Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[beachnut]

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

Are those rocks pulverized at ground zero, big pieces of dust?

Texas dust, yes sir, we have big pieces of dust.


What are you talking about. Seems like there are big pieces of dust at ground zero. Oops there is some floor parts there also!

 

[einsteen]

A quick look to the pdf, do I read it good that another amount of 0.6GJ is required to crush concrete of one floor. He then concludes it is a symmetric effect and thefore 1.2GJ is needed. The impact kinetic energy is still about 2.4GJ, still assumed to be a free fall (that can only be the case of the building is 'pulled' at that moment, but allright then). What I don't understand is if his original value to break the storey (0.6GJ) is also taken into account, I don't think so at a first look, because in his first article he also distinguishes that from the energy to crush concrete. We are almost at the critical energy level...

 

[MRC_Hans]

TS, do you smoke?

If you do, I advice you to be very careful, lest your strawmen catch fire.

1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. .... etc.

Who says so? Does Greening say they "anihilate"? Of course they don't. Nothing is anihilated. Part of the material is ejected from the collapse zone, in the form of dust and larger debris, which rains down on the surroundings. Obviously, this material is out of the collapse energy quotation. However, if all, or even the larger part, of the material went that way, what we would observe after the collapse would be a crater with a crater wall around the original footprint of the building. Did we observe that? Not at all! While the surroundings were littered with debris, and a veritable layer of dust, the original position of the buildings were marked by high piles of wreckage. Piles that were much higher than they looked, because they filled up several underground levels as well.

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.

Only according to your misrepresentation.

Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.

Then, where did all the wreckage come from?

Hans

 

[Brainache]

I asked this question of our good mate Ace in a different thread, but I didn't see a reply so I will ask it again:

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR BRAIN?

 

[Moving On]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

 

[Oliver]

Genlemen...

It does not help if we fight each other instead finding out
what exactly was wrong or false this tragic day.

Russel doesn´t have it easy in here with all people who
disagree. Making his live even harder by personal attacks
seems to be unfair in terms of what JREF is about.

Thank you,
- Oliver

 

[Ratatoskr]

"Evidence they can't handle" <-- Love that one...

It's amazing to me that some people who are capable of writing apparently can't read.

Skeptic: "Here! Evidence!" [shows calculations and facts to troofer]
Troofer: "Nope, didn't see anything. Now debunk my google videos!"

 

[Horatius]

In thinking about this overnight, I'd also like to point out that Greening's new paper is still a model. It's not reality, and not intended to be. He has deliberately chosen conditions so as to make a progressive collapse least likely, so that the final numbers he gets in terms of the energy budget to destroy the floors while still collapsing are almost certainly higher than what actually happened. He was trying to get a reasonable upper bound for the energy needed, so as to have a position that would be very defensible against the inevitable CTist counterattack.

He's assumed the most efficient concrete breaking model, even though he knows such breaking isn't very efficient at the best of times. He also assumes that each floor was impacted symmetrically and simultaneously, which is also unlikely. There was almost certainly some portion of the floor that would have been impacted first, leading to an assymetrical fracture of the concrete, which would tend to leave larger pieces, IMO.

Just read his reasoning for only modelling WTC 1:

In this report we will focus on the collapse of WTC 1 since the upper section of this Tower had much less kinetic energy available to pulverize concrete than the energy available from the collapse of WTC 2. It follows that the energy budget for the collapse of WTC 1, compared to WTC 2, represents the more stringent test of the “natural collapse” hypothesis. In other words, if the available evidence demonstrates that the collapse of WTC 1 released sufficient energy to account for the observed pulverization of the concrete in the building, the collapse of WTC 2 would have been even more energetically favorable to the pulverization of concrete.

There's a few other similar assumptions, made to favour the CT side, so as to have a value that's an upper bound. I think if you were to ask Greening about it, he'd concur. He's set himself the hardest task, so that any errors or omissions will tend to make the collapse senario more likely, not less.

As I said before, that how real science is done. Honest science. Not biased cherry-picking CTist "science".

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Skeptic: "Here! Evidence!" [shows calculations and facts to troofer]
Troofer: "Nope, didn't see anything. Now debunk my google videos!"

Skeptic: Ok
*debunked*
Truther: No one cares about that, strawman, stop ignoring the real issues

 

[Harlequin]

You forgot one fine detail Harlequin, at the second stage of collapse the block has an end velocity of over 50m/s, it hits the ground with that speed, if you let it start at the top the speed is zero. I admit the point mass model has more kinetic energy and momentum when it starts at the top than a block falling as a whole.

The point is that this model of collapse (now the "old" model) basically separates the collapse of the top section from the collapse of the bottom section. Obviously there's no real reason to think this is what really happened, but it does provide a simple model for calculation.

Assuming only one floor ever collapses at a time, but that the floors are crushed faster and faster as the building mass accelerates, it shouldn't matter which stage happens first. Whichever floor collapses first will collapse in time "x" and the next will collapse in some fraction of this time due to the faster moving and heavier mass that hits it. This same process repeats for each floor, with x getting smaller and smaller.

Whether the floor collapsing is part of the top or the bottom doesn't matter., because it will join with the accelerating mass in the same way, regardless. Why would it matter if the last floor to be crushed is at the bottom of the larger piece or the top of the smaller piece?

Although I have not read the "new theory" *Gasp* it seems to me that it is only making more explicit the concept that the two sections are collapsing simultaneously and that some mass is lost to a debris cloud and so does not form a part of the accelerating mass.

I say "lost", not because it disappears, but because (as is obvious in the exhaustive video evidence) some of it falls outside of the footprint. I mentioned 50% earlier because it really doesn't matter. The mass that is falling on the bottom section is huge. You could probably lose 90% of it and the collapse would still proceed (although perhaps a small amount slower at first).

When you gather your "evidence" from video, you have to realize that a significant amount of collapse will have happened before you are able to see it. Firstly because acceleration from zero is not immediately obvious and secondly because most of the collapse occurs in the building interior and so it cannot be seen.

 

[twinstead]

So not only is the very definition of compelling evidence in the way of troothers and skeptics coming together, we can't even agree on the definition of debunked.

IMO, TS1234 hasn't a leg to stand on, is completely misinterpreting Greening AND his paper, and has been soundly debunked on numerous topics on numerous threads.

According to Russell and him, TS1234 is kicking our collective butts with the truth and undeniable logic, which are unable to handle.

Sigh. It's as if we are speaking two different languages.

 

[Gravy]

Genlemen...

It does not help if we fight each other instead finding out
what exactly was wrong or false this tragic day.

Russel doesn´t have it easy in here with all people who
disagree. Making his live even harder by personal attacks
seems to be unfair in terms of what JREF is about.

Thank you,
- Oliver

Er, Oliver, Russell just encouraged the no-planer who thinks "high-energy" space weapons were used on 9/11, and who's starting a "Hunt the rubble" website, to "Keep up the good work."

If we have the evidence, is it a "personal attack" to call Russell an ignorant intellectual coward?

 

[stateofgrace]

Truthseeker,

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Yes keep up the good work BS 4-5=9

Keep ignoring all the posts that correct your claims, keep ignoring all the evidence that is presented to you. Keep ignoring common sense and logic and above all keep having a laugh. Sidestep every fact that makes you look silly and on no account offer up an alternative thesis.

Oh wait, you have been doing, so yes good job, keep it up.

 

[rwguinn]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Yep--we have an "Organized Strategy"
It's called the Scientific Method
If you fail to use it, we go after you. Wishful thinking absolutely will not cut it here.

 

[Moving On]

Er, Oliver, Russell just encouraged the no-planer who thinks "high-energy" space weapons were used on 9/11, and who's starting a "Hunt the rubble" website, to "Keep up the good work."

If we have the evidence, is it a "personal attack" to call Russell an ignorant intellectual coward?

I commented on this thread only!!

Should ignorant and intellectual be used back to back like that?

 

[Moving On]

Yep--we have an "Organized Strategy"
It's called the Scientific Method
If you fail to use it, we go after you. Wishful thinking absolutely will not cut it here.

Try again.

Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html#Heading7

 

[Pardalis]

Russell, care to explain how the WTC were "unconventional" CDs?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Try again.

Try not cherry-picking.

Full quote

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

 

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell

Qui se ressemble s'assemble.

Here is a thread started by Truthseeker, just so you know what kind of person you are complimenting:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64540

 

[Loss Leader]

Should ignorant and intellectual be used back to back like that?

I doubt that Gravy called you ignorant, an intellectual, and a coward.

I believe he stated that if he had the evidence, it would not be a personal attack to call you ignorant. It would also not be a personal attack to call you an intellectual coward - one whose cowardice is confined to matters of the intellect.

If you cannot read the phrase "ignorant intellectual coward" correctly, it only strengthens the evidence that you are, in fact, ignorant and an intellectual coward.