Kevin Barrett interviews Frank Greening

[Dave Rogers]

Posted yesterday by Metamars on The 9/11 Forum; apparently Kevin Barrett is interviewing Frank Greening this morning.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dr-g-former-darling-of-jref-anti-9-11-truth-debunkers-t200.html


I was asked a question I hear all the time: Why, if the WTC "collapses" were such obvious demolitions, are there so many scientists who disagree?

My answer is that there aren't. Like Diogenes with his lamp, searching the world for an honest man, I have spent several years searching for an honest, independent scientist willing to defend the Bush Administration's account of what happened to the World Trade Center. The only person I have found who even remotely fits the description is Dr. Frank Greening.


Yes, folks, you heard it here first: Frank Greening is the only honest, independent scientist in the world who doesn't believe that the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

What a bizarre world Kevin Barrett must live in. Presumably his definition of "honest, independent" is a rather... special one. I'm not claiming that Frank isn't either, since he strikes me as both honest and independent to an almost excessive degree; but I have to wonder whether I'm dishonest, or just dependent.

Dave

[Quad4_72]

Or perhaps, you just aren't completely out of your mind like Barrett is.

[Good Lt]

Kevin Barret? You mean that guy hasn't been institutionalized yet?

I'm behind on the 9-11 woo, it would seem. :rolleyes:

[progge]

He [Greening] is now collaborating with Dr. David Ray Griffin on Dr. Griffin's forthcoming book about WTC-7

While I´m a wee bit disturbed that Dr. Greening collaborates with DRG (who certainly is neither honest nor independent), I´m sure this will increase the quality of the book.

[carlitos]

How would this give him expertise in building collapse?

Dr. Frank Greening's biography:
I have a Ph. D. in chemistry , but my official title for over 20 years was Senior Research Scientist at what used to be called Ontario Hydro and is now Ontario Power Generation. I was in charge of radioanalytical chemistry research and discovered all sorts of problems with OPG's CANDU reactors... [Google Frank Greenings name and you’ll find him described as a “nuclear whistle-blower”]. I have published scientific articles in the Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy, Canadian Journal of Physics, Chemical Physics Letters, Journal of Nuclear Materials, etc. I even worked with the great Nobel prize winning spectroscopist, Gerhard Herzberg, for 2 years back in the 1970s.

[newton3376]

Posted yesterday by Metamars on The 9/11 Forum; apparently Kevin Barrett is interviewing Frank Greening this morning.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dr-g-former-darling-of-jref-anti-9-11-truth-debunkers-t200.html



Yes, folks, you heard it here first: Frank Greening is the only honest, independent scientist in the world who doesn't believe that the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

What a bizarre world Kevin Barrett must live in. Presumably his definition of "honest, independent" is a rather... special one. I'm not claiming that Frank isn't either, since he strikes me as both honest and independent to an almost excessive degree; but I have to wonder whether I'm dishonest, or just dependent.

Dave

I thought it was fairly obvious that you were a paid shill.....speaking of pay I think I need to talk to NWO accounting department...my last paycheck didn't include my overtime.....

[Edx]

According to 911 Blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512), Greening is Apollo20 and after reading a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111) with him in I have to say Im very confused. He seems to come out with most of the tired old truther rubbish, where did it all go wrong?

?

[RedIbis]

According to 911 Blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512), Greening is Apollo20 and after reading a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111) with him in I have to say Im very confused. He seems to come out with most of the tired old truther rubbish, where did it all go wrong?

?

Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses.

[Dave Rogers]

Nobody can debunk a conspiracy theorist like one with a different conspiracy theory. Frank has done some excellent analysis of the collapse dynamics of the Twin Towers, and, so far as I'm aware, steadfastly holds to the belief that no explosives or thermite were necessary to the observed collapse dynamics. However, he's highly suspicious of government, and tends to hold a lot of other broadly conspiracist views. What he won't do is maintain those views in the face of physical evidence, where he's investigated it himself in sufficient detail to form an opinion.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses.

Nothing to do with direct personal harrassment of another forum member at her place of work, then? Funny, I seem to remember something like that.

Dave

[Edx]

Nobody can debunk a conspiracy theorist like one with a different conspiracy theory. Frank has done some excellent analysis of the collapse dynamics of the Twin Towers, and, so far as I'm aware, steadfastly holds to the belief that no explosives or thermite were necessary to the observed collapse dynamics. However, he's highly suspicious of government, and tends to hold a lot of other broadly conspiracist views. What he won't do is maintain those views in the face of physical evidence, where he's investigated it himself in sufficient detail to form an opinion.

Dave

That sounds ...weird... but if its true he's working with David Ray Griffin he's clearly gone completely off the rails.

Am I right?

[RedIbis]

Nothing to do with direct personal harrassment of another forum member at her place of work, then? Funny, I seem to remember something like that.

Dave

I wasn't addressing why he was banned. I was responding to edx's comment which should have been easy to understand. He was wondering where Greening went so wrong and started spewing truther rubbish, not where Greening went wrong on jref.

[Dave Rogers]

That sounds ...weird... but if its true he's working with David Ray Griffin he's clearly gone completely off the rails.

Am I right?

I'm not sure the question's even worth asking. It's better to judge work on its merits rather than on the personal beliefs of its originator. Whatever he believes, Frank has done some analysis of real elegance and quality, which is a valuable resource. And whatever he believes, David Ray Griffin... hasn't.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I wasn't addressing why he was banned. I was responding to edx's comment which should have been easy to understand. He was wondering where Greening went so wrong and started spewing truther rubbish, not where Greening went wrong on jref.

Then, as usual, you've invented a scenario that you want to believe, and made no effort to base it on reality.

Dave

[tsig]

Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses.

No. He violated the rules.

[Pardalis]

I'm listening to the interview, and Garrett said Dylan Avery hired a P.I. to investigate the death of Barry Jennings?

I've never heard of that.

[T.A.M.]

Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses.

Retraction

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Posted yesterday by Metamars on The 9/11 Forum; apparently Kevin Barrett is interviewing Frank Greening this morning.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dr-g-former-darling-of-jref-anti-9-11-truth-debunkers-t200.html



Yes, folks, you heard it here first: Frank Greening is the only honest, independent scientist in the world who doesn't believe that the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

What a bizarre world Kevin Barrett must live in. Presumably his definition of "honest, independent" is a rather... special one. I'm not claiming that Frank isn't either, since he strikes me as both honest and independent to an almost excessive degree; but I have to wonder whether I'm dishonest, or just dependent.

Dave

Frank is an honest scientist, sometimes to a fault, as I get the impression he wants to believe in the CTs, but will always believe the science first...so he ends up arguing here (before he was banned) while at the same time arguing with the idiots who claim to be the truth movement "scientists".

He has been burned by beurocracy and ill doings in his previous employed positions, and I think, IMO, this has effected how he approaches the whole thing. Still despite that, he insists (unlike Jones and others) that the science comes first.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

Great, Greening is helping D.R. Griffin with his new book on WTC7... :rolleyes:

ETA: and he's totally buying into that red chip nonsense...

[T.A.M.]

Great, Greening is helping D.R. Griffin with his new book on WTC7... :rolleyes:

Like I said, Frank seems to side with the woo in principle, but I am hopeful, that as usual, the science will come through.

I suspect if anything, he will contribute in such a way as to list some "unanswered" questions concerning WTC7.

We will see.

TAM:)

[Pardalis]

ETA: and he's totally buying into that red chip nonsense...

Actually, towards the ends of the interview he seems rather critical of Jones' work, and his refusal to be open about his findings. He's suggesting a double blind test to confirm the findings, which is good.

ETA: boy, Greening really gets good skeptical points towards the end. He stumps Barrett as to what exactly happened, how the TM doesn't have a coherent theory.

[TruthersLie]

I wasn't addressing why he was banned. I was responding to edx's comment which should have been easy to understand. He was wondering where Greening went so wrong and started spewing truther rubbish, not where Greening went wrong on jref.

Umm except you do a GREAT Twoof job there.

it all went wrong when he started examining NIST...

so you talk about him being banned, and then infer because of his NIST analysis... And leave out his rather OUT OF BOUNDS public behavior towards another member....

Just like all the other twoof evidence...

[UNLoVedRebel]

Posted yesterday by Metamars on The 9/11 Forum; apparently Kevin Barrett is interviewing Frank Greening this morning.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/dr-g-former-darling-of-jref-anti-9-11-truth-debunkers-t200.html



Yes, folks, you heard it here first: Frank Greening is the only honest, independent scientist in the world who doesn't believe that the WTC collapses weren't controlled demolitions.

What a bizarre world Kevin Barrett must live in. Presumably his definition of "honest, independent" is a rather... special one. I'm not claiming that Frank isn't either, since he strikes me as both honest and independent to an almost excessive degree; but I have to wonder whether I'm dishonest, or just dependent.

Dave

I guess Kevin Barrat thinks that scientists communicate their results on the YouTube comment section of 9/11 videos. If he actually read peer-reviewed papers from accredited journals, he might find more than one, or 100.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165

[Arus808]

Nice that RedIbis has to lie about why Greening was banned here, when all one has to do is find the actual reason.

He was banned because HE attempted (or did) contact a member's employer to get that MEMBER to remove posts that were critical of Greening's statements and made LEGAL threats to that employer

all can be found here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117412

[UNLoVedRebel]

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

[Pardalis]

Nice that RedIbis has to lie about why Greening was banned here, when all one has to do is find the actual reason.

He was banned because HE attempted (or did) contact a member's employer to get that MEMBER to remove posts that were critical of Greening's statements and made LEGAL threats to that employer

all can be found here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=117412

In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

This is what he responded to:

According to 911 Blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512), Greening is Apollo20 and after reading a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111) with him in I have to say Im very confused. He seems to come out with most of the tired old truther rubbish, where did it all go wrong?
I wasn't addressing why he was banned. I was responding to edx's comment which should have been easy to understand. He was wondering where Greening went so wrong and started spewing truther rubbish, not where Greening went wrong on jref.

Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

[Dave Rogers]

Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

No, but he was still wrong. One of Frank's first posts here - maybe his first, I'm not sure - was proposing his ammonia peroxide conjecture. Now, I suspect that was just a stalking-horse to demonstrate the difficulties of approaching conspiracy theories from the point of view of physical anomalies, but the truth is that Frank always posted some conspiratorial views here, from day one. Red's suggestion that it all went wrong when he started criticising NIST is simply fantasy.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Don't take these two seriously. Cherepanov isn't a conspiracy theorist, but he's addicted to a different form of woo; he thinks that steel buildings are so highly stressed that a single shock can shatter them instantly like glass. He wrote a couple of papers based on a complete failure even to look at the real world features of the collapse, which simply don't bear the most superficial critical examination. I've commented on them here in the past; they're very, very bad.

And yet they got through a genuine peer review, unlike anything by Steven Jones. Funny, that.

Dave

[UNLoVedRebel]

Don't take these two seriously. Cherepanov isn't a conspiracy theorist, but he's addicted to a different form of woo; he thinks that steel buildings are so highly stressed that a single shock can shatter them instantly like glass. He wrote a couple of papers based on a complete failure even to look at the real world features of the collapse, which simply don't bear the most superficial critical examination. I've commented on them here in the past; they're very, very bad.

And yet they got through a genuine peer review, unlike anything by Steven Jones. Funny, that.

Dave

I remember reading Bazant's critique of those papers. Funny how no truther parrots them to disprove the "official story". Proof they don't read peer-reviewed papers. It's either YouTube videos or nothing.

[Dave Rogers]

I remember reading Bazant's critique of those papers.

I haven't seen that - is it online?

Dave

[TruthersLie]

In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

While I agree with your point that when examining the post RED was responding to his comment isn't directly stating he was banned for talking about NIST.

I must apologize to RED, because I had my own twoofer reading comprehension moment. I took his statement out of context.

"Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses."

By itself, it appears to conflate the issues... RED I am sorry that I was wrong. You were making two distinct points.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I haven't seen that - is it online?

Dave

I have limited access since the last time I was on. IIRC, It was a section of a paper, and not a full paper. I don't have access to this paper anymore but it MIGHT be in here. I'm going strictly on memory

Closure to "Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions" by Zdeněk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure
Source: Journal of engineering mechanics [0733-9399] Bažant yr:2008 vol:134 iss:10 pg:917 -923

I remember, the critique was very brief

[progge]

I have limited access since the last time I was on. IIRC, It was a section of a paper, and not a full paper. I don't have access to this paper anymore but it MIGHT be in here. I'm going strictly on memory

Closure to "Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions" by Zdeněk P. Bažant and Mathieu Verdure
Source: Journal of engineering mechanics [0733-9399] Bažant yr:2008 vol:134 iss:10 pg:917 -923

I remember, the critique was very brief

Like this (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/Progre-RebutCherepanovCritiqueOfBazZhouWTC-06.pdf)?

[UNLoVedRebel]

Like this (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/Progre-RebutCherepanovCritiqueOfBazZhouWTC-06.pdf)?

That was it, thanks.

[bill smith]

What a good nterview. Well worth listening to. Greening has things to say about both sides but i am gettin the impression he is clean.
http://noliesradio.org/archives/3717

[Heiwa]

Frank is an honest scientist, sometimes to a fault, as I get the impression he wants to believe in the CTs, but will always believe the science first...so he ends up arguing here (before he was banned) while at the same time arguing with the idiots who claim to be the truth movement "scientists".

He has been burned by beurocracy and ill doings in his previous employed positions, and I think, IMO, this has effected how he approaches the whole thing. Still despite that, he insists (unlike Jones and others) that the science comes first.

TAM:)

Frank G is co-author with Bazant of the infamous BLGB-paper based on no science at all!

[Pardalis]

Frank G is co-author with Bazant of the infamous BLGB-paper based on no science at all!

As opposed to pizza science?

[Newtons Bit]

In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

This is what he responded to:




Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

Unfortunately, he answered a question about WHERE with a WHEN.

[bill smith]

Frank G is co-author with Bazant of the infamous BLGB-paper based on no science at all!
Did you listen to the interview from today ? (above) He seems to hang NIST .

[twinstead]

Did yu listen to this interview from today ? He seems to hang NIST .

Yea, except for that little bit about NOT believing it was an inside job. You'd be much better received, actually, if 1. you actually had some relevant expertise or experience, and 2. if you used that to find valid issues with NIST, a la Dr. Quintiere.

But, alas, you're just another truther arguing from ignorance. NO legitimate expert believes the collapses could not have occurred due to the damage and resulting fires. Not even Greening.

[scissorhands]

What a good nterview. Well worth listening to. Greening has things to say about both sides but i am gettin the impression he is clean.




So Frank gets to avoid the truther gallows.

Thats a relief, after all, we rely on you to tell us whether people are "clean" or not.

[RedIbis]

In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

This is what he responded to:




Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

I know that was hard for you to do, but I appreciate it and it proves to me that you are interested in fair discussion, even if we disagree on nearly everything else.

I will even admit I could have made myself more clear, initially, but you're right I wasn't addressing Greening's banning.

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

[Pardalis]

Because one guy disagrees with the report doesn't make it invalid.

[LashL]

Greening completely misrepresented Judge Hellerstein's ruling on the ConEd v. Port Authority litigation viz WTC7. He should stick to chemistry.

[johnny karate]

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

What industry professionals disagree with NIST's conclusions and what work have they submitted to disprove any of them? To simply point at a highly-detailed scientific document and say "Wrong!" is blatant denialism of the highest order, and doesn't even begin to approach valid scientific method. And your characterizaton of a handful of cranks engaging in this behavior in the face of overwhelming consensus as some kind of "battlefield" is dishonesty of the highest order.

Closing in on a decade after the fact, and the world's population of relevant experts continues to ignore the Truth Movement. There is no battlefield. There has been no significant questioning of NIST's collapse theory. There will be no starting from scratch to develop a new one.

Get over it.

[Dave Rogers]

Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios.

This is a classic truther misconception, and would benefit from some further analysis.

Building collapses can be divided into classes, based on their initial cause. One of these classes is collapse due to fire-induced structural damage, another is collapse due to explosive-induced structural damage, a third is collapse due to earthquake damage; I'm sure there are others. We could use the analogy of classification of animals into different classes; birds, mammals, reptiles, fish.

Within each of these classes, we can define specific features of the collapse, and determine the general details of the collapse mechanism. These would include things like top-down collapse, toppling, bottom-up collapse, or other general features. In the analogy of animal classification, we could represent these as different families; carnivores, insectivores, cetaceans, and so on.

Next, we can start looking at the fine details of the collapse; what specific structural members initiated the failure, what was the failure mode, how did it progress through the structure. We could represent this as the genus; for example, dogs and foxes.

Most of the criticism of the NIST report focuses on the last of these levels - the specific, detailed failure mechanisms. To use the animal analogy, there's an argument about whether the creature we have before us is a dog or a fox.

RedIbis's argument is akin to saying that, if we're not sure whether it's a dog or a fox, then we have to consider the possibility that it's actually a fish.

Dave

[Justin39640]

This is a classic truther misconception, and would benefit from some further analysis.

Building collapses can be divided into classes, based on their initial cause. One of these classes is collapse due to fire-induced structural damage, another is collapse due to explosive-induced structural damage, a third is collapse due to earthquake damage; I'm sure there are others. We could use the analogy of classification of animals into different classes; birds, mammals, reptiles, fish.

Within each of these classes, we can define specific features of the collapse, and determine the general details of the collapse mechanism. These would include things like top-down collapse, toppling, bottom-up collapse, or other general features. In the analogy of animal classification, we could represent these as different families; carnivores, insectivores, cetaceans, and so on.

Next, we can start looking at the fine details of the collapse; what specific structural members initiated the failure, what was the failure mode, how did it progress through the structure. We could represent this as the genus; for example, dogs and foxes.

Most of the criticism of the NIST report focuses on the last of these levels - the specific, detailed failure mechanisms. To use the animal analogy, there's an argument about whether the creature we have before us is a dog or a fox.

RedIbis's argument is akin to saying that, if we're not sure whether it's a dog or a fox, then we have to consider the possibility that it's actually a fish.

Dave

"that fish was genetically engineered by the NWO to look like a dog, watch this youtube vid on it INSIDE JOB!11!1!!1!!"

[T.A.M.]

Frank G is co-author with Bazant of the infamous BLGB-paper based on no science at all!

I see. You being infinitely more qualified then Bazant (there are not enough laughing dogs. His CV alone is larger then any paper you have published), produce the real science, and he and Greening are the pseudo-scientists...right? gotcha.

Go back to boat making.

TAM:D

[T.A.M.]

I know that was hard for you to do, but I appreciate it and it proves to me that you are interested in fair discussion, even if we disagree on nearly everything else.

I will even admit I could have made myself more clear, initially, but you're right I wasn't addressing Greening's banning.

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

Now, now now....

Here is what I will say,

1. NIST's theory on WTC is the MOST plausible of all theories out there.
2. NIST's theory is based on evidence (I know, I know, no steel, but that is not the only form of evidence), as opposed to all the other conjectures.
3. NIST considered other scenarios, including the use of explosives, and found no evidence of such. Do you agree or disagree with this, or do you think they were lying when they stated this?
4. Please show me where Greening, Griffin, or anyone else for that matter, have proven the NIST theory for WTC7 collapse implausible, or false, in any regard.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Did you listen to the interview from today ? (above) He seems to hang NIST .

Nuff sed.

[RedIbis]

Now, now now....

Here is what I will say,

1. NIST's theory on WTC is the MOST plausible of all theories out there.
That's your opinion.

2. NIST's theory is based on evidence (I know, I know, no steel, but that is not the only form of evidence), as opposed to all the other conjectures.
Just not physical evidence, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory, for which they present no physical evidence.

3. NIST considered other scenarios, including the use of explosives, and found no evidence of such. Do you agree or disagree with this, or do you think they were lying when they stated this?
NIST didn't have any evidence for what they did propose, so why should this surprise anyone? I don't have a whole lot of confidence in NIST's finding stuff abilities.

4. Please show me where Greening, Griffin, or anyone else for that matter, have proven the NIST theory for WTC7 collapse implausible, or false, in any regard.

From this (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html):
I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.
My bold.

Thanks


TAM:)

You're welcome.

[~enigma~]

That's your opinion.
Then it would be time for you to produce a theory that is more plausible than NIST's. If you cant (or won't) do that then why should anyone believe any words that come out of your mouth (actually keyboard)?

[Galileo]

While I´m a wee bit disturbed that Dr. Greening collaborates with DRG (who certainly is neither honest nor independent), I´m sure this will increase the quality of the book.

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

[Galileo]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

[UNLoVedRebel]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

I didn't know Ann Coulter posted on the JREF.

[DGM]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!
I agree!! WTC 7 might be a "demoltion" (what ever that is).:D

[A W Smith]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!


Bare assertion fallacy noted. Is that all you (don't) have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

[newton3376]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

As opposed to a Godless Theist?

Aren't all atheists "Godless" by default?

[T.A.M.]

That's your opinion.


No, it is my opinion, and the opinion of the majority, either through open agreement, or through silence. Unless you feel that the thousands of engineers who have said nothing to contradict NIST remain silent when they know that the report is false?


Just not physical evidence, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory, for which they present no physical evidence.

As has been said before, photos and video are PHYSICAL evidence. What you refer to is SPECIFICALLY steel.

Their claim, compared to others (the secret NWO did it with explosives to get rid of their paper/hard drive trail), is not extraordinary. Their proof, given they were left no steel to examine, is more then adequate, and is based on scientific modeling. Besides conjecture and paranoid speculation, what are the alternative theories based on?????


NIST didn't have any evidence for what they did propose, so why should this surprise anyone? I don't have a whole lot of confidence in NIST's finding stuff abilities.

Why am I not surprised?



From this (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html):

My bold.


that is not scientific calculation, theory, or proof, that is the OPINION (without backing it up) of a single scientist. That is not what I asked for.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

As has been said before, photos and video are PHYSICAL evidence. What you refer to is SPECIFICALLY steel.



TAM:)

Then you've been wrong before. Photos and video are documentary evidence, not physical evidence.

[jaydeehess]

While I agree with your point that when examining the post RED was responding to his comment isn't directly stating he was banned for talking about NIST.

I must apologize to RED, because I had my own twoofer reading comprehension moment. I took his statement out of context.

"Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses."

By itself, it appears to conflate the issues... RED I am sorry that I was wrong. You were making two distinct points.

Perhaps it would have been prudent of RI to add in a paragraph break such as;

""Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago.

Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses."
,which would have separated the two unrelated subjects.

[dtugg]

Then it would be time for you to produce a theory that is more plausible than NIST's. If you cant (or won't) do that then why should anyone believe any words that come out of your mouth (actually keyboard)?

RedIbis has claimed that he has a theory better than NIST's. In true RedIbis form, he runs away like a little girl when asked to expand. Observe:

RedIbis, what is your theory regarding the collapse of the WTC, you know the one that you claim is better than NIST's?

[T.A.M.]

Then you've been wrong before. Photos and video are documentary evidence, not physical evidence.

ok, I will accept this, but how do you propose they provide "physical" evidence for things such as "the fires" and "the areas that were on fire"?

TAM:)

[Heiwa]

Did you listen to the interview from today ? (above) He seems to hang NIST .

Yes, he seems to turn around. Fact remains he wrote, with Bazant, the BLGB paper.

[FineWine]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!


You've been caught being goofy again. WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition. Jones and his accomplices are frauds.

[FineWine]

Yes, he seems to turn around. Fact remains he wrote, with Bazant, the BLGB paper.


Greening believes that NIST overlooked certain chemical reactions that prvided additional sources of heat. He rejects the explosives myth.

[FineWine]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.


DRG has been caught in many lies. He is dishonest. And so are you.

[Leviath]

Hopefully Greening will be given access to Harrit and Jones' infamous red chips? Now that he shows he is the only "honest, independent scientist" in the entire world.

[triforcharity]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!


REALLY?!?!?!?!?! Do point us in the direction of this report. Please show it to us, as I personally saw WTC 7 before it fell, and I knew it would fall. I saw the bulge myself. Building that are not in dire conditions do not bulge over ~10 storeys.

[triforcharity]

Red,

I believe (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) but here is the problem I sese with using this quote to prove anything.
Quote:
I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

This (I believe) is the draft report, which believed that diesel gas stored in the building contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. Hindsight says that it played zero effect on it.

Even up untill 2006, most believed that the diesel would have played a role, but, as we know today, it didn't.

[RedIbis]

ok, I will accept this, but how do you propose they provide "physical" evidence for things such as "the fires" and "the areas that were on fire"?

TAM:)

How about the thermally expanded floor systems and collapsed column?

[A W Smith]

How about the thermally expanded floor systems and collapsed column?

the properties of steel are well understood. You need not posses the column or section in question to understand its properties.

An example
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/jim2.html
One mile is 5280 feet so one mile is 12 http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/multiply.gif 5280 = 63360 inches. One inch of steel will expand 0.00000645 inches for every degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature so 63360 inches will expand 63360 http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/multiply.gif 0.00000645 = 0.408672 inches per degree.
Hence a 40 degree increase in temperature will result in an expansion of
40 http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/multiply.gif 0.408672 = 16.35 inches.

[RedIbis]

Red,

I believe (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) but here is the problem I sese with using this quote to prove anything.
Quote:


This (I believe) is the draft report, which believed that diesel gas stored in the building contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. Hindsight says that it played zero effect on it.

Even up untill 2006, most believed that the diesel would have played a role, but, as we know today, it didn't.

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. If you are a twoofie, any errors will be pointed out to you ASAP and render any other argument you make irrelevant.

This report is from 2008. You're correct that it's a draft report of the final. The central conclusions didn't change a bit a few months later when the final draft came out. Even in this draft report they reject diesel as a cause of the fires.

[funk de fino]

Even in this draft report they reject diesel as a cause of the fires.

Who said diesel caused the fires?

The earlier draft reports said it may have contributed to fueling fires which may have contributed to the collpase and that this needed further investigation. This was because of missing diesel.

Can you point to anyone saying the diesel "caused" the fires?

Care to clarify this gem?

NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory,

[funk de fino]

delete

[ElMondoHummus]

Can you point to anyone saying the diesel "caused" the fires?

Whoa, wait. Before we jump anyone here too hard, keep in mind that I said it. And I remember quite a few others here and elsewhere did too. We were basing that conclusion on the FEMA BPR for the towers which hypothesized that diesel may have indeed played a role in setting off the fires.

It took a while to gather the information and realize this was not the case. For me, it was realizing that the Environmental Health and Safety teams reported recovering nearly all the diesel in certain locations. It was really only when the draft report of NCSTAR-1A came out that anyone really understood that diesel didn't play a role; IIRC, NIST tweaked their sims in a few directions and discovered that even if diesel lines had been spraying like was initially hypothesized during the time of the FEMA BPR, then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated.

Look, I have no problem admitting I was wrong about this. Unlike truthers, I'm willing to modify my conclusions based on real evidence when it comes out. And in the case of diesel fuel in WTC 7, that evidence came out. I in particular was wrong about that. Thing is, that doesn't validate truther theories one whit.

[A W Smith]

Care to clarify this gem?

Originally Posted by Red Ibis
NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory,



As opposed to the two extremely typical events where a crew allegedly was sent into a burning building to wire it for CD. Which would have been the tallest building destroyed by controlled demolition??


Perfectly typical. right redibis?

[RedIbis]

Whoa, wait. Before we jump anyone here too hard, keep in mind that I said it. And I remember quite a few others here and elsewhere did too. We were basing that conclusion on the FEMA BPR for the towers which hypothesized that diesel may have indeed played a role in setting off the fires.

It took a while to gather the information and realize this was not the case. For me, it was realizing that the Environmental Health and Safety teams reported recovering nearly all the diesel in certain locations. It was really only when the draft report of NCSTAR-1A came out that anyone really understood that diesel didn't play a role; IIRC, NIST tweaked their sims in a few directions and discovered that even if diesel lines had been spraying like was initially hypothesized during the time of the FEMA BPR, then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated.

Look, I have no problem admitting I was wrong about this. Unlike truthers, I'm willing to modify my conclusions based on real evidence when it comes out. And in the case of diesel fuel in WTC 7, that evidence came out. I in particular was wrong about that. Thing is, that doesn't validate truther theories one whit.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator)
Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Contents
9/11 Links Page


Short answer: we don’t know.
Yes we do. It didn't.

WTC 7 contained up to 43,000 gallons (162,273 liters) of diesel fuel for its emergency generators. It is believed that at least some fuel pumps did kick on after the Con Edison power plant went down at 9:59 (see FEMA, NIST reports), perhaps fueling the fires, although this remains speculation.
No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

[BigAl]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator)


That page you link to starts with this qualification about fuel:


"Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue"


You lose. Again.

[fourtoe]

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.

RI,

I'm interested in what was going through your head when you decided to leave out this qualification. Did you read it and decide that it wasn't important or something?


Kevin Barrett is insane and a wuss. He used to always claim that no one with the proper background would come and defend the OT in a debate with him. What that assertion leaves out is the fact that his crazy theories are easily refuted by a bunch of people posting on a message board in their free time, why would any professional even bother trying to talk with someone as lame as Barrett?

[johnny karate]

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.

Why, as a matter of fact, here's an error being corrected:
In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

and acknowledged:
I must apologize to RED, because I had my own twoofer reading comprehension moment. I took his statement out of context.

In this very thread.

In your defense.

By a couple of mean ol' debunkers with their flagrant double-standardism.

And speaking of double standards, and how certain people apply them when attempting to explain the events surrounding the collapse of WTC7:

RedIbis on interpreting FDNY testimony in support of a controlled demolition, despite being told no one from the FDNY believes one took place:
Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

RedIbis on interpreting FDNY testimony in determining the size of the fires in WTC7:
Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.


So Red, as a steadfast and true champion of non-double-standardism, could you please justify your glaring use of a double standard when interpreting the testimony of the FDNY?

[RedIbis]

RI,

I'm interested in what was going through your head when you decided to leave out this qualification. Did you read it and decide that it wasn't important or something?


When was the final report released and what were its conclusions about diesel fuel?

[OneRedEye]

REALLY?!?!?!?!?! Do point us in the direction of this report. Please show it to us, as I personally saw WTC 7 before it fell, and I knew it would fall. I saw the bulge myself. Building that are not in dire conditions do not bulge over ~10 storeys.
Weren't you surprised when the NIST simulation did not include the bulge? The report includes brief mention of it in narrative accounts but it is neither an input to, nor a result from, their modeling. Weird, huh? I agree a 10 story bulge indicates dire conditions long before NIST's initiating sequence of events, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all in their scenario. There were already credible reports of a bulge near the NW corner and a transit was trained on that general location. You've added that the bulge not only extended to the east side but was also around 10 stories in vertical extent.

Even thought the NIST simulation deflections were not exaggerated (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4059944&postcount=168)), any distortion severe enough to be seen with the naked eye and so extensive and progressive over time should have stood out like a sore thumb. All eyes should have been on the bulge in the simulation when thermal expansion came from behind to end up being the cause, in a photo-finish. Maybe not, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad. But the opposite extreme? Nothing? No mention of an attempt to obtain the transit measurements or conduct an interview with the firefighter(s) involved in tracking the bulge over time.

The first gross perimeter deflections depicted by the NIST are the ridiculous conformations (particularly on the west wall) accompanying collapse that hardly resemble the video and photographic evidence. This in fact was one of the points that was made by Dr. Greening in his original critique, for which he was derided by an expert or two here at JREF. I'll add that certain individuals, like rwguinn who is much lauded here and referenced in the link above, had plenty of time to dish out unwarranted criticism based on erroneous assessment but no time or personal integrity to acknowledge the mistake. Instead, he maintained he was correct (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4086236&postcount=206) despite the communication from NIST removing all doubt - he was wrong. Even the esteemed Gravy threw in his two cents (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084510&postcount=198) well after the question of deflection scaling had been resolved, hurling accusations of being misled and calling ignorance when he was actually the one swimming in ignorance on this particular subject.

Not surprisingly, rwguinn was not taken to task by anyone but the person who handed his ass to him in front of everyone. So, in regards to this comment:

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.
If by that you mean in absolute numbers, taking into account the 7000+ threads in this forum, you are correct. In relative terms, however, the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of RedIbis' view:

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. If you are a twoofie, any errors will be pointed out to you ASAP and render any other argument you make irrelevant
That you were fortunate enough, johnny karate, to find a counterexample involving RedIbis in this very thread shows his statement to be a sweeping generalization but adds no substance to your assertion of 'utter nonsense'. In my best estimation, claims like yours actually outnumber instances of debunkers admitting they are wrong! In all fairness, though, and despite the cauldron of pathology that is the JREF forum, debunker accountability and conduct towards truthers seems to have improved lately... which isn't saying much.

[alienentity]

Hmmm, Kevin Barrett says something completely nutty? Go figure...

Kevin Barrett
'I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.'
from We the People Radio Network


More nutty KB stuff here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4881571#post4881571


(Read this stuff while listening to the Twilight Zone theme music)

[T.A.M.]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator)

Yes we do. It didn't.


No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

So you are now SELECTIVELY believing NIST. You believe them when they say the Diesel did not supply the fires, but CHOOSE not to believe them when they give you a theory for how the towers collapsed?

How do you decide what to believe with NIST Red? Is it something like "well if it supports my view, I will believe it. If not, it is bunk."???

TAM:)

[johnny karate]

If by that you mean in absolute numbers, taking into account the 7000+ threads in this forum, you are correct. In relative terms, however, the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of RedIbis' view

It's hard to argue with the rock-solid evidence you have offered to support this argument. :rolleyes:

That you were fortunate enough, johnny karate, to find a counterexample involving RedIbis in this very thread...

It has less to do with my good fortune than it does with RedIbis' blatant and easy-to-detect dishonesty. As it turns out, he's not very good at this.

...shows his statement to be a sweeping generalization but adds no substance to your assertion of 'utter nonsense'.

Wrong. RedIbis' statement was absolute:
If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.

Therefore, I only need to provide one example of this not happening to prove him wrong. Which I did.

If someone says "All dog are brown", how many dogs that are not brown do I need to produce to prove this statement a falsehood?

In my best estimation, claims like yours actually outnumber instances of debunkers admitting they are wrong!

Again, the sheer volume of evidence you provide in support of your assertion is staggering.

In all fairness, though, and despite the cauldron of pathology that is the JREF forum, debunker accountability and conduct towards truthers seems to have improved lately... which isn't saying much.

You and RedIbis, or anyone else with hurt feelings, can report any behavior you feel violates the membership agreement to the moderators. Other than that, there's a little red "X" in the corner of your web browser. Feel free to click on it any time.

[OneRedEye]

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.
Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said. I've already provided TWO counterexamples from one thread to prove you wrong, in my previous post. You have to stop throwing bricks, you're not up to the task.

Truth be told, I see from your posting history that you're neither averse to making unqualified sweeping generalizations nor to ignoring (even single) counterexamples when making them. See:

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place.
I know more than one truther that does not imagine "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" and so do you. To cover any silly objection you might have about supporting that claim, I'm going to pull a JREFer on you and tell you to do your own damn research. Hint: go to Gregory Urich's forum.

And there's:

Way to go, Truth Movement. You've tracked down one eye witness who supposedly supports you. Just a few thousand more to go!

followed later by:

Does this stunning new work of academia account for the fact that not a single person who witnessed these buildings collapse has expressed a belief it was due to controlled demolition?
Don't worry about me calling you stupid or a liar or otherwise hurting your feelings, I don't even feel that way. I don't apply the absurdly picayune criteria for qualifying statements you apply to others and not to yourself.

If someone says "All dog are brown", how many dogs that are not brown do I need to produce to prove this statement a falsehood?
So long as you remain preoccupied with irrelevant pedantry like this, you are not likely to do much but clog threads.

Again, the sheer volume of evidence you provide in support of your assertion is staggering.
After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

It's rhetorical. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time trying to prove anything to someone like you. Fruitless and worthless on the face of it.

I truly regret letting useless annoyances like those introduced by johnny karate draw me into off-topic conversation.

[DavidJames]

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Are you being deliberately obtuse. He said EITHER OR get it, it's EITHER OR. that leaves no alternative options.

[A W Smith]

Nice catch DavidJames
Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. <snip>


Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?


Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said.<snip> .

Careful you don't walk into your own ignorance OneRedEye. You might just get another red eye.

[OneRedEye]

Are you being deliberately obtuse. He said EITHER OR get it, it's EITHER OR. that leaves no alternative options.
Do you always omit question marks at the end of questions and leading caps in sentences? Or only sometimes?

Obviously, you also enjoy indulging in mindless pedantry when examining the posts of others. Do you like it when it's focused on you?

Please read my prior post again and make an attempt at comprehending it. jonny karate does exactly what he criticizes someone for (even worse), I point it out, and you jump on me? This is why I don't hit that little 'X' in the corner as much as I should. The drone-like behavior here never ceases to amaze and amuse.

PS with this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about doubles standards quite handsomely. Now, please continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again. Very sad.
Nice catch DavidJames
Hardly. It was quite lame. But you're entitled to your opinion, I won't demand you support it with evidence.


Careful you don't walk into your own ignorance OneRedEye. You might just get another red eye.
I'm not the least worried. You know, it is incredibly tiresome to squabble with people who demand that others fully qualify their every statement but wink 'dem eye at someone else who does qualify their statement with an absolute and is subsequently proven wrong.

BTW, just to keep it on topic, Dr. Greening's criticisms of the NIST report on WTC7 are generally sophisticated and well-constructed, unlike a lot of the cheap shots he has received in this forum.

[A W Smith]

Please read my prior post again and make an attempt at comprehending it. jonny karate does exactly what he criticizes someone for (even worse), I point it out, and you jump on me? This is why I don't hit that little 'X' in the corner as much as should. The drone-like behavior here never ceases to amaze and amuse.you have been jumped on simply because your accusations are incorrect. Read again

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.He didnt insert "always" into a Redibis quote. He simply said his statement as written (either/or) indicated debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug

BTW, just to keep it on topic, Dr. Greening's criticisms of the NIST report on WTC7 are generally sophisticated and well-constructed, unlike a lot of the cheap shots he has received in this forum.Cheap shots? like Greening contacting a forum members employer and trying to get them fired? How cheap is that?

[OneRedEye]

you have been jumped on simply because your accusations are incorrect.
Whatta load. I've demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect and in fact guilty of exactly the same transgression he complains about in that post, in that very post! I notice you have NO words to address that. Hmm... looks like you do double standards very well, too. You're in the right forum.

With this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about double standards quite handsomely, even if he failed to properly qualify it. You people stumble in to this like you planned it. Wow. Now, please do continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again.. Very sad.

He didnt insert "always" into a Redibis quote. He simply said his statement as written (either/or) indicated debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug Cheap shots? like Greening contacting a forum members employer and trying to get them fired?
No, but thanks for asking.

How cheap is that?
Really depends on whether that person deserves it or not, wouldn't you say?

[ElMondoHummus]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/diddieselfuelforwtc7%E2%80%99semergencygenerator)

Yes we do. It didn't.


No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

Whoa. Hold on. You're now starting to take this in a direction I wasn't going in. And part of that is my fault for not being clear, but I didn't think this point was going to be nit-picked to death. Remember what I wrote:

... then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated...


When I talk about the diesel, I'm talking about it not causing fires in the critical areas where failure occurred. Whether it set fires off elsewhere in areas not involved with the failure initiation or not is unclear, but it bears noting that any diesel that was in the Salomon Brothers tank, as well as the Mayor's OEM tank, was not recovered. If those tanks were full (that is not known), then that's potentially 12,000 gallons (6,000 gal. per tank) that are unaccounted for. The only thing known is that they weren't empty at the start of the day since they were there for emergency power generation, but whether they were completely full or not is unknown. Now, the question is whether that missing diesel contributed to the fires, evaporated off, or got washed into the Hudson. Well, unfortunately the answer to that is "That's unclear", but the point is that the diesel was indeed missing. So it's not out of bounds to say that diesel might have contributed to some of the fires. What it didn't do was contribute to the collapse. And that was the whole point of pointing out the diesel fires back then: We thought it had led to the steel weakening that caused the collapse, but it turns out that ordinary office contents fueled that. Fires in collapse initiation areas were not fueled by diesel. And that is not incompatible with saying that the diesel might have burnt off somewhere else in the fires.

We were wrong about the diesel contributing to the collapse, but to try and say that it wasn't invovled in the fires at all is reaching. The answer is indeed "we don't know". And that is indeed not the wrong thing to say. NIST never said the diesel didn't contribute to the fires at all, just not to the collapse. And we aren't either.

[A W Smith]

Whatta load. I've demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect and in fact guilty of exactly the same transgression (in that very post!), notice you have NO words to address that. Hmm... looks like you do double standards very well. too. You're in the right forum.

With this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about double standards quite handsomely, even if he failed to properly qualify it. Now, please do continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again.. Very sad. ya think?
Originally Posted by RedIbis http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4976835#post4976835)
Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here.If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.that redibis quote indicates all the time Bub.
Really depends on whether that person deserves it or not, wouldn't you say?They deserved to be fired? for disagreeing with him on an internet forum? really? how petty and stalker like is that? do you know some free countries have internet stalking laws against that? Perhaps Greening had a moment of clouded judgment during one of his Friday night drinking binges he was famous for here? Oops I better be careful I don't get myself fired for that comment.

[OneRedEye]

ya think?
that redibis quote indicates all the time Bub.They deserved to be fired? for disagreeing with him on an internet forum? really? how petty and stalker like is that? do you know some free countries have internet stalking laws against that? Perhaps Greening had a moment of clouded judgment during one of his Friday night drinking binges he was famous for here? Oops I better be careful I don't get myself fired for that comment.

Well, you no longer have the option of retracting the comment, in any case.

Think whatever you want. It is of no consequence. Enjoy.

[ElMondoHummus]

Even thought the NIST simulation deflections were not exaggerated (see here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4059944&postcount=168)), any distortion severe enough to be seen with the naked eye and so extensive and progressive over time should have stood out like a sore thumb. All eyes should have been on the bulge in the simulation when thermal expansion came from behind to end up being the cause, in a photo-finish. Maybe not, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad. But the opposite extreme? Nothing? No mention of an attempt to obtain the transit measurements or conduct an interview with the firefighter(s) involved in tracking the bulge over time.

The first gross perimeter deflections depicted by the NIST are the ridiculous conformations (particularly on the west wall) accompanying collapse that hardly resemble the video and photographic evidence. This in fact was one of the points that was made by Dr. Greening in his original critique, for which he was derided by an expert or two here at JREF. I'll add that certain individuals, like rwguinn who is much lauded here and referenced in the link above, had plenty of time to dish out unwarranted criticism based on erroneous assessment but no time or personal integrity to acknowledge the mistake. Instead, he maintained he was correct (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4086236&postcount=206) despite the communication from NIST removing all doubt - he was wrong. Even the esteemed Gravy threw in his two cents (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084510&postcount=198) well after the question of deflection scaling had been resolved, hurling accusations of being misled and calling ignorance when he was actually the one swimming in ignorance on this particular subject.

Not surprisingly, rwguinn was not taken to task by anyone but the person who handed his ass to him in front of everyone.


Hold on a second. Why are we talking about the NIST simulation bulge issue again? Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?

The whole issue of the visual similarity between NIST's WTC 7 collapse simulation and the real collapse goes back to post #10 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3991867#post3991867). In that post mrbaracuda quoted a critique of the NIST WTC 7 report written by Dr. Greening that was posted on The 911 Forum. The relevant part is this:

Now consider NIST’s version of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9. These images of the final collapse of WTC 7 from the north, west and south show very extensive buckling of the exterior columns especially near the mid-height of the building. It is simply astounding that, even though these computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”


Soruce: The 911 Forum (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/withering-critique-of-the-new-wtc7-report-t44.html)

In connection with this mrbaracuda posted a screenshoot of Figure 12-69 from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2_for_public_comment.pdf).

The problem here is that everybody took Figure 12-69 and the claim by Dr. Greening at face value and jumped the gun. And from there everything went downhill with accusations going back and forth about the scale used. I am not going to repeat what has been posted, the interested reader can go back in the thread and find the relevant posts.

Because what nobody here did, as far as I can judge, was to check the context of that figure. Had they done so, they would have found that Figure 12-69 shows the final part of the NIST WTC 7 collapse simulation without WTC 1 debris impact damage. The fact is that the collapse simulation with debris impact damage is quiet similar to what the real collapse looked like in available videos.

On this page NIST has posted a video of the collapse together with animations of the collapse simulations with and without debris impact damage:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html)

The following figures from NIST NCSTAR 1-9A (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1-9A_for_public_comment.pdf) should also be relevant:


Figure 4-43 to 4-45 showing the collapse with debris impact damage.
Figure 4-61 showing the collapse without debris impact damage.

If this is the case, what is the error that's being complained about here?

[OneRedEye]

Hold on a second. Why are we talking about the NIST simulation bulge issue again? Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?
No.

[ElMondoHummus]

No.

No, it wasn't the image Norseman pointed out? Is that what you're saying?

[Arus808]

No.


Provide a source for this beliefe

[A W Smith]

Well, you no longer have the option of retracting the comment, in any case.

Think whatever you want. It is of no consequence. Enjoy.

I don't intend to retract anything. Oh and Think whatever you want. the truth movement is of no consequence. Enjoy

[johnny karate]

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?

You've already been thoroughly schooled on the absolutism of an "either/or" phrase. No need to further your embarrassment.

Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said.

"All the time" is an idiom that means, among other things, "Frequently, repeatedly, as in He goes to that store all the time." (http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/all-the-time)

Swing and a miss.

I've already provided TWO counterexamples from one thread to prove you wrong, in my previous post. You have to stop throwing bricks, you're not up to the task.

Since my statement was not absolute, as was RedIbis', your two examples do nothing to undermine my point.

Truth be told, I see from your posting history that you're neither averse to making unqualified sweeping generalizations nor to ignoring (even single) counterexamples when making them. See:
Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place.

I know more than one truther that does not imagine "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" and so do you. To cover any silly objection you might have about supporting that claim, I'm going to pull a JREFer on you and tell you to do your own damn research. Hint: go to Gregory Urich's forum.

Had I said all Truthers, or made any similar qualifications, you might have a point. But I didn't so you don't.

If I said "Dogs bark", and someone produced one dog which does not bark, is my statement therefore rendered false?

And there's:

Way to go, Truth Movement. You've tracked down one eye witness who supposedly supports you. Just a few thousand more to go!

followed later by:
Does this stunning new work of academia account for the fact that not a single person who witnessed these buildings collapse has expressed a belief it was due to controlled demolition?

Don't worry about me calling you stupid or a liar or otherwise hurting your feelings, I don't even feel that way.

Nor do you have any justification for doing so, since I committed neither an act of dishonesty nor stupidity. I've bolded a particular word above. Feel free to look it up and let's see if you can figure out how my inclusion of it undercuts the point you attempted to make.

I don't apply the absurdly picayune criteria for qualifying statements you apply to others and not to yourself.

The arguments you've been making in this thread seem to indicate otherwise.

So long as you remain preoccupied with irrelevant pedantry like this, you are not likely to do much but clog threads.

You might want to do a quick count of posts regarding this so-called irrelevant pedantry to see who's engaging in thread-clogging.

After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

So far, I'm not impressed all that much by your pounding ability.

It's rhetorical. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time trying to prove anything to someone like you. Fruitless and worthless on the face of it.

Amazing you were able to type such a long post in less than a minute.

I truly regret letting useless annoyances like those introduced by johnny karate draw me into off-topic conversation

Sometimes that happens when you intrude on other people's discussions. Lesson learned, I guess.

[johnny karate]

I've not demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect at all

Fixed that for you, sport. Better luck next time!

[OneRedEye]

No, it wasn't the image Norseman pointed out? Is that what you're saying?
I was saying that -

Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?
No, it was not determined (merely speculated) and no, that's not really the question here. It's not a matter of difference between the two variants of simulation, damaged and undamaged. It's a case of the damage simulation failing to jibe with reliable accounts of the bulge extent and magnitude. Building is creaking, leaning, bulging for hours, it's no secret that it's in danger of collapse. We are told here that the visible bulge skirts a large portion of the perimeter and spans as much as 10 stories vertically. A transit was placed on the building to monitor externally measured displacement. The situation deteriorates and people are evacuated.

What is depicted in the simulation? Just prior to collapse, the vertical deflection has reached 8 inches or 1/900th of the total height of the building.

http://i25.tinypic.com/fyk4df.png

While I have no problems with a transit resolving displacements much smaller over the course of the afternoon, I do find it difficult to believe that a maximum quasi-static travel of only 8 inches very late in the day would be so readily observable to the unaided eye in a building with smoke pouring out all over, the curtain wall peppered with damage and so on. I suspect it was a good deal more displacement but it's only a suspicion.

Provide a source for this beliefe
Only if you correct your spelling.

I don't intend to retract anything. Oh and Think whatever you want. the truth movement is of no consequence. Enjoy
I'm not a truther, so I don't care about any of that, either. Nice try. You also provided the nth independent confirmation that wild assumption runs rampant here, based on zero evidence, completely unchecked. Ohhh, the hypocrisy.

[OneRedEye]

You've already been thoroughly schooled on the absolutism of an "either/or" phrase. No need to further your embarrassment.
Hahahaha. God.

"All the time" is an idiom that means, among other things, "Frequently, repeatedly, as in He goes to that store all the time." (http://www.yourdictionary.com/idioms/all-the-time)
And the one above it says -

2.Continuously, without interruption, as in That old refrigerator is running all the time.
People who demand such precision in qualification from others might want to consider that 'all the time' also literally means 'all', not 'some' and not 'many', but ALL. The third of three idiomatic interpretations should automatically take precedence over the prior two and the literal meaning? But only in your case. Did you ever hear anything like this:

Either go to college, or you'll have a hard time getting a good job.

If you heard a parent say that to their child, would you spend as many words arguing with them because you know it's a false dichotomy and there are other possibilities not enumerated? Bet you would, actually. Maybe college was a good idea after all, eh?

Amazing you were able to type such a long post in less than a minute.
There you go again with your inane obsession on precision in the spoken word. Most would take it with the intended meaning, like you can do for your comrades. The missing word is 'more', figure out where to put it. I should have fixed that, I thought about it, but had to satisfy my curiousity as to whether or not you'd jump on it. You did. I think I could write a chat-bot to emulate your behavior and your mother wouldn't even know the difference.

But sure, whatever, you win. I'm soooo bloody embarrassed. I deserve to have you rub it in even more, so go ahead. Keeps you from annoying other people who might not have the same capacity for amusement that I do.

Oh, and stop calling me sport.

[johnny karate]

People who demand such precision in qualification from others might want to consider that 'all the time' also literally means 'all', not 'some' and not 'many', but ALL. The third of three idiomatic interpretations should automatically take precedence over the prior two and the literal meaning? But only in your case.

I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide for me which of the definitions of "all the time" I intended to use. But nice try.

Did you ever hear anything like this:

Either go to college, or you'll have a hard time getting a good job.

If you heard a parent say that to their child, would you spend as many words arguing with them because you know it's a false dichotomy and there are other possibilities not enumerated? Bet you would, actually. Maybe college was a good idea after all, eh?

I guess when you can't argue that I'm wrong, all you're left with is complaining how tedious it is that I'm right.

There you go again with your inane obsession on precision in the spoken word. Most would take it with the intended meaning, like you can do for your comrades. The missing word is 'more', figure out where to put it. I should have fixed that, I thought about it, but had to satisfy my curiousity as to whether or not you'd jump on it. You did.

Quite the clever trap, however I wasn't criticizing your semantics. I was merely pointing out the irony of someone telling me they refuse to spend any more time "trying to prove anything" to someone like me... while in the process of doing exactly that.

But sure, whatever, you win. I'm soooo bloody embarrassed. I deserve to have you rub it in even more, so go ahead. Keeps you from annoying other people who might not have the same capacity for amusement that I do.

And yet only a short while ago it was this:
After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Here's a tip: In the future curb the bluster and bravado, and you'll be spared the humiliation of losing and having your face rubbed in it.

[OneRedEye]

I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide for me which of the definitions of "all the time" I intended to use.
No, but you of all people should take care to be clear that you intend a particular meaning from a multiplicity of generally accepted possibilities, lest someone misinterpret you. Perhaps by using a more accurate and less absolute sounding qualifier, like most or some. At least then it would be more honest, and literally correct. FYI, I never misunderstood your intent, even though it was last on the idiom list. Neither did I misunderstand RedIbis' intent, and I think maybe, just maybe, you knew exactly what he meant, too. It was a tangential nitpick as far as I'm concerned, and much ado about nothing. I responded in kind.

I was merely pointing out the irony of someone telling me they refuse to spend any more time "trying to prove anything" to someone like me... while in the process of doing exactly that.
Oh hell, I know that, just as I hope you know that the bit about the chat-bot was an insubstantial dig and not meant literally. Another amendment besides the word 'more': I make exceptions to my own snotty rules for (SOME) amusing exchanges. So I'll take it back, even though I'm no longer trying to convince you of anything, I'm being belligerent for its intrinsic value. You can ignore me, or keep feeding it. Don't be offended if all of a sudden, I stop feeding it. I'm alarmed that I'm losing my student status, I probably need to stop. This does beat the hell out of real research, though, I tell ya.

Here's a tip: In the future curb the bluster and bravado, and you'll be spared the humiliation of losing and having your face rubbed in it.
In the minds of you and your hive-mates here, I'm sure that's how this went down. Of course, I don't feel embarrassed at all. Had any of you spent 1/10th the effort to refute the nonsense coming from rwguinn and Gravy in the thread I linked as you are straining at this particular flea that troubles you so, I might have stayed quiet, like SO MANY OTHER TIMES, WAY WAY TOO MANY TO COUNT. But please don't confuse acquiescence in the face of foolishness with humiliation or losing.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
And I'm riding you all the way...

[fourtoe]

When was the final report released and what were its conclusions about diesel fuel?

I was gonna continue to argue about this but this thread is already suffering from going completely off course and I shouldn't add to it.

I concede that I was reaching when I asked that but I think that it still would have been better if you included the qualification as well.

Now, back on point. Who listened to this thing and what did they think? I'm about to look for it online to listen to but anyone please stop me if I would be wasting my time in doing so.

[johnny karate]

OneRedEye-

I have no interest in taking this any further.

You took your shot, and you got smacked down. Time to move on.

Regarding your challenge: I accept. Start a thread (or choose an existing one) on a topic of your choice and fire your opening salvo. I will respond in kind.

[/derail]

[OneRedEye]

OneRedEye-

I have no interest in taking this any further.
Me neither.

You took your shot, and you got smacked down. Time to move on.
Yep, you know it.

Regarding your challenge: I accept. Start a thread (or choose an existing one) on a topic of your choice and fire your opening salvo. I will respond in kind.
Remind me again what this challenge is. I've been on a Thursday night drinking binge. On second thought, never mind, you win again.

On the topic: should I actually listen to the broadcast? Is it a better use of time than this? Or should I pour myself another? Opinions welcome.

[fourtoe]

Me neither.


Yep, you know it.


Remind me again what this challenge is. I've been on a Thursday night drinking binge. On second thought, never mind, you win again.

On the topic: should I actually listen to the broadcast? Is it a better use of time than this? Or should I pour myself another? Opinions welcome.

Listen to it and play a drinking game. Take a drink every time Barrett talks about how someone should be executed in some fashion.

[johnny karate]

Remind me again what this challenge is.

This struck me as a call-out:
Had any of you spent 1/10th the effort to refute the nonsense coming from rwguinn and Gravy in the thread I linked as you are straining at this particular flea that troubles you so

Forgive me if I misinterpreted what was merely more bluster and bravado.

[ElMondoHummus]

It's not a matter of difference between the two variants of simulation, damaged and undamaged. It's a case of the damage simulation failing to jibe with reliable accounts of the bulge extent and magnitude. Building is creaking, leaning, bulging for hours, it's no secret that it's in danger of collapse. We are told here that the visible bulge skirts a large portion of the perimeter and spans as much as 10 stories vertically. A transit was placed on the building to monitor externally measured displacement. The situation deteriorates and people are evacuated.

What is depicted in the simulation? Just prior to collapse, the vertical deflection has reached 8 inches or 1/900th of the total height of the building.

http://i25.tinypic.com/fyk4df.png

While I have no problems with a transit resolving displacements much smaller over the course of the afternoon, I do find it difficult to believe that a maximum quasi-static travel of only 8 inches very late in the day would be so readily observable to the unaided eye in a building with smoke pouring out all over, the curtain wall peppered with damage and so on. I suspect it was a good deal more displacement but it's only a suspicion.


Forgive me for saying this, but presuming I'm reading the report correctly - I'll subject myself to correction from the engineers here if I'm misunderstanding the report - isn't that 8 inch downward displacement only what's observed after inputting impact damage and gravity load, but before distortion from fire induced creep? In other words, isn't that bulge (as well as the image you provided) in fact not the state of the tower "(j)ust prior to collapse", but instead one step towards building the overall model that doesn't include all the distortions and failures yet?

I'm hoping Newton's Bit, Ryan Mackey, Architect, rwguinn, or someone else here with some engineering knowledge can comment on this. I'm seeing from the included image that this image is from NCSTAR 1-9 volume 2, p. 569 with descriptive text starting on p. 568, and that section to me is describing a specific point in the modeling (again, after impact damage but before heat creep). A quick leafing through the rest of the reports I see discussions of larger distortions, but I'm doing a very fast leaf-through, not a concentrated reading, so I'm not sure what the final figure NIST gives is for the vertical distortions. Regardless, my point is that the 8 inches OneRedEye is referring to seems to me to not be the final bulge in the modeling. Am I wrong about that? Again, I defer to expert analysis on this.

[funk de fino]

What is it about having "red" in a username that leads you to get roundly trounced in every thread you partake in?

[Locknar]

Just as a general reminder...please keep the conversation on topic, and remember it is attack the argument vs the arguer (ie. no bickering). Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

[nicepants]

Just listened to the interview last night, a few thoughts:

- Truther internet "radio" shows always have ridiculously long and obnoxious bumper music
- Barrett claimed that several scientists who agreed with him were afraid to go on the air. (How convenient. I call BS.)
- Barrett claimed that there were no photos or video of the hijackers getting on the planes or going through airport security. (Wrong)
- Barrett claimed that the hijackers were not on the passenger lists. (Wrong)
- Barrett didn't seem to understand how the fires in WTC7 could have started.
- At one point barrett started parroting the AE (signs of controlled demolition)

Seems like Barrett is really far into the woo...far enough that he's repeating things that have been debunked a long time ago. Of course, he did mention that he has a book coming out.

[Heiwa]

Just listened to the interview last night, a few thoughts:

- Truther internet "radio" shows always have ridiculously long and obnoxious bumper music



You don't like some Egyptian background music (when I opened the page!)? You have to click on some box on the screen and it will go off.