Frank Greening submits withering critique of new WTC7 drafts

mrbaracuda said:
You really need them to put a label up saying 'Guys, guys, this is not the real scale of a 47 story skyscraper in this PDF'? :boggled:

Now much about you makes more sense.
Click to expand...

we was talking about the displacement or deformation of the FE sim.
we are not talking about the scale of the model as you seem to think.

it is about the deflection / deformation etc. not the model as such.
when you watch the animation of a FE sim from LS-Dyna for example, in most cases you need scales for deformation bacause you cant see the deformation otherwise. when you want to know how much a 6 meter long IPN beam will bend when ading a weight of 6 tons. in the case i had a few months ago, you could not see any bending at all. when ading a scale you could clearly see it bending, while the bending was only 6 mm on each side. the scale of the model as such stayed the same.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
we was talking about the displacement or deformation of the FE sim.
we are not talking about the scale of the model as you seem to think.

it is about the deflection / deformation etc. not the model as such.
when you watch the animation of a FE sim from LS-Dyna for example, in most cases you need scales for deformation bacause you cant see the deformation otherwise. when you want to know how much a 6 meter long IPN beam will bend when ading a weight of 6 tons. in the case i had a few months ago, you could not see any bending at all. when ading a scale you could clearly see it bending, while the bending was only 6 mm on each side. the scale of the model as such stayed the same.
Click to expand...

/Gabey Johnsons frontier gibberish

Pathetic!
 
A W Smith said:
I think his problem with other engineers stems from his work at a Canadian nuclear plant where he was trying to point out the cause of corrosion in some coolant tubes. he was ignored and from what I gather marginalized by other staff engineers and management. The experience left a bitter taste in his mouth and from then on became an outsider. he now looks upon staff engineers and old boys network with a jaundiced eye. What I found peculiar about him was his jeckyl/hyde behavior particularly on fridays. he may even have a drinking problem.
Click to expand...

He actually does not hate engineers, just engineers who tell him what to think.
He does not like people who retard scientific investigations for the purpose of defending, a profession, or positions of authority.
 
rwguinn said:
I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.
Click to expand...

Agreed it is an exaggerated image the distortion points are exaggerated to the point that the distortions in the buildings are made easily apparent.

Also what is wrong with asking valid questions if one does not understand the reason for such a distorted view if that reason is reasonably easy to explain, you know the truth movement is going to jump all over the distorted image would not an explanation of the distortion from NIST help to alleviate certain issues before they even arise?

If Dr. Greening can help NIST make a more valid report what is the point if not doing so?

PS. You can now put me back on your ignore list that is if you ever removed me from that list.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
He actually does not hate engineers, just engineers who tell him what to think.
He does not like people who retard scientific investigations for the purpose of defending, a profession, or positions of authority.
Click to expand...

That may be what he says, but not always how he acts. I say this as someone who has asked him questions, received cordial replies and never had any harsh words for him. Reading some of his other posts though, he sometimes attack engineers and scientists who disagree with him.
 
I am an engineer and I have always been treated cordially by Dr. Greening, even when we disagree. With the consistent high level of provacation here, it is not hard to understand why Dr. Greening would have had harsh words for some!
 
GregoryUrich said:
I am an engineer and I have always been treated cordially by Dr. Greening, even when we disagree. With the consistent high level of provacation here, it is not hard to understand why Dr. Greening would have had harsh words for some!
Click to expand...

Dr Greenings was always very nice to me, in posts and also in PM's.
and i am sure he saw me as a trolling freak like most of you.
i think he is a very nice person even we never agreed on anything.
 
GregoryUrich said:
I am an engineer and I have always been treated cordially by Dr. Greening, even when we disagree. With the consistent high level of provacation here, it is not hard to understand why Dr. Greening would have had harsh words for some!
Click to expand...

Works both ways Gregory. For every debunker here who "provokes" a response, there are 2-3 truther trolls who come in here with the sole agenda of baiting, and getting someone upset/annoyed.

TAM:)
 
rwguinn said:
I am so damn tired of people who have an axe to grind completely misinterpreting FEM and FEA. Dr Greening is an ___ --he KNOWS better!
Yes--the buildings absolutely DID look like that. All you have to do is scale it. Max deflection of a FEM is nearly always distorted--intentionally. Normal procedure is to set the scale such that max deflection is 10% of the available screen.
This is done so that you can actually SEE the Relative deflections. If you used actual scale (1"=1"), it wouldn't even show.
Dr Greening is using HIS authority as a chemist to denigrate the actual authorities in the field he is so totally clueless in.
Click to expand...


I just had to confirm this for myself, because... well... that's what skeptics do, right?

Here's some FEMs of load sets on a bridge:

http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/experiment...ces/images/Bridge/FEM/3d/OTTframe_3D_fem1.png (source)

If I'm reading that right, the distortion is in mere millimeters, but obviously quite visible in the model.

That's from a 2005 report, so the NIST's FEM that Greening takes issue with is hardly unprecedented.

Again, that was me, as a laymen, but I'd have to agree that Greening is being astoundingly and unprofessionally dishonest regarding this point.

(ETA: Oh, hey... that's not a bridge in the traffic sense, but actually a support bridge in the Large Hadron Collider. Neat.)
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
I just had to confirm this for myself, because... well... that's what skeptics do, right?

Here's some FEMs of load sets on a bridge:

http://www.nikhef.nl/pub/experiment...ces/images/Bridge/FEM/3d/OTTframe_3D_fem1.png (source)

If I'm reading that right, the distortion is in mere millimeters, but obviously quite visible in the model.

That's from a 2005 report, so the NIST's FEM that Greening takes issue with is hardly unprecedented.

Again, that was me, as a laymen, but I'd have to agree that Greening is being astoundingly and unprofessionally dishonest regarding this point.

(ETA: Oh, hey... that's not a bridge in the traffic sense, but actually a support bridge in the Large Hadron Collider. Neat.)
Click to expand...

The FEA software that I use regularly at work is called RISA. It scales up deflected shapes by a factor of 40 by default. Why? Because a 1" deflection
on a 40' frame will be about 1 pixel on screen. You'd never even notice it.

This is pretty typical stuff in engineering.
 
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...

we are expecting a scientific critique of Dr. Greening. We are not looking for a political editorial.

If Dr. Greening or others can prove that explosives were used in WTC 7, that is just a scientific finding of fact, and has nothing to do with who set the explosives or their motives. Speculating on who may have set the explosives or their motives has no bearing in scientific study.

If it is determined by scientists that explosives were used in WTC 7, then that could lead to several possible political conclusions:

1) WTC 7 was engineered for demolition for safety reasons after the Twin towers were hit.

2) Al Quaida terrorists set explosives in WTC 7.

3) WTC 7 was and inside job and/or arson.

4) Some other explanation.
 
Last edited:
March 12, 1610, Galileo Galilei publishes the Starry Messenger, the Scientific Revolution begins.

August 20, 2008, NIST publishes the Report on WTC 7, the Scientific Revolution ends.

We had a good run, almost 400 years. After reading through the JREF forum, it's definitely over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom