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

Frank Greening Refuted Easily

Kent1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK Kent. Stop pulling one over on us. Who are you, what is your real name, and who is behind the "Debunking" site?

You see? There can be good reasons to remain anonymous. My decision to come out of the closet was a gradual one. I hope I don't live to regret it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I hope I don't live to regret it.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".
 
Kent1 said:
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
Click to expand...

Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:
greening's energy transfers leave one hundred percent of the mass in the footprint, as he never allows for the fact that 90% of the debris was outside the footprint.

greening's initial impact focuses one hundred percent of the energy of the upper mass onto the 'floor', completely ignoring the vertical columns, and the impossible geometry of fitting something of a given size into something else of an equal size.

greening still uses the 3.7 (near) freefall initial drop.

greening ignores gordon ross' FAR more realistic momentum transfers.

greening doesn't mention the fact that more than concrete was instantly turned into dust IN HIS MATH. he allows only for the comminution of concrete, while ignoring the other 60% of the fine dust. okay, gypsum is not that hard to pulverize, but wood and paper and PEOPLE(also not mentioned in the dust anaylsis from greening, but WAS in the actual study) sure as hell are.

greening ignores the fact that the falling part is the first to be destroyed, prefering to use one floor up, one floor down.

greening admits, that even in his totally unrealistic model, the velocity should have been halved after the first impact(while of course, ignoring that the core is 'unhingeable' with it's continuously welded box columns, and never could have 'snapped' and gone into near freefall), and yet, that is not what is observed on video.


it's a losing battle. i don't know why greening wants to dig himself in deeper. he should just admit he's using unreal assumptions not grounded in reality. he contradicts himself by using all the falling masses' energy for crushing and bending and breaking(while using an unreal safety factor of 2), and then goes on to admit openly that most of the mass was not within the footprint. i think you see this, neu-fonze, and that is why you brought 'bouncing' into the fray.

gordon ross has a FAR superiour model, ie. a realistic one.
Click to expand...
 
Wow, all that proof of a mountain of debris instead of a crater and suddenly we're back to discussing the mathematical model.

Weird that TS doesn't want to discuss evidence to the contrary of his basic claim.

No, wait . . . never mind.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have.
Click to expand...

Yes and the people who understand physics on that board are handing him his a*** in much the same way as you've had yours delivered to you in this thread.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:
Click to expand...

Yes indeed TS and of course you totally agree with right?

Had you even bothered to read the replies you would have seen the counter arguments are far better and well constructed
Sorry Newton, Ross' model is the one that is wrong. He "double dips" on his energy deficit for sure. His "momentum loss" term is specious because he adds it to the energy input and output terms when in reality it is already part of those terms. The energy deficits are elastic and plastic strain energies or fracture energies (plus a bit of friction and acoustic energy). These lead to momentum losses. Momentum loss means WORK was done. How does Ross say his "momentum loss" term was created. Did it just come out of nothing, out of nowhere? "Momentum loss" was created by bending, stretching, squashing, fracturing, crushing, pulverizing material in the Towers because the collapse involved completely inelastic collisions. These terms are all covered by the energy transfer equations! Can't you see that? It's the energy that must be conserved, and that includes the energy of motion which is covered by the kinetic energy terms, NOT by the momentum terms AS WELL! Ross' way is simply NOT the way to do a collapse calculation as you can see from Greening's energy balance equation. You could use momentum equations to calculate initial and final velocities if you want to (and as Ross does), but he "pulls a fast-one" when he adds the momentum loss to the energy loss! As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers. So do the math! It really sounds like you're desperate to criticize Greening and praise Ross. I think I know why.... but I still don't see anything quantitative coming from your diatribes...........
Click to expand...

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=7650

If you want to quote the work of others you would do well to remember there is always a counter argument. This is why; unlike this post I rarely do it. I try to think for myself rather than simply copy and pasting the work of others from other web sites.

You should try it TS, its called thinking, making your own mind up and formulising your own opinions.
 
This is a good example of what I mean about how the CTist are the ones with the "Organized Strategy". We have someone posting almost the exact same arguments as TS here, but the counter-arguments are unique to the particular poster. For instance, this argument:

As for the energy to crush all the non-concrete items in the Twin Towers, you can include them if you want to, right down to the last friggin' styrofoam cup! But compared to the concrete and steel they are trivial. There is a reason they don't build skyscrapers out of plastics and cellulosics you know! I can crush and shred plastics with my bare hands, but steel and concrete are another story - they require lots of energy to deform and fracture. Gypsum offers some resistance, true, but its fracture energy is approximately ten times less than that of concrete and there was ten times MORE concrete that gypsum in the Towers.
Click to expand...

...is one I haven't seen before, but it is a pretty good one. This fellow clearly sat down and thought about it for a bit, which is something the CTists never seem to do, they just regurgitate the same old stuff. Never any original thought, never any updating due to new information, or anything.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
I doubt it. You appear to completely lack the ability to be embarrassed by your extreme foolishness.

You can't even admit there was a mountain of debris composed of absolutely mammoth pieces of the WTC - it wasn't "blown to kingdom come" and "turned into dust".
Click to expand...

This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1.
Image118.jpg
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This picture shows WTC1 and WTC2, and WTC6. WTC6 is 9 stories. It looks about 9 stories taller than WTC1. [qimg]http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image118.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I also see a great big crane. Was this taken Sept 11,2001?
Or was it taken sometime after the cleanup was underway, and after a lot of debris had already been cleared out?
 
TjW said:
I also see a great big crane. Was this taken Sept 11,2001?
Or was it taken sometime after the cleanup was underway, and after a lot of debris had already been cleared out?
Click to expand...

Definitely not taken on 9/11. As for that crane I saw it from my classroom window throughout most of 2002.

 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
OK Kent. Stop pulling one over on us. Who are you, what is your real name, and who is behind the "Debunking" site?

You see? There can be good reasons to remain anonymous. My decision to come out of the closet was a gradual one. I hope I don't live to regret it.
Click to expand...

Ace, I don't believe I ever critized someone for wanting to hide their identity publicly.
I've given my real name to many. Russell knows my real name. I certainly didn't send any CT sites e-mails about how I believed in their ideas.
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
what is your comment on the WTC's 8 story basement?
Click to expand...
Not only does the lidar show a large pile, the basements had a pancake collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html
Slurry Wall Animation
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html
Pancaked floors photos
"Numerous floors from the south tower that have pancaked during the collapse on 9-11-01."

Also why on earth would I expect most of the debris to remain in the footprint after hitting the ground.
I should also add some of the perimeter columns peeled outward like a banana upon collapse of the floors.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Someone called Newton over there is noticing the same things about Greening as I have. Here's Newton:
Click to expand...
If you read the thread you can see much of that explained. Even the comment before newtons is I see igorned.
 
Last edited:
A Bird's Eye View

GEORGE TAMARO: On September 12th, there were massive amounts of debris 60 to 70 feet above ground — the equivalent of a six- to seven-story building. World Trade Centers 1, 2, 3 and 7 were almost completely destroyed. WTC 6 had a massive hole in the center as a result of the collapse of the northern façade of the North Tower into the building. The overwhelming concern at that point was the damage to adjacent buildings and structural integrity of those buildings.
Click to expand...

The North Tower

GEORGE TAMARO: The North Tower came down almost directly within its footprints, so you had extraordinarily compact material. The pile within the footprint represented the full height of the tower — the remaining debris was compacted from street level down to the bedrock, 70 feet down. The fireman standing on the pile indicates the massive size. In some areas we found valleys of completely collapsed structures, in others, loose debris piles subject to subsequent collapse. Elsewhere, individual pieces of debris penetrated the ground and below grade structures.
Click to expand...

So, how much more before TS admits it wasn't a crater?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom