Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

GregoryUrich

Graduate Poster
GregoryUrich
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
1,316
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
Click to expand...

No. There is no reason to consider the "alternative hypothesis". There is no legitamate alt. hypothesis. There has never been evidence of explosives in any building on 9/11 ever! Nor any consistant story that includes the both facts and explosives in it.
 
Last edited:
Hm, he got it out so quickly after the report was released. I call Inside Job. ;)
 
Jumping the gun, aren't you? Greening made criticisms, let's see what the responses from NIST and others are. Just because he made them does not make them legitimate criticisms. Recall that more than a few of his criticisms about the initial NIST report were not exactly on completely solid ground, and between his whining about 'NISTian's he had to admit that when RMackey and Newton's Bit among others corrected him.
 
dudalb said:
So GregoryUlriich is finally being honest and outing himself as a Truther?
Click to expand...
Greg has "ample evidence" for a new investigation, he is a petition signing truther from way back. He joined up, and still has no "ample evidence".

Greenings critique is a good hand waving effort, but he does not support explosives, he does not like NIST. I know Greening has some exotic chemical reaction that is responsible for WTC7 demise, it is fire for the rest of us.
 
Wait, wait, wait... read Dr. Greening's critique. He's indeed opening the door for alternative hypotheses, but we're not talking alternative in the truther "Oh! Explosives/Incendiaries/InsideJob!" sense, but rather in the truly alternate mechanisms sense. I'm no engineer, but I don't see anything in the critiques that couldn't be taken as legitimate questions. And at the same time, I think you'd have to stretch his statements to make them fit any sort of truther profile.

Sure, he's ripping NIST. So did Quintiere in regards to the main towers report. That's a long way from validating DRG, Kevin Ryan, or Steven Jones's takes.
 
Greenberg said:
To conclude this section I would like to briefly mention NIST’s simulation of the final global collapse of WTC 7.[...]

The only significant distortion of the boxed-shaped Building 7 that is noticeable after the façade begins its downward motion, is the formation of a slight kink on the eastern side of the north face.[...]

Now consider NIST’s version of the final moments of WTC 7 as exemplified by the computer-generated simulacra of Figure 12-69 of NCSTAR 1-9.[...]

It is simply astounding that, even though these computer generated images of a crumpled and severely distorted Building 7 look nothing like the video images of the real thing, NIST nevertheless concludes: “the global collapse analyses matched the observed behavior reasonably well.”
Click to expand...

Clipboard01.jpg


That's the screenshot he's having a problem with. You can find it in NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 on page 255.
And here's the full text:

NIST said:
Given the complexity of the modeled behavior, the global collapse analyses matched the observed behaviour reasonably well. The global collapse analysis confirmed the leading collapse hypothesis, which was based on the available evidence.
Click to expand...

I can see some deformation in this video:



But I am tired and on my way to bed. :D
 
GregoryUrich said:
Dr. Greening has submitted a withering critique of the new WTC7 draft reports to NIST as public comment. If this is the best NIST can do after 7 years, they should start considering alternative hypotheses.
Click to expand...

Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed:
NIST’s fire simulation would have us believe that a very substantial heat release rate was sustained for over 2 hours over a floor area of about 500 m2 in building 7. Thus Figure 9-13 of NCSTAR 1-9 shows that a heat release rate of 200 MW was attained on floor 12 at about 3:00 p.m. on September 11th and remained above 200 MW until well after 5:00 p.m. But we need to ask: Is a 200 MW fire consistent with a fuel loading of 32 kg/m2 - the value used by NIST for its floor 12 fire simulations? The answer appears to be no. Thus a 200 MW heat release rate for 2 hours implies a total energy release of 1,440 GJ. If the combustible material on the 12th floor of WTC 7 is assumed to release 20 MJ/kg, we have to conclude that 72,000 kg of office material was combusted over an area of 500 m2, or there was a fuel loading in WTC 7 of 144 kg/m2 – a value over four times NIST’s assumed fuel loading.
Click to expand...

It looks like Dr. Greening believes that the simulation of the fire on the 12th floor was limited to 500 m2 on the east side of WTC 7. This is not correct. The total square area of floor 12 was 3875 m2. And had Dr. Greening looked at figure 9-11 and 9-12 in the NIST draft report he would have known that the fire in the simulation involved the whole floor area on floor 12. The core area is roughly 650 m2. This gives us a figure for total available fuel of 3225 m2 x 32 kg/m2 = 103 200 kg. More than enough to sustain the simulated heat release.
 
Norseman said:
Well the central part of the paper written by the alleged Dr. Greening looks flawed:


It looks like Dr. Greening believes that the simulation of the fire on the 12th floor was limited to 500 m2 on the east side of WTC 7. This is not correct. The total square area of floor 12 was 3875 m2. And had Dr. Greening looked at figure 9-11 and 9-12 in the NIST draft report he would have known that the fire in the simulation involved the whole floor area on floor 12. The core area is roughly 650 m2. This gives us a figure for total available fuel of 3225 m2 x 32 kg/m2 = 103 200 kg. More than enough to sustain the simulated heat release.
Click to expand...

Anyone forwarded that information to Dr. Greening (Pomeroo? You keeping in touch with him by any chance?)? Despite the opinions people have about his attitude, I fully believe that he'd accept people pointing out genuine, demonstrable errors.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Anyone forwarded that information to Dr. Greening (Pomeroo? You keeping in touch with him by any chance?)? Despite the opinions people have about his attitude, I fully believe that he'd accept people pointing out genuine, demonstrable errors.
Click to expand...

Dr. Greening is discussing this issue at The 9/11 Forum. Feel free to follow/join the discussion there.
 
Last edited:
Greening said:
This was posted last night on the well-known 9/11 fantasy site JREF by someone who calls himself NORSEMAN
Click to expand...

Something tells me I am not supposed to take this character seriously.

Clipboard02.jpg


One of the figures Greening wants you to look at. The other one is the same, just the 'skeleton' (floor beams) instead of floor slabs.
 
Last edited:
firecoins said:
No. There is no reason to consider the "alternative hypothesis". There is no legitamate alt. hypothesis. There has never been evidence of explosives in any building on 9/11 ever! Nor any consistant story that includes the both facts and explosives in it.
Click to expand...

Carbon monoxide, Carbon dust, plus a few other compounds that I could name, are explosive gasses that are naturally evolved in fires.

Although not as powerful as high explosives they can create great over pressure and force that can collapse an already damaged building, one where heat weakening and thermal expansion have already occurred.

CO is also an agent that can accelerate sufidication effects in steel by reducing sulfates to sulfides.
 
I see nothing wrong with a serious critique of any report, NIST or otherwise. It is one thing to point out the weaknesses in the report, and clearly there are some, as they have little to no direct physical evidence (one could argue about photos and video as physical evidence), to base their theory on. The difference, however, between the sane and insane response, from anyone, is that the sane would look at the plethora of corroborating evidence (Firefighter eyewitness accounts, etc...), as well as the lack of evidence for other theories, and make suggestion based upon it. The insane response is to shout out "Inside Job" at the top of your lungs because paranoia has interfered with your sound judgement.

I hope Greening has gone for the former, rather than the latter.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I see nothing wrong with a serious critique of any report, NIST or otherwise. It is one thing to point out the weaknesses in the report, and clearly there are some, as they have little to no direct physical evidence (one could argue about photos and video as physical evidence), to base their theory on. The difference, however, between the sane and insane response, from anyone, is that the sane would look at the plethora of corroborating evidence (Firefighter eyewitness accounts, etc...), as well as the lack of evidence for other theories, and make suggestion based upon it. The insane response is to shout out "Inside Job" at the top of your lungs because paranoia has interfered with your sound judgement.

I hope Greening has gone for the former, rather than the latter.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Greening still supports the conclusion that the collapse of 7 was caused by the fires, not explosives. Of course, the twoofers are having a field day with this.
 
Greening's main problem with the NIST report and NIST in general is an irrational hatred of engineers.

Maybe his momma left his daddy for an engineer when he was a child, or the love of his life left him for an engineer in college. Who knows where his hatred originated, but attempting to prove engineers wrong has been somewhat of an obsession of his in his late years - and not just wrt 9/11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom