Creative Speculation

William Seger

(11,031 posts)

58. Wrong

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 11:51 AM

Dec 2011

The reason for adjusting the input parameters until the model agreed with the KNOWN behavior of the collapse is simply because if you don't do that, then there's no reason to think the model is telling you anything useful about the UNKNOWN behavior. The model was still based on real physics, so the model demonstrated that, quite contrary to "truther" claims, no laws of physics were violated by the collapses. That's an extremely important result, considering that's the starting point for "truther" fantasies about what happened. What it demonstrates is that there is no need whatsoever for bizarre, unsubstantiated theories.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

300 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Great Thermite Debate... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

If that nonsense is the "great thermate debate"... William Seger Dec 2011 #1

The Great Thermate Debate. I likes it! The problem, though, is there is ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #2

"two working eyes and a nose to sniff out the stench" William Seger Dec 2011 #6

Thanks, for the breezier read ... but, "thermate" didn't break the government's case for me ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #36

I think it's cute how you made up something called "Bush Theory Movement". zappaman Dec 2011 #37

I wouldn't say cute, but thanks! Lol. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #40

What a pathetic concession speech (n/t) William Seger Dec 2011 #39

What? Lol! (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #41

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #44

Here. T S Justly Dec 2011 #53

ROFL! OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #55

Arrogance AND irony, huh? Lol! T S Justly Dec 2011 #60

observation, not arrogance OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #61

1st... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #86

"At what temperature does Al begin to glow like any other metal?" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #87

thankyou bolo... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #89

That's accurate AFAIK. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #94

So what contained the silvery molten aluminum so it could get super-heated Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131

That half-informed crap about aluminum glowing red probably came from Rush Limbaugh. GoneFishin Jan 2014 #293

Limbaugh is known for shooting off his mouth William Seger Jan 2014 #295

That's the half-information I was referring to. But some here may be fooled, so good luck to you. nt GoneFishin Jan 2014 #297

Well, I don't think YOU'RE fooling anyone William Seger Jan 2014 #299

and using the chart.... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #90

There are problems applying the chart to this picture. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #95

I don't think super hot glowing metal.... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #96

The light question is affecting how the camera takes the picture. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #98

which means? wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #99

and you think all metals... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #97

What evidence have you that the lightweight concrete contained fly ash? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130

Lightweight concrete can be made with either fly ash or pumice William Seger Dec 2013 #134

IOW, you don't know what their lightweight concrete recipe was. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #136

Fly ash was found William Seger Dec 2013 #139

Fly ash was found in the lungs of ONE first responder, says your link. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #141

Conspicuously absent from the dust analysis... William Seger Dec 2013 #142

Why would you expect the dust component inventory Ace Acme Dec 2013 #145

Pumice is mainly "vesicular" (pitted) volcanic glass William Seger Dec 2013 #148

I have no interest in the iron microspheres and make no claims about them. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151

If you don't know all the other possible sources William Seger Dec 2013 #155

I couldn't care less about the burden on Jones & Co. They're not here, and they're not going to be Ace Acme Dec 2013 #156

Yes, I'm aware of how desperate you are to be right about something William Seger Dec 2013 #159

Keeping an issue open <> not giving a shit Ace Acme Dec 2013 #162

I didn't "invent" the fly ash claim William Seger Dec 2013 #166

Right. Lack of evidence is no reason for you not to believe what you want to believe. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168

I guess it can! eom wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #3

The fire theory is laughable gyroscope Dec 2011 #4

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #5

Can't buy the pancaking theory either gyroscope Dec 2011 #7

umm, I don't think so OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #8

To answer your second question gyroscope Dec 2011 #18

"they would not collapse neatly into a small pile using conventional demolition" Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #19

Yes, that is true gyroscope Dec 2011 #21

"the goal is to make the pile as small as possible." Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #26

Oh how nice to have Bolo to explain to us why bumblebees can not fly Ace Acme Dec 2013 #132

Straw-man William Seger Dec 2013 #135

Oh I see. Other buildings can topple, but WTC7 is topple proof. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137

As I have said elsewhere... William Seger Dec 2013 #138

"We"? Who's "we"? You and your cadre of anonymous internet propagandists? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140

"We" who haven't ignored the NIST reports (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #143

You have "Finite Element Analysis simulations that show Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144

The same place everyone else has them William Seger Dec 2013 #149

We were talking about WTC7. You claimed you had an FEA that showed that the columns could not Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153

1) Watch the sim animation William Seger Dec 2013 #158

In what sim animation does the top tip toward the south? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160

You can see it in the animation that was posted here William Seger Dec 2013 #164

The sims bear no resemblance to reality. The real tower did not tip until the last phase Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169

Wrong again. William Seger Dec 2013 #171

You claimed in 158 that the sim animations of WTC7 showed tipping to the south. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172

The tipping CAN be seen in the animation of the "with impact damage" sim William Seger Dec 2013 #174

There's nothing wrong with my observation skills. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176

LOL, you've spun yourself into confusion again William Seger Dec 2013 #179

Where do you get this stuff? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184

As I said, suit yourself William Seger Dec 2013 #195

So you refuse to tell us where you get this nonsense stuff. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196

Your inability to see it William Seger Dec 2013 #199

I can see it just fine. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201

Your inability to comprehend it William Seger Dec 2013 #212

You invent my alleged inabilities just as you invent your alleged facts. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #214

You're just wasting bandwidth and everyone's time now William Seger Dec 2013 #215

It's not entirely a waste of time to question you. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216

I've answered, and you've ignored the answers William Seger Dec 2013 #217

I comprehend your nonsense just fine, thank you. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #218

LOL! zappaman Dec 2013 #219

Oh, it's the smileybot, back to demonstrate his erudition and analytical facility Ace Acme Dec 2013 #220

Been here the whole time! zappaman Dec 2013 #221

Yeah. But even that citation about the towers used the word "must" so many times GoneFishin Jan 2014 #294

You're entitled to your opinion William Seger Jan 2014 #296

He's prevaricating. Just as I stated. If you can't spot a snowjob it's fine with me. There may be GoneFishin Jan 2014 #298

LOL, no, he is not "prevaricating." William Seger Jan 2014 #300

one more thing gyroscope Dec 2011 #20

I don't understand this, either OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #24

Documents and Command Center Destroyed gyroscope Dec 2011 #27

meh OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #29

The NIST says BLDG 7 was brought down by fires gyroscope Dec 2011 #30

You're not representing the NIST explanation correctly at all. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #31

Have you read their report? gyroscope Dec 2011 #32

Yes, I have read that and the final report as well. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #33

I understand gyroscope Dec 2011 #34

As soon as you stop playing silly games and deal with your misrepresentations Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #35

I'm not sure how much you've thought about this OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #50

Why not just shred or move the documents? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #123

Because the office workers would notice that their files were missing? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133

no kidding? zappaman Dec 2011 #22

I don't understand this OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #23

as I said, bolo is correct on that point gyroscope Dec 2011 #28

that's awfully fuzzy OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #51

You have it backwards cpwm17 Dec 2011 #10

Only one floor had to collapse to then cause the entire building to collapse cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9

Newton's third law of motion gyroscope Dec 2011 #12

Good question cpwm17 Dec 2011 #13

But in your previous post gyroscope Dec 2011 #14

The poster did not say the debris was turning into dust on the way down. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #15

The mass of the upper block destroyed the lower block cpwm17 Dec 2011 #25

exactly right! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #16

And now we know it wasn't fire but thermate gyroscope Dec 2011 #17

"We" who "know" what?! William Seger Dec 2011 #38

Another thing not found in the rubble was steel that had been heated to the extent that NIST assumed eomer Dec 2011 #42

First, "... none of the samples were from zones where such heating was predicted.” William Seger Dec 2011 #43

No samples of the type predicted by NIST were found. eomer Dec 2011 #45

That's not stating it precisely right - the samples they found DID match their predictions. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #46

Oh, well, the samples that were found also matched the predictions of the thermite theory. eomer Dec 2011 #47

But it confirms the modeling. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #48

That is the data that the model was fitted to in the first place. It confirms nothing. eomer Dec 2011 #49

You were expecting they'd find a model that wouldn't fit what physical evidence they had? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #52

No, I'm not surprised by what they did. I'm also not convinced by it. eomer Dec 2011 #56

Wrong William Seger Dec 2011 #58

They didn't demonstrate that no laws of physics were violated by the collapses. eomer Dec 2011 #63

Still wrong William Seger Dec 2011 #68

They did adjust laws of physics. eomer Dec 2011 #72

So a rigorous mathematical and professional modeling of the WTC tower structures checked Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #75

There are multiple models, some of which check and some of which don't. eomer Dec 2011 #76

Choosing the model that agreed the closest with all visual and physical evidence is circular? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #78

If the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that there weren't other factors eomer Dec 2011 #79

The additional help was found in the more severe modeling Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #81

The modeling that was "within the margin of error" includes collapse and no collapse. eomer Jan 2012 #83

Perhaps I've goofed up terminology here. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #112

You're misunderstanding the "point of the exercise" William Seger Jan 2012 #88

I don't think that is correct OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #59

I hesitated to reply because I think this is going to be difficult to work through. eomer Jan 2012 #84

maybe part of the problem here is "the big question they were trying to answer" OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #85

One of the big questions NIST meant to address was how the towers collapsed. eomer Jan 2012 #91

sure, understanding the collapse is integral to learning from it OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #93

I'm arguing, rather, that NIST didn't demonstrate that therm*te wasn't *needed*. eomer Jan 2012 #100

OK, nu? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #102

I don't see a practical solution to it being circular. eomer Jan 2012 #105

I think you're drawing a bright line that doesn't exist OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #108

You make some good points, let me try to construct my position better. eomer Jan 2012 #115

perhaps it depends, again, on how one construes the problem OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #116

About manager engineers and then the circular logic. eomer Jan 2012 #118

the following is quoted from your source: OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #119

A quote from a couple of paragraphs earlier... eomer Jan 2012 #120

My answer about intervening to change assumptions, and other similar things. eomer Jan 2012 #121

I'll try to be somewhat brief OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #124

I'm not sure I see the distinction. eomer Jan 2012 #125

the way this thread (and the broader "debate") has gone, I think the distinction is huge OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #127

I still don't see the distinction between would and did, but let me not use that word. eomer Jan 2012 #128

"engineers at NASA"? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #122

Engineers were pressured "to take off [their] engineering hat and put on [their] management hat". eomer Jan 2012 #126

I don't think your quotation is quite on point OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #129

LOL, unless you're claiming that there weren't any fires at all... William Seger Dec 2011 #57

The models that NIST chose did assume column temperatures exceeding 600 ºC. eomer Dec 2011 #64

But those column temperatures did not play any part in collapse initiation William Seger Dec 2011 #66

According to NIST they did. eomer Dec 2011 #69

Please highlight the part that says... William Seger Dec 2011 #70

That is one aspect of the model. Do you seriously propose that you can choose parts of the model eomer Dec 2011 #74

I'm "proposing" that the temperature of the columns did not affect the floor sagging William Seger Dec 2011 #80

Those temperatures are an integral part of the model and one that NIST spent several pages on. eomer Jan 2012 #82

Again: the temperature of the columns did not affect the floor sagging William Seger Jan 2012 #92

None of that has been demonstrated. eomer Jan 2012 #101

The floor sagging did require the higher temperatures William Seger Jan 2012 #103

What the video proves gyroscope Dec 2011 #54

Well, actually, he only proved that he could cut a little way through a small steel beam William Seger Dec 2011 #62

How could you twist off a big steel beam with your bare hands gyroscope Dec 2011 #65

That was just a weld that he managed to unweld, not cutting through a column. William Seger Dec 2011 #67

You're accusing him of forging the results? gyroscope Dec 2011 #71

No, what I said was that other parts of that video William Seger Dec 2011 #73

Fair enough, but gyroscope Dec 2011 #77

"didn't even bother to look for evidence of explosives and/or incendiaries" William Seger Jan 2012 #104

'No reason to chemically test for explosives.' gyroscope Jan 2012 #106

oh brother OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #109

NIST didn't test for explosives, period. gyroscope Jan 2012 #110

looks like you tried again for me n/t OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #113

'Did anyone test for the presence of thermite (in 1993)? gyroscope Jan 2012 #111

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #114

Nonsense. The only reason to test for explosives in any of those cases... William Seger Jan 2012 #117

Far from being insane, it was proposed by experts immediately after the collapses, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? William Seger Dec 2013 #147

I didn't call Jennings and Rather experts. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150

I just told you, Downey said he thought bombs might have been planted William Seger Dec 2013 #152

Please quote Captain Downey. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154

If you're citing Downey as your expert, shouldn't you be the one quoting him? William Seger Dec 2013 #161

I cited Romero to the effect that a few charges in key places could have brought the buildings down. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #163

That Downey quote seems to be hearsay William Seger Dec 2013 #165

So you're calling Father John Delendick a liar? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #167

Argument from authority William Seger Dec 2013 #170

I didn't say Chief Downey was correct. I said his opinion was not insane. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #173

Controlled demolition of the WTC towers is an idiotic theory William Seger Dec 2013 #175

Says an anonymous internet poster who obsessively demonstrates his confusion Ace Acme Dec 2013 #177

There were no high-explosive sounds... William Seger Dec 2013 #182

How do you know? Were you there? Witnesses say there were. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #186

How do I know there were no sounds remotely like high-explosives? William Seger Dec 2013 #197

Upon what basis do you expect seismic events with controlled demolitions? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202

Some more answers for you to ignore William Seger Dec 2013 #213

You mean, more ignorance for me to answer Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222

As predicted, you ignored most of what I said William Seger Dec 2013 #223

Who obstructed ASCE's site access? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224

Yes, Fire Engineering Magazine was up in arms in January 2002. AZCat Dec 2013 #225

By the time NIST was approved, the damage was done. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #227

That's not quite true. AZCat Dec 2013 #229

The core steel samples only show heating to 480 F. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232

What tests would you have suggested? AZCat Dec 2013 #233

I'm not a metallurgist. You seemed to be dismissive of the test results that were available, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #238

Your opinion of NIST's tests then seems ill-informed. AZCat Dec 2013 #241

So you're suggesting that there were not other, more edifying tests that could have been done Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247

This is why it's important to actually read the report... AZCat Dec 2013 #250

I know it wasn't. It's immaterial--as usual. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #254

Then why imply it was the only one? AZCat Dec 2013 #256

It was the one that showed heating to only 480 F. The other tests did not counterindicate that. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #259

But the collapse didn't begin with the core William Seger Dec 2013 #244

How do you know the collapse didn't begin with the core? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #252

I can't explain that William Seger Dec 2013 #262

The Saudet video shows that the antenna fell 18 feet before the building started falling. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #265

The Saudet video shows the antenna tilting away from the camera William Seger Dec 2013 #268

No it doesn't. The top of the N. wall would be moving if the building were tilting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #270

From the east and west, the north wall IS seen to move William Seger Dec 2013 #275

Since your gif begins at the moment the tilt begins, we have no way of knowing Ace Acme Dec 2013 #278

As predicted, you're still ignoring most of what I said William Seger Dec 2013 #226

Who cares what an anonymous internet poster thinks? We need new investigations. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #228

So the anonymous internet poster who says we shouldn't listen to anonymous internet posters... AZCat Dec 2013 #230

I couldn't care less if you listen to me or not. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #234

Then who do you expect to listen to your cries for a new investigation? AZCat Dec 2013 #236

I expect reasonable people to look at the facts, to look at the demonstrably incomplete and corrupt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239

From my admittedly limited surveying of people I consider to be reasonable... AZCat Dec 2013 #242

Your surveying is probably limited to people whose jobs depend on not seeing Ace Acme Dec 2013 #246

How do you figure? AZCat Dec 2013 #249

Any kind of job that demands conformity, obedience, and avoidance of controversy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #251

That's a pretty naive view. AZCat Dec 2013 #257

Says the guy who apprently doesn't understand conflicts of interest. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #258

I didn't really expect you to answer directly William Seger Dec 2013 #231

Please don't attribute to me things I didn't say. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #235

Oh? So you think you CAN have it both ways? William Seger Dec 2013 #237

I didn't say it was thermite melting. You leap to facile conclusions. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240

Actually, that's exactly what I'm getting at William Seger Dec 2013 #243

What makes you think the scientists didn't recognize theermite melting? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #245

Right, just keep making the conspiracy as big as it needs to be William Seger Dec 2013 #248

Why do you assume they're ambitious? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #253

Steel does not melt at 1000 degrees C William Seger Dec 2013 #263

If you had bothered to read Appendix C you would know that the sulfidated steel does melt at 1000 C. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #266

Read it again: "STEEL does not melt a 1000 degrees C" William Seger Dec 2013 #269

Liquefied steel is melted steel by any reasonable standard. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #272

Hypocritic bullshit William Seger Dec 2013 #274

The eutectic mixture liquefies the steel at a temperature below its normal melting point. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #276

And again: It was the eutectic mixture that was liquefied William Seger Dec 2013 #280

The eutectic mixture includes the iron from the steel. That's why the steel liquefies. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #282

You've got the cart before the horse again William Seger Dec 2013 #283

If the eutectic melting happened at 1000C you still have to explain where the sulfur came from, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #285

No, I don't William Seger Dec 2013 #287

Calcium Sulfate is not a possible source. It's already fully oxidized. It's inert. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #289

Do you ever research anything? William Seger Dec 2013 #291

Prove either one of those claims William Seger Dec 2013 #261

In all these years you never heard of FEMA Appendix C? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #267

That's NOT one of the two claims I'm asking you to prove William Seger Dec 2013 #271

Why would I claim something I can not possibly know? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #279

Damn good question (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #281

The steel was subject to a high-temperature sulfidation attack causing intergranular melting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #255

Still waiting William Seger Dec 2013 #260

So with Mr. Cole's report you discount what he did say and deny the evidence on specious grounds. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #264

So you're just making empty assertions about Cole's experiment William Seger Dec 2013 #273

You can see the video for yourself. It's pretty simple. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #277

No, from that video... William Seger Dec 2013 #284

So run some thermate on some steel and show that it's not the same as the FEMA samples. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #286

Nobody is required to disprove your claims (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #288

You're the one claiming that Mr. Cole's sulfidation attack on the steel is not the same as WPI's Ace Acme Dec 2013 #290

wrong! wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #107

This message was self-deleted by its author gyroscope Dec 2011 #11

Interesting set of experiments that should be taken seriously, but ... BlueStreak Dec 2013 #157

Maybe terrorists did invade the buildings and plant bombs. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181

I can't see the "terrorists" doing this operation on the buildings BlueStreak Dec 2013 #183

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #188

"I try to avoid having conclusive opinions and instead stick to established facts" zappaman Dec 2013 #189

Ah, the attitude bot! Just in time. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190

I don't find the plane "successes" all that surprising BlueStreak Dec 2013 #192

It's not a question of lack of diligence Ace Acme Dec 2013 #194

Sorry, you can't build a case based on an expectation of government competence BlueStreak Dec 2013 #200

How do you know FBI protocols abot ignoring warnings? You must be highly placed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #204

Questions. If you have Thermite in close proximity to burning wreckage intaglio Dec 2013 #178

Thermite is difficult to ignite. Usually a magnesium fuse is employed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #180

You can ignite thermite using a sparkler intaglio Dec 2013 #185

You don't need charges on the fire floors. WTC1 came apart in floors above the fire floors. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #187

So where the heat from the fires below was concentrated intaglio Dec 2013 #191

If there's reprogramable det sequences, that can all be adjusted after the fact Ace Acme Dec 2013 #193

And how do you use radio dets in an electromagnetically noisy environmment? intaglio Dec 2013 #198

Easy. You use insensitive receivers and very powerful transmitters. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #203

Oh what a lie! intaglio Dec 2013 #205

Radio control needn't interfere with other equipment if the frequency was chosen carefully, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #206

There are no microprocessor based dets intaglio Dec 2013 #207

I could make microprocessor-based detonators. Probably 400,000 people in the USA could. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208

How could you make microprocessor based detonators? zappaman Dec 2013 #209

Says the attitude-bot. It ain't rocket science. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #210

No, you lie again intaglio Dec 2013 #211

Hey, ease up on the sarcasm lever, you might break it!...nt dougolat Dec 2013 #292