Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[beachnut]

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

Hello, Russell

What evidence are you talking about?

Russell explain why TS's evidence is faulty or a real attempt at anything?

Russell are you serious?

TS's stuff is not evidence, it is a faulty comparison. Almost proves Greening's work.

What do you think Russell? Are you really interested in truth, or are you just another CT guy with no evidence?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.

Yawn.

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder...

Except it all wasn't.

...and ejected outside the footprint of the building.

Except it all wasn't.

It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

Except there is.

 

[beachnut]

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

One day you will have to show us why the tons of debris sitting on 19 acres of land, some 3 or 4 to 5 stories high is not really the WTC towers.

Sorry, but here are 5 stories of rubble in a street next to the WTC!

5 plus stories of rubble, large chunks, big pieces, large rock size, car size, people size, elephant size rubble, steel, concrete, etc

So despite the fact the towers were 95 percent air, leaving only 5 stories of junk to spread over 19 acres and the tower being what? 2 acres.

Who else shares your ideas on this minority position?

Can you point to scientific papers that support your position?

Are there any experts that support your position?

Darn seems like you are mising the ability to see from photos that you are wrong.

Looks like the missing mass was right there in the street.

 

[stateofgrace]

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.

Really BS?

Everything from inside the Towers was simply blown outside the footprint in a fine powder?

All the steel floor trusses, all the heavy duty machinery that was sat on the floors simply rendered naturally along with concrete floor covering into fine dust and blown out of the side of the Towers.

Is this what you are saying BS?

 

[Roger_Harris]

Let's back up. Yes or no, did Frank Greening say this:

Jeez, this is getting ridiculous. I believe at least 6 people tried to explain to you that you weren't even understanding what that "simple model" was and wasn't intended to be, yet you keep flogging the same dead "I don't get it, so Greening must be wrong" horse. But despite your unsubstantiated objections to Greening's method in that paper, that "simple model" seems to come up with a pretty accurate time for the collapse, doesn't it.

Then, you demonstrate that you don't understand another Greening paper -- on a completely different subject! -- you try to claim that Greening has "changed his mind," but he's still wrong because his calculations don't jive with your imaginary description of what happened. And to prove your "argument," you point us to a video and demonstrate that you can't even accurately describe what's clearly shown, yet claim to somehow know what's going on inside the building.

Then, Russell comes along and puts a huge dent in his own credibility by patting you on the head and telling you what a good job you're doing!

I'll tell you what's starting to annoy me: your handle. Surely, you can come up with something that more accurately describes your objectives here.

 

[Kent1]

Let's see. I have a song linked from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth homepage, with my real name. I email you with my real name. Does it really sound like I'm trying to "pull one over on you" for all time? No.

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.

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

 

[R.Mackey]

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.

You were "emboldened" before you ever even registered here, so don't try to pin this on us.

Perhaps they won't talk to you because they see there's no point? You've been carping about "99% of the WTC towers was crushed to dust" since your very first post here, and thousands of corrections later, you still don't get it.

The world and its experts do not owe you an education. You need to participate.

 

[Kent1]

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

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

 

[Horatius]

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

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

I find it very interesting that some CTists accuse us of having an organized strategy:

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

...but whenever I follow any of these links to discussions on other boards, it's always the CTists who are spouting the same old arguments, worded in almost exactly the same way, using all the same numbers. It seems like the only ones who can actually come up with a new idea on their own are the outright crazy ones like Christophera.

So who is it that has the organized strategy? Should we start accusing them of being paid shills for Alex Jones and Dylan Avery?

 

[einsteen]

But despite your unsubstantiated objections to Greening's method in that paper, that "simple model" seems to come up with a pretty accurate time for the collapse, doesn't it.

That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

 

[Kent1]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

Honestly I wish we were better organized. The CT'ers are far more organized than us.

 

[Roger_Harris]

That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.

Total baloney. TS claims that Greening's analysis (which only estimates a collapse time) can't be accurate because the method Greening used (separating the collapse into two phases that can be calculated separately and then added together) doesn't match what really happened. Yet, the calculation is in good agreement with the observation, which lends support to thinking that the method is basically sound. That was the only "argument" I presented there, which doesn't remotely resemble your black-and-white nonsense. I couldn't even figure out what you were getting at until I read this:

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

Why, yes, I do realize that Greening's analysis in that particular paper doesn't consider what initiated the collapse; it only estimates the collapse time. It would appear that you have lost the plot: TS is the one who is trying to read more into the analysis than was intended, and apparentlly basing his objections merely on his own misunderstanding of the purpose of that analysis.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That is the best argument I've heard in years. It doesn't matter whether the models are realistic or not as long as the collapse time is the same order. Old TV programs are black and white, Zebra's are black and white hence zebra's are old tv programs.

isnt that more a CT argument? its fell as fast as demolition so it was one?

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

this is where ockhams razor comes in handy




BTW on old TV shows zebras appeared a uniform gray color (mr ed)

 

[Horatius]

Do you realize that a controlled demolition model also leads to the same collapse time, i.e. if it is pulled at some strategic parts of the building (not a complete wiring of the damned thing) it will also collapse with that collapse time. Create a model in which only the upper block is pulled and probablly a few below to give it sufficient fall speed and it will go throught the whole building, theoretically. You even don't need a plane in that case.

Yes, I think it's safe to say we all realize using explosives to collapse the building at the same point would likely produce the same effect.

The point is, the Troothers are the ones claiming that a pure gravity collapse must take far longer than was observed. This calculation is intended to show that this argument is without merit. The troothers would have us believe that CD is the only possible way the towers could have fallen as they did, but Greening's paper shows that there is more than just that one possibility. It is all the other evidence that leads us to accept the gravity collapse due to impact and fires, rather than CD, not just this one argument. It's just one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing.

 

[Horatius]

Of course we'll be accused of having an "organized strategy". They're coming to the proverbial gunfight with a knife. Their world is full of differing theories and logical fallacies. When they face us and our use of scientific methodology, logical consistency, and a single "theory" to defend it is going to appear that we're all working out of the same playbook; because we are. That playbook is called the Evidence Based Conclusion.

Yes, but they seem to think it's more like we all get our instructions from one central source, without regard to our own analysis or knowledge. How many times have they accused us of having Gravy as Our Leader?

My point is that their paranoid Borg-like image of us is actually a far beter description of them. Seriously, when was the last time you saw one of them bring up a new argument? Or any argument that isn't in a paper or video of one of the big guns of the CT movement?

And as a counter example, when was the last time you saw a big crowd of debunkers wearing the same shirts, being lead by Gravy with a bullhorn, shouting down Alex Jones? Although that might be fun, come to think of it

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Really BS?

Everything from inside the Towers was simply blown outside the footprint in a fine powder?

All the steel floor trusses, all the heavy duty machinery that was sat on the floors simply rendered naturally along with concrete floor covering into fine dust and blown out of the side of the Towers.

Is this what you are saying BS?

It sure looks that way, yes.

The above picture of WFC 2 and 3 is already in HUNT THE RUBBLE, but thank you. I think it is safe to say that this rubble landed outside the footprint. Way outside the footprint.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Total baloney. TS claims that Greening's analysis (which only estimates a collapse time) can't be accurate because the method Greening used (separating the collapse into two phases that can be calculated separately and then added together) doesn't match what really happened. Yet, the calculation is in good agreement with the observation, . . .

No, it isn't. For the fifth time, at least. Maybe 6th. Greening's calculations are to be ignored because his assumptions, as he explains them, are totally at odds with observed reality. The top block does not stay intact as it "falls" down through the structure. This is Greening's assumption, and I reject it. Next.

 

[stateofgrace]

It sure looks that way, yes.

The above picture of WFC 2 and 3 is already in HUNT THE RUBBLE, but thank you. I think it is safe to say that this rubble landed outside the footprint. Way outside the footprint.

Read the question again BS, I am not talking about just the concrete.

Read the question again, please before you make yourself look even sillier.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'm so lost. I thought the CTers argued the towers fell inside their own foortprints because it is somehow reminiscent of a controlled demolition. Now Troofseeker451 says that the fact that they didn't proves a controlled demolition.

Have they given up the inside the footprint thing? Are they split on this point? What's the deal over there in cuckooland?