Review of Dr. Griffin's NIST criticism now available

[twinstead]

Please clarify. Are you refering to R.Mackey?

Yes. You've accused him of lying. It was suggested that you start another thread to allow him to address your points.

Nothing rude in the request, just a polite question. You refused. Why?

[TerryUK]

Yes. You've accused him of lying.

No I haven't. Show me where I call him a liar or retract that.
I doubt you will do either though...

[twinstead]

No I haven't. Show me where I call him a liar or retract that.
I doubt you will do either though...

Fine. You accuse him of saying things that aren't true. I suppose there's a difference.


Mackey wrote:
<< Ross assumes the concrete in each floor must be completely crumbled to dust before collapse can proceed, rather than allowing concrete to remain largely intact and crumbling as part of its fall.

This is just not true.
Are you interested in his response to that?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think any honest person should be looking for the truth regarding 9/11

If Mackey is looking for the truth, then I obviously support that.

Different people are motivated by different things - a desire to be moral, a desire to be truthful etc. Or, on the other side, a desire to 'win'

What is 'debunking' ? It isn't a search for truth, it's a desire to 'stamp out' the opposite side -- to defeat anything against your position - a position dictated by your own particular psychology - truth has to be sometimes adapted to fit
Your understanding of the effort of individuals on this forum, and R. Mackey specifically, is in error. To wit:

Michael Shermer on "The Scientific Method"*
Elements of the scientific method (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method.html) ( hypothetico-deductive): Induction -- Forming a hypothesis by drawing general conclusions from existing data.
Deduction -- Making specific predictions based on the hypothesis.
Observation -- Gathering data, driven by hypothesis that tell us what to look for in nature.
Verification -- Testing the predictions against further observations to confirm or falsify the initial hypothesis.
Through the scientific method, we may form the following generalizations:
Hypothesis -- A testable statement accounting for a set of observations.
Theory -- A well-supported and well-tested hypothesis or set of hypotheses. Fact -- A conclusion confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer provisional agreement.

Through the scientific method, we aim for objectivity: basing conclusions on external validation. And we avoid mysticism: basing conclusions on personal insights that elude external validation.
Science leads us toward rationalism: basing conclusions on logic and evidence. And science helps us avoid dogmatism: basing conclusions on authority rather than logic and evidence.
It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method. But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction.
A scientific law is a description of a regularly repeating action that is open to rejection or confirmation.

Scientific progress is the cummulative growth of a system of knowledge over time, in which useful features are retained, and nonuseful features are abandoned, based on the rejection or confirmation of testable knowledge.
Pseudoscience: claims presented so that they appear scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
A skeptic is one who questions the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it.


Albert Einstein: One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have." *from Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer (1997)
source (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html)

[Drudgewire]

Your understanding of the effort of individuals on this forum, and R. Mackey specifically, is in error. To wit:

source (http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html)

That's all fancy talk for "just trust the gummit." :rolleyes:

[Civilized Worm]

I just saw a couple of thing that I knew are wrong, and I thought: if he does that to Ross, will he do the same to the others, if and when necessary?


Would you mind explaining how you "knew" he was wrong?



If Mackey want to brush off Ross, he should do it honestly, or at least , accurately.


If you want to brush off Mackey you should back up your assertions.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's all fancy talk for "just trust the gummit." :rolleyes:
Don't make me send out the flying monkeys.

[TerryUK]

Fine. You accuse him of saying things that aren't true. I suppose there's a difference.

I'm pleased you recognise the difference. :)
As I'm sure you know, saying something that isn't true doesn't necessarily mean you know it isn't true - you judge...


Are you interested in his response to that?

Why would that change anything? It's just a fact.
I am simply quoting from R.Mackey's paper, - I can SEE what is printed in that paper, agreed?
And I then provided a quote from Ross' own work, which again is clearly the opposite of what Mackey said.

Hearing what R.Mackey says about that fact is not going to change anything, is it?

His opinions on theories, of course, are another matter.

[pomeroo]

NIST didn't look further than collapse initiation, instead relying on Bazant's idea that collapse was inevitable
Ross shows obvious errors made by Bazant, e.g. the way Bazant claimed all the energy in the upper section would be available to act upon the uppermost floor of the lower section, which is wrong.
His theory is not junk


And Greening and Mackey have shown the errors made by Ross. But, of course, you haven't read very much.

[twinstead]

Why would that change anything? It's just a fact.
I am simply quoting from R.Mackey's paper, - I can SEE what is printed in that paper, agreed?
And I then provided a quote from Ross' own work, which again is clearly the opposite of what Mackey said.

Hearing what R.Mackey says about that fact is not going to change anything, is it?

His opinions on theories, of course, are another matter.

Well then, start a new thread about any of the other things that in your opinion you think Mackey got wrong about Ross' work.

You see, I think all-in-all between Greening and Mackey any rational person would think twice about Ross' work. At the very least it should make you think.

That's all laymen like me, and YOU, have is the opinion of experts. A second opinion is important, even if it questions something that supports ones world view, right?

[Newtons Bit]

Yes I did notice where he says "There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning"

And I'm not your "dear person" or "lying through my teeth" OK?

I alredy pointed out that Mackey lists Ross' points which he, Mackey, says are wrong.

Mackey wrote:
<< Ross assumes the concrete in each floor must be completely crumbled to dust before collapse can proceed, rather than allowing concrete to remain largely intact and crumbling as part of its fall.

This is just not true.

Ross says: "Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested
within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the energy supply of the impacting mass."

Mackey wrote:
" Ross assumes the upper and lower floors absorb energy equally on impact, which while possible, is highly optimistic."

Why does Mackey say this is highly optomistic? If he's talking about the floors of the upper section vs. the lower section - similar structures impacting each other - they both will come under similar loads. If anything, the upper section will absorb more, as the columns are made from slightly lighter sections.

There are others...
If Mackey want to brush off Ross, he should do it honestly, or at least , accurately.

I just made a post about Ross, let's do it again. I posted this at LCF (http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=14170&st=100#entry14563120) a couple of hours ago.

I've written two letters two the Journal of 9/11 Studies about this. The first was replied to, I replied to the first reply and haven't received a response of any merit.

To summarize what happened, I noticed an egregious error in the way Ross calculated buckling strain energy in the beginning of his paper and went from there. This is what the meat of what I wrote about is. Ross method allows for approximately 2.7times more strain energy than what is available in the steel columns.

The really relevant portion from my letter is:
Momentum loss and pulverization of concrete: This is another large mistake in Ross’ paper. When two objects collide, their energy is conserved. The typical method to easily to determine this is to assume a plastic collision, where M1V1 = M2V2. This is what Ross has done. He shows that in a perfectly plastic collision, there is an energy loss of 1389MJ. This is also true. However, there is a very important assumption in this that Ross has completely ignored. This loss in kinetic energy is transferred into the plastic deformation of the two bodies. In other words, the difference in energy from impact IS the “pulverization” of the concrete. Ross has calculated the damage of each concrete plate twice. In contrast, in an elastic impact, where the objects are not damaged by the impact, have zero loss in kinetic energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, however Ross has allowed 1389MJ (12*107 kip*in) to vanish. Where do you assume this energy goes Mr. Ross? From this alone, there is no longer an energy deficit in your paper, but rather an energy gain from floor to floor.

This is rather important. Ross double-dips so to speak from the pool of available energy. Without that 1389MJ of energy being destroyed by his incorrect use of plastic collisions, his paper would show a continuing progressive collapse.

The paper is available here: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gor...rogression.html

And I just noticed that I got sourced in R.Mackey's big long shindig. :D

[Par]

Oh yes, you're the guy who likes to alter other peoples posts and quote them back - children also do that, don't they?


Perhaps they do. But then again, they also respire. Beware of the affirming the consequent fallacy!

[DGM]

I'm pleased you recognise the difference. :)
As I'm sure you know, saying something that isn't true doesn't necessarily mean you know it isn't true - you judge...




Why would that change anything? It's just a fact.
I am simply quoting from R.Mackey's paper, - I can SEE what is printed in that paper, agreed?
And I then provided a quote from Ross' own work, which again is clearly the opposite of what Mackey said.

Hearing what R.Mackey says about that fact is not going to change anything, is it?

His opinions on theories, of course, are another matter.
This matters greatly to someone that strives for accuracy. If indeed there is an error (I couldn't tell you) I'm sure he would want to correct or at least defend his conclusion. Do you disagree with this?

[R.Mackey]

Anyhow, I was disappointed because it appears you just want to brush [Gordon Ross] off. [...]

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?

Is this how you "debunk" the 9/11 conspiracy theories?


You conveniently left off the part where I said I would cite anyone if he or she was correct.

Ross, alas, is not correct.

I "debunk" the 9/11 conspiracy theories by exposing their mistakes. I'll provide an example by working on you.


Mackey wrote:
<< Ross assumes the concrete in each floor must be completely crumbled to dust before collapse can proceed, rather than allowing concrete to remain largely intact and crumbling as part of its fall.

This is just not true.

Oh, really? You think I've misquoted Ross? Well, let's just see about that.

Dr. Griffin refers to a specific whitepaper by Gordon Ross in Note 97 to Chapter 3. This note can be found on page 354 of Debunking 9/11 Debunking. The paper referred to is "Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1," from the premier installment of the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies. That's the work under discussion. Nothing that Ross may have said before, since, or otherwise applies here.

In my whitepaper, I refer to the same Ross production as Note 64, which can be found on Page 178. I even provide a hyperlink. If you follow that link, you will arrive here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf). Please do so, and then turn to Page 36 (page 5 in the PDF browser).

There you will see a table, outlining the energy balance as estimated by Ross. I quote from the table as follows:


Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ

Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ
Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

Note emphasis added to highlight the concrete pulverization energy.

If you set these two to zero, you see that the "Minimum Energy Deficit" goes away, becoming an energy surplus. In other words, if we discount the energy to destroy the floors -- something you seem to agree with -- then, even if we accept everything else Ross presents, which of course we don't since the whole paper is nonsense, then his model predicts a progressive collapse.

If ever you find a mistake, I will be more than happy to correct my whitepaper, but in this case, there is no mistake.

I can only conceive of one possible scenario in which the above doesn't accurately reflect Mr. Ross's position -- if Mr. Ross has retracted his position. If this is the case, then my job is even easier. All I have to do is remark that Dr. Griffin is basing his conclusions on a rejected whitepaper that not even its own author believes in.

Is this so? Has Ross retracted this paper? It still appears at the JONES, where Ross is an editor for crying out loud, and I haven't heard any such rumour.

Moving on... you next state this:


Ross says: "Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the energy supply of the impacting mass."

Really? Where did he say this? I don't find it in the paper listed above.

If he said it somewhere else, then where? You, conveniently, didn't cite it. I have no idea where you got this, or if Ross said it at all.

Assuming he did, this doesn't prove that he's figured out that the concrete pulverization is an invalid energy sink. What it looks like is that he's refusing to address it at all, instead insisting that his ridiculous linear-strain-of-dozens-of-floors model can be cranked up to such an enormous energy sink that the concrete makes no difference. This is, of course, absurd. I'm not completely sure that's what he's saying, though; I would need to see it in context. Provide a cite, like you should have done the first time.

To address your third question:


Mackey wrote:
" Ross assumes the upper and lower floors absorb energy equally on impact, which while possible, is highly optimistic."

Why does Mackey say this is highly optomistic? If he's talking about the floors of the upper section vs. the lower section - similar structures impacting each other - they both will come under similar loads. If anything, the upper section will absorb more, as the columns are made from slightly lighter sections.
Ross assumes upper and lower floors both resist right up until the last. In reality, the upper block will survive longer, and thus can't be used as an energy sink in his energy balance. This is what we saw.

It's also easy to explain why. The upper block, by definition, is above the impact and fire floors. The floors below the upper block -- the ones that it is going to fall upon -- are much weaker by virtue of this destruction. Furthermore, much of the reason the Towers stood as long as they did was because of the stabilizing action of the hat truss. The hat truss allowed the core to remain partly suspended, transferring the load to undamaged portions of the perimeter. However, when the collapse sets in, the hat truss is now only connected to the upper block. This makes the upper block quite a bit stronger than the remaining impact floors that it falls on next.

Real simple.

-----

If you want to defend Ross, you have your work cut out for you. It won't be the first time someone bet on a 99:1 horse, but the smart money says otherwise.

See, to defend Ross, you have to show where Dr. Greening, Newton's_Bit, and I all screwed up -- independently -- in our evaluation of Ross's work. So far you're 0 for 3.

If you want to try anyway, start a new thread. And I strongly suggest you get your game on.

[Drudgewire]

If you want to try anyway, start a new thread. And I strongly suggest you get your game on.

:popcorn1

[Slayhamlet]

[snip]

Really? Where did he say this? I don't find it in the paper listed above.

If he said it somewhere else, then where? You, conveniently, didn't cite it. I have no idea where you got this, or if Ross said it at all.

It's from his reply to Dr. Greening's submission to the "Journal". It can be found here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

[R.Mackey]

It's from his reply to Dr. Greening's submission to the "Journal". It can be found here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

I figured as much. But that whitepaper wasn't even written when Dr. Griffin wrote his book, and as such is totally irrelevant for this discussion. It also doesn't help that it contradicts Ross's earlier paper.

TerryUK's claim, of course, that my analysis of Ross's work was "just not true," is total nonsense. Above, I clearly explained where I got Ross's words, what they are, and what they mean.

Pretty bad showing so far. First he bursts on scene, accusing me of ad hominem attacks, only to discover that he wasn't criticizing my words at all... Then he quote mines my own paper, claiming that I was just ignoring Ross, when instead all I said was that I didn't need a peer-reviewed article to refute Ross, relying instead on informal results... and now this.

What's next, do you suppose?

[~enigma~]

I figured as much. But that whitepaper wasn't even written when Dr. Griffin wrote his book, and as such is totally irrelevant for this discussion. It also doesn't help that it contradicts Ross's earlier paper.

TerryUK's claim, of course, that my analysis of Ross's work was "just not true," is total nonsense. Above, I clearly explained where I got Ross's words, what they are, and what they mean.

Pretty bad showing so far. First he bursts on scene, accusing me of ad hominem attacks, only to discover that he wasn't criticizing my words at all... Then he quote mines my own paper, claiming that I was just ignoring Ross, when instead all I said was that I didn't need a peer-reviewed article to refute Ross, relying instead on informal results... and now this.

What's next, do you suppose?
Ross' paper wasn't peer-reviewd so TerryUK's claim really amounts to nothing of any import. Why even waste time with it?

[R.Mackey]

Ross' paper wasn't peer-reviewd so TerryUK's claim really amounts to nothing of any import. Why even waste time with it?

:D Don't forget that -<nothing>- ever to come out of the Truth Movement is peer-reviewed. One could take that argument to simply disregard the whole ruddy mess.

No, if I've made a mistake, please help me find it. I will fix my whitepaper. I am a scientist, and accuracy counts. Doesn't matter who finds it.

Just, please, find actual mistakes, not things that you simply wish weren't true. ;)

[~enigma~]

:D Don't forget that -<nothing>- ever to come out of the Truth Movement is peer-reviewed. One could take that argument to simply disregard the whole ruddy mess.

No, if I've made a mistake, please help me find it. I will fix my whitepaper. I am a scientist, and accuracy counts. Doesn't matter who finds it.

Just, please, find actual mistakes, not things that you simply wish weren't true. ;)
Ok but I thought after you said Ross' paper was not peer-reviewed you simply ignored it.

[R.Mackey]

Ok but I thought after you said Ross' paper was not peer-reviewed you simply ignored it.

Not sure if that's supposed to be a joke... of course I didn't. I spent half a page outlining the mistakes, cited two others who've refuted it, and remarked that if Ross had been correct, he wouldn't have any difficulties getting it published.

I didn't ignore it at all. All I said is that it didn't deserve a formal response. Internet refutation and whitepapers are sufficient, just as my whitepaper is sufficient to demolish Dr. Griffin's book. It hasn't been reviewed either.

[~enigma~]

Not sure if that's supposed to be a joke... of course I didn't. I spent half a page outlining the mistakes, cited two others who've refuted it, and remarked that if Ross had been correct, he wouldn't have any difficulties getting it published.

I didn't ignore it at all. All I said is that it didn't deserve a formal response. Internet refutation and whitepapers are sufficient, just as my whitepaper is sufficient to demolish Dr. Griffin's book. It hasn't been reviewed either.
Bad joke. Yes you said it didn't deserve a formal response. Guess my reaction colored my reading. I never read Ross' paper for the reason you pointed out. It wasn't peer-reviewed so to me it wasn't worth my time. Yours wasn't peer reviewed but it was oh so fun reading your smackdown of a theologian trying to be scientific.

[Gravy]

Ross does address the concrete crushing energy issue in his conclusions in the JONES paper by way of a statement, but without calculation (assuming it hasn't been revised without notice):

Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.

[cmcaulif]

This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.

This of course is a huge error since according to Ross, the columns would have failed at 3% strain, when in actuality they would have failed at lower strains which would cause progressive collapse to continue, as Newton's Bit has shown.

[Gravy]

This of course is a huge error since according to Ross, the columns would have failed at 3% strain, when in actuality they would have failed at lower strains which would cause progressive collapse to continue, as Newton's Bit has shown.Oh, yes. In addition to other incorrect assumptions and wildly conservative simplifications Ross makes. I was just pointing out that he mentions the issue.


Edit: Okay, I checked the Wayback Machine, and Ross's paper was revised without notice. The original version is here (http://web.archive.org/web/20060702224322/http://worldtradecentertruth.com/PTransferRoss5.pdf), and it does not mention what would happen if the 608 MJ of concrete pulverization energy was subtracted.

So, TerryUK will need to use that original paper if he's going to look at its critiques.

[Newtons Bit]

This of course is a huge error since according to Ross, the columns would have failed at 3% strain, when in actuality they would have failed at lower strains which would cause progressive collapse to continue, as Newton's Bit has shown.

Actually, they'll fail at 3% (or maybe more), it's the way the column GETS to that 3% strain is important. The column will be loaded up until it's yield point, approx 0.2% strain (depends on the yield stress of the material). After that point, it will buckle and begin bending until approx 3% strain at which point the steel will rupture and pull apart.

[ref]

The paper is available here: http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gor...rogression.html

And I just noticed that I got sourced in R.Mackey's big long shindig. :D

http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/07/gordon-ross-shows-collapse-progression.html

Fixed the link for ya :)

[cmcaulif]

Actually, they'll fail at 3% (or maybe more), it's the way the column GETS to that 3% strain is important. The column will be loaded up until it's yield point, approx 0.2% strain (depends on the yield stress of the material). After that point, it will buckle and begin bending until approx 3% strain at which point the steel will rupture and pull apart.

Doh! Thanks for that, I should have been more accurate.

[Furcifer]

Impressive. I loved the format; it flowed very well and made for an easy read. I'm particularly fond of the section "Rejection of the scientific method", thank you for putting to words so elegantly what many of us were thinking. I would also extend acknowledgements to you significant other for her unseen contribution to this much appreciated "extracurricular" piece of work. :)

I'm still digesting the body of work, a more detailed critique will follow (if I'm not already beaten to it)

[Lurker]

You truly have comprehension problems, don't you?
Did you stop reading at " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response" and like your hero, cherry-pick and edit the paragraph, leaving out the sentence immediately following--"There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning" That, my dear person, is intellectual dishonesty of the penultimate variety. It is called "Lying through your teeth".

The "penultimate" variety? Makes me wonder what you consider the "ultimate" variety? Straight out fabrication?

Lurker

[rwguinn]

Bad joke. Yes you said it didn't deserve a formal response. Guess my reaction colored my reading. I never read Ross' paper for the reason you pointed out. It wasn't peer-reviewed so to me it wasn't worth my time. Yours wasn't peer reviewed but it was oh so fun reading your smackdown of a theologian trying to be scientific.


Correction:
He said it didn't warrant a formal response. Difference is subtle, but real.

[Civilized Worm]

It doesn't really warrant a response at all, but Mackey is a generous guy.

[rwguinn]

It doesn't really warrant a response at all, but Mackey is a generous guy.
Actually, you're right. But since Mackey's paper is not a formal paper, the room he gave to Ross is a good thing.

[PhantomWolf]

Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact.

A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point. The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths. Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about 450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic shortening of the second storeys affected.

Would I be correct in viewing this, that Ross believes that the columns of the upper block fell onto the columns of the lower block?

And if so...

:dl:

[kookbreaker]

The UK suddenly got very quiet after many accusations of impropriety.

[Furcifer]

Would I be correct in viewing this, that Ross believes that the columns of the upper block fell onto the columns of the lower block?


Yep. And not just on to them, but perfectly on to them.

[Dave Rogers]

Would I be correct in viewing this, that Ross believes that the columns of the upper block fell onto the columns of the lower block?

To be fair to Ross, Bazant makes the same assumption, in effect (I think). However, Bazant is showing that if you make such an assumption, which biases the model unrealistically against global collapse, nevertheless global collapse still ensues. Ross, on the other hand, has shown that if you (1) make an assumption that biases the model unrealistically against global collapse, (2) make unrealistically high energy requirements for global collapse, (3) multiply the resilience of the supporting structure by a factor of three and then (4) neglect the energy source available to cause global collapse and substitute the (about 2x) smaller part of the energy that is not available for global collapse, then there isn't quite enough energy for global collapse. At this point, I run out of words to describe the irrelevance of his result.

Dave

[scratchy]

*whispering* So silent..... anyone here...?

[LashL]

*whispering* So silent..... anyone here...?

Mr. Mackey's paper is such a complete and utter smackdown of David Ray Griffin's nonsense that the twoofers dare not speak its name.

So, shhhhh.

:D

[Peephole]

Here are a few more specialists:

Doyle Winterton-B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.
Dennis J. Kollar-P.E., Structural Engineer
Jason Griffin-BS Civil Engineering ASCE
Richard Garrison-Architecture, Civil Engineering, Construction Management
Tom Kost-BS engineering-physics, MS physics
Ronald Larsen Ph.D. - Applied Physics, Materials Science
David Liguori-BS Physics; MEng EE; MS Physics
Jose Molina-Mechanical Engineer
Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
Rob Steinhofer-MS Mechanical Engineer
Vic Nott-Construction Engineering
Enzo Valenzetti -Ph.D. Civil Engineering
Kenneth Wrenn-BS Civil Engineering
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer with over 55 years experience. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems.
Fun fact: doctor Enzo Valenzetti is completely made up.

Guess your list isn't that great.

[Gravy]

Fun fact: doctor Enzo Valenzetti is completely made up.

Guess your list isn't that great.Here is the entire written 9/11 work of those "experts" on Swing's list:

" "

I apologize to the moderators for quoting these works in full.

[scratchy]

Could you keep it down a bit, im trying to sleep here.

[JimBenArm]

Here is the entire written 9/11 work of those "experts" on Swing's list:

" "

I apologize to the moderators for quoting these works in full.
You know there are rules against flooding the forum, yet you post this in its entirety?
I knew you were one of their pets!

[Drs_Res]

You know there are rules against flooding the forum, yet you post this in its entirety?
I knew you were one of their pets!

<Homer>

Mmmmmmm. Pet Gravy

</Homer>

[R.Mackey]

:bump2

I've just sent off a revision of the original paper to ref, Gravy and MikeW. There are no major content changes, just a few thousand typos, slight rewordings, and clarifications.

My thanks to all who've read and appreciated it, also thanks to those including rwguinn and Hokulele who caught a number of the typos and made other suggestions.

I still intend to issue a major revision addressing criticism and responses from the opposition; however, thus far there has been virtually none. Nothing from Dr. Griffin, in particular, has appeared so far. I've also scanned the various forums (at least those in languages I can puzzle out) where it has been discussed looking for valid complaints. So far -- nothing, just the usual noise about credentials and nonsense arguments. However, I reiterate, if there's anything wrong, I will fix it. Comment in this thread, drop me a PM, or my e-mail is posted on the front page of the report itself.

One interesting note I received comes from Eric Douglas, one of Dr. Griffin's sources, who has his own NIST criticism at http://www.nistreview.org/ along with some other comments. Some of his conclusions I disagree with, as noted in my whitepaper, but other criticism of NIST is valid. Also, unlike the other NIST criticism thread currently underway, Eric thus far has been a perfect gentleman. I may work a longer discussion of Eric's critique into the next version if no other complaints about my work surface.

[scratchy]

Seems you are getting the silent treatment, so far at least. My lurking around CT-threads re 911 is over for now, this is the one where i will observe the absence of real action. Many thanks for the time saved!

[afinemadness]

R.Mackey I finished it the other day it was a great piece of work. I was truly humbled by how much work that must have taken.

[Mr. Skinny]

R.Mackey I finished it the other day it was a great piece of work. I was truly humbled by how much work that must have taken.
I've been reading it in my spare time at work, and I still haven't finished it!

I'm interested in knowing how many hours RMackey devoted to this project. It must have been hundreds of hours.

[ref]

Thanks Ryan. Updated.

[Hokulele]

Thanks ref. Downloaded.

[cmcaulif]

a small thing, but on page 20 your source for thermal conductivity gives a range of values rather than the figure you use for the K of A36. The Mil Handbook (http://www.grantadesign.com/userarea/mil/mil5.htm)has a section on carbon steel (http://www.grantadesign.com/userarea/mil/mil5.htm), which gives a value of K at 30 Btu/[(hr)(ft^2)(F)/ft], which is 51.9W/m*K, in case you would like to include it as a reference to your figure. It is also a public resource which is convenient.

Also, a good deal of the steel in the floor trusses was low alloy steel, which has a lower thermal conductivity than carbon steel, though I think your point came across loud and clear even without mention of this.

[R.Mackey]

... is this gem from "9-11 Blogger:"


The Relevance of Erector Sets

I have to assume (in the absence of an explanation) that if Ryan Mackey thinks he has a bona fide reason for dismissing my Erector Set illustration as "not worthy of discussion" it must be based on a tacit assertion that the strength of a structure doesn't scale proportionally to its size — that a large steel framework is somehow significantly weaker relative to its own weight than a smaller one, all aspects being proportional. But is this really true?

[...]

If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.


Source (http://www.911blogger.com/node/11719)

Yes, folks, you read correctly. Mr. Thurston is actually defending his contention that, because an Erector Set doesn't fall to pieces when it topples over, the WTC Towers shouldn't have broken apart either.

So far, I've only received two (2) e-mails that even attempt to dispute anything in my whitepaper, not including Mr. Thurston who no doubt will remain cowering deep in friendly territory. In contrast, I've received two follow-up questions from people who are genuinely trying to learn, about fifteen cases of constructive criticism (thank you all), and 25+ "thank you"s.

I'd say it's going well.

[Hokulele]

I really, really, really, really, really want to see Mr. Thurston weld to scale accurately. Really.

[ref]

This gem from the comments section at 9/11 Blogger, that Ryan linked:

all one needs is basic common sence. Step #! Watch the video's of the towers being built. Step#2
Get out a stop watch and time the collapse's.Step#3 Pull your head out !

[Furcifer]

In all fairness an Erector Set model is probably the closest representation the truth movement has made in its wacky "scale model" diatribe, closing the gap between absurdity and reality ever so slightly. It's a sign of progress. Sadly, the last I recall of Erector Sets, the largest available set was 1001 pieces. If they release a 10000001 piece set they may have a real go at it.

[ref]

I found this amusing.

The LCF has many times hyped Immortal Technique, and he was even tentatively scheduled to perform in their 9/11 troothfest. I don't know if he did.

But the moderator at Immortal's messageboard is openly a debunker :D

http://www.immortal-technique.com/forum/index.php/topic,4750.0.html

Here he links to the Mackey paper. Great!

[Mancman]

I've read the majority of the paper (not finished the appendices) and it's nothing more than lies, distortions and strawmen.


Only kidding, it's a relentless destruction of poor ol' David. Very thorough. I have a few comments:


Re.
North Tower Antenna Drop
The next claim is that the North Tower (WTC 1) antenna, indicative of the behavior of the “hat truss,” was not treated by NIST. Dr. Griffin cites the FEMA report:

the transmission tower on top of the [North Tower] began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. [156]

Dr. Griffin states that, since the NIST report does not mention this event, and because the “hat truss” should guarantee that the antenna and perimeter walls would remain bound together, it would be impossible for the antenna to fall before the perimeter walls. Thus he reasons that NIST is incorrect. He further suggests that this is “perhaps only possible” if the core columns had been “sliced by explosives.”


NIST does, albeit briefly, mention the antenna drop in 1-6, Pg 151.
Observations from a single vantage point can be misleading and result in incorrect interpretation of events. For instance, photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof (McAllister 2002). When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed.

Of course this simply means that DRG is wrong on another count due to relying on sources from 2002 and not actually reading the NIST report.



Re.
The quoted time of collapse of 11 and 9 seconds respectively is taken from NIST FAQ, where NIST clarifies the meaning of these two measurements:

There are numerous errors in this argument. For starters, NIST does not calculate an expected duration of collapse. It is, therefore, impossible to dispute NIST’s computed time. The only argument that Dr. Griffin can make is that the observed time of collapse is too short to fit the NIST model. However, Dr. Griffin offers no calculation, and besides that, he gets the observed time of collapse wrong.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. [11]

I think it would be worth adding that in his book DRG doesn't simply exaggerate or make a mistake about the 9 and 11 second collapse statement from the NIST FAQ, but that he actually edited the statement to remove the clarification of the times, to make it look like NIST had agreed with 9 and 11 second timings. Very dishonest.


Re. Horizontal Ejections of Steel.

Here, in addition to the ricochet argument, it might be worth adding a mention of the 'unzipping'/'banana peel' mechanism in which the perimeter walls leant over in large intact sections and thus easily covered the alleged 600ft distance to the Winter Garden.
As we can see here, (http://i1.tinypic.com/v4m8uc.jpg) the columns that hit WFC3 and the WG may have come from the large sections lying flat out, that perhaps split in mid air and flung column trees off as they fell and rotated.

[PhantomWolf]

Please do not let Chuck Thurston anywhere near a construction site.....

[R.Mackey]

NIST does, albeit briefly, mention the antenna drop in 1-6, Pg 151.


Of course this simply means that DRG is wrong on another count due to relying on sources from 2002 and not actually reading the NIST report.

That's a nice catch. I'd forgotten about that passage in NCSTAR1-6 -- I spend most of my time head-down in the sub-subproject reports, and sometimes forget what's in the masters. It ain't easy keeping 10,000 pages in memory, even a basic index...

Anyway, I'll work some additional commentary into v1.2.

I think it would be worth adding that in his book DRG doesn't simply exaggerate or make a mistake about the 9 and 11 second collapse statement from the NIST FAQ, but that he actually edited the statement to remove the clarification of the times, to make it look like NIST had agreed with 9 and 11 second timings. Very dishonest.

Yeah, I know. I deliberately tried to keep the tone neutral and non-combative. Dr. Griffin makes so many mistakes, misquotes, and even lies, that I didn't feel I needed to put a finer point on this one.

Here, in addition to the ricochet argument, it might be worth adding a mention of the 'unzipping'/'banana peel' mechanism in which the perimeter walls leant over in large intact sections and thus easily covered the alleged 600ft distance to the Winter Garden.
As we can see here, (http://i1.tinypic.com/v4m8uc.jpg) the columns that hit WFC3 and the WG may have come from the large sections lying flat out, that perhaps split in mid air and flung column trees off as they fell and rotated.

Well, the "unzipping" action is complicated. It is true that some exterior elements would gain additional horizontal distance through sheer toppling, but not all that much. The more valid mechanism is the "wedge," as I've seen it referred to, where the descending mass squeezes in between the perimeter segments and then ejects them at velocity similar to the ricochet case. It starts with the "banana peel" but then gains horizontal inertia. The "wedge" is popular on the PhysOrg forum. I wasn't picking a favorite, I just wanted one that was easy to put some rough numbers on, and the ricochet is the easiest for illustrative purposes.

To me, this is all academic. All we have to do is show that the debris pattern seen is consistent with a gravity-driven collapse, and that it isn't consistent with explosives. Both of those conditions are satisfied.

Thanks for the feedback, keep 'em coming.

[boloboffin]

Here's something I'd like to see, Ryan. This paper is fantastic and happily accepted, but could you do a Top 10 version? You can always make clear that you've done a fuller version and that people should check it out. And certainly it should wait until after you've basically finalized this more complete paper. But a Top 10 paper should be something you could pull together in a couple of days and it would go over very well in our soundbite media culture.

Just a thought.

[R.Mackey]

What, and subsidize laziness? :p

Lots of other people have done that better, e.g. Abby Scott. I decided to fill the niche that remained open for obsessive-compulsize, meticulous, long-winded polymaths.

For that matter, I'm still wondering who the target audience is for Dr. Griffin's book. No pictures, no color, only two typefaces, and hundreds of pages long. It has all the rapidly-shifting ramble of an Alex Jones rant, recast in the most unexciting form possible.

[chatiez]

Thanks for the great paper,
it did gave sound response to DRGs miscategorized scifi.

and btw finnish bridges are not by large asphalt-based, by empiric walk-on experiment I'm pretty sure they also got .. mm.. other stuff in them.

[ref]

Thanks for the great paper,
it did gave sound response to DRGs miscategorized scifi.

and btw finnish bridges are not by large asphalt-based, by empiric walk-on experiment I'm pretty sure they also got .. mm.. other stuff in them.

Tervetuloa :)

And in english, welcome to the forum!

[ref]

Ryan, have you seen this critique by Jim Hoffman? This is the most thorough attempt to debunk your paper thus far.

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey


Instead of a point-by-point analysis of Mackey's article, this review first outlines a series of arguments for controlled demolition, examining arguments by Mackey in relation to those arguments; then provides a "global analysis" of Mackey's methods. This organization is intended to extract Mackey's substantive and relevant arguments from his abundant unsupported and gratuitous assertions and characterizations regarding Griffin's work, and to highlight and address those arguments.


...


One need only read a few paragraphs of any part of Mackey's essay to be impressed by his fondness for sweeping statements of fact, unqualified statements, and statements with universal qualifiers. Real scientists seldom make such sweeping statements, because such statements are rarely true.


Conclusion

Mackey's long-winded article seems designed to give the appearance of having addressed Chapter 3 of Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking, but the more one examines his article, the more fallacies and baseless assertions become apparent.

Mackey's reliance on fallacies and assertions is not surprising when one considers the difficulty of his assignment: defend NIST's collapse theory, which is no theory at all but a hollow assumption: that "global collapse" automatically follows from "collapse initiation". Given the utterly unscientific nature of NIST's "investigation", what better way to defend it than to pretend that it's thoroughly scientific, endorsed by legions of scientists and professionals, and that it's those questioning the collapse premise who are "[il]legitimate" "disconnected from the scientific community", "[un]worthy of review", and pursuing a "dead end" that is "total[ly] lack[ing] supporting evidence or data" and "merit[s] no attention whatsoever".

[R.Mackey]

Yep, I've seen it, though it isn't finished yet.

I'm close to finishing v2.0 of my own paper, including response to feedback from Eric Douglas, Kevin Ryan, and that crazy Erector-set enthusiast, plus some briefer letters. Hoffman is a late entry -- he'll have to wait for v2.1.

Countering screed like Hoffman's is time-consuming, but really quite dull. Many people here could do it. Eric Douglas did ask some relevant questions, and even has some valid complaints (about NIST); that takes much more thought.

Still nothing from Dr. Griffin, surprising no one. I understand he's moved on to his next book already. No, I won't be reviewing that one, so don't even ask. I am not a professional Griffin heckler, and besides the record is currently 1-0 for me by reason of forfeit. Spend your money wisely, that's all I have to say.

[ref]

Ok, good. I saw it only this morning :) As you said, the Hoffman article is not even completely finished yet.

Griffin has indeed moved on to write the next book. It is released in a couple of month's time. Suprising no-one.

[Hokulele]

The Carl Sagan bit made me angry. :mad:

[LashL]

I'm close to finishing v2.0 of my own paper, including response to feedback from Eric Douglas, Kevin Ryan, and that crazy Erector-set enthusiast, plus some briefer letters.


Excellent. I, for one, am looking forward to it with great anticipation.

[R.Mackey]

:bump4

Version 2.0 of my whitepaper is now completed and available. I've dispatched copies to the usual suspects, and with any luck these will be available for anonymous download.

If for whatever reason you can't access it that way, you want it straight from the source, and you're happy with 1.7MB Microsoft Word documents, just drop me a PM, and I'll be glad to send you one myself.

The update includes a number of minor adjustments suggested by readers here and those who e-mailed me corrections. It also includes about 20 pages reviewing the responses of Kevin Ryan and others, along with a new appendix exploring in depth the questions of Eric Douglas. Unlike the overwhelming majority of the Truth Movement, he actually read NIST, and his questions (and the answers) go into much more detail. If you are trying to understand the NIST report, this may be of interest to you.

Next update will include Jim Hoffman's gradual critique, probably as another appendix.

So far, though, nothing credible has appeared to challenge my position, and nothing at all from Dr. Griffin. The vigil continues.

[ElMondoHummus]

:bump4

Version 2.0 of my whitepaper is now completed and available. I've dispatched copies to the usual suspects, and with any luck these will be available for anonymous download.

If for whatever reason you can't access it that way, you want it straight from the source, and you're happy with 1.7MB Microsoft Word documents, just drop me a PM, and I'll be glad to send you one myself.

The update includes a number of minor adjustments suggested by readers here and those who e-mailed me corrections. It also includes about 20 pages reviewing the responses of Kevin Ryan and others, along with a new appendix exploring in depth the questions of Eric Douglas. Unlike the overwhelming majority of the Truth Movement, he actually read NIST, and his questions (and the answers) go into much more detail. If you are trying to understand the NIST report, this may be of interest to you.

Next update will include Jim Hoffman's gradual critique, probably as another appendix.

So far, though, nothing credible has appeared to challenge my position, and nothing at all from Dr. Griffin. The vigil continues.


Ref, are you going to post this V2.0 paper on the http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey site?

[MikeW]

There's a PDF version available here (http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_2_0.pdf).

[R.Mackey]

Wow, you guys are fast! Thanks.

[ref]

Yes, I will be posting it on my site as well. I gotta sleep now but I'll do it the first thing in the morning :) (European time)

[ref]

I have now posted Version 2.0 on the site:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Both .doc and .pdf files are available.

[Gravy]

Just read the Mackey-Douglas debates. Outstanding job, Ryan. If I didn't know better I'd think you were campaigning to be a U.S. Senator from Illinois! :D Your explanations are models of clarity, good research, and good sense.

[Hyperviolet]

Thanks for the update, R.Mackey.

I'm going to start going through this tomorrow.

Looking forward to it.
:)

[ref]

Version 2.1 is now available in both .doc and .pdf at:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

The material addition here is a response to Jim Hoffman, also it corrects an error pointed out by Craig Furlong, whom Ryan is pleased to announce is no longer counted among the Truth Movement.

[ElMondoHummus]

Ref? I think there are some issues starting at page 169 in the "Kevin Barrett" section (page 177 in the way Adobe Reader counts pages). There are references to "Mr. Ryan" that I think should instead be "Mr. Barrett".

I'll go back and read it again to make sure I'm not the one screwing up, but did you want to double-check this yourself?

ETA: Ooops! Damn... Ignore please. I did screw it up. That's not Kevin Barrett being referred to, it's Kevin Ryan!

Mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa... Christ, I need caffeine...

[ref]

Ref? I think there are some issues starting at page 169 in the "Kevin Barrett" section (page 177 in the way Adobe Reader counts pages). There are references to "Mr. Ryan" that I think should instead be "Mr. Barrett".

I'll go back and read it again to make sure I'm not the one screwing up, but did you want to double-check this yourself?

ETA: Ooops! Damn... Ignore please. I did screw it up. That's not Kevin Barrett, being referred to, it's Kevin Ryan!

Mea culpa mea culpa mea culpa... Christ, I need caffeine...

It happens :D

[ref]

Bump just to let everyone know, that Ryan has updated his excellent paper :)

[ref]

Great and thorough (tens of pages) addressing of Hoffman's points!

I have one comment.

On page 269 of your paper (276 of PDF) you wonder:

The contributors to the NIST Report are listed on pages iii and v-x of NCSTAR1, and total over 300 names. The author is at a loss to understand how this is “closer to a dozen,” as Mr. Hoffman suggests.

I think I can help you with that one.

Jim most certainly got his "dozen or so" figure from this page:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

which lists 13 people, plus a couple of consultants. He just counted those people, and figured "a dozen or so people" were responsible for the reports.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Any plans on updating this whitepaper now that NIST's WTC 7 report (and the inevitable truther criticisms) has come out?

[R.Mackey]

No. This is outside the scope of my original paper, and Truther complaints about the NCSTAR1A report are virtually nonexistent. Just arbitrary nattering about scale and precision in the collapse model, or those who never read it in the first place.

My whitepaper is already about 300 pages, and still totally unaddressed by Dr. Griffin. If he had an answer, one imagines he would have been able to state it by now.

[Bad_Doggie]

No. This is outside the scope of my original paper, and Truther complaints about the NCSTAR1A report are virtually nonexistent. Just arbitrary nattering about scale and precision in the collapse model, or those who never read it in the first place.

My whitepaper is already about 300 pages, and still totally unaddressed by Dr. Griffin. If he had an answer, one imagines he would have been able to state it by now.

Ryan, I think that you underestimate the importance of your white paper.

I realize that the intent of the paper is to answer Dr. Griffin’s spurious “questions „ regarding the collapse of the WTC buildings.

However, I believe that it succeeds in doing more than that. In that, it serves as an important educational tool for explaining, in a way that is accessible to those with a rudimentary knowledge of Physics/Engineering, the complex mechanism of the events.

It pulls together the detailed and complex findings of NIST, Bezant and others and distils and presents the facts in an easily understandable and entertaining way. With the follow up read well documented. This ensuring the widest possible audience; the ordinary populace and new comers seeking answers. It is only them that require the information anyway as the Physics/Engineering community are already aware that the truther position is untenable and treat it as irreverent anyway.

I realize that you are a busy man but seek to encourage you to treat the NIST WTC 7 report/truther comments about it in a similar fashion.

Woof!

[UNLoVedRebel]

Ryan, I think that you underestimate the importance of your white paper.

Yeah, me too. It's not just for DRG, but his mindless followers. (I refer them straight to the "NIST can't explain why the towers fell faster than free-fall" part.) Anyhoo, the truth movement is all but dead and I'm sure you don't want to waste more time on them. But any review on NCSTAR1 9 you do, whether it's a new thread or a whitepaper, I am looking forward to reading.

[JamesB]

This is an awesome paper, high in the ranks of standing up for science and reason.

My point, I thought I made clear, was that although I had not been "intentionally misleading," I had been careless. (I had quoted those statements from secondary sources---three of them from Thierry Meyssan's "Pentagate"---without looking them up for myself to read them in context. Also, when I wrote the passage 12 pages later about people "claiming to have seen a missile or small military plane," I failed to realize that the people I had quoted did not specifically claim to have "seen" such a thing but had merely said they thought---as I then falsely believed---that it was either a missile or a small plane.
-David Ray Griffin


Now if we can just get him to respond to your paper. :D

[Heiwa]

No links in this thread work for me!

[R.Mackey]

I realize that you are a busy man but seek to encourage you to treat the NIST WTC 7 report/truther comments about it in a similar fashion.

Anyhoo, the truth movement is all but dead and I'm sure you don't want to waste more time on them. But any review on NCSTAR1 9 you do, whether it's a new thread or a whitepaper, I am looking forward to reading.

I just haven't seen that much opposition to the NIST WTC 7 report. Dr. Griffin certainly isn't going to read it...

Unless there is some opposition, all I can really do is ask people to read the report. With opposition, there's a conversation, like we (sort of) had with the earlier WTC 1 and 2 report.

We've had a couple of threads on the WTC 7 report, but the opposition is... feeble. There might be more I haven't seen, though.

[bje]

No links in this thread work for me!

They were cut in your Pizza Box demolition.