Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

GregoryUrich · 30th August 2008, 12:43 PM

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.

firecoins · 30th August 2008, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

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.

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.

Tbone · 30th August 2008, 01:01 PM

Hm, he got it out so quickly after the report was released. I call Inside Job.

dudalb · 30th August 2008, 01:10 PM

So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther?

kookbreaker · 30th August 2008, 01:13 PM

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.

beachnut · 30th August 2008, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther?

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.

enrique · 30th August 2008, 01:25 PM

He admitted he was wrong!!!???

kookbreaker · 30th August 2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by enrique

He admitted he was wrong!!!???

More like he backed off an attack without admitting he was defeated. Its been a while and even watching people deal with Greening was exhausting.

ElMondoHummus · 30th August 2008, 02:49 PM

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.

mrbaracuda · 30th August 2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Greenberg

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.”

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:

Originally Posted by NIST

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.

I can see some deformation in this video:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

But I am tired and on my way to bed.

chillzero · 30th August 2008, 05:13 PM

Off topic posts moved here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=117467

Responding to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By:chillzero

Norseman · 30th August 2008, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

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.

Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed:

Quote:

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.

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.

ElMondoHummus · 30th August 2008, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Norseman

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.

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.

GregoryUrich · 31st August 2008, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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.

Dr. Greening is discussing this issue at The 9/11 Forum. Feel free to follow/join the discussion there.

mrbaracuda · 31st August 2008, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Greening

This was posted last night on the well-known 9/11 fantasy site JREF by someone who calls himself NORSEMAN

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

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.

Crazy Chainsaw · 31st August 2008, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by firecoins

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.

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.

T.A.M. · 31st August 2008, 07:12 AM

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

lapman · 31st August 2008, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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

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.

metamars · 31st August 2008, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

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.

As long as Dr. Greening doesn't submit a daft critique of WTC 7 withering, that's fine with me!

WildCat · 31st August 2008, 09:47 AM

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.

A W Smith · 31st August 2008, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

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.

RedIbis · 31st August 2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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.

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

boloboffin · 31st August 2008, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

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.

SDC · 31st August 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.

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.

Profanz · 31st August 2008, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

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.

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.

beachnut · 31st August 2008, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Profanz

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.

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.

Profanz · 31st August 2008, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

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.

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?

Profanz · 31st August 2008, 05:03 PM

double

mrbaracuda · 31st August 2008, 05:25 PM

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.

rwguinn · 31st August 2008, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by mrbaracuda

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:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

But I am tired and on my way to bed.

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.

ktesibios · 31st August 2008, 06:54 PM

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?

DC · 31st August 2008, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

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.

And what scale did they use?

DC · 31st August 2008, 10:37 PM

when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?

Corsair 115 · 31st August 2008, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by ktesibios

So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results?

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.

DC · 31st August 2008, 11:21 PM

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.

AZCat · 1st September 2008, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?

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".

DC · 1st September 2008, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

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".

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?

DC · 1st September 2008, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by AZCat

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".

how usefull is his visualisation when you do not know how much the deflection is?

Heiwa · 1st September 2008, 02:02 AM

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.

mrbaracuda · 1st September 2008, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

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?

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'?

Now much about you makes more sense.

30th August 2008, 12:43 PM	#1
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,316	Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts 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.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

30th August 2008, 12:44 PM	#2
firecoins Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New York Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich 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. 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 by firecoins; 30th August 2008 at 12:46 PM.

30th August 2008, 01:01 PM	#3
Tbone Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,448	Hm, he got it out so quickly after the report was released. I call Inside Job.
Tbone Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,448

30th August 2008, 01:13 PM	#5
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,385	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.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-

30th August 2008, 01:25 PM	#7
enrique Student Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 26	He admitted he was wrong!!!???
enrique Student Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 26

30th August 2008, 01:10 PM	#4
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 57,759	So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther?

30th August 2008, 01:25 PM	#6
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,110	Originally Posted by dudalb So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther? 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.

30th August 2008, 01:31 PM	#8
kookbreaker Evil Fokker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 14,385	Originally Posted by enrique He admitted he was wrong!!!??? More like he backed off an attack without admitting he was defeated. Its been a while and even watching people deal with Greening was exhausting.
	__________________ www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-

30th August 2008, 02:49 PM	#9
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,281	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.
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

30th August 2008, 05:45 PM	#12
Norseman Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Norway Posts: 643	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich 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. Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed: Quote: 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. 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.

30th August 2008, 08:50 PM	#13
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 12,281	Originally Posted by Norseman 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. 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.
	__________________ "AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

31st August 2008, 04:01 AM	#14
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus 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. Dr. Greening is discussing this issue at The 9/11 Forum. Feel free to follow/join the discussion there.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil Last edited by GregoryUrich; 31st August 2008 at 04:02 AM.

31st August 2008, 04:08 AM	#15
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	Originally Posted by Greening This was posted last night on the well-known 9/11 fantasy site JREF by someone who calls himself NORSEMAN Something tells me I am not supposed to take this character seriously. 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.
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	Last edited by mrbaracuda; 31st August 2008 at 04:32 AM.

31st August 2008, 05:10 AM	#16
Crazy Chainsaw Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 7,279	Originally Posted by firecoins 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. 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.

31st August 2008, 07:12 AM	#17
T.A.M. Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 20,795	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

31st August 2008, 09:19 AM	#18
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	Originally Posted by T.A.M. 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 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.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,717	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

31st August 2008, 09:20 AM	#19
metamars Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,207	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich 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. As long as Dr. Greening doesn't submit a daft critique of WTC 7 withering, that's fine with me!
	__________________ JFK Fantasy Theory Media, politicians conspire to hide $60 Trillion CAFRs Rockefeller's 911 Precognition Expert Witness on CIA + FBI DISINFO 9/11 "Conspiracies" + Defactualisation of Analysis Left Gatekeepers

31st August 2008, 09:47 AM	#20
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	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.
	__________________ Vive la liberté!

31st August 2008, 10:16 AM	#21
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	Originally Posted by WildCat 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. 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.
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	__________________ 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; 31st August 2008 at 10:31 AM.

31st August 2008, 10:19 AM	#22
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	Originally Posted by WildCat 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. Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,899	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

31st August 2008, 10:30 AM	#23
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	Originally Posted by RedIbis Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive. 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.
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

31st August 2008, 11:27 AM	#24
SDC Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,244	Originally Posted by RedIbis Excellent analysis of the article. I particularly appreciate your use of specific quotes when criticising his work. Very persuasive. 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.
SDC Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 2,244

31st August 2008, 12:39 PM	#25
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by A W Smith 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. 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 Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

31st August 2008, 02:52 PM	#26
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 26,110	Originally Posted by Profanz 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. 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.

31st August 2008, 04:56 PM	#27
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Originally Posted by beachnut 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. 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?
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932

31st August 2008, 05:03 PM	#28
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	double
Profanz Muse Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 932	Last edited by Profanz; 31st August 2008 at 05:05 PM.

31st August 2008, 05:25 PM	#29
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797	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.
mrbaracuda Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 3,797

31st August 2008, 06:54 PM	#31
ktesibios Worthless Aging Hippie Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,493	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?
	__________________ Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

31st August 2008, 09:59 PM	#32
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by rwguinn 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. And what scale did they use?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

31st August 2008, 10:37 PM	#33
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

31st August 2008, 11:04 PM	#34
Corsair 115 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 14,519	Originally Posted by ktesibios So the purpose of a graphical output in modeling software is to help a knowledgeable user visualize the results? 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.
	__________________ "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

31st August 2008, 11:21 PM	#35
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	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.
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

1st September 2008, 12:47 AM	#36
AZCat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672	Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney when you use a scale other than 1:1, do you usualy show the scale of your visualisation? 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 Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,672

1st September 2008, 01:02 AM	#37
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by AZCat 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". 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?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064

1st September 2008, 01:03 AM	#38
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064	Originally Posted by AZCat 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". how usefull is his visualisation when you do not know how much the deflection is?
DC Banned Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 23,064