new investigation's approach I'm sure.

No. The question is what EXACTLY you would want them to do. "apply the scientific method" is laudable, but what exactly do you want investigating?
 
No. The question is what EXACTLY you would want them to do. "apply the scientific method" is laudable, but what exactly do you want investigating?
As I've said, a new investigation begins by taking previous investigations into account (something the NIST report failed to do with FEMA's 2002 study of WTC7 steel, of course: another factor that undermines its credibility).

NFPA 921 specifies exactly how investigations of this kind should proceed -- it even specifies what I've said above: that any previous research must be fully accounted for by the investigating authority as part of the process.

One of the mysteries of the NIST investigation is how NIST was able to claim to have followed the scientific method without following the NFPA 921 code. To me, this claim is a meaningless contradiction. Certainly, a new investigation should not be dogged by contradictory claims of what the scientific method means or what it should actually entail. In fact NFPA 921 exists precisely to give clarity on questions of this kind.

In the past, people such as Landru have responded to my observation that NIST's published excuse for not following NFPA 921 is meaningless by superciliously copying-and-pasting NIST's published claim to have followed the scientific method -- the very claim I have been saying has no meaning -- as if such circular logic explains anything.

As an excellent example of question-begging, this has been frustrating. If NIST has indeed been able to meaningfully observe the scientific method while ignoring the process specified by NFPA 921, then I want to understand how. In terms of the topic of this thread, it seems that NFPA 921 may not be the "gold standard" of fire investigation practice after all, and Landru knows why.

Now Landru has yet again referred to NIST's meaningless claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 and I have called him out on it. I doubt he will return here to explain what he thinks it means, because I think the abject meaninglessness of NIST's claim makes it indefensible.

If the substance to NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 could be explained by the people who accept this claim -- like Landru -- then this would inform a hypothetical new investigation immensely.

Sadly, I do not think we will see him return to this thread to do so.
 
As I've said, a new investigation begins by taking previous investigations into account (something the NIST report failed to do with FEMA's 2002 study of WTC7 steel, of course: another factor that undermines its credibility).

NFPA 921 specifies exactly how investigations of this kind should proceed -- it even specifies what I've said above: that any previous research must be fully accounted for by the investigating authority as part of the process.

One of the mysteries of the NIST investigation is how NIST was able to claim to have followed the scientific method without following the NFPA 921 code. To me, this claim is a meaningless contradiction. Certainly, a new investigation should not be dogged by contradictory claims of what the scientific method means or what it should actually entail. In fact NFPA 921 exists precisely to give clarity on questions of this kind.

In the past, people such as Landru have responded to my observation that NIST's published excuse for not following NFPA 921 is meaningless by superciliously copying-and-pasting NIST's published claim to have followed the scientific method -- the very claim I have been saying has no meaning -- as if such circular logic explains anything.

As an excellent example of question-begging, this has been frustrating. If NIST has indeed been able to meaningfully observe the scientific method while ignoring the process specified by NFPA 921, then I want to understand how. In terms of the topic of this thread, it seems that NFPA 921 may not be the "gold standard" of fire investigation practice after all, and Landru knows why.

Now Landru has yet again referred to NIST's meaningless claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 and I have called him out on it. I doubt he will return here to explain what he thinks it means, because I think the abject meaninglessness of NIST's claim makes it indefensible.

If the substance to NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 could be explained by the people who accept this claim -- like Landru -- then this would inform a hypothetical new investigation immensely.

Sadly, I do not think we will see him return to this thread to do so.

I went out to meet friends because I was bored. I accept NIST's and claim you do not. I'm not trying to change your mind.
 
As I've said, a new investigation begins by taking previous investigations into account (something the NIST report failed to do with FEMA's 2002 study of WTC7 steel, of course: another factor that undermines its credibility).

NFPA 921 specifies exactly how investigations of this kind should proceed -- it even specifies what I've said above: that any previous research must be fully accounted for by the investigating authority as part of the process.

One of the mysteries of the NIST investigation is how NIST was able to claim to have followed the scientific method without following the NFPA 921 code. To me, this claim is a meaningless contradiction. Certainly, a new investigation should not be dogged by contradictory claims of what the scientific method means or what it should actually entail. In fact NFPA 921 exists precisely to give clarity on questions of this kind.

In the past, people such as Landru have responded to my observation that NIST's published excuse for not following NFPA 921 is meaningless by superciliously copying-and-pasting NIST's published claim to have followed the scientific method -- the very claim I have been saying has no meaning -- as if such circular logic explains anything.

As an excellent example of question-begging, this has been frustrating. If NIST has indeed been able to meaningfully observe the scientific method while ignoring the process specified by NFPA 921, then I want to understand how. In terms of the topic of this thread, it seems that NFPA 921 may not be the "gold standard" of fire investigation practice after all, and Landru knows why.

Now Landru has yet again referred to NIST's meaningless claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 and I have called him out on it. I doubt he will return here to explain what he thinks it means, because I think the abject meaninglessness of NIST's claim makes it indefensible.

If the substance to NIST's claim to have followed the scientific method while ignoring NFPA 921 could be explained by the people who accept this claim -- like Landru -- then this would inform a hypothetical new investigation immensely.

Sadly, I do not think we will see him return to this thread to do so.
NFPA 921 is synonymous with the scientific method. It is a set of standards and procedures that can be used when conducting a scientific investigation. Not using them does not automatically mean that a scientific method was not used in an investigation. Rather than saying they didn't rely on NFPA 921 you should look at the methodology and standards they did use and explain why it was either not scientific or fails to produce reliable evidence.
 
So jomper, let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree the the old study was unscientific garbage.

So you want a new study, following the scientific method to your standards, what would it do?

Please answer without referencing the old study, which for the purposes of this question we have discarded as useless.
 
I went out to meet friends because I was bored. I accept NIST's and claim you do not. I'm not trying to change your mind.
Fair enough. I was staying in looking after children. You still haven't explained why you accept NIST's claim: based on what NIST has written in its FAQ, I suggest that's because you cannot.
 
Fair enough. I was staying in looking after children. You still haven't explained why you accept NIST's claim: based on what NIST has written in its FAQ, I suggest that's because you cannot.

I don't think it matters what I think.
 
NFPA 921 is synonymous with the scientific method. It is a set of standards and procedures that can be used when conducting a scientific investigation. Not using them does not automatically mean that a scientific method was not used in an investigation. Rather than saying they didn't rely on NFPA 921 you should look at the methodology and standards they did use and explain why it was either not scientific or fails to produce reliable evidence.
NFPA 921 is indeed synonymous with the scientific method applied to forensic fire investigation. Have you read it? NIST ignored it in many ways: would you agree that NIST was engaged in a forensic fire investigation?
 
I don't think it matters what I think.
Nevertheless you are prepared to direct others to NIST's FAQ on the question of NFPA 921 as if it means something to you, and that is why I have asked you to explain it.
 
Nevertheless you are prepared to direct others to NIST's FAQ on the question of NFPA 921 as if it means something to you, and that is why I have asked you to explain it.

People can come to their own conclusions. It is NIST's answer to the question why they didn't rigidly follow all aspects of NFPA 921. Now, how about getting back on topic. The question is what would a new WTC7 collapse investigation look like.
 
So jomper, let's say for the sake of argument that we all agree the the old study was unscientific garbage.

So you want a new study, following the scientific method to your standards, what would it do?

Please answer without referencing the old study, which for the purposes of this question we have discarded as useless.
There can be no new investigation without referencing the old study. However, for the sake of argument: does it seem reasonable to you that fire investigation codes demand testing for accelerants if damage is above a certain order, as a matter of procedure? That's an obvious question, isn't it?
 
People can come to their own conclusions. It is NIST's answer to the question why they didn't rigidly follow all aspects of NFPA 921. Now, how about getting back on topic. The question is what would a new WTC7 collapse investigation look like.
It's an answer which you claimed on this thread to find satisfactory. If you can explain why, it would advance the topic under discussion. But I do not think you can.
 
NFPA 921 is indeed synonymous with the scientific method applied to forensic fire investigation. Have you read it? NIST ignored it in many ways: would you agree that NIST was engaged in a forensic fire investigation?
Yes I've read it. Like all standards it is a set of guidelines and procedures to be used when conducting an inquiry. That does not make it synonymous with the scientific method or mean that an inquiry conducted that doesn't adhere to NFPA 921 standards and procedures is automatically unscientific. I'd be more interested in what standards NIST did use and why they made those choices.
 
Yes I've read it. Like all standards it is a set of guidelines and procedures to be used when conducting an inquiry. That does not make it synonymous with the scientific method or mean that an inquiry conducted that doesn't adhere to NFPA 921 standards and procedures is automatically unscientific. I'd be more interested in what standards NIST did use and why they made those choices.
You, like NIST, seem to suggest that NFPA 921 is not appropriate in this case. There could always have been more than NFPA 921 to the NIST investigation, but less? If you're interested in NIST's choices, you must be interested in why those carefully-planned and widely-accepted codes were ignored in this important case.
 
jomper has constantly attempted to derail the thread by asking his pet questions. He has been warned about this before. I have given him the weekend off to reconsider his approach to discussions.

The topic is what would a new WTC7 collapse investigation look like.
 
You, like NIST, seem to suggest that NFPA 921 is not appropriate in this case. There could always have been more than NFPA 921 to the NIST investigation, but less? If you're interested in NIST's choices, you must be interested in why those carefully-planned and widely-accepted codes were ignored in this important case.
No I don't suggest it is not appropriate in this case. What I am saying is that NFPA 921 is not, as I keep seeing suggested, the definition of or synonymous with "the scientific method". It is a set of standards. You can engage in the scientific inquiry using different standards. It would be nice if NIST disclosed the standards they used and the rationale behind choosing those standards, but not using NFPA 921 does not automatically mean that "the scientific method" was not used in the study.
 
No I don't suggest it is not appropriate in this case. What I am saying is that NFPA 921 is not, as I keep seeing suggested, the definition of or synonymous with "the scientific method". It is a set of standards. You can engage in the scientific inquiry using different standards. It would be nice if NIST disclosed the standards they used and the rationale behind choosing those standards, but not using NFPA 921 does not automatically mean that "the scientific method" was not used in the study.
Whatever the set of standards that NIST did follow, do you not think it is unacceptable that these did not at least comply with NFPA though, whether it was required to do so or not?
 
This thread is about what you want in a new NIST WTC7 collapse investigation. Not about what people think about the previous investigation.
 
This thread is about what you want in a new NIST WTC7 collapse investigation. Not about what people think about the previous investigation.
I think there are some things that we can learn from the previous 'investigation' though, so mistakes are not repeated. For example, the new investigators should have a basic understanding of structural drawings, they should be able to tell the difference between 11" and 12", they should include critical elements in their analysis instead of omitting them. Best way forward for a new investigation is to have 2 unconnected teams do independent studies maybe?
 
I think there are some things that we can learn from the previous 'investigation' though, so mistakes are not repeated. For example, the new investigators should have a basic understanding of structural drawings, they should be able to tell the difference between 11" and 12", they should include critical elements in their analysis instead of omitting them. Best way forward for a new investigation is to have 2 unconnected teams do independent studies maybe?

What should be the budget of the new investigation?

How would you constitute those teams?
 
Whatever the set of standards that NIST did follow, do you not think it is unacceptable that these did not at least comply with NFPA though, whether it was required to do so or not?
I think a lot of people have decided it's unacceptable so they can hold on to some justification for keeping the idea of conspiracy going and that if NFPA 921 was followed flawlessly the would find another problem with the investigation. No amount of proof or study is ever adequate for the conspiracy minded. That makes it hard to describe what a new study would look like. I can't think of anything that could be done that wouldn't be rejected.
 
That makes it hard to describe what a new study would look like. I can't think of anything that could be done that wouldn't be rejected.

Even though many "conspiracy minded" (i.e., skeptical) members have clearly outlined what they wouldn't reject?
 
The topic is what should be in a new study, not what you think about the old study. Future posts along those lines in this thread will be deleted and the poster banned for one week.

If you want to debunk the old study there are lots of thread along those lines already.
 
@gerrycan

Can you describe a new study that you would accept even if it established fire induced gravitational collapse?
 
@gerrycan

Can you describe a new study that you would accept even if it established fire induced gravitational collapse?
If I could find a way that a gravitational, progressive collapse of a high rise steel building could be induced by fire I would have thought of it by now. Engineers are clever people, they design these buildings to resist collapse due to fire and are very good at it.
 
If I could find a way that a gravitational, progressive collapse of a high rise steel building could be induced by fire I would have thought of it by now. Engineers are clever people, they design these buildings to resist collapse due to fire and are very good at it.

So you don't think there's a point in a new wtc7 collapse study? Surely a new study should at least attempt to comprehensively investigate the possibility of fire-induced collapse? Or would you want a new study to only focus on the possibility of explosives?

You are asking for a new study. What should it look like?
 
Even though many "conspiracy minded" (i.e., skeptical) members have clearly outlined what they wouldn't reject?
Yes, one of the defining characteristics of conspiracy theorist in any area (9/11, Aliens, GMOs, etc.) is the redefinition or denial of proof when their beliefs are not supported. Once they become convinced there is a conspiracy even the lack of proof becomes evidence of the conspiracy. If the underlying theory is that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition as part of a larger conspiracy then no amount of proof will suffice because that would mean the conspiracy itself might not exist. I have never met a conspiracy theorist that was a skeptic. A skeptics mind can be changed by evidence, a conspiracy theorist will just find another reason the conspiracy has to be true. (sorry this is off topic Mick)
 
So you don't think there's a point in a new wtc7 collapse study? Surely a new study should at least attempt to comprehensively investigate the possibility of fire-induced collapse? Or would you want a new study to only focus on the possibility of explosives?

You are asking for a new study. What should it look like?
Any investigation should take into account ALL reasonable possibilities. I cannot answer this without referring to the old investigation.
 
Yes, one of the defining characteristics of conspiracy theorist in any area (9/11, Aliens, GMOs, etc.) is the redefinition or denial of proof when their beliefs are not supported. Once they become convinced there is a conspiracy even the lack of proof becomes evidence of the conspiracy. If the underlying theory is that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition as part of a larger conspiracy then no amount of proof will suffice because that would mean the conspiracy itself might not exist. I have never met a conspiracy theorist that was a skeptic. A skeptics mind can be changed by evidence, a conspiracy theorist will just find another reason the conspiracy has to be true. (sorry this is off topic Mick)

Well it speaks somewhat to the topic - which is really what would a new study consist of, for it to be acceptable to truthers regardless of the outcome.

But yes, let's try to be specific.

I think a new study should (in part) have open source software and tools to build models of WTC7, and allow people to look in great detail at possible scenarios.
 
Any investigation should take into account ALL reasonable possibilities. I cannot answer this without referring to the old investigation.

You can refer to the old investigation, so long as you are discussing what should be in the new investigation. Like "the old simulations were whack, so we should have better simulations, specifically ...." or "there were no tests for explosive residue, so we should test for explosive residue (in the dust)." etc.
 
Yes, one of the defining characteristics of conspiracy theorist in any area (9/11, Aliens, GMOs, etc.) is the redefinition or denial of proof when their beliefs are not supported.
Proof that a highrise steel framed building collapsed due to fire has not been provided, and I fail to see how a new investigation could do that having studied the structural details of WTC7. As for aliens, GMOs and the like, what does that have to do with this topic???
Once they become convinced there is a conspiracy even the lack of proof becomes evidence of the conspiracy.
Again, 911 was a conspiracy whatever you believe about what happened. I agree that the lack of evidence and proof does fuel many theories though, that's just human nature.
If the underlying theory is that WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition as part of a larger conspiracy then no amount of proof will suffice because that would mean the conspiracy itself might not exist.
Investigations do not start with underlying theories, and neither should any prospective new one. The previous one however, did. So good point.
I have never met a conspiracy theorist that was a skeptic. A skeptics mind can be changed by evidence, a conspiracy theorist will just find another reason the conspiracy has to be true.
I base my doubts on the previous reports on science and engineering. Most people I know who oppose this view base their own belief in trust of NIST and the US govt to tell them the truth.
If, for example, a new investigation concluded that terrorists managed to circumvent security in these buildings and somehow get explosives in to bring the buildings down, I would accept that because that cause satisfies the effect that we saw on the day. Fire does not. A new investigation should have to address the concerns that have been raised in papers such as the active thermitic material one at bentham. I think this would be an important aspect to any future investigation, that it addresses the concerns raised by the scientific and engineering community, which are many and largely remain unaddressed.
 
Proof that a highrise steel framed building collapsed due to fire has not been provided, and I fail to see how a new investigation could do that having studied the structural details of WTC7.

But what would you have them investigate to conclusively rule out the possibility?
 
Back
Top