Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[Gravy]

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1.And look! The debris is self-cleaning!

How's the weather in Christopheraville today, TS?

[twinstead]

LOL

[TjW]

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1. http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image118.jpg

I also see a great big crane. Was this taken Sept 11,2001?
Or was it taken sometime after the cleanup was underway, and after a lot of debris had already been cleared out?

[defaultdotxbe]

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1. http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image118.jpg
what is your comment on the WTC's 8 story basement?

[Alt+F4]

I also see a great big crane. Was this taken Sept 11,2001?
Or was it taken sometime after the cleanup was underway, and after a lot of debris had already been cleared out?

Definitely not taken on 9/11. As for that crane I saw it from my classroom window throughout most of 2002.

[Kent1]

OK Kent. Stop pulling one over on us. Who are you, what is your real name, and who is behind the "Debunking" site?

You see? There can be good reasons to remain anonymous. My decision to come out of the closet was a gradual one. I hope I don't live to regret it.

Ace, I don't believe I ever critized someone for wanting to hide their identity publicly.
I've given my real name to many. Russell knows my real name. I certainly didn't send any CT sites e-mails about how I believed in their ideas.

[Kent1]

what is your comment on the WTC's 8 story basement?
Not only does the lidar show a large pile, the basements had a pancake collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html
Slurry Wall Animation
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html
Pancaked floors photos
"Numerous floors from the south tower that have pancaked during the collapse on 9-11-01."

Also why on earth would I expect most of the debris to remain in the footprint after hitting the ground.
I should also add some of the perimeter columns peeled outward like a banana upon collapse of the floors.

[Kent1]

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:
If you read the thread you can see much of that explained. Even the comment before newtons is I see igorned.

[Horatius]

A Bird's Eye View (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_damage_01.html)

GEORGE TAMARO: On September 12th, there were massive amounts of debris 60 to 70 feet above ground — the equivalent of a six- to seven-story building. World Trade Centers 1, 2, 3 and 7 were almost completely destroyed. WTC 6 had a massive hole in the center as a result of the collapse of the northern façade of the North Tower into the building. The overwhelming concern at that point was the damage to adjacent buildings and structural integrity of those buildings.


The North Tower (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_damage_03.html)

GEORGE TAMARO: The North Tower came down almost directly within its footprints, so you had extraordinarily compact material. The pile within the footprint represented the full height of the tower — the remaining debris was compacted from street level down to the bedrock, 70 feet down. The fireman standing on the pile indicates the massive size. In some areas we found valleys of completely collapsed structures, in others, loose debris piles subject to subsequent collapse. Elsewhere, individual pieces of debris penetrated the ground and below grade structures.

So, how much more before TS admits it wasn't a crater?

[TruthSeeker1234]

If you read the thread you can see much of that explained. Even the comment before newtons is I see igorned.

Is Greening on that thread? What's his handle?

[Kent1]

I'll let you figure that out.:D

[Trigood]

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.
First, this picture was taken from such a high point and at such a sharp angle, that it is difficult to judge the size of the debris field or its vertical height. Even if one grants it doesn't look like a big pile, looks can be deceiving from such a height, distance, and angle. Have you subjected this picture to expert analysis of what vertical pile is revealed in it? I'd say you'd need a surveyor and/or topology or mathematics professor to really discuss this thoroughly and expertly.

Second, have you got the provenance on this photo, i.e. when was it taken? (and, preferably, by whom?) Was it taken after major deconstruction of the site began? There is very little debris dust on surrounding streets, so we know it's at least after the first heavy rain that weekend after 9/11. I also see very little smoke coming off the pile, which I believe puts it quite a while after 9/11. So, unless you can, as I say, provide provenance that it was taken before, say 10/11/01, I'll consider that date the earliest it could've been taken. Actually, it was probably taken way later than that, because it is clear from this picture that the "vestigial walls" of WTC1 and 2 that existed immediately following collapse, are no more and have therefore been cleaned up (anyone have a date on that?).

Thus, this picture (unless you show provenance and expert analysis) provides nil evidence as to the size of the pile immediately after the collapses on 9/11/01, and therefore nil evidence of how much debris was ejected outside the footprint.

Regardless of what one picture might reveal, in American Ground, an Atlantic Monthly reporter, who was at GZ for the first 6 months of the clean-up reporting on it, says: "In the end, 1.5 million tons of ruins were extracted from the seventeen acres of the Trade Center site." I've seen others quote a 1.7 million ton value. It would appear this (approximate value) is a widely accepted fact.

TS: How does this fact jibe with your statement that the towers turned to dust ("most of the mass of the towers was turned into pow[d]er, and ejected outside the footprint") and were spread all over lower Manhattan? If so, where did that 1.5 million tons in Ground Zero come from? I expect rigorous math to convince us.

Recap of requests:
1) Rigorous, expert analysis of photo.
2) Provenance/date of photo.
3) Calculations showing where 1.5 million tons of debris carted away from GZ came from, if not from Towers 1 and 2.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The hi-res hunt is from Sept 23. The NOAA photos.

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.

[Horatius]

The hi-res hunt is from Sept 23. The NOAA photos.

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.

So you accept the pictures from the Government Agencies without question, but everything else is untrustworthy? Why then do you trust the photos? Even if we can provided you with perfect photo evidence of the pile of debris, what's to stop you from just dismissing that as manufactured, along with the "reports" you've dismissed?

[TruthSeeker1234]

So you accept the pictures from the Government Agencies without question, but everything else is untrustworthy? Why then do you trust the photos? Even if we can provided you with perfect photo evidence of the pile of debris, what's to stop you from just dismissing that as manufactured, along with the "reports" you've dismissed?

Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
and yet there are no photographs of unexploded bombs, detonation cord, pre-drilled columns, star wars death rays, missiles.....

[Alt+F4]

Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.

Yeah, but 99% of the photos you show are undated and uncredited. You display photos that were obviously taken weeks or months after 9/11 and pretend they from just a few days after 9/11.

[Trigood]

Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
"Images can be manipulated," but it's "the best evidence"? Hmm...

We have many, many independent sources for the amount of debris carted away as well: contractors, Fresh Kills supervisors, firemen, policemen, ironworkers, truckdrivers, barge operators, etc. They kept count of how many trucks were carted away every day, and it is known how many tons a truck can carry. Do you think all those people are lying? Do you think they could somehow manufacture hundreds or thousands of truckloads that didn't exist, and someone wouldn't call them out on it? Bluntly, what do you think they were doing on that site for 9 months, twiddling their thumbs and counting dust motes?

Wow, you CTists sure live in a strange world.

Your saying the photo was taken 9/23/01 is not proof. Please provide documentary proof that shows when it was taken. I will accept hardcopy or online.

Even if you do, though, what does the pile on 9/23 have to do with the pile immediately after the collapses? Very little. Therefore, this picture really shows nothing about the collapse.

I see you've ignored my request for independent, expert analysis of the photo, which shows very little at that height and angle to the untrained eye. Of course, it's a moot point now, now that we know the picture was taken after much cleanup had already occurred.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.

You and your friend, Judy Wood, know all about inventing numbers... don't you?

[Bell]

Trigood, earlier tonight, at work, a collegue and me were watching Bob Ross on tv (don't ask) and for fun I looked up his website. I saw something that seemed familiar, and I knew it was from this forum.

How about this, eh? :D

http://www.bobross.com/art/splash/splashWildlife.jpg

http://www.bobross.com/

[Trigood]

Trigood, earlier tonight, at work, a collegue and me were watching Bob Ross on tv (don't ask) and for fun I looked up his website. I saw something that seemed familiar, and I knew it was from this forum.

How about this, eh? :D

http://www.bobross.com/art/splash/splashWildlife.jpg

http://www.bobross.com/


I got my avatar from a random Google Images search -- are you implying I stole it from Bob Ross? HarUMPH!

Actually, that's a pretty cool painting. I always wished I could paint that well. I liked that other Bob guy who was on PBS, what was his name? I think he died.

Now, I must go bye-bye and nighty-night so I can get up for churchie-poo tomorrow.

And no,I'm not chugging (is that what trainwreck means?). I'm like this naturally, ha ha ha....

[Bell]

I got my avatar from a random Google Images search -- are you implying I stole it from Bob Ross? HarUMPH!

No, please, no! I just thought it was funny they looked alike :)

Actually, that's a pretty cool painting. I always wished I could paint that well. I liked that other Bob guy who was on PBS, what was his name? I think he died.

I don't know the other Bob. You're not confusing with Bob Ross? He died in 1995.

Now, I must go bye-bye and nighty-night so I can get up for churchie-poo tomorrow.

And no,I'm not chugging (is that what trainwreck means?). I'm like this naturally, ha ha ha....

Trainwreck is just my exaggeration of [derail] :)

[TruthSeeker1234]

and yet there are no photographs of unexploded bombs, detonation cord, pre-drilled columns, star wars death rays, missiles.....

Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact?

[Bell]

Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact?

What wicked afterglow? Seriously, haven't seen it.

[Timble]

Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact?

Oh come on, you're just trolling now....

[Gravy]

Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact?Try to keep sex out of this.

[Scientologist]

Try to keep sex out of this.

oooooh gravy you're catchin on!!!!

[LashL]

Oh come on, you're just trolling now....

Now?

[Bronze Dog]

Seems the thread's hit kitten critical mass. For those who haven't been following political news, here's a kitty with news most of us probably find agreeable:

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/Images/housecat.jpg

More kitties for later (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/cats.htm).

[Trigood]

Seems the thread's hit kitten critical mass. For those who haven't been following political news, here's a kitty with news most of us probably find agreeable:

http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/Images/housecat.jpg

More kitties for later (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/cats/cats.htm).
This cat reminded me of Socks. Remember Socks? :)

And Bell, you may be right about Bob Ross...

[Bell]

This cat reminded me of Socks. Remember Socks? :)

And Bell, you may be right about Bob Ross...

lol, that is Socks :)
He was Clinton's boss.

[Belz...]

Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.

Key word: APPEARS. The problem is, what looks like a small chunk at that distance is really several meters long.

I jump into this thread periodically to remind you that Greening uses that for his MODEL. He doesn't claim that's what actually happened.

LOL

Oh, so you DON'T understand the difference ?

I am not the one who says it goes poof, Greening is. And by extension, you Jrefs. You say most of the mass stays within the footprint, pushing down, accumulating, pulverizing, and then . . .when its all over . . .it's gone!!

Except for a 5-storey high pile of rubble that reaches across the street.

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power, and ejected outside the footprint

Yes, that IS your assumption. Care to prove it ?

[Belz...]

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Oh, so the experts can't be trusted, but armchair analyses of low-resolution pictures at bad angles can ?

[twinstead]

Oh, so the experts can't be trusted, but armchair analyses of low-resolution pictures at bad angles can ?

And not trusting any experts makes it very convenient for armchair analysts and their low-resolution pictures at bad angles, doesn't it?

Even the most robust and effective refutation of one's position by a recognized expert in a relevant field can be hand waved away by simply not trusting any experts.

I like it.

[The Almond]

Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

[maccy]

Ummm, huh?

<and then an excellent rebuke to glib assumption>



Excellent stuff. And nominated.

:)

Details of what you've been nominated for: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=51331

[rwguinn]

Ummm, huh?

...snip....


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

because they project their personalities onto everyone--just like the fundies do.
The worst part of their character is what everyone would be like without their limiting factor...

Just my opinio.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.

[Kent1]

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.

While the focus was on the initiation, they DID study the collapse. If you read the NIST report you could see for example the section called "Events Following Collapse Initiation" in section 9.3.3. There is also other sections where they discuss Bazant's paper and the observations regarding the antenna collapse.

[The Almond]

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.

That's it? That's the entirety of your response?

[twinstead]

That's it? That's the entirety of your response?

What else can he say? The claim that the NIST's numbers, or ANY numbers that show the official story may just possibly be the most logical explanation are 'made up' is ludicrous, and troothydude knows it.

[Horatius]

That's it? That's the entirety of your response?

Get used to it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2099598#post2099598).

[Roger_Harris]

Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

Because once you start down the "conspiracy theory" delusion trail, the only way to keep going is to keep piling more delusions on top of your earlier delusions. All the evidence that proves you wrong must have been faked; all the evidence that would prove you right must have been covered up; and anyone who can't see these "obvious truths" must be either in on it or stupid. There isn't anything that can't be worked into the "theory" by just adding another delusion.

[uk_dave]

While the focus was on the initiation, they DID study the collapse. If you read the NIST report you could see for example the section called "Events Following Collapse Initiation" in section 9.3.3. There is also other sections where they discuss Bazant's paper and the observations regarding the antenna collapse.


They also studied it while in high school....I believe the topic was called 'gravity'

[Belz...]

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.

Wow.

I actually expected you to answer what Almond said with either "Yes, that's exactly what I believe" or "No, I'm not that dumb."

Instead we have this unrelated piece of drivel.

Rich.

[Belz...]

Because once you start down the "conspiracy theory" delusion trail, the only way to keep going is to keep piling more delusions on top of your earlier delusions. All the evidence that proves you wrong must have been faked; all the evidence that would prove you right must have been covered up; and anyone who can't see these "obvious truths" must be either in on it or stupid. There isn't anything that can't be worked into the "theory" by just adding another delusion.

Ah, the fundamental aspect of religion.

[The Almond]

Wow.

I actually expected you to answer what Almond said with either "Yes, that's exactly what I believe" or "No, I'm not that dumb."

Instead we have this unrelated piece of drivel.

Rich.

I was kind of hoping for a yes/no answer as well. I mean, I actually might have respected him more if he actually said yes. That would indicate that the strength of his convictions is actually motivating him, rather than some pathological need for attention.

[Belz...]

Well, a "no" may simply have resulted in an explanation that could clarify a lot of things about his position.

[Pardalis]

Bump for Apollo20

[pagan]

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.

This is simply amazing. You would like to believe that it would be the main task.

[pagan]

NIST fails to address its basic task.



NIST's Investigation

It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' (http://www.911review.com/coverup/nist.html) was funded with an initial budget of $16 million. If the problems with FEMA's investigation ennumerated in the Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center earn it the description of a farce, then the conduct of NIST's investigation earn it the description of a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:

NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question its investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 (http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/implosion.html) into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomylous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study 1 (http://www.911review.com/coverup/wtcinquiry.html#ref1) This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".

http://www.911review.com/coverup/wtcinquiry.html


The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to "[d]etermine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed." [3] (http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html#R3) These questions are not answered for simple reasons:
Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] (http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html#R4) Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.
Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out "[t]he probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse." [5] (http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html#R5)


http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html

[T.A.M.]

Where, in what document, or by whom, prior to beginning their investigation, were NIST "tasked" to do any of what you have listed? Show me where anyone or any rule or any angenda was posted that includes the list you have posted, prior to the beginning of the NIST investigation.


They cannot fail at what they were not asked/told to do...get that through your skull, and restate that...

"NIST failed to address the following concerns..."

TAM

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What better way to observe April Fools Day than by gratuitously bumping old 4321rekeeShturT threads?

[CHF]

NIST fails to address its basic task

Its basic task to find out why the towers came down.

That they did.

[pagan]

Where, in what document, or by whom, prior to beginning their investigation, were NIST "tasked" to do any of what you have listed? Show me where anyone or any rule or any angenda was posted that includes the list you have posted, prior to the beginning of the NIST investigation.


They cannot fail at what they were not asked/told to do...get that through your skull, and restate that...

"NIST failed to address the following concerns..."

TAM

So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?

[WildCat]

So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?
They were, and they did. They were not tasked with studying the actual collapse after initiation.

[Unsecured Coins]

When you choose to back up your argument, TS, keep in mind that at least Greening has lived with reality. You haven't even been asked to the dance.

coffee, screen, screen, coffee.

[T.A.M.]

So, what are you saying? NIST were never "tasked" to find out why the towers came down?
Isn't that very odd?

At this moment the argument is not over what NIST should have been asked to do...

Your statement was that NIST had failed to address its basic task. I am merely correcting you, because what then follows on your list of what you feel was there "basic task" is a list of things that you and other truthers WANT addressed, not what NIST was actually TASKED to do.

just correct yourself, say you were wrong, and restate it as...

"NIST failed to address the following important (to you) issues or points:"

TAM:)

[pagan]

At this moment the argument is not over what NIST should have been asked to do...

Your statement was that NIST had failed to address its basic task. I am merely correcting you, because what then follows on your list of what you feel was there "basic task" is a list of things that you and other truthers WANT addressed, not what NIST was actually TASKED to do.

just correct yourself, say you were wrong, and restate it as...

"NIST failed to address the following important (to you) issues or points:"

TAM:)

Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?

[rwguinn]

Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?

They did what there were tasked to do--find out why the towers fell. They did that.
To summarize:
A massive aircraft struck each tower at high velocity, damaging structural members and fire-protectant coating on the structure of the towers. The fuel load of the aircraft created a large fireball and fuel-fed fires, some of which exited the structure. The remaining fuel initiated massive fires, which over time weakened structural members of both the floors and vertical support, induced buckling in the vertical supports of the tower.
The combination of heat and buckling caused stresses in the remaining members to exceed yield strength, causing additional failure, at which time the released energy above the failures exceeded the supporting capability of the structure below the failure.

[T.A.M.]

From NISTNCSTAR 1-1:


The goals of the investigation of the WTC disaster were:

To investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the WTC disaster.

To serve as the basis for:
- Improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained and used;
- Improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
- Recommended revisions to current codes, standards, and practices; and
- Improve public safety.

Now if there were any area that at all relates to the collapse itself, it would be the first point, and they addressed this, by stating that once the collapse initiated, the collapse itself was inevitable, and therefore, nothing would be gained, with respect to NISTs goals, from studying the collapse itself.

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

Nist Mission
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/nist_mission.htm

[R.Mackey]

Huh, I hope we can agree that the obvious task for NIST were to find out why the towers came down.

Again, what are you saying? Did NIST get the task to find out what brought down the towers or not?

Maybe you can answer me this, pagan (or nagap; frankly, that seems to suit you better):

You've got to be about the zillionth Troother who's complained that NIST "didn't study the collapse." Hardly original. But why do you care? Apparently you think that everything NIST did conclude is all wrong, lies, or "disinfo" anyway.

Supposing they did make some model of the collapse dynamics after the point of no return. Would that really make you happy? Or, as I suspect, it would just be one more chapter that you would ignore?

Even when you people complain, you make no sense.

[Mr.D]

I asked this question of Truthseeker and tellingly never got an answer.


Suppose some independant entity (ie, person or institution) that you trust does exactly what you propose - builds a computer model and runs a computer simulation from point where the NIST report leaves off. And suppose that simulation is run forward in time and demonstrates "global collapse."

Would you change your mind?

How about you, pagan?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I asked this question of Truthseeker and tellingly never got an answer

I don't recall that question from you, I will answer it.

I absolutely think that a computer model of the towers should be built, and released to the public. I have called for that repeatedly, and have repeatedly called for the release of the blueprints. Recently someone "leaked" floorplans to Jones, but as I understand it, these were not complete structural drawings, and are not sufficient to build an accurate model. According to Jim Hoffman, they are sufficient to settle once and for all that the core structures were abundantly braced, so perhaps RMackey can go argue with Hoffman about that, and RMackey can continue to pretend that the main floor structures were the only horizontal bracing for the cores.

Now, let's deconstruct your question. Would the model show "global collapse"? That assumes that a "collapse" occurred. I don't accept that assumption, or that use of the word "collapse". The correct scientific question is: Can the model duplictate the important observations?

So in addition to having the structural drawings and using them to build a model, we would also have to agree on the observations we are trying to duplicate. How much of the building contents was rendered into dust? How much mass landed outside the footprint? Etc.

So I will state an ammended question:

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.

[Hokulele]

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.


Two problems, you do not seem to trust anyone who actually has the skill set to create an accurate model.

And two, there will be no mushroom cloud in the simulation since there was NO mushroom cloud at the original site. Nothing in any of your videos has ever shown a mushroom cloud. Ever. Stop using this term incorrectly, as it does nothing to help your argument.

[defaultdotxbe]

Recently someone "leaked" floorplans to Jones, but as I understand it, these were not complete structural drawings, and are not sufficient to build an accurate model.
and as it turns out 911research.com has had floorplans based directly on those blueprints for quite some time, so it wasnt really new info, lol


If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

could elaborate on what you mean by the bolded part? do you want the modeling software itself released to the public so you cna run your own models, or just a video of the modeled events?

i ask because it would be very easy for you to simply say a video was faked, but your home computer wouldnt come anywhere close to being able to model the WTC collapse, so what are you hoping to get?

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.

as much as id liek to see you eat 11,000+ pages of heavyweight paper half of what you want to see never happened

[Alareth]

i ask because it would be very easy for you to simply say a video was faked, but your home computer wouldnt come anywhere close to being able to model the WTC collapse, so what are you hoping to get?

9/11 for Xbox 360 and PS3

[Horatius]

If someone I trust obtains the complete structural drawings to the twin towers, and releases those drawings to the public, and builds a computer model, and also releases that to the public, and this computer model demonstrates the ability for the top 14 stories of the building to crush the lower 96 into powder, and also itself, and generates a mushroom cloud, and exhibits the ability to cause steel to dissociate, would you change your mind?

Answer: If that happens, I will not only change my mind, I will eat a printed copy of the NIST report.



You do realize your model would require simulating the entire tower, all its contents, and the sourrounding atmosphere, at a near-atomic or possibly even atomic level, to produce simulations of all those effects? And do it accurately?

And since I'm assuming you'd also want to see the "toasted cars" and "round holes", we'd have to do an equal level of simulation for all the surrounding buildings and parking areas.

Do you really think any computer in existence could run such a simulation? Do you really think any computer you could ever buy for home use could do the same?

[defaultdotxbe]

9/11 for Xbox 360 and PS3
no Wii? :(

[Foolmewunz]

For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!

[TruthSeeker1234]

For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!

Whasssup Tucson?! How is my home town these days? I haven't been for quite a while, although I've been in Phoenix quite a bit.

[TruthSeeker1234]

For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!

I've posted the Greening email quote in the link above, with my interpretation. People should also know that Greening issued a whopper about me, lying that I had sent him a computer virus. I had to threaten to sue him to get an apology. He did apologize, I accepted his apology, and that was the end of it.

[CHF]

TS,

what do you do for a living?

[Horatius]

People should also know that Greening issued whopper about me, lying that I had sent him a computer virus.



Making a mistake =/= lying.

But what you just did is.

[Foolmewunz]

TS,

what do you do for a living?

Sometimes we forget that not everyone participated in the original TS1234 threads (not recommended for reasons of sanity).

But as to our friend Alexander "Ace" Baker? Well, he's downright famous. A legend in his own mind. Musician, producer, mixer, sometime Robardian economist from the Vienna School, and all-'round Libertarian of the highest order.......

For the new kids on the block, I give you Ace Baker's greatest hit.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html

My favorite verse(but it's hard to say, they're all so brilliant):

Excerpted without permission, but with a loophole... Ace has generously permitted us to distribute this, all or in part, as long as it's for educational purposes.

Have you forgotten

What we saw as one?

Oh those towers turned to dust

They were blown to kingdom come

Have you forgotten

Just how fast they fell?

Office fires can’t do that

No there ain’t no way in hell

The "confession tape"

Looks nothing like bin Laden

Have you forgotten?

Doctor Adequate is putting away his quill pen forever, I fear. Mercutio won't dare post any more verse at JREF now that Ace is in town.

[Disbelief]

TS,

what do you do for a living?

I have connected the dots from information here. His name is Ace, he is doing an "investigation", so I think he is....


a Pet Detective!

[stupidenglishgit]

TS,

what do you do for a living?



Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.

I found Dr Greening's comment amusing.

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

[Gravy]

Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.

Welcome to the forums, stu...er...SEG. :)

I don't think anyone's profession was being slagged off here. CHF didn't know what TS1234 did for a living. That's all. I haven't seen anyone disparage musicians on this forum. In fact, this place is full of music lovers.

There happen to be several musicians and DJs in the truth movement who are prominent and really, really, really paranoid and dumb. TS1234 gets criticized because his ideas are arrogantly idiotic. That doesn't reflect on the intelligence or sanity of all musicians.

As for people here with science and engineering credentials, there are many. I hope you'll stick around and learn from them as I have.

[Foolmewunz]

S.E.G.,
What Binglybert said!
I grew up around music and musicians, and wish I could so much as play a chord without it sounding like someone ran over a kitten. I have not one iota of musical talent, other than a good ear.
But if you'd have read through Ace's postings in his original colossal thread, and clicked the site to see the pretentious crap he put into that movement song, you'd have gotten a clearer idea of what I was talking about.
I also dangled his economics and political beliefs, as he's been silent on those topics for a while. I wasn't disparaging economists or politicos, either, but trying to give CHF a hint of the Big Package of Ace Baker.
We don't taunt Ace because he's a musician. We taunt him because he's illogical bordering on dementia, self-serving, and pompous ass!

[TruthSeeker1234]

This NIST petition offers a nice discussion refuting Greening's model.

Finally, the same section goes on to state “Since the stories below the level of
collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the
falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as
seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased,
further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the
moving mass.” (NCSTAR 1, p.146) Again, the reader is given no estimate or supporting
calculations of the “tremendous energy released by the falling building mass”, nor any
support for the statement that “the falling mass increased” as the stories failed. In fact,
pictures and videos of the collapses clearly depict mass in the form of building debris and
dust being ejected from the building in all directions during the collapses. Such ejected
debris and dust could hardly contribute to the falling mass as NIST has asserted. It is also
apparent from the videos and pictures of the collapses available in the public domain that
the upper portion of WTC 1 did not fall as a block upon the lower undamaged portion,
but instead disintegrated as it fell. Thus, there would be no single large impact from a
falling bock, as implied by the wording of the WTC Report quoted above. In reality,
there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper
portion arrived. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” used in the WTC Report
suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading. This deceptive wording indicates an
intent on the part of NIST to create a false impression of the manner in which the
collapse began and progressed, in the belief that the average reader would simply accept
the authority of the report and would not study the videos and pictures closely.

source (http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petition%28redacted%29.pdf)

[beachnut]

This NIST petition offers a nice discussion refuting Greening's model.
source (http://911blogger.com/files/NIST_DQA_Petition%28redacted%29.pdf)
That is one real dumb petition, don't you think?

[A W Smith]

That is one real dumb petition, don't you think?


Was the petition found in crayon on someones refrigerator magnet? And stolen? somewhere. a child is crying.

[Myriad]

It is also apparent from the videos and pictures of the collapses available in the public domain that the upper lower portion of WTC 1 did not fall resist collapse as a block upon against the lower undamaged upper falling portion, but instead disintegrated as it fell was impacted. Thus, there would be no single large impact resistance from a falling standing block, as implied by the wording of the WTC Report petition quoted above. In reality, there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper lower portion arrived were struck. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” "stories below" used in the WTC Report petition suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading. This deceptive wording indicates an intent on the part of NIST the petitioners to create a false impression of the manner in which the collapse began and progressed, in the belief that the average reader would simply accept the authority of the report petition and would not study the videos and pictures closely.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Horatius]

“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the
moving mass.”


mass (măs) pronunciation
n.

1. A unified body of matter with no specific shape: a mass of clay.
2. A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity: “Take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates” (Herman Melville).
3. A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises.
4. A lump or aggregate of coherent material: a cancerous mass.
5. The principal part; the majority: the mass of the continent.
6. The physical volume or bulk of a solid body.
7. (Abbr. m) Physics. A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.
8. An area of unified light, shade, or color in a painting.
9. Pharmacology. A thick, pasty mixture containing drugs from which pills are formed.
10. masses The body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status: “Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (Emma Lazarus).




In reality, there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper portion arrived. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” used in the WTC Report suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading.


In what way is this misleading? Wouldn't the jumble of parts that constituted the material that made it's way down the towers be accurately described as "A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity"? They just don't like the defintion that is being used, and insist on using a different one.

In fact, I'd suggest that the petitioner's use of "series of small impacts" is inherently misleading. "Series" implies a sequence of one impact after another, when in fact a large number of the impacts of individual elements would have been simultaneous. And "small" is hardly the word I'd use for the impact of multi-ton steel columns and floor slabs.

So who is it who's attempting to mislead the public?

[Apollo20]

"People should also know that Greening issued a whopper about me, lying that I had sent him a computer virus."

Ace, you know this is complete and utter CRAP.........

Is "wondering" the same as "lying" in your universe?

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Welcome back. I hope your stay is longer this time. Alot has been discussed about your initial entrance to this forum. I hope most of us will let that fall, and be open to any honest discussion you wish to have about the NIST report or other 9/11 topics.

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

Just setting the record straight with Mr. Baker!

[T.A.M.]

Just setting the record straight with Mr. Baker!

Well if that is the only reason for your return, that is a shame. Perhaps at a later point, if you feel the forum has something to offer, or you something to offer it, than maybe you will return for more lengthy discussion.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.



Welcome to the forums. :)

I created this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70895) thread inviting people to list their areas of expertise. An eye-opening read.

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

Just setting the record straight with Mr. Baker!

Please allow me to return the favour Dr Greening.

I unlike you am not a clever scientist, I am not a mathematical genius, and I am just a guy, a normal hard working guy who finds the entire prospect of these theories bordering on despicable. As such I would like you to know exactly how I feel.

I first started out debating this subject a while ago; I found the entire issue of conspiracies surrounding 911 morally offensive and totally unacceptable. I argued with many of the conspirators armed with nothing other than my own conviction that the American people would never allow this to happen, they would never allow this sort of wanton death and destruction to be brought upon their country for any reason. I found the entire prospect of such awful theories dreadful, totally unacceptable.

I looked around, I researched, I read article upon article until eventually I found 911 myths where your work was published. I read it, I admired your work, and I quoted it often in my debates with the conspirators. I believed I had finally found an academic that could prove my own beliefs correct.

I do not pretend to understand the fineries of the collapse of the towers, I do not pretend to understand the very complex issues that are clearly involved in such a catastrophic event but I do understand what is right and what is wrong. I know it is wrong to accuse perfectly innocent people of mass murder.

In your thread " debate what debate" you ,the very person I admired has belittled my beliefs, you have called me a NISTian, an apologiser for NIST, you have accused this very forum and the people who try their hardest to understand what happened this dreadful day of being nothing other that back slappers who will not engage in sensible and coherent debate. You have belittled the very people who look at you and rely on your expertise and knowledge to answer the unanswered questions. You have, through your hostile and down right aggressive posts alienated the very people you wish to take your work seriously. You have gone further and actually added credibility to the conspirators, you have thrown them a life line whereby they can now quote your words and your belittling of this forum.

Just for the record Dr Greening, maybe you could clarify exactly your position on the collapse of the Towers and state whether you really do believe that Americans carried out mass murder on that dreadful day.

I stand by my convictions they did not, but then again I am just Joe Public.

[Horatius]

Just setting the record straight with Mr. Baker!

Well if that is the only reason for your return, that is a shame.



As well as a complete waste of effort. Once he gets an idea, he never lets it go.

[Apollo20]

Stateofgrace:

I am truly sorry you feel this way...

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails;
and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side,
I will not believe.

John ch 20, v 25.

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Maybe I am just slow this morning, and I know your quote was directed at Stateofgrace, but...

Are you the doubting thomas, doubting the official story, or are we for doubting your stance on the matter...or am I missing the relevence of your quote all together.

TAM:)

[David Wong]

And wasn't Thomas a hero to skeptics, for being the only one who demanded proof?

[stateofgrace]

Stateofgrace:

I am truly sorry you feel this way...

"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails;
and put my finger into the print of the nails,
and thrust my hand into his side,
I will not believe.

John ch 20, v 25.

Believe what? What do I not believe?

That the towers were brought down by something else, along with the damage from the planes and fires? That some other force other than gravity was involved in their demise? Look at the ramifications of such beliefs; look at the implications of such beliefs. The conspirators are asking me to believe that Americans knowing murdered 3000 of their own.

I am asked to believe no end of stuff that is promoted by the 911 conspirators, holograms, space beams, fake plane crash sites, fly overs, NORAD stand down, missiles fired, bombs exploding, No Al Qaeda involvement,fake this, fake that, it goes on and on and then I am told to open my mind and believe them.

I will not, I will point an accusing finger at anybody without irrefutable proof of some form of wrong doing.

If you now believe that the towers were subject to some form of malicious tampering with before the planes slammed into them, then say so, lay out what you believe so everybody can see your position and fully understand why you now believe this. If not, then simply state, that although you are not very happy with NIST, you believe that the collapses were gravity driven.

Tell me you what you believe.

[Apollo20]

Stateofgrace:

I have done calculations that convince me that a gravity driven collapse, once initiated by the descent of an upper section through one floor height, WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. And I have done calculations that convince me that the observed degree of pulverization of the concrete WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. And I have shown that there were plenty of "natural" sources of sulfur in the WTC. And I have shown that molten aluminum is capable of very violent reactions. But these studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used. And Occam's Razor is merely a dictum, not a universal law.... And by the way, my calculations say nothing about who was piloting the aircraft or how they were able to penetrate US air defences.

So this is my position: I want people to be very careful when they try to use science to prove one particular side of an argument surrounding the events of 9/11. The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was extremely complex. The scientific method of test-observation-inference is barely applicable to such a chaotic event. Science is being used an abused in the great global warming dabate in the same way.... Science may indeed hold the key to the truth about 9/11, but it must be used correctly, not simply in an ad hoc manner to support a story that has no basis in fact.

NIST has presented one account of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but is unable to explain the collapse of WTC 7. What does that tell you! Furthemore, not all the NIST nay-sayers are "crackpots" - the very accomplished scientist Genady Cherepanov has presented calculations that suggest that a "fracture wave" was responsible for the destruction of the twin towers and his work deserves consideration. I believe this kind of debate is healthy and justified for such a complex, apocalyptic event as the destruction of the WTC.

You know there was a very famous industrial accident in June 1974 at a chemical plant in a place called Flixborough in the UK in which 28 workers were killed by a massive explosion. An official Public Inquiry was commissioned to determine the causes and circumstances of the disaster. The inquiry decided that the rupture of a 20" line was the root cause of the accident in spite of the fact that evidence for another, more complex, theory was presented by some scientists. History shows that the more controversial theory was undoubtedly correct and the commission probably reached false conclusions about the cause of the accident to satisfy the public's growing concerns about the safety of chemical plants in the UK.

So you want to know what I believe? I believe that NIST may have the "right answer", but for the wrong reasons. I have some ideas about the effects of the fires in the towers that I am still working on. If I am correct NIST may have missed a very important factor in the collapse. And if there was indeed some design flaw in the WTC that created unexpected conditions favoring premature collapse, WE NEED TO KNOW!

Finally, let me add that there is too much political ideology (on both sides) driving the 9/11 debate at the present time. This is why internet websites dedicated to discussing 9/11, such as the JREF forum or Physorg, are currently not good arenas for objective scientific debate. And that is why I hope to keep my postings on such sites to a minimum....

[David Wong]

Wow. Just... wow.

We all saw planes crash into the towers... all saw the fires... heard no explosives... found no evidence of explosives afterwards... got no testimony from witnesses who saw explosives being planted...


And Greening says he has found no "PROOF that explosives were NOT used."


Wow.

I... I'm at a loss.

[CHF]

So there is no proof that explosives were used and no reason for them being used...But that's not proof that they weren't there.

It seems that demanding that one prove a negative is the only way this twoofer stuff stands a chance.

Which I suppose says something about how strong a position it is.

[David Wong]

I mean, keep in mind, what Greening said there would make perfect sense if we were, say, examining the 1993 WTC bombing... and say at the beginning studies said it was a fertilizer bomb, and then later some speculated it was a different explosive based on chemical evidence.

In that case, both are working off the obvious thing that everyone had already observed: that a bomb went off in the basement.

Same for his 1974 plant explosion. That the plant exploded due to some failure or another wasn't in dispute; it was the finer points of what failed that had to be worked out. It was NOT a situation where a plane crashed into the plant, on live TV, and then later it turned out that some other explosion was orchestrated by conspirators and only made it appear to be the result of the plane crash.

That he can't grasp the gargantuan difference between those two scenarios is... kind of weird.

[Matthew Best]

Science may indeed hold the key to the truth about 9/11, but it must be used correctly, not simply in an ad hoc manner to support a story that has no basis in fact.

And which of the various competing stories has "no basis in fact"? Is it the "laser beam from space" story, the "thermite" story, the "concrete core pre-loaded with explosives" story, the "no planes hit the Towers" story, or the NIST story?

[DavidJames]

...my calculations say nothing about who was piloting the aircraft or how they were able to penetrate US air defences...I would like to add my "wow" for that comment.

Wow.

Dr. Could tell us about the "US air defences" you think should have prevented the "penetration" And when you do, please apply the same rigor and scholarly analysis as you do with your engineering.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wow. Just... wow.

We all saw planes crash into the towers... all saw the fires... heard no explosives... found no evidence of explosives afterwards... got no testimony from witnesses who saw explosives being planted...


And Greening says he has found no "PROOF that explosives were NOT used."


Wow.

I... I'm at a loss.
No, his making a valid point. Look at it this way:
1) The NIST report provides a reasonable explanation for the collapse of the towers
2) The explanation in the NIST report does not rely on explosives not being present (that is to say, it doesn't matter if they were or not from the NIST report perspective)
3) Therefore, one can not use the NIST report as proof that there were no explosives, as the NIST report is not presenting us with an exclusive or (XO) situation.
4) That being said, the onus is still on the proponents of the explosives theory to present evidence that there was explosives.


I would like to add my "wow" for that comment.

Wow.

Dr. Could tell us about the "US air defences" you think should have prevented the "penetration" And when you do, please apply the same rigor and scholarly analysis as you do with your engineering.
I think he's point was that his work is not addressing the human element of the days events.

[David Wong]

So... in laymen's terms...

Say there's an expert in glass. In how glass breaks, how it melts, etc. He takes glass samples from the WTC and says:

"The way this glass broke, it could have been from the plane, or from explosives, or from lasers. You can't tell."

Now, because his expertise is limited, all he can do is comment on the glass. The fact that everybody else saw planes crash into the towers, that's not what he's commenting on. He's simply commenting on the fact that, purely from the glass, you can't tell what broke it.

Fine. I understand that.

But for that same guy to enter into a conversation between conspiracy buffs ("bombs brought down the towers!") and people rebutting them ("Everybody saw planes bring them down!") for him to enter the fray with, "You know, I'm an expert in glass, and looking at this glass, there's no evidence it wasn't a bomb."


Does everyone see the assumption that gets made there? And the problem it causes? What he's saying may be factually right. But the result of the comment, in context of that discussion, is 100% wrong. A sideways glance at the other evidence tilts your conclusion away from bombs and lasers. So why not acknowledge that?

[T.A.M.]

While I agree that Greenings work is not PROOF that Explosives were NOT used, that does not mean that we should entertain as possibilities, any of the nonsense that the truth movement puts forward.

There is as much proof it was done by a high energy beam weapon as there is that it was done by a bunch of magical leprachauns, or by a cloaked alien space ship. Should we entertain ALL of these and develop studies to prove them wrong or right? Who will fund such studies.

Lets be realistic here. There is no evidence beyond paranoia, to entertain 99% of the truth movements "theories" on the collapses. If they want to take their own money and investigate such nonsense, than let them, but do you want your tax money to go into funding the "investigation" of "high energy beam weapons causing the collapse of the WTCs"? I wouldn't.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

NIST has presented one account of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but is unable to explain the collapse of WTC 7. What does that tell you!



This is a bit of a misrepresentation of state of the investigation of WTC7. They are working on it, and will release a report this year. The work on 7 was delayed so they could concentrate their efforts on the towers. To characterize this as being "unable" to explain it is uncharitable at best. Better to say, "They haven't explained it yet."

[T.A.M.]

I believe they have a "Best Guess" based on available data, but even that they felt was of "low probability". It is spring 2007, so it should be out soon.

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

I think he's point was that his work is not addressing the human element of the days events.Please, "penetrate US air defences"????? Had he not used that tired CT canard, I would agree that was his only point, but he did.

[R.Mackey]

I have done calculations that convince me that a gravity driven collapse, once initiated by the descent of an upper section through one floor height, WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. And I have done calculations that convince me that the observed degree of pulverization of the concrete WAS POSSIBLE without the help of explosives. ... And I have shown that molten aluminum is capable of very violent reactions. But these studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used.

This is completely wrong.

It's wrong because the only evidence -- the only evidence at all -- for explosives, presented by anyone, is that "the collapses couldn't have occurred that way without them."

If you're aware of some other evidence that implicates explosives, say some residue, det cord and copper shapes found in the Pile, video of shockwaves, then please bring them to light. But thus far, there is none. Your answer, computed above, directly contradicts the only argument ever produced for explosives.

So you want to know what I believe? I believe that NIST may have the "right answer", but for the wrong reasons. I have some ideas about the effects of the fires in the towers that I am still working on. If I am correct NIST may have missed a very important factor in the collapse. And if there was indeed some design flaw in the WTC that created unexpected conditions favoring premature collapse, WE NEED TO KNOW!
This statement, on the other hand, I agree with. I look forward to reading your ideas about the effects of fires. I happen to think NIST is mostly right, but they may indeed have missed something.

But it wasn't explosives.

[Apollo20]

R. Mackey:

I agree with you on that... I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives.

[FactCheck]

R. Mackey:

I agree with you on that... I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives.Yes, we can't rule out aliens teleporting into the towers and rigging cables to pull in the perimeter columns either. Which is why evidence is so very, very important.

[T.A.M.]

Yes, we can't rule out aliens teleporting into the towers and rigging cables to pull in the perimeter columns either. Which is why evidence is so very, very important.

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM;)

[pomeroo]

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM;)



It wasn't the aliens.

It wasn't the leprechauns.

Ahem.

(Sounds of throat clearing)

It was DA JOOOS!!!

[T.A.M.]

was that orange or apple jooos?

TAM;) (derailing as usual)

[pomeroo]

was that orange or apple jooos?

TAM;) (derailing as usual)



TAM, I had an idea for a "Family Circus" cartoon. Shards of a broken vase litter the floor. Mom frowns at the sheepish little kid, who finally stammers: "It was the Jews."

It could be titled, "The Little Conspiracy Theorist."

[T.A.M.]

Ron:

You wanna get hate mail from Family Circus nut jobs...dont you?

TAM:D

[R.Mackey]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.

[pomeroo]

Ron:

You wanna get hate mail from Family Circus nut jobs...dont you?

TAM:D



(Shudder) Not the Family Circus crowd! Those guys will lop off your cajones and feed them to their pit bulls!

[pomeroo]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.



Your relentless sanity and intelligence is making me look bad. Please cut it out or volunteer for 'Hardfire' duty.

[T.A.M.]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.

100% agreement. Anyone who states that NIST proves explosives were not used is incorrect. Properly stated, the NIST report, along with the lack of evidence for explosives, make the case for the use of explosives almost nil.

TAM:)

[Horatius]

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM;)



I've had jsut about enough of this "leperchon" disinfo! Everyone knows it was the pixies!

Why can't these "leapercons" disinfo shills be baned? Isn't this a serious forum, or what?

[/LCF]

[Regnad Kcin]

...Finally, let me add that there is too much political ideology (on both sides) driving the 9/11 debate at the present time. This is why internet websites dedicated to discussing 9/11, such as the JREF forum or Physorg, are currently not good arenas for objective scientific debate. And that is why I hope to keep my postings on such sites to a minimum....I have been following and engaged in this issue for over a year. It is my observation that this forum's discussions are minimally shaded with the political elements of the 9/11, except for where it is appropriate, given a particular thread's topic.

I should add that there are those who have tried to inject politics into random threads, but they seem largely to be proponents of "inside job" CTs. This, however, would occur at any open forum and is not characteristic of the JREF.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Frank, I'm sorry I said you lied. Perhaps you were honestly mistaken, but I doubt it. You did indeed tell Ron Wieck (pomeroo) that I had sent you computer virus. You sent me an email claiming I had sent you a virus. Wieck published a comment here stating that you told him I sent you a virus, and that you were having computer problems as a result. You said that "The December 31, 1969 virus" is a well-known virus, and that you had seen a thread discussing the December 31, 1969 virus. I don't believe that. I'm prepared to stand corrected, but I haven't found anything about that virus. What I have found is ample documentation that Mac computers reset their clocks to December 31, 1969 when the rechargeable battery is wearing out.

Frank, you did apologize, and I accepted your apology.

Now, on to why your Crush-Down Crush-up cannot be true.

[beachnut]

Frank, I'm sorry I said you lied. Perhaps you were honestly mistaken, but I doubt it. You did indeed tell Ron Wieck (pomeroo) that I had sent you computer virus. You sent me an email claiming I had sent you a virus. Wieck published a comment here stating that you told him I sent you a virus, and that you were having computer problems as a result. You said that "The December 31, 1969 virus" is a well-known virus, and that you had seen a thread discussing the December 31, 1969 virus. I don't believe that. I'm prepared to stand corrected, but I haven't found anything about that virus. What I have found is ample documentation that Mac computers reset their clocks to December 31, 1969 when the rechargeable battery is wearing out.

Frank, you did apologize, and I accepted your apology.

Now, on to why your Crush-Down Crush-up cannot be true.

Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

How long does it stop moving Ace? (it does not really stop ace; hint)

Give me a cookie and I will give you a hint about JW's work.

[ref]

R. Mackey:

I agree with you on that... I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives.

This is what we wanted to hear. You clearly state that you don't believe explosives were used. Because the defenders of the controlled demolition theory have a habit of quote mining. That means, that if you do not specifically state that you do not believe in explosives, your statements can be quoted in an effort to support the demolition theory.

By only stating, that the calculations do not rule out explosives, you gave the demolition theorists a chance to quote you in a way, that makes the use of explosives being supported by your very own statements. No matter how ridicilous that sounds, they can make you sound like a conspiracy theorist, unless you specifically state something that cannot be interpreted in any other twisted way. And now you did :) thanks for that.

I agree, that the calculations themselves do not rule out the explosives. It is all the other evidence, that does rule them out.

It has been shown, that the collapses were indeed possible without the explosives. Pulverization was possible without the explosives. Nothing is speaking for the controlled demolition. And nothing that happened was impossible without the explosives.

I also agree, that it is important to keep researching the actual causes of the collapse, even if they have already been adressed by some or many instances. Research does not hurt. But it's important to know, that wanting to do further research does not mean supporting some wild theories. It only means doing further research to learn.