NIST Petition Demands Corrections

[Horatius]

Additionally, Dr. Greening's opinion of the posters on this forum has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the counter-arguments the posters of this forum make against CT claims.

And isn't it pretty much a classic appeal to authority anyways?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Dr. Frank Greening (aka Apollo20) quote;

"Researchers are under pressure to get the right results. The right results aren't always the right results, they are the results that the company wants, or the organization wants and if you get bad results, ie. embarrassing results, or controversial results..uhmm they might try and suppress you. And I think this happens everywhere and it's a crying shame and I think it's a big problem, in science, and industry and in government and unfortunately the universities are a party to this"

So, they're sending a petition to the very same folks who forced NIST to come to THEIR conclusions? What's the point of that?

If I were they, I would skip complaining to the government and publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. If their complaints have merit, and aren't just a way to keep their gullible minions on the leash, then it'll be published and you won't have to worry about govt supression.

Unless, of course, all the peer-reveiwed journals are in on it, in which case it's hopeless and they may as well just cash in their chips right now.

 

[rwguinn]

So, they're sending a petition to the very same folks who forced NIST to come to THEIR conclusions? What's the point of that?

If I were they, I would skip complaining to the government and publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. If their complaints have merit, and aren't just a way to keep their gullible minions on the leash, then it'll be published and you won't have to worry about govt supression.

Unless, of course, all the peer-reveiwed journals are in on it, in which case it's hopeless and they may as well just cash in their chips right now.

I won't even insist on a "peer reviewed journal" iff:
1. The source of all data is listed and verifiable;
2. The names and resume' of all authors are available and verifiable;
3. The resume's of all analysts, reviewers, and checkers are listed and verifiable;
4. all assumptions, calculations, and models are listed in detail;
5. the source of all financial backing for personnel, computer usage, and computer programs is made available;
6. Computer programs used are industry-accepted and properly licensed to the users--verifiably

 

[Miragememories]

Why are you changing the subject?

Dr. Greening's approach and attitude were regrettable. However, if you follow that thread, you'll see where he and I had a meaningful conversation -- and I demonstrated to him what was wrong with his argument. Without running back to the apron of NIST.

If you think Dr. Greening is 'right on,' then you must also accept his conclusion that 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job. Agree?

I feel he was 'right on' in those remarks of his that I quoted.

Regarding his beliefs about the WTC, I believe he stated he's an ignostic at this point in time.

He feels you folks, the JREF NISTians, are too tied to NIST's apron strings!

MM

 

[R.Mackey]

What difference does that make, if our conclusions are correct?

And by "our," I mean both the JREF average viewpoint, and Dr. Greening.

 

[T.A.M.]

MM:

You are harping an aweful lot on the NIST thing MM...makes me think you've got little else to lay your hat on.

You are acting like the kid at school who would mock "He's not your friend anymore...nahnahanha..nahnahanha".

You are a hypocrit that has on many occasions complained about how JREFers treat people on this board, yet you yourself act just as bad or worse.

Do you actually have any comments to make, or discussion to be had on an element of the 9/11 attacks?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

I feel he was 'right on' in those remarks of his that I quoted.

Regarding his beliefs about the WTC, I believe he stated he's an ignostic at this point in time.

He feels you folks, the JREF NISTians, are too tied to NIST's apron strings!

MM

Dr Greening was talking about his opinions, and they are not facts but antidotal evidence of how engineers/researchers may behave. I have to tell you he is wrong. You must be able to separate opinions from facts. He may think like his opinions of those topics, but as an engineer I am not like that, thus making him wrong; his ideas are not correct on researchers, they are opinions. No facts just talk.

His ideas on the NISTonians is pure BS opinion also. He has no ideas how anyone at JREF came to a conclusion. He needs to stick to facts.

You have a false idea on the NISTonian opinion also. Please present some facts to back up your hearsay agreement with your now "Greentonian" cherry picking quote post.

 

[Miragememories]

Dr Greening's ideas are not correct on researchers, they are opinions. No facts just talk.

His ideas on the NISTonians is pure BS opinion also. He has no ideas how anyone at JREF came to a conclusion. He needs to stick to facts.

You have a false idea on the NISTonian opinion also. Please present some facts to back up your hearsay agreement with your now "Greentonian" cherry picking quote post.

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

MM

 

[Daald]

I guess if you don't have evidence you would consider it a taunt.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Apparently, MM missed this the first time around

Additionally, Dr. Greening's opinion of the posters on this forum has no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the counter-arguments the posters of this forum make against CT claims.

Also, MM, if you dislike the posters in this subforum so much, why are you still posting in it?

 

[Miragememories]

What difference does that make, if our conclusions are correct?

And by "our," I mean both the JREF average viewpoint, and Dr. Greening.

And how does one measure this average JREF viewpoint?

Dr. Greening has made it quite clear that he is not married to the beliefs of the NIST Report and is at odds with the average JREFer, I quote;
"In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory. NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?", whereas from what I've experienced the average JREFer will tolerate little criticism of the NIST report.

MM

 

[Belz...]

People here should demand the same standard of factual accuracy from the government reports that they demand from conspiracy videos like Loose Change.

We do. And they did.

 

[rwguinn]

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

MM

Still don't get it, do you?
Opinions do not require evidence. "I Think" is an opinion, as is "I believe.."
To state an opinion as fact does require evidence, as in "It couldn't happen like that"
As for whether the statement "He has no ideas how anyone at JREF came to a conclusion" is a fact, since Dr. Greening is not in possesion of-- in fact, has not even applied for-- the $1,00,000 prize to be awarded to anybody who can demonstrate such ability, and has never demonstrated such ability, then lacking evidence that he can read our minds--the statement is a fact.
The same applies to the statement about yourself. If you can read minds, the go for the $1 Million, and quit wasting your time here, dude!

 

[R.Mackey]

Yet Dr. Greening writes this:

[Page 20]
We have shown in this report that because of the failure of just one floor, a sequential collapse of all remaining floors was inevitable. This, of course, brings us to the $64,000 question:

What caused the initial floor collapse?

Although some researchers apparently find it difficult to accept, I believe the answer to this question is essentially quite simple:

The initial floor collapse occurred due to the aircraft impact damage
and the resulting eccentric loading of the core columns.

[Page 21]
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.

[...] The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 um in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.

I believe even you will agree that the observations above are soundly in agreement with the average JREF regular.

It's quite comical how you seize upon Dr. Greening's invective, while rejecting his scientific opinions, MirageMemories. You idolize the man's faults while ignoring his notable and excellent contributions. Why?

 

[Belz...]

No, but I can give you an accurate claim in Loose Change.

They claim that the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds.

 

[Belz...]

Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

It's not our fault if you don't have any.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And how does one measure this average JREF viewpoint?

Dr. Greening has made it quite clear that he is not married to the beliefs of the NIST Report and is at odds with the average JREFer, I quote;
"In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory. NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?", whereas from what I've experienced the average JREFer will tolerate little criticism of the NIST report.

MM

If you take off the confirmation biased colored glasses for a moment, you'd realize what is not tolerated is unsubstantiated claims that the NIST report is wrong.

 

[HyJinX]

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

MM

So now your only hope is to cry "Hey, NO FAIR" and hope that it will change things? Evidence IS the key. It's the ONLY key.

It's like crying "NO FAIR" when your enemy decides to bring tanks to a battle you started, when your side only has BB guns.

 

[chipmunk stew]

And how does one measure this average JREF viewpoint?

Dr. Greening has made it quite clear that he is not married to the beliefs of the NIST Report and is at odds with the average JREFer, I quote;
"In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory. NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying..... This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?", whereas from what I've experienced the average JREFer will tolerate little criticism of the NIST report.

MM

You really need to read that whole thread.

 

[kookbreaker]

Why are you changing the subject?

Dr. Greening's approach and attitude were regrettable. However, if you follow that thread, you'll see where he and I had a meaningful conversation -- and I demonstrated to him what was wrong with his argument. Without running back to the apron of NIST.

If you think Dr. Greening is 'right on,' then you must also accept his conclusion that 9/11 Was Not An Inside Job. Agree?

Of late, Greening's short appearance on JREF seems to be the big celebratory issue with the CT crowd. They took special glee that we weren't all chummy and somehow this is a big win for the troother crowd. Pdoherty, for example, brings it up multiple times on the Screw Loose Change commentary.

The premise they have is this:

1) We worshipped Greening like a god (no, he wrote a good paper debunking some absurd troother paper. This is always good but hardly worhty)

2) We couldn't wait to get him on JREF, and hundreds of threads were devoted to his coming on JREF. (False, there were more posts anticipating the arrival of Russel Pickering, a truther, than there were for Greening).

3) That Greening 'shut us down' and 'told us what we really are'. (False, Greening come on board with a rather hefty chip on his shoulder. Subsequent responses and Greenings own words have shown that he was wrong and in fact held some rather odd opinions in the first place: I mean why is it bad to demand evidence?! )

4) BIG WIN FOR TROOTH! (Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!)

In fact, the net gain from Greening's appearance is not much for anybody. Greening had a lot more to learn about JREF as a whole than JREF had to learn from him. All told, I was not impressed with his antics, or the points he was harping on. They seemed to be very, very minor. As one person put it: "He disputes NIST, but he has not disproved it". Given what he has shown here, both in evidence and in character I doubt very mcuh that we will get much more bet gain from the man, but neither will the troothers, except as a cheap taunt.

Which is all they really have these days.