Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[CHF]

Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

Giving the twoofers more rope which they tie around their own necks.

 

[WildCat]

I'd much rather see Greening debate Gordon Ross, but I doubt that Ace would pay the airfare for someone who doesn't posit beam weapons or mini-nukes.

 

[T.A.M.]

ACE:

Once again, to my untrained eye, on first look, they both appear quite similar. I am not talking about a close examination of them. So you have any experts that agree with you, and your assertions about the WTC dust cloud, please list them. To me, they both churn out a slow moving cloud that waffs through the surrounding buildings. The color of the cloud is different...Personally, I'll wait for an experts verdict on the clouds.


Ron:

ACE is an expert in nothing 9/11, but is well versed in other peoples work. He is also obsessed with the topic, and likely has every detail of every issue memorized. To put Frank in their will not bode well for Frank unless you keep the topics pointedly toward his area of expertese. ACE will almost certainly pull the CTer "switch topics quickly and often".

If you stick to the WTC collapse initiation and mechanisms, I am sure Frank will do fine, however, I don't think that is going to happen.

Now put ACE up against Mark Roberts, or Gumboot, and you've got a more evenly matched contest. Put Ross up against Greening, and that is a bit of a better match...or S. Jones against him

My opinion.

TAM

Edit:

Ron - no there is nothing to be gained.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

Invite Judy Wood to be on the show with Greening too. Maybe the Laser Beam theories could finally be put to rest. It's good to have every theory looked at, no matter how ridiculous they are.

What scientific background does TS have? If he has none, then it's just going to be a complete slaughter. A lot of changing the subject going on, etc...

But I'm not one with a big scientific background, so yeah, just opinions.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

Stick with your day job. There's no future for you in an engineering field.

 

[Unfit4Command]

I would like to take this opportunity to commend you, Ron, for being the first person to agree to allow the 9/11 evidence to be presented on television, as I shall in my debate with Frank Greening. Hardfire is only local public access in New York, but it's great. You demonstrate courage where so many before you have not.

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

I do indeed learn things on the forums, that is why I spend so much effort in "hostile" territory. If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience, and the show will serve as a fine debunking document to spread far and wide.

So after researching the subject quite a bit, you decided that a laser beam from outerspace that "dustifies" steel makes the more sense than a gravity-driven collapse?

 

[Horatius]

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

ACE:

Ron:

ACE is an expert in nothing 9/11, but is well versed in other peoples work. He is also obsessed with the topic, and likely has every detail of every issue memorized. To put Frank in their will not bode well for Frank unless you keep the topics pointedly toward his area of expertese. ACE will almost certainly pull the CTer "switch topics quickly and often".

If you stick to the WTC collapse initiation and mechanisms, I am sure Frank will do fine, however, I don't think that is going to happen.

There might be a bit to be gained, if you could show a clear difference between how real science is done, vs. TS1234's "look at teh pictures" version.

But I do agree - you'll need a clear promise from TS to stick to a few topics - your half-hour format won't allow anything more. Choose these topics ahead of time, and clearly lay out the ground rules at the start of the debate, so that when TS tries to switch topics, it will be clear he's violating his agreement.

But yeah, I expect the actual debate to have about as much substance as we see here. Greening: "Here's some evidence." TS: "Fake fakey fake! Look at teh pictures!"

But maybe, just maybe, Greening can finally get TS to understand the concept of a model of the collapse. Even now, TS continues to assert that the model that Greening used represents Greening's actual belief about how the collapses actually evolved, rather than just being a model that allows us to consider the energy requirements of the collapse.

 

[T.A.M.]

So after researching the subject quite a bit, you decided that a laser beam from outerspace that "dustifies" steel makes the more sense than a gravity-driven collapse?

It makes me laugh when I see it written in such a way. You have, in such a short sentence, brought out the rediculousness of their entire line of thinking. We get so caught up with debating these people, that we forget to stand back for a moment, reflect on what they are actually proposing. If we did this more often, the humor would make things much less hostile...I think.

TAM

 

[Peephole]

I honestly think we need to establish a rule [at least of thumb] here. If a CTer presents a theory based entirely on personal, non-expert [mis]interpretation of a 9/11 video (be it one of the mockumentaries or simply video of the event), s/he should be dismissed out of hand until s/he provides something better.

I agree. This isn't discussion worthy, it's just the nonsensical ravings of a retard or lunatic. Threads like these should just be closed or deleted.

 

[Horatius]

Threads like these should just be closed or deleted.

Except then we'd be almost as bad as the twoofers at places like LCF or PfT, and they still wouldn't understand that they are wrong. They'd take such actions as evidence that we're "afraid" to address their arguments.

We'll likely never convince the troo bleevers like Ace, so the best we can hope for is to let everyone else know exactly how whacko they really are. Unfortunately, to do that, we have to put up with their insanity.

 

[Mancman]

Where do you suppose those 104 (not 110, the bottom 6 floors were a lobby) floorslabs would end up in a pancaking scenario?

They would hit the ground floor at over 100mph, a ground floor which was above a 7 story basement. If the floors penetrated into the basement - would they be visible in any photos taken at ground level or above? Yes or no will suffice.

Truthseeker, this is the second time I have asked this and been ignored. Will you continue to ignore this and go on and on spouting your garbage '1% concrete visible' claims?

 

[HeyLeroy]

Sounds like it might be Steve Jones or Greg Jenkins. Whoever said that was looking at a sample. What was the chain of custody? Was it representative of the whole mess? Are we to believe any of the published dust analyses? For all I know, the dust might have been 25% iron.

Based on that sample provided, the author might be telling the truth.

Unrelated to your post, I think it's pretty clear now that Jones and Jenkins are disinfo. They flat refuse to look at the data.

Yep, it's Jones.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.

 

[Retrograde]

OMFG! It all makes sense now - Larry Niven was able to devote his life to writing SF in part because he inherited a lot of money - that his grandfather made in the OIL BUSINESS!

And was involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, IIRC. And if not, it makes for a good story, which is just as good as true, if I believe what I read on conspiracy sites.

Yes, you're definitely on to something. Or on something. Whatever

 

[Unfit4Command]

It makes me laugh when I see it written in such a way. You have, in such a short sentence, brought out the rediculousness of their entire line of thinking. We get so caught up with debating these people, that we forget to stand back for a moment, reflect on what they are actually proposing. If we did this more often, the humor would make things much less hostile...I think.

TAM

I've been doing this a lot lately and I've become a more laid back debunker. I especially like the line, "The official story is the conspiracy theory!"
Sit back for a second and think about what you're calling a conspiracy theory, and what you take for fact, and you should realize how ridiculous a majority of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am sure if we searched the twoofer forums hard enough, going back about a year or so ago, we could find any number of quotes from ACE stating, in no uncertain terms, that Stephen Jones was absolutely right in his analysis, and that the WTCs were brought down through Explosive based Demolition.

Now that ACE has moved to the JUDY/MORGAN/DARTH VADER camp, It is so easy for him to dismiss his former hero...pathetic.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

Ace made an extraordinarily generous offer to cover Dr. Greening's travel expenses to NYC. I think Greening deserves to be heard, even if Hardfire, with its tiny audience, is the only platform I can provide. This thread reveals my problem.

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

If Dr. Greening is reading this, please accept this advice: Don't book your flight until the check clears.

Ace has pulled this stunt before. Maybe he's sincere this time, and maybe not.

A brief perusal of this thread alone is sufficient to verify that Ace will be completely outclassed. However, much like the famous Gravy vs. Looser Than Words debate, Dr. Greening's appearance may prove to be a useful resource even if Ace does nothing but sit there and look foolish.

 

[Horatius]

And was involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, IIRC. And if not, it makes for a good story, which is just as good as true, if I believe what I read on conspiracy sites.

Yes, you're definitely on to something. Or on something. Whatever

Or on someone. It's amazing what guys will do for a woman....

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Where do you suppose those 104 (not 110, the bottom 6 floors were a lobby) floorslabs would end up in a pancaking scenario?

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory. If the floors had pancaked, they quite possibly would have penetrated the ground floor and piled up in the basement. The core would have remained standing, and there would be something like a 104 layer sandwich: Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; etc. We observe nothing of the sort.

They would hit the ground floor at over 100mph, a ground floor which was above a 7 story basement. If the floors penetrated into the basement - would they be visible in any photos taken at ground level or above? Yes or no will suffice.

Your question is falsly premised, ala "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". I try to make it a habit not to answer to such questions.

 

[gumboot]

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory.

Does anyone else ever get sick of Troothers making assertions about things when they clearly haven't even studied the thing in question?

NIST did not "abandon" anything. They had a hypothesis that the collapse initiation was caused by floor truss failure (a "pancake collapse"), but rejected this hypothesis in favour of the current standing one - a collapse initiated via the sagging of the floor trusses.

This has nothing to do with what happened AFTER the collapse initiation. The floors pancaked onto each other after the initial failure. This is clearly evident and well documented. NIST do not dispute this.

And you're exactly right, pancaking floors would leave the core standing. Which is why the core was still standing after the floors had collapsed. I'm glad we agree on that.

-Gumboot

 

[Mancman]

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory. If the floors had pancaked, they quite possibly would have penetrated the ground floor and piled up in the basement. The core would have remained standing, and there would be something like a 104 layer sandwich: Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; etc. We observe nothing of the sort.

We observe nothing of the sort in the photos you cite as evidence because the 'sandwich' was underground.