• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

GregoryUrich

Graduate Poster
GregoryUrich
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
1,316
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
Click to expand...

No. There is no reason to consider the "alternative hypothesis". There is no legitamate alt. hypothesis. There has never been evidence of explosives in any building on 9/11 ever! Nor any consistant story that includes the both facts and explosives in it.
 
Last edited:
Hm, he got it out so quickly after the report was released. I call Inside Job. ;)
 
Jumping the gun, aren't you? Greening made criticisms, let's see what the responses from NIST and others are. Just because he made them does not make them legitimate criticisms. Recall that more than a few of his criticisms about the initial NIST report were not exactly on completely solid ground, and between his whining about 'NISTian's he had to admit that when RMackey and Newton's Bit among others corrected him.
 
dudalb said:
So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther?
Click to expand...
Greg has "ample evidence" for a new investigation, he is a petition signing truther from way back. He joined up, and still has no "ample evidence".

Greenings critique is a good hand waving effort, but he does not support explosives, he does not like NIST. I know Greening has some exotic chemical reaction that is responsible for WTC7 demise, it is fire for the rest of us.
 
Wait, wait, wait... read Dr. Greening's critique. He's indeed opening the door for alternative hypotheses, but we're not talking alternative in the truther "Oh! Explosives/Incendiaries/InsideJob!" sense, but rather in the truly alternate mechanisms sense. I'm no engineer, but I don't see anything in the critiques that couldn't be taken as legitimate questions. And at the same time, I think you'd have to stretch his statements to make them fit any sort of truther profile.

Sure, he's ripping NIST. So did Quintiere in regards to the main towers report. That's a long way from validating DRG, Kevin Ryan, or Steven Jones's takes.
 
Greenberg said:
To conclude this section I would like to briefly mention NIST’s simulation of the final global collapse of WTC 7.[...]

The only significant distortion of the boxed-shaped Building 7 that is noticeable after the façade begins its downward motion, is the formation of a slight kink on the eastern side of the north face.[...]

Now consider NIST’s version of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9.[...]

It is simply astounding that, even though these computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”
Click to expand...

Clipboard01.jpg


That's the screenshot he's having a problem with. You can find it in NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 on page 255.
And here's the full text:

NIST said:
Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behaviour reasonably well. The global collapse analysis confirmed the leading collapse hypothesis, which was based on the available evidence.
Click to expand...

I can see some deformation in this video:



But I am tired and on my way to bed. :D
 
GregoryUrich said:
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed:
NIST’s fire simulation would have us believe that a very substantial heat release rate was sustained for over 2 hours over a floor area of about 500 m2 in building 7. Thus Figure 9-13 of NCSTAR 1-9 shows that a heat release rate of 200 MW was attained on floor 12 at about 3:00 p.m. on September 11th and remained above 200 MW until well after 5:00 p.m. But we need to ask: Is a 200 MW fire consistent with a fuel loading of 32 kg/m2 - the value used by NIST for its floor 12 fire simulations? The answer appears to be no. Thus a 200 MW heat release rate for 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ. If the combustible material on the 12th floor of WTC 7 is assumed to release 20 MJ/kg, we have to conclude that 72,000 kg of office material was combusted over an area of 500 m2, or there was a fuel loading in WTC 7 of 144 kg/m2 – a value over four times NIST’s assumed fuel loading.
Click to expand...

It looks like Dr. Greening believes that the simulation of the fire on the 12th floor was limited to 500 m2 on the east side of WTC 7. This is not correct. The total square area of floor 12 was 3875 m2. And had Dr. Greening looked at figure 9-11 and 9-12 in the NIST draft report he would have known that the fire in the simulation involved the whole floor area on floor 12. The core area is roughly 650 m2. This gives us a figure for total available fuel of 3225 m2 x 32 kg/m2 = 103 200 kg. More than enough to sustain the simulated heat release.
 
Norseman said:
Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed:


It looks like Dr. Greening believes that the simulation of the fire on the 12th floor was limited to 500 m2 on the east side of WTC 7. This is not correct. The total square area of floor 12 was 3875 m2. And had Dr. Greening looked at figure 9-11 and 9-12 in the NIST draft report he would have known that the fire in the simulation involved the whole floor area on floor 12. The core area is roughly 650 m2. This gives us a figure for total available fuel of 3225 m2 x 32 kg/m2 = 103 200 kg. More than enough to sustain the simulated heat release.
Click to expand...

Anyone forwarded that information to Dr. Greening (Pomeroo? You keeping in touch with him by any chance?)? Despite the opinions people have about his attitude, I fully believe that he'd accept people pointing out genuine, demonstrable errors.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Anyone forwarded that information to Dr. Greening (Pomeroo? You keeping in touch with him by any chance?)? Despite the opinions people have about his attitude, I fully believe that he'd accept people pointing out genuine, demonstrable errors.
Click to expand...

Dr. Greening is discussing this issue at The 9/11 Forum. Feel free to follow/join the discussion there.
 
Last edited:
Greening said:
This was posted last night on the well-known 9/11 fantasy site JREF by someone who calls himself NORSEMAN
Click to expand...

Something tells me I am not supposed to take this character seriously.

Clipboard02.jpg


One of the figures Greening wants you to look at. The other one is the same, just the 'skeleton' (floor beams) instead of floor slabs.
 
Last edited:
firecoins said:
No. There is no reason to consider the "alternative hypothesis". There is no legitamate alt. hypothesis. There has never been evidence of explosives in any building on 9/11 ever! Nor any consistant story that includes the both facts and explosives in it.
Click to expand...

Carbon monoxide, Carbon dust, plus a few other compounds that I could name, are explosive gasses that are naturally evolved in fires.

Although not as powerful as high explosives they can create great over pressure and force that can collapse an already damaged building, one where heat weakening and thermal expansion have already occurred.

CO is also an agent that can accelerate sufidication effects in steel by reducing sulfates to sulfides.
 
I see nothing wrong with a serious critique of any report, NIST or otherwise. It is one thing to point out the weaknesses in the report, and clearly there are some, as they have little to no direct physical evidence (one could argue about photos and video as physical evidence), to base their theory on. The difference, however, between the sane and insane response, from anyone, is that the sane would look at the plethora of corroborating evidence (Firefighter eyewitness accounts, etc...), as well as the lack of evidence for other theories, and make suggestion based upon it. The insane response is to shout out "Inside Job" at the top of your lungs because paranoia has interfered with your sound judgement.

I hope Greening has gone for the former, rather than the latter.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I see nothing wrong with a serious critique of any report, NIST or otherwise. It is one thing to point out the weaknesses in the report, and clearly there are some, as they have little to no direct physical evidence (one could argue about photos and video as physical evidence), to base their theory on. The difference, however, between the sane and insane response, from anyone, is that the sane would look at the plethora of corroborating evidence (Firefighter eyewitness accounts, etc...), as well as the lack of evidence for other theories, and make suggestion based upon it. The insane response is to shout out "Inside Job" at the top of your lungs because paranoia has interfered with your sound judgement.

I hope Greening has gone for the former, rather than the latter.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Greening still supports the conclusion that the collapse of 7 was caused by the fires, not explosives. Of course, the twoofers are having a field day with this.
 
Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.
 
WildCat said:
Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.
Click to expand...


I think his problem with other engineers stems from his work at a Canadian nuclear plant where he was trying to point out the cause of corrosion in some coolant tubes. he was ignored and from what I gather marginalized by other staff engineers and management. The experience left a bitter taste in his mouth and from then on became an outsider. he now looks upon staff engineers and old boys network with a jaundiced eye. What I found peculiar about him was his jeckyl/hyde behavior particularly on fridays. he may even have a drinking problem.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.
Click to expand...

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.
 
RedIbis said:
Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.
Click to expand...

Excellent strawman. I particularly like the way you pretend that Wildcat is trying to discredit Greening's paper in any way whatsoever by relaying the information and riffing on Greening's quite evident dual posting nature. Very persuasive.
 
RedIbis said:
Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.
Click to expand...

This from a fellow who appears to base his dismissal of the physical evidence of the 93 crash on the basis of not liking how a photo looks. Bold, Red I.! Well-researched! And yada yada.
 
A W Smith said:
I think his problem with other engineers stems from his work at a Canadian nuclear plant where he was trying to point out the cause of corrosion in some coolant tubes. he was ignored and from what I gather marginalized by other staff engineers and management. The experience left a bitter taste in his mouth and from then on became an outsider. he now looks upon staff engineers and old boys network with a jaundiced eye. What I found peculiar about him was his jeckyl/hyde behavior particularly on fridays. he may even have a drinking problem.
Click to expand...

Well take a gander at the cold hard facts in that there post. How do you debunkers do it? Because from the looks of that and most of the idiotic comments left here day after day I would say it is Greening who has obviously left a bitter taste in the mouths of the so-called skeptics and critical thinkers here at JREF. He certainly has you all nailed for what you are or more importantly what you aren't.
 
Profanz said:
Well take a gander at the cold hard facts in that there post. How do you debunkers do it? Because from the looks of that and most of the idiotic comments left here day after day I would say it is Greening who has obviously left a bitter taste in the mouths of the so-called skeptics and critical thinkers here at JREF. He certainly has you all nailed for what you are or more importantly what you aren't.
Click to expand...
It appears some people can look at 2+2, and when Greening says 7, we know he is wrong or quibbling, without having to teach you math or give a more detailed explanation.
 
beachnut said:
It appears some people can look at 2+2, and when Greening says 7, we know he is wrong or quibbling, without having to teach you math or give a more detailed explanation.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry beachnut. Would you say the illustrations posted a few posts back that were offered up by NIST equate 2+2=4? Who the hell witnessed that live or on video?
 
What do you have to say about Greening's comments, Profanz? Anything? Or just parrot it or hold it up in troofer fashion?

I for example would like the whole business with the fire and kg/m² explained to me, as I have not progressed enough in the NIST report, nor am I very vested in these physics things. :D
 
mrbaracuda said:
http://b.imagehost.org/0813/Clipboard01.jpg

That's the screenshot he's having a problem with. You can find it in NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 on page 255.
And here's the full text:



I can see some deformation in this video:



But I am tired and on my way to bed. :D
Click to expand...
I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.
 
So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results? It isn't to produce photo-realistic pictures suitable for a coffee table book?

Gee, who'da ever thunk it?
 
rwguinn said:
I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.
Click to expand...

And what scale did they use?
 
when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?
 
ktesibios said:
So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results?
Click to expand...
This sort of thing often happens with NASA photos, with colours enhanced or altered so as to make more visually apparent certain features within the photo.
 
Normaly i do use Scales in Deformation simulations, because normally i have to deal with displacements that are indeed so small you cannot see them in a 1:1 scale.

but in a totaly collapse of a building like WTC7 you will see the displacement also with 1:1 scale.... or there is something wrong with your FE sim.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?
Click to expand...

Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".
 
AZCat said:
Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".
Click to expand...

and where in the WTC7 report can i find that "not to scale" note ?

of what use is the whole simulation if we dont know the scale or even if it is in scale or not?
 
AZCat said:
Just last week one of the structurals at my office was showing me an analysis he did of deflections of a large piece of equipment (a belt had been sped up and was forcing the system at close to the resonant frequency). The deflections were scaled significantly in the images he included, yet his report did not state the scale, only that they were "not to scale".
Click to expand...

how usefull is his visualisation when you do not know how much the deflection is?
 
Even better would be to have a CD of the LS-DYNA output at every stage of collapse demolition (Chapter 12 of the NIST WTC7 report) so you can zoom in and see all the failures that occur in the right order and then identify the elements/nodes involved, displacements and forces at those failures. The scale can be adjusted accordingly.

Of course the LS-DYNA FEA model has >3 million elements and >3.5 million nodes and at every failure you have to recalculate the 'new' model to find the next failure. Big job!

You should also be able to superimpose the model at every failure with the intact model prior 'collapse', to see where elements/nodes have moved since the initiation, etc.

I am quite curious to see the condition after the last failure, i.e. when all the rubble is on the ground and where the >3 million elements and >3.5 million nodes are then. As LS-DYNA keeps track of everything, the last failure condition should represent the rubble heap 100%!

On photos you see some big assemblies of elements/nodes on the ground where the columns have been cut off and it would be interesting to know when/how those failures occurred. LS-DYNA should give the answers.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
and where in the WTC7 report can i find that "not to scale" note ?

of what use is the whole simulation if we dont know the scale or even if it is in scale or not?
Click to expand...

You really need them to put a label up saying 'Guys, guys, this is not the real scale of a 47 story skyscraper in this PDF'? :boggled:

Now much about you makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom