ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags wtc2 , wtc , wtc1 , world trade center , nist , debate , 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 1st April 2007, 09:40 AM   #201
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
There is no top block, it turns to dust.
This is a stupid assumption, and asserting it simply makes you appear to be an idiot, again.
cloudshipsrule is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 11:01 AM   #202
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong, but prefers to leave it published as it is, "warts and all".

The crush down crush up model cannot possibly survive scientific scrutiny, for it relies upon the assumption that the top block remains relatively intact and that no more than 20% of the mass is "shed" outside the footprint, both demonstrably false. There is no top block, it turns to dust. Worse, the model treats the core as a series of "floors" that respond individually to each impact. In reality, a falling mass would encounter "the frame", which is founded on bedrock. All of which ignores how the top block goes into free-fall in the first place, an impossibility given that steel loses strength gradually.

Even forgetting these fatal problems, crush-down crush-up cannot explain the pulverization, so Greening denies it, as do JREFs. All of which led me to my conclusion that "Frank Greening is divorced from reality". This is taking Greening's crush-down crush-up paper at face value. Actually, a scientist of Greening's caliber could not possibly have missed the errors I just pointed out, so we conclude that Greening is disinfo. This latest disinfo piece, "Spiked Fireproofing" is just further proof.

1. I doubt he referred to his "Crush" theory as a "joke". he likely admitted there were errors in it, that perhaps it needed to be revised. yes, post your emails TS, if you are not afraid to, please.

2. If anyone says it cannot account for "pulverization", it is because noone here has been show SCIENTIFIC proof of the complete pulverization of all the concrete in the WTCs. The dust make up was largely Wallboard, with concrete as one of many minor components.

I am willing to bet money that more than 50% of the truth movement feels that the Wood/Reynolds Energy Beam Weapon/no-plane theory is disinfo and/or rediculous.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:15 PM   #203
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong, but prefers to leave it published as it is, "warts and all".


Ah yes, "The lurkers support me in e-mail". You'll excuse me if I take your claims with a grain of salt, until corroborated by Dr. Greening.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:47 PM   #204
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:53 PM   #205
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
we knew that. simply because we know Ace.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 01:53 PM   #206
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
OHHHH ACE, you just got served! you gonna take that? FIGHT! FIGHT!
OMGturt1es is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 02:01 PM   #207
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by bje View Post
Steven Jones announced his newest theory last week: 9/11 and Global Warming: the Chemtrail Link

911booger.blogspot.com
i'm sorry. over exposure to vast amounts of 911 truthiness has interrupted the regular function of my sarcasmin detection. is that link serious? or is that sarcasim?
OMGturt1es is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 03:26 PM   #208
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!


WooHoo!


That is all.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 03:42 PM   #209
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,769
Originally Posted by OMGturt1es View Post
i'm sorry. over exposure to vast amounts of 911 truthiness has interrupted the regular function of my sarcasmin detection. is that link serious? or is that sarcasim?
'Tis satire, OMGturt1es

(Note the name of the blog for a - ahem - raging clue )
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 03:44 PM   #210
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Ace, I'm sure you'll recognize the following scene....

Quote:
Keyboard player: Jeez - that was really a mess!
Ace: It's okay, we'll fix it in the mix!
As much as you'd wish it so, debating isn't a creative act, Ace! You can't pick and choose how you interpret something when the person who wrote it is right there to refute it. Are you unwilling to learn or just incapable of it? You can't sling your BS and then edit(fix) it in the studio when the debaters go home!

Any bets on whether Ace takes another wee sabbatical?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:09 PM   #211
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Question

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
the largest artillery shells ever fired were only about 7 tons,
This can't possibly be true, I can't imagine the size of the gun required to fire such a shell...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:19 PM   #212
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
This can't possibly be true, I can't imagine the size of the gun required to fire such a shell...
The Nazi rail-guns.... 800mm shells at 5 to 8 tonnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:20 PM   #213
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80_cm_Gustav

Also, smaller but still mind-boggling, the Yamato.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:29 PM   #214
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
'Tis satire, OMGturt1es

(Note the name of the blog for a - ahem - raging clue )
sorry, but i've seen so many absurd theories seriously espoused by 911 CTers now that i can't tell the difference between 911 CT satire, and the real deal. I have to ask now when crazy theories are posted, as the last few that i thought were satire turned out to be 100% serious.

this is the same movement from which the "space beam energy weapons" and "holographic planes" theories have surfaced, both seemingly impossible to imagine anyone taking seriously.

the difference between 911 truth and satire doesn't exist if one doesn't consider the only characteristic that defines them: whether people actually, seriously believe the theories. other than that, there's no difference.
OMGturt1es is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:30 PM   #215
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
The Nazi rail-guns.... 800mm shells at 5 to 8 tonnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_(projectile)
Yeah, just found it here. Holy mother of all artillery!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:47 PM   #216
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Frank, old buddy old pal. I'll clarify. By working this latest "Spiked Fireproofing" hoax, Greening has exposed himself as a joker. Since I find crush down crush up to be equally as untenable as spiked fireproofing, I reason it to be equally as much of a joke. Perhaps Apollo would care to clarify which of his theories are to be believed, and which are hoaxes.

I contacted Dr. Greening saying that the assuumptions upon which his CDCU theory is based are provably false assumptions. Below is one passage in which he refers metaphoically to his mistakes as "warts". My interpretation of Greening's backpedaling is that he knows his theory is wrong. Forgive me if my wording was unclear.

Greening:
Quote:

First of all I should tell you that some of the assumptions I used in my WTC collapse model were made only to simplify the math. In the year or more since my first published work on this subject in 2005, I have made many refinements to my calculation. I have simply not got around to writing a new paper. However, unlike Dr. Jones, I am not one to keep revising something I have already published. I prefer to leave my original paper more or less as it was first conceived (warts and all), and try to answer criticisms of it as best I can.……

But, be that as it may, let me say right away that although the assumption that all the mass remains in the upper block throughout the collapse was indeed made in my paper, this approximation is not crucial to a self-sustaining collapse. I and others, such as David Benson and Shagster on Physorg, have done many additional collapse calculations that consider so-called mass shedding and find that significant mass shedding can occur without causing collapse arrest. So any criticisms of my original paper with regard to this issue would be like criticizing the Wright brothers for not having wheels on their first airplane!
No, they wouldn't be like that at all. They would be like criticizing someone else's first airplane for not being able to fly. All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).

Frank, how bout I fly you down to LA for a day, and we can have our little debate in my studio? We've got a nice big screen, we can talk at leisure about spontaneous thermite, CDCU, spiked fireproofing, corruption in the Canadian nuclear industry, or anything that's on your mind. We can take a break and fool around with some blues and folk music. It would be delightful.
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:56 PM   #217
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
No, they wouldn't be like that at all. They would be like criticizing someone else's first airplane for not being able to fly. All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).

The issue isn't what we wish to name anything, the problem is what you wish to name it. Unless you have proof that there was some kind of volcanic eruption in Manhattan, stop using terms that make you, at best, look uninformed.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 04:58 PM   #218
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
So enough of the horse Sheet TS, just admit you lied...be a man for once.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:02 PM   #219
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,392
I still haven't seen TS1234 prove that he knows how to tie his shoelaces and the more posts of his that I read, the more likely I think it is that Velcro plays a large part in his life.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:06 PM   #220
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).
TS, a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event.
OMGturt1es is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:09 PM   #221
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
We can take a break and fool around with some blues and folk music. It would be delightful.

Get a room you two...
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:11 PM   #222
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,769
Originally Posted by OMGturt1es View Post
sorry, but i've seen so many absurd theories seriously espoused by 911 CTers now that i can't tell the difference between 911 CT satire, and the real deal. I have to ask now when crazy theories are posted, as the last few that i thought were satire turned out to be 100% serious.

this is the same movement from which the "space beam energy weapons" and "holographic planes" theories have surfaced, both seemingly impossible to imagine anyone taking seriously.

the difference between 911 truth and satire doesn't exist if one doesn't consider the only characteristic that defines them: whether people actually, seriously believe the theories. other than that, there's no difference.
Absolutely no apologies necessary, OMGturt1es. It is often very difficult to tell satire from genuine troofer lunacy for precisely the reasons you set out.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:17 PM   #223
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,392
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Frank, old buddy old pal. I'll clarify. By working this latest "Spiked Fireproofing" hoax, Greening has exposed himself as a joker. Since I find crush down crush up to be equally as untenable as spiked fireproofing, I reason it to be equally as much of a joke. Perhaps Apollo would care to clarify which of his theories are to be believed, and which are hoaxes.
People with brains in their heads can research his claims and verify them for themselves.

Quote:
I contacted Dr. Greening saying that the assuumptions upon which his CDCU theory is based are provably false assumptions. Below is one passage in which he refers metaphoically to his mistakes as "warts". My interpretation of Greening's backpedaling is that he knows his theory is wrong. Forgive me if my wording was unclear.

Greening:
So he is kind of saying the oposite of what you claimed he said and you call it a case of: "my wording was unclear"?

Quote:
No, they wouldn't be like that at all. They would be like criticizing someone else's first airplane for not being able to fly. All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).
So a pillar of expanding smoke is an energy sink? A cloud of dust after collapse is an energy sink?
Just hypothetically Ace, what do you think these things would look like if the building was burning and then collapsed the way NIST said it did?

Would the smoke not expand as it rose?

What would the dust cloud have looked like?

Quote:
Frank, how bout I fly you down to LA for a day, and we can have our little debate in my studio? We've got a nice big screen, we can talk at leisure about spontaneous thermite, CDCU, spiked fireproofing, corruption in the Canadian nuclear industry, or anything that's on your mind. We can take a break and fool around with some blues and folk music. It would be delightful.
If your idea of delightful includes spending all day with an egomaniacal loony.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:20 PM   #224
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Frank, old buddy old pal. how bout I fly you down to LA for a day, and we can have our little debate in my studio? We've got a nice big screen, we can talk at leisure about spontaneous thermite, CDCU, spiked fireproofing, corruption in the Canadian nuclear industry, or anything that's on your mind. We can take a break and fool around with some blues and folk music. It would be delightful.
uh oh now i know how Tin hat Tim the lihop mihop guy got the way he is!!




Ohh whether it's LIHOP ....or whether it's MIHOP...we need to know the truth and make this war stop.


where the hecks my autoharp?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 1st April 2007 at 05:21 PM. Reason: where the hells my autoharp?
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 05:31 PM   #225
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
My interpretation of Greening's backpedaling is that he knows his theory is wrong. Forgive me if my wording was unclear.

So your interpretation of text is just as bad as your interpretation of photos and video. Check. Colour me surprised.

As for "unclear wording":

Quote:
"In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong, but prefers to leave it published as it is, "warts and all".

Where in his quoted passage does he "admit it was wrong"? What I see is Dr. Greening attempting to explain to you the same thing we've tried to explain for all these months: Mathematical models by there nature tend to be simplification of reality, as real reality is far to complex to be modeled accurately in any reasonable fashion. Those approximations can still provide useful analysis, if used with care and attention.

Your continued resistance to understanding this basic fact of physics and math is one of the main reasons you will never understand science.


Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post

Greening:

Quote:
First of all I should tell you that some of the assumptions I used in my WTC collapse model were made only to simplify the math. In the year or more since my first published work on this subject in 2005, I have made many refinements to my calculation. I have simply not got around to writing a new paper. However, unlike Dr. Jones, I am not one to keep revising something I have already published. I prefer to leave my original paper more or less as it was first conceived (warts and all), and try to answer criticisms of it as best I can.……

But, be that as it may, let me say right away that although the assumption that all the mass remains in the upper block throughout the collapse was indeed made in my paper, this approximation is not crucial to a self-sustaining collapse. I and others, such as David Benson and Shagster on Physorg, have done many additional collapse calculations that consider so-called mass shedding and find that significant mass shedding can occur without causing collapse arrest. So any criticisms of my original paper with regard to this issue would be like criticizing the Wright brothers for not having wheels on their first airplane!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 07:25 PM   #226
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
I'd rather have theories with "warts" than a mind filled with paranoid delusions. Please seek professional mental health care, Ace.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 08:00 PM   #227
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Here's what the Greening admission boils down to:

1. I accuse him of making false assumptions.
2. He doesn't deny making false assumtions, instead he moves the goalpost and says that his assumptions don't need to be true.

That, to me, is a clear admission that the assumptions in question are false.

Can we not all agree that Dr. Greening's assumptions about the "intact block" are false assumptions?
TruthSeeker1234 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 08:13 PM   #228
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Yes, Greening's simplified collapse model is far worse of an assumption than Star Wars beam weapons, "toasted" cars, "dustified" steel, mystery holes, and no rubble at Ground Zero.

You live in a nightmare, Ace. Get help.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 08:19 PM   #229
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Here's what the Greening admission boils down to:

1. I accuse him of making false assumptions.
2. He doesn't deny making false assumtions, instead he moves the goalpost and says that his assumptions don't need to be true.

He doesn't "move the goalposts". He explains the nature of modeling.

Figure it out, for fracs sake!


Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
That, to me, is a clear admission that the assumptions in question are false.

Can we not all agree that Dr. Greening's assumptions about the "intact block" are false assumptions?

No they are not "false". They are approximations. They are limiting assumptions made openly, with the clearly expressed intent to make the calculations simpler, or even possible. They are entirely consistent with normal practices in the sciences, and physics in particular. If someone who actually knows what they're talking about disagrees with his limiting assumptions, they are free to replicate his work with their own set of assumptions, in an attempt to show their assumptions are a better model of reality than his. So get to work, or STFU.

Don't you think it's just the least bit odd that the just about the only people who complain about these alledgely "false" assumptions (other than Judy Wood, who is clearly crazy) are not trained scientists or engineers? That's because those of us who have actually studied actual science have seen just such calculations made in a myriad of different calculations.

The only difference between those calculations and Dr. Greening's calculations is, there are no crazy CTists insisting on attaching some sinister motivation to them. Probably because no Ctist has ever studied enough physics to even know about such calculations.

Figure it the frac out!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 08:38 PM   #230
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post

Greening's "crush-down crush-up" whopper is no more plausible than "spiked fireproofing". Nor was his "spontaneous thermite".
That is one very odd statement coming from a guy who believes in a no-plane/DEW senario.

Will you show us Wood's calculations on the output power and beam type or would that just get things bogged down with numbers?

Greening is admitting no more 'wrong' than it would be to say that Newton was 'wrong'(not that I am saying that Greening is comparable to Newton). Einstein made adjustments to Newtons formulas but Newton was not 'wrong'.

Greening has merely stated that further honing of the assumptions show, by way of calculation, that the conclusions arrived at via his first approximation still hold.
What part of that do you not understand?(my guess, all of it)
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 08:46 PM   #231
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Quote:
They are limiting assumptions made openly, with the clearly expressed intent to make the calculations simpler, or even possible
other cases in point.

In a multiple body system assuming the mass of each body to be a point mass at the center of each body.

In electronic circuit design, assuming a zero, base-collector capacitance.

In short distance signal transmission assuming no transmission losses or phase changes.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 09:42 PM   #232
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Ace, in the real world "No" doesn't mean "Yes". They taught you that in sensitivity training, didn't they?

The man never admitted to what you said he did, and you claimed you had evidence to prove it. Your evidence, like your logic, is crap.

Be a man. You were wrong/you blatantly lied! Suck it up, move on, go see a doctor then man the barricades.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 10:03 PM   #233
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
other cases in point.

In a multiple body system assuming the mass of each body to be a point mass at the center of each body.

In electronic circuit design, assuming a zero, base-collector capacitance.

In short distance signal transmission assuming no transmission losses or phase changes.


Just the sort of thing I was thinking of. Other examples:

The small angle aproximation sin(theta) = Theta, cos(theta) = 1. Used in calculating the period of a pendulum, in simple harmonic motion, as well as other areas.

Or the classic massless string, again used in pendulum calculations, among others.

Or, the classic beloved of all the twoofers, Gravitational Potential Energy, which assumes the acceleration due to gravity is constant as the masses move closer or farther apart, which of course is wrong. But close enough for a reasonable approximation.

Or hey, how about a pseudo or "fictitious" centrifugal force which appears when a rotating reference frame is used for analysis. They even admit openly that it's "Fictitious"!


Quote:
Approximations may be used because incomplete information prevents use of exact representations. Many problems in physics are either too complex to solve analytically, or impossible to solve. Thus, even when the exact representation is known, an approximation may yield a sufficiently accurate solution while reducing the complexity of the problem significantly.

For instance, physicists often approximate the shape of the Earth as a sphere even though more accurate representations are possible, because many physical behaviours — e.g. gravity — are much easier to calculate for a sphere than for less regular shapes.

The problem consisting of two or more planets orbiting around a sun has no exact solution. Often, ignoring the gravitational effects of the planets gravitational pull on each other and assuming that the sun does not move achieve a good approximation. The use of perturbations to correct for the errors can yield more accurate solutions. Simulations of the motions of the planets and the star also yields more accurate solutions.

The type of approximation used depends on the available information, the degree of accuracy required, the sensitivity of the problem to this data, and the savings (usually in time and effort) that can be achieved by approximation.

Heck, those darn scienticians even have fancy names for how closely they approximate things!


And let's throw a little math on the fire, with the linear approximation.



Heck, even Newton's (he of F=ma, another twoofers fave!), laws are just approximations:


Quote:
Newtonian dynamics (which is based on Galilean transformations) is the low speed limit of special relativity (since the Galilean transformation is the low-speed approximation to the Lorentz transformation). Similarly, the Newtonian gravitation law is a low-mass approximation of general relativity, and Coulomb's law is an approximation to Quantum Electrodynamics at large distances (compared to the range of weak interactions). In such cases it is common to use the simpler, approximate versions of the laws, instead of the more accurate general laws.

So, Ace, when can we expect to see you out harassing all these other scientists for their "false" assumptions? Because it looks to me like the entire basis of our modern understanding of the universe is built on the same shaky ground as Dr. Greening's collapse calculations! You have to save us from all this!

That is, unless you're willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the science guys might know what they're doing?

Nah, that's just crazy talk........


And just in case you think it's only the normal scientists who make assumptions and approximations, go take a look at your lady loves' site:
Quote:
Suppose the building's materials were reduced to 10% of its original volume.
Volume of one WTC tower = (207 ft)x(207 ft)x(1368 ft)
Dust Volume (from one WTC tower) = (1/10)xVolumetower (approx.)
One square mile = (5280 ft)x(5280 ft)
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/10)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 2.52 inches deep over 1 square mile,
or equivalent to 1-inch deep over 2.52 square miles.
An area of 2.52 square miles would be a radius of 0.896 miles. Note that the area would include both land and water.

Suppose the building's materials were reduced to only 5% of the original volume.
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.) = (1/20)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches) = 1-inch deep over 1.26 square miles,
An area of 1.26 square miles would be a radius of 0.634 miles.

These calculations suggest that the towers had enough material to yield dust about an inch deep and cover approximately a square mile in lower manhattan, plus the dust carried over the Hudson River, the East River, Brooklyn, the Upper Bay, and into the upper atmosphere. So where did all the dust come from? It looks like it all came from the towers.

How many assumptions and approximations is that? And every single one of them with absolutely no justification, and in several cases, demonstratably wrong.

Also note the implicit assumptions, that aren't even acknowledged:

(1/20)x(207/5280)2x(1368x12 inches)

No adjustment for the different densities of dust vs. solid material? !?!?

And she tries to get that one past us under the radar? And you think this makes her more reliable than Dr. Greening?

And that doesn't even get into the flat out mistake she makes, when at the last step of her "calculation", she goes from one tower to two, without multiplying by two! And you would have us follow her, rather than anyone else at all?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2007, 11:08 PM   #234
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
Hey! They told me there wouldn't be any math!
Will this still be graded on a curve?
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
Foolmewunz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 05:33 AM   #235
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,744
Ace, would an example of modelling for something you deal with daily help? Since you seem to think that they can model something this complex easily, it would be no problem to model a car crash and to do so repeatedly for a wide variety of accidents. Even large SUVS only have a few thousand parts and welds, so this should be fairly simple.

Now, would you trust your life to a vehicle that was only modelled on the tube? Would you really believe that a computer would be able to take into account everything? Even the best engineers in the worlld can not tell you exactly how to model a car crash, so how do you think they can do every tiny detail of the WTC?
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 05:49 AM   #236
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Hey! They told me there wouldn't be any math!
Will this still be graded on a curve?


Can you multiply by two?


Then you beat out Woody, at least.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 06:55 AM   #237
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Confessions of a 9/11 Agnostic

My name is Frank Greening/Neu-Fonze/Apollo20. I have observed a lot of mixed reaction to my recent contributions to PhysOrg and JREF forums. I am therefore posting the following material to explain who I am and where I’m coming from…..

First a little history:

I worked for 23 years as a research scientist for the large nuclear electric utility OPG and became involved in the study of hydrogen embrittlement of zirconium pressure tubes. This was a major problem and concern for AECL, the designer of the CANDU reactor. AECL needed to explain to our nuclear regulator why so much hydrogen was entering the pressure tubes in the 500 MW Units at Pickering. AECL proposed a THEORY that made no sense to me. I spent 5 years studying real samples of highly radioactive tubing and found lots of evidence that AECL’s theory was plain WRONG! I presented my results at a number of meetings and was essentially shouted down. I did more research and found to my horror that one of my colleagues was cooking up data at a well-known Canadian University to support the dubious AECL theory. I approached a post-doc at the University who I could trust and together we checked the computer code being used to generate the data and found the steps in the program where the “fudging” was being covertly carried out. I tried to expose this deception and was blocked at every turn. I was barred from speaking to or corresponding with zirconium experts at ASTM who had published the fudged data. I was barred from submitting an article, correcting the fudged data, to a journal. I was threatened with a lawsuit by a professor even though I had a letter from the same professor admitting that data had been falsified. After battling “the system” for 5 years I took early retirement out of frustration and disgust with the state of science in industry and academia here in Canada.

My 9/11 Research:

About 2 years after my early retirement I began researching 9/11 and became fascinated by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. I realized that it would be of great interest to calculate the collapse times for a gravity driven collapse and compare the result with observations. This I did, and wrote up my findings in the “Energy Transfer” article that was subsequently posted on the 911Myths website. I was quite surprised at the response to my work: the calculations were well received by some but scorned by others.

The model I based my calculation on was indeed quite crude, so I have endeavored to improve it by including the effects of variable column strength and mass shedding. I tested the improved model and found that the towers always exhibited a self-sustaining collapse for realistic values of the various input parameters. Nevertheless, while my model appeared to show that a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers was physically possible, I still had some doubts about collapse initiation. These doubts stemmed from the fact that my model assumes that the upper block of floors above the impact zone descends one storey under free fall, thereby providing more than enough energy to destroy the columns supporting the floor below and initiate a progressive collapse.

But did the collapse of each tower really begin with such a single floor failure? I studied the appropriate sections of the NIST Report seeking an answer to this question. It soon became apparent that the tipping of the upper section of each tower was a key feature of the collapse. Thus I began studying the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 and ultimately wrote two articles on this topic that were posted on 911Myths.

The research described in these articles showed that WTC 1 required almost 2 meters of downward displacement in the upper section of the building to initiate collapse. This is about two times the downward displacement required for the collapse of WTC 2, and six times NIST’s estimate of Dd(WTC 2) of about 30 cm based on its finite element computer model. In contrast, a simple energy analysis of the collapse shows that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. Further, the geometry of a “Leaning WTC Tower” with an asymmetric downward displacement of 30 cm implies a tilt angle of less than ½ degree. Remarkably, however, NIST suggest that tilt angles before collapse initiation were more than 4° for WTC 1 & 2. Thus the NIST Final Report first underestimates the downward displacements within the Twin Towers, only to later overestimate the initial tilt angles to justify the collapse.

A close look at the failure of WTC 2 shows that the collapse began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle ~ 2°, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 20°. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct. What appears to happen is that the upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis, as observed.

For most of 2006 I switched my attention to two important aspects of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: the pulverization of concrete and the sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile. First, I carried out an energy balance analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 that included the energy consumed in crushing concrete on one floor (234 MJ) and compared this to other contributions to the energy dissipated by the collapse. As expected, the plastic strain energy dissipated by the buckling of columns (284 MJ) was confirmed to be the largest drain on the kinetic energy driving the collapse, but the energy to pulverize the concrete was clearly an important additional energy sink. However, I also concluded that such energy sinks should be summed over two WTC floors per impact to allow for the simultaneous destruction of the uppermost floor of the lower fixed section, and the lowest floor of the descending section. Such an assumption leads to an energy decrement that still assures a self-sustaining progressive collapse of WTC 1 if the input kinetic energy is derived from a one-storey free fall of the upper block- a condition that must be modified in a tipping scenario.

The sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile proved to be more problematic. The NIST Report indicates that about 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers”, at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile when the Twin Towers collapsed. Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”- consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials - and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. The heat flux of a smoldering fire is typically ~ 8 kW/m2 from which we may calculate the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile. NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. It is a simple matter to show that this fuel would be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for no more than about 30 days. However, it was not until December 19th 2001, or 100 days after 9/11, that the Governor of New York, George Pataki, officially declared the WTC fires to be totally extinguished. We are left wondering what “stoked” the rubble pile fires beyond the expected 30 days.

Thus, by the start of 2007, I still had plenty of questions about the official version of the collapse of the Twin Towers. And this is essentially where I stand today. Unlike the self-assured posters on PhysOrg and JREF who claim to KNOW what happened to the Twin Towers, I remain a 9/11 agnostic.

And as a scientist I believe there is always room for doubt and for more research. In fact, that’s how I see research – a process of re-searching, of looking again. The NIST Report is a great start, but only that. It leaves some unanswered questions. It may satisfy the Arthurs (on PhysOrg) and the Gravys (on JREF) of this world, but not me. And my work experience in the Canadian nuclear industry has taught me to be skeptical of the “official” view - the consensus view - because it is usually politically motivated!

Finally, about my AP theory – it’s just that, a theory – but one that I believe is better than the current selection being offered by the conspiracy theorists. Sooner or later it will be replaced by another, and another, but unlike G. W. Bush, I am not bothered by “outrageous” theories…..

I’M ON THE ROAD TO FIND OUT

Cat Stevens
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 07:04 AM   #238
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,744
Very nice post Dr. Greening. I am curious about one thing, will you ever be satisfied with an answer for what happened? I am not saying that we should stop looking at the tower collapse, but is there a point where you would feel comfortable with a theory?
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 07:07 AM   #239
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Dr. Greening:

Welcome to the forum. I'm curious what you think about TruthSeekker1234 and his using your disagreements with the NIST report to to support his CT theory?

My second question is this. I think an scientific based debate over the WTC collapse is healthy. What have you done to work with either your peers or the authors and engineers of NIST to move the debate further?
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.

Last edited by DavidJames; 2nd April 2007 at 07:10 AM.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2007, 07:08 AM   #240
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,443
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
He drew first blood in post #10.

I'm game for an intelligent conversation, but so far I don't see that he's supported his contention -- very strongly worded -- that NIST is "seriously flawed." If he can back that up, then we can discuss it in perfect calm and respect.

Your move, Apollo20.
I do not believe that Apollo20 is referring to anything that has to do with thermate-thermite, and his ideas do have basis what I have seen and done tells me that this is a real possibility in the real physical Universe and something that could have went unobserved by Nist simply over looked.

http://www.cheresources.com/ironfires3.shtml

This is still under research, if you would like to help find out where and when accelerators were used on the concrete to cure it in cold weather, which slabs of concrete were poured in cold conditions.
This is an important discussion because there are other buildings, of similar construction to the twin towers.
I can not say more, at this time.

I believe Dr. Greening is being cautious, because he is now criticized by both sides for simply exploring possibilities, though the scientific method as best he can with his knowledge and his limited resources.
If you wish to criticize me than feel free to do so, I do not give a dam about it, I admit that I may be wrong, but my curiosity got me into this and it will not let me stop now! PS. I hope I am wrong, because if right thousands of lives in future fires could be at risk in similar buildings.
PS. Apollo20 is aware that sono Chemical reactions would effect any thermites-thermates in said twin towers, the likely hood that they could survive the plane crashes is almost 0 probably less.
I think he is proposing a concise cognitive theory, not a CT, he is just trying to add up a few loose ends.
Nist did not have unlimited funding or unlimited time, or a god like ability to view every aspect of the collapses, it was simply good people doing a hard job with what they had. There are always unanswered questions, loose ends, but nothing that needs to be included in loose change final cut.
Curiosity and honnest research, sometimes mean that someone must look at other aspects as possibilities as longs as they are possible in the known reality of the known universe and do not involve invisible elves with invisible explosives.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.