Kevin Barrett interviews Frank Greening

[scissorhands]

What a good nterview. Well worth listening to. Greening has things to say about both sides but i am gettin the impression he is clean.

So Frank gets to avoid the truther gallows.

Thats a relief, after all, we rely on you to tell us whether people are "clean" or not.

 

[RedIbis]

In Red's defense (I can't believe I'm doing this), Red never said what you think he said.

This is what he responded to:




Red never implied anything about the reasons behind his banning.

I know that was hard for you to do, but I appreciate it and it proves to me that you are interested in fair discussion, even if we disagree on nearly everything else.

I will even admit I could have made myself more clear, initially, but you're right I wasn't addressing Greening's banning.

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

 

[Pardalis]

Because one guy disagrees with the report doesn't make it invalid.

 

[LashL]

Greening completely misrepresented Judge Hellerstein's ruling on the ConEd v. Port Authority litigation viz WTC7. He should stick to chemistry.

 

[johnny karate]

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

What industry professionals disagree with NIST's conclusions and what work have they submitted to disprove any of them? To simply point at a highly-detailed scientific document and say "Wrong!" is blatant denialism of the highest order, and doesn't even begin to approach valid scientific method. And your characterizaton of a handful of cranks engaging in this behavior in the face of overwhelming consensus as some kind of "battlefield" is dishonesty of the highest order.

Closing in on a decade after the fact, and the world's population of relevant experts continues to ignore the Truth Movement. There is no battlefield. There has been no significant questioning of NIST's collapse theory. There will be no starting from scratch to develop a new one.

Get over it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios.

This is a classic truther misconception, and would benefit from some further analysis.

Building collapses can be divided into classes, based on their initial cause. One of these classes is collapse due to fire-induced structural damage, another is collapse due to explosive-induced structural damage, a third is collapse due to earthquake damage; I'm sure there are others. We could use the analogy of classification of animals into different classes; birds, mammals, reptiles, fish.

Within each of these classes, we can define specific features of the collapse, and determine the general details of the collapse mechanism. These would include things like top-down collapse, toppling, bottom-up collapse, or other general features. In the analogy of animal classification, we could represent these as different families; carnivores, insectivores, cetaceans, and so on.

Next, we can start looking at the fine details of the collapse; what specific structural members initiated the failure, what was the failure mode, how did it progress through the structure. We could represent this as the genus; for example, dogs and foxes.

Most of the criticism of the NIST report focuses on the last of these levels - the specific, detailed failure mechanisms. To use the animal analogy, there's an argument about whether the creature we have before us is a dog or a fox.

RedIbis's argument is akin to saying that, if we're not sure whether it's a dog or a fox, then we have to consider the possibility that it's actually a fish.

Dave

 

[Justin39640]

This is a classic truther misconception, and would benefit from some further analysis.

Building collapses can be divided into classes, based on their initial cause. One of these classes is collapse due to fire-induced structural damage, another is collapse due to explosive-induced structural damage, a third is collapse due to earthquake damage; I'm sure there are others. We could use the analogy of classification of animals into different classes; birds, mammals, reptiles, fish.

Within each of these classes, we can define specific features of the collapse, and determine the general details of the collapse mechanism. These would include things like top-down collapse, toppling, bottom-up collapse, or other general features. In the analogy of animal classification, we could represent these as different families; carnivores, insectivores, cetaceans, and so on.

Next, we can start looking at the fine details of the collapse; what specific structural members initiated the failure, what was the failure mode, how did it progress through the structure. We could represent this as the genus; for example, dogs and foxes.

Most of the criticism of the NIST report focuses on the last of these levels - the specific, detailed failure mechanisms. To use the animal analogy, there's an argument about whether the creature we have before us is a dog or a fox.

RedIbis's argument is akin to saying that, if we're not sure whether it's a dog or a fox, then we have to consider the possibility that it's actually a fish.

Dave

"that fish was genetically engineered by the NWO to look like a dog, watch this youtube vid on it INSIDE JOB!11!1!!1!!"

 

[T.A.M.]

Frank G is co-author with Bazant of the infamous BLGB-paper based on no science at all!

I see. You being infinitely more qualified then Bazant (there are not enough laughing dogs. His CV alone is larger then any paper you have published), produce the real science, and he and Greening are the pseudo-scientists...right? gotcha.

Go back to boat making.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I know that was hard for you to do, but I appreciate it and it proves to me that you are interested in fair discussion, even if we disagree on nearly everything else.

I will even admit I could have made myself more clear, initially, but you're right I wasn't addressing Greening's banning.

What's interesting to me is that although Greening does not support any CD theories that I'm aware of, the place where he is on common ground with DRG and many people, is the implausibility of NIST's hypothesis. This specific battlefield is where debunkers dare not tread. Because if NIST has failed in presenting the definitive collapse theory, we have to start from scratch and consider alternative collapse scenarios. I look forward to the collaboration.

Now, now now....

Here is what I will say,

1. NIST's theory on WTC is the MOST plausible of all theories out there.
2. NIST's theory is based on evidence (I know, I know, no steel, but that is not the only form of evidence), as opposed to all the other conjectures.
3. NIST considered other scenarios, including the use of explosives, and found no evidence of such. Do you agree or disagree with this, or do you think they were lying when they stated this?
4. Please show me where Greening, Griffin, or anyone else for that matter, have proven the NIST theory for WTC7 collapse implausible, or false, in any regard.

Thanks

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Did you listen to the interview from today ? (above) He seems to hang NIST .

Nuff sed.

 

[RedIbis]

Now, now now....

Here is what I will say,

1. NIST's theory on WTC is the MOST plausible of all theories out there.

That's your opinion.

2. NIST's theory is based on evidence (I know, I know, no steel, but that is not the only form of evidence), as opposed to all the other conjectures.

Just not physical evidence, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory, for which they present no physical evidence.

3. NIST considered other scenarios, including the use of explosives, and found no evidence of such. Do you agree or disagree with this, or do you think they were lying when they stated this?

NIST didn't have any evidence for what they did propose, so why should this surprise anyone? I don't have a whole lot of confidence in NIST's finding stuff abilities.

4. Please show me where Greening, Griffin, or anyone else for that matter, have proven the NIST theory for WTC7 collapse implausible, or false, in any regard.

From this:

I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

My bold.

Thanks


TAM

You're welcome.

 

[~enigma~]

That's your opinion.

Then it would be time for you to produce a theory that is more plausible than NIST's. If you cant (or won't) do that then why should anyone believe any words that come out of your mouth (actually keyboard)?

 

[Galileo]

While I´m a wee bit disturbed that Dr. Greening collaborates with DRG (who certainly is neither honest nor independent), I´m sure this will increase the quality of the book.

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

 

[Galileo]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

 

[Baylor]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

I didn't know Ann Coulter posted on the JREF.

 

[DGM]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

I agree!! WTC 7 might be a "demoltion" (what ever that is).

 

[A W Smith]

Galileo demonstrates the thought process of a decomposed brain dead since 1642 .

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

Bare assertion fallacy noted. Is that all you (don't) have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy

 

[newton3376]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

As opposed to a Godless Theist?

Aren't all atheists "Godless" by default?

 

[T.A.M.]

That's your opinion.

No, it is my opinion, and the opinion of the majority, either through open agreement, or through silence. Unless you feel that the thousands of engineers who have said nothing to contradict NIST remain silent when they know that the report is false?

Just not physical evidence, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory, for which they present no physical evidence.

As has been said before, photos and video are PHYSICAL evidence. What you refer to is SPECIFICALLY steel.

Their claim, compared to others (the secret NWO did it with explosives to get rid of their paper/hard drive trail), is not extraordinary. Their proof, given they were left no steel to examine, is more then adequate, and is based on scientific modeling. Besides conjecture and paranoid speculation, what are the alternative theories based on?????

NIST didn't have any evidence for what they did propose, so why should this surprise anyone? I don't have a whole lot of confidence in NIST's finding stuff abilities.

Why am I not surprised?

From this:

My bold.

that is not scientific calculation, theory, or proof, that is the OPINION (without backing it up) of a single scientist. That is not what I asked for.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

As has been said before, photos and video are PHYSICAL evidence. What you refer to is SPECIFICALLY steel.



TAM

Then you've been wrong before. Photos and video are documentary evidence, not physical evidence.