Frank Greening Refuted Easily - Page 7

Horatius · 11th November 2006, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

That cat is obviously in a crator.

Oh, please, everyone knows "crators" are square, and that thing is rectangular. But at least it's concave, which we have over TS's ideas.

TruthSeeker1234 · 11th November 2006, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by Kent1

If you weren't trying to pull one over then you should of simply told the truth. Its as easy as that. It's part of your MO. Your last line is just more in a disingenuous pattern of attack.

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.

WildCat · 11th November 2006, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I hope I don't live to regret it.

I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".

TruthSeeker1234 · 11th November 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Kent1

Ace I'll do you a favor.....post your objections to Greening at the link below and he will more than likely see them.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...c=7444&st=7635

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:

Quote:

greening's energy transfers leave one hundred percent of the mass in the footprint, as he never allows for the fact that 90% of the debris was outside the footprint.

greening's initial impact focuses one hundred percent of the energy of the upper mass onto the 'floor', completely ignoring the vertical columns, and the impossible geometry of fitting something of a given size into something else of an equal size.

greening still uses the 3.7 (near) freefall initial drop.

greening ignores gordon ross' FAR more realistic momentum transfers.

greening doesn't mention the fact that more than concrete was instantly turned into dust IN HIS MATH. he allows only for the comminution of concrete, while ignoring the other 60% of the fine dust. okay, gypsum is not that hard to pulverize, but wood and paper and PEOPLE(also not mentioned in the dust anaylsis from greening, but WAS in the actual study) sure as hell are.

greening ignores the fact that the falling part is the first to be destroyed, prefering to use one floor up, one floor down.

greening admits, that even in his totally unrealistic model, the velocity should have been halved after the first impact(while of course, ignoring that the core is 'unhingeable' with it's continuously welded box columns, and never could have 'snapped' and gone into near freefall), and yet, that is not what is observed on video.

it's a losing battle. i don't know why greening wants to dig himself in deeper. he should just admit he's using unreal assumptions not grounded in reality. he contradicts himself by using all the falling masses' energy for crushing and bending and breaking(while using an unreal safety factor of 2), and then goes on to admit openly that most of the mass was not within the footprint. i think you see this, neu-fonze, and that is why you brought 'bouncing' into the fray.

gordon ross has a FAR superiour model, ie. a realistic one.

ranson · 11th November 2006, 09:54 AM

Wow, all that proof of a mountain of debris instead of a crater and suddenly we're back to discussing the mathematical model.

Weird that TS doesn't want to discuss evidence to the contrary of his basic claim.

No, wait . . . never mind.

maccy · 11th November 2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have.

Yes and the people who understand physics on that board are handing him his a*** in much the same way as you've had yours delivered to you in this thread.

stateofgrace · 11th November 2006, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:

Yes indeed TS and of course you totally agree with right?

Had you even bothered to read the replies you would have seen the counter arguments are far better and well constructed

Quote:

Sorry Newton, Ross' model is the one that is wrong. He "double dips" on his energy deficit for sure. His "momentum loss" term is specious because he adds it to the energy input and output terms when in reality it is already part of those terms. The energy deficits are elastic and plastic strain energies or fracture energies (plus a bit of friction and acoustic energy). These lead to momentum losses. Momentum loss means WORK was done. How does Ross say his "momentum loss" term was created. Did it just come out of nothing, out of nowhere? "Momentum loss" was created by bending, stretching, squashing, fracturing, crushing, pulverizing material in the Towers because the collapse involved completely inelastic collisions. These terms are all covered by the energy transfer equations! Can't you see that? It's the energy that must be conserved, and that includes the energy of motion which is covered by the kinetic energy terms, NOT by the momentum terms AS WELL! Ross' way is simply NOT the way to do a collapse calculation as you can see from Greening's energy balance equation. You could use momentum equations to calculate initial and final velocities if you want to (and as Ross does), but he "pulls a fast-one" when he adds the momentum loss to the energy loss! As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers. So do the math! It really sounds like you're desperate to criticize Greening and praise Ross. I think I know why.... but I still don't see anything quantitative coming from your diatribes...........

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...c=7444&st=7650

If you want to quote the work of others you would do well to remember there is always a counter argument. This is why; unlike this post I rarely do it. I try to think for myself rather than simply copy and pasting the work of others from other web sites.

You should try it TS, its called thinking, making your own mind up and formulising your own opinions.

Horatius · 11th November 2006, 10:56 AM

This is a good example of what I mean about how the CTist are the ones with the "Organized Strategy". We have someone posting almost the exact same arguments as TS here, but the counter-arguments are unique to the particular poster. For instance, this argument:

Quote:

As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers.

...is one I haven't seen before, but it is a pretty good one. This fellow clearly sat down and thought about it for a bit, which is something the CTists never seem to do, they just regurgitate the same old stuff. Never any original thought, never any updating due to new information, or anything.

Pipirr · 11th November 2006, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

Okay, I'm officially calling shenanigans on TS!@#$.

Excellent! I'll get a broom.

TruthSeeker1234 · 11th November 2006, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1.

Gravy · 11th November 2006, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 03:53 PM

LOL

TjW · 11th November 2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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/b1...G/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 · 11th November 2006, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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/b1...G/Image118.jpg

what is your comment on the WTC's 8 story basement?

Alt+F4 · 11th November 2006, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by TjW

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 · 11th November 2006, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

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/v...ies/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 · 11th November 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

A Bird's Eye View

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.

Quote:

The North Tower

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 · 11th November 2006, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kent1

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 · 11th November 2006, 07:16 PM

I'll let you figure that out.

Trigood · 11th November 2006, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...G/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 · 11th November 2006, 07:32 PM

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 · 11th November 2006, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 11th November 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Horatius

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 · 11th November 2006, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 11th November 2006, 10:00 PM

[trainwreck]

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?

http://www.bobross.com/

[/trainwreck]

Trigood · 11th November 2006, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bell

[trainwreck]

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?

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

http://www.bobross.com/

[/trainwreck]

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 · 11th November 2006, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Trigood

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 11th November 2006, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

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 · 11th November 2006, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 12th November 2006, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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 · 12th November 2006, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

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

Try to keep sex out of this.

Scientologist · 12th November 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Gravy

Try to keep sex out of this.

oooooh gravy you're catchin on!!!!

LashL · 12th November 2006, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Timble

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

Now?

Bronze Dog · 12th November 2006, 11:52 PM

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:

More kitties for later.

Trigood · 13th November 2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

This cat reminded me of Socks. Remember Socks?

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

11th November 2006, 08:54 AM	#241
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 12,283	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 That cat is obviously in a crator. Oh, please, everyone knows "crators" are square, and that thing is rectangular. But at least it's concave, which we have over TS's ideas.
	__________________ ``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,``As thou sayest, so let it be.'' And straight against that great array Forth went the dauntless Three. For Romans in Rome's quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.(1) GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

11th November 2006, 09:20 AM	#242
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by Kent1 If you weren't trying to pull one over then you should of simply told the truth. Its as easy as that. It's part of your MO. Your last line is just more in a disingenuous pattern of attack. 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.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 09:25 AM	#243
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 24,976	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I hope I don't live to regret it. I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness. You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".
	__________________ "My opinion is not uninformed there are just many things I have no clue about." -atavisms "Iran DOES have the right and good reason to attack Israel." -parky76

11th November 2006, 09:38 AM	#244
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by Kent1 Ace I'll do you a favor.....post your objections to Greening at the link below and he will more than likely see them. http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...c=7444&st=7635 Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton: Quote: greening's energy transfers leave one hundred percent of the mass in the footprint, as he never allows for the fact that 90% of the debris was outside the footprint. greening's initial impact focuses one hundred percent of the energy of the upper mass onto the 'floor', completely ignoring the vertical columns, and the impossible geometry of fitting something of a given size into something else of an equal size. greening still uses the 3.7 (near) freefall initial drop. greening ignores gordon ross' FAR more realistic momentum transfers. greening doesn't mention the fact that more than concrete was instantly turned into dust IN HIS MATH. he allows only for the comminution of concrete, while ignoring the other 60% of the fine dust. okay, gypsum is not that hard to pulverize, but wood and paper and PEOPLE(also not mentioned in the dust anaylsis from greening, but WAS in the actual study) sure as hell are. greening ignores the fact that the falling part is the first to be destroyed, prefering to use one floor up, one floor down. greening admits, that even in his totally unrealistic model, the velocity should have been halved after the first impact(while of course, ignoring that the core is 'unhingeable' with it's continuously welded box columns, and never could have 'snapped' and gone into near freefall), and yet, that is not what is observed on video. it's a losing battle. i don't know why greening wants to dig himself in deeper. he should just admit he's using unreal assumptions not grounded in reality. he contradicts himself by using all the falling masses' energy for crushing and bending and breaking(while using an unreal safety factor of 2), and then goes on to admit openly that most of the mass was not within the footprint. i think you see this, neu-fonze, and that is why you brought 'bouncing' into the fray. gordon ross has a FAR superiour model, ie. a realistic one.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 09:54 AM	#245
ranson Scheme Monkey Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 943	Wow, all that proof of a mountain of debris instead of a crater and suddenly we're back to discussing the mathematical model. Weird that TS doesn't want to discuss evidence to the contrary of his basic claim. No, wait . . . never mind.
ranson Scheme Monkey Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 943	__________________ It's your contention that being sane is living a sheltered life? -- thaiboxerken My blog.

11th November 2006, 10:06 AM	#246
maccy Dalek-Reptilian Hybrid Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 2,069	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Yes and the people who understand physics on that board are handing him his a*** in much the same way as you've had yours delivered to you in this thread.

11th November 2006, 10:26 AM	#247
stateofgrace Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,846	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton: Yes indeed TS and of course you totally agree with right? Had you even bothered to read the replies you would have seen the counter arguments are far better and well constructed Quote: Sorry Newton, Ross' model is the one that is wrong. He "double dips" on his energy deficit for sure. His "momentum loss" term is specious because he adds it to the energy input and output terms when in reality it is already part of those terms. The energy deficits are elastic and plastic strain energies or fracture energies (plus a bit of friction and acoustic energy). These lead to momentum losses. Momentum loss means WORK was done. How does Ross say his "momentum loss" term was created. Did it just come out of nothing, out of nowhere? "Momentum loss" was created by bending, stretching, squashing, fracturing, crushing, pulverizing material in the Towers because the collapse involved completely inelastic collisions. These terms are all covered by the energy transfer equations! Can't you see that? It's the energy that must be conserved, and that includes the energy of motion which is covered by the kinetic energy terms, NOT by the momentum terms AS WELL! Ross' way is simply NOT the way to do a collapse calculation as you can see from Greening's energy balance equation. You could use momentum equations to calculate initial and final velocities if you want to (and as Ross does), but he "pulls a fast-one" when he adds the momentum loss to the energy loss! As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers. So do the math! It really sounds like you're desperate to criticize Greening and praise Ross. I think I know why.... but I still don't see anything quantitative coming from your diatribes........... http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...c=7444&st=7650 If you want to quote the work of others you would do well to remember there is always a counter argument. This is why; unlike this post I rarely do it. I try to think for myself rather than simply copy and pasting the work of others from other web sites. You should try it TS, its called thinking, making your own mind up and formulising your own opinions.

11th November 2006, 10:56 AM	#248
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 12,283	This is a good example of what I mean about how the CTist are the ones with the "Organized Strategy". We have someone posting almost the exact same arguments as TS here, but the counter-arguments are unique to the particular poster. For instance, this argument: Quote: As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers. ...is one I haven't seen before, but it is a pretty good one. This fellow clearly sat down and thought about it for a bit, which is something the CTists never seem to do, they just regurgitate the same old stuff. Never any original thought, never any updating due to new information, or anything.
	__________________ ``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,``As thou sayest, so let it be.'' And straight against that great array Forth went the dauntless Three. For Romans in Rome's quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.(1) GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Last edited by Horatius; 11th November 2006 at 11:01 AM.

11th November 2006, 02:58 PM	#249
Pipirr Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: North Posts: 1,449	Originally Posted by Horatius Okay, I'm officially calling shenanigans on TS!@#$. Excellent! I'll get a broom.

11th November 2006, 03:40 PM	#250
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by WildCat I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness. You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust". This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 03:51 PM	#251
Gravy Downsitting Citizen Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,063	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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?
	__________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

11th November 2006, 03:53 PM	#252
twinstead Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 6,514	LOL

11th November 2006, 03:56 PM	#253
TjW Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: up in the air Posts: 5,986	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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/b1...G/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?
	__________________ TjW People like TjW -- Kelly

11th November 2006, 03:59 PM	#254
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 6,616	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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/b1...G/Image118.jpg what is your comment on the WTC's 8 story basement?
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

11th November 2006, 04:02 PM	#255
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,852	Originally Posted by TjW 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.
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915.

11th November 2006, 05:59 PM	#256
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Last edited by Kent1; 11th November 2006 at 06:11 PM.

11th November 2006, 06:10 PM	#257
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe 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/v...ies/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 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Last edited by Kent1; 11th November 2006 at 06:35 PM.

11th November 2006, 06:17 PM	#258
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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.
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	Last edited by Kent1; 11th November 2006 at 06:22 PM.

11th November 2006, 07:06 PM	#259
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 12,283	Quote: A Bird's Eye View 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. Quote: The North Tower 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?
	__________________ ``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,``As thou sayest, so let it be.'' And straight against that great array Forth went the dauntless Three. For Romans in Rome's quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.(1) GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

11th November 2006, 07:09 PM	#260
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by Kent1 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?
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 07:16 PM	#261
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020	I'll let you figure that out.
Kent1 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,020

11th November 2006, 07:23 PM	#262
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...G/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.
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	__________________ Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already borne the pain. What you have not done is feel all you are beyond that pain. -Kahlil Gibran Last edited by Trigood; 11th November 2006 at 07:31 PM. Reason: vestigial walls

11th November 2006, 07:32 PM	#263
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	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.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 07:40 PM	#264
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 12,283	Originally Posted by 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. 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?
	__________________ ``Horatius,'' quoth the Consul,``As thou sayest, so let it be.'' And straight against that great array Forth went the dauntless Three. For Romans in Rome's quarrel Spared neither land nor gold, Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, In the brave days of old.(1) GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

11th November 2006, 08:08 PM	#265
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by Horatius 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.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 08:12 PM	#266
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 6,616	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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.....
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

11th November 2006, 08:14 PM	#267
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 4,852	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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.
	__________________ "It is degenerate in that it tends to reverse the existing order. It is essentially immoral in that it will undignify marriage. It is ruinous to the progress of civilization in that it conduces to undermine religion." - Dr. Cyrus Townsend Brady, arguing against women's suffrage, 1915. Last edited by Alt+F4; 11th November 2006 at 08:23 PM. Reason: mispelling

11th November 2006, 09:51 PM	#268
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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.
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	__________________ Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already borne the pain. What you have not done is feel all you are beyond that pain. -Kahlil Gibran

11th November 2006, 09:59 PM	#269
Sword_Of_Truth Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,958	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 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?

11th November 2006, 10:00 PM	#270
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 6,046	[trainwreck] 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? http://www.bobross.com/ [/trainwreck]
	__________________ You gotta love cops. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. (George W. Bush)

11th November 2006, 10:42 PM	#271
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	Originally Posted by Bell [trainwreck] 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? http://www.bobross.com/art/splash/splashWildlife.jpg http://www.bobross.com/ [/trainwreck] 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....
Trigood Muse Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 686	__________________ Many of us spend our whole lives running from feeling with the mistaken belief that you cannot bear the pain. But you have already borne the pain. What you have not done is feel all you are beyond that pain. -Kahlil Gibran

11th November 2006, 11:04 PM	#272
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 6,046	Originally Posted by Trigood 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 Quote: 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. Quote: 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]
	__________________ You gotta love cops. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. (George W. Bush)

11th November 2006, 11:07 PM	#273
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe 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?
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756

11th November 2006, 11:10 PM	#274
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 6,046	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact? What wicked afterglow? Seriously, haven't seen it.
	__________________ You gotta love cops. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. (George W. Bush)

12th November 2006, 05:44 AM	#275
Timble Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Wisteria Avenue, Huntingdon Posts: 934	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Well, there is that wicked afterglow. What's that about? Is that just a video artifact? Oh come on, you're just trolling now....
	__________________ We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.