Kevin Barrett interviews Frank Greening

[johnny karate]

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.

Why, as a matter of fact, here's an error being corrected:

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

and acknowledged:

I must apologize to RED, because I had my own twoofer reading comprehension moment. I took his statement out of context.

In this very thread.

In your defense.

By a couple of mean ol' debunkers with their flagrant double-standardism.

And speaking of double standards, and how certain people apply them when attempting to explain the events surrounding the collapse of WTC7:

RedIbis on interpreting FDNY testimony in support of a controlled demolition, despite being told no one from the FDNY believes one took place:

Sure, weeks, months, maybe years later, these people were informed of what the source of their initial descriptions were, but as any detective worth his/her salt knows, it's always the first interview which is most important. How people choose to interpret their experience later on is often of little consequence compared to the value of that first, unadulturated account.

RedIbis on interpreting FDNY testimony in determining the size of the fires in WTC7:

Which is precisely what's wrong with relying entirely on eyewitnesses. People tend to exaggerate when they are going through or recalling a traumatic event.

So Red, as a steadfast and true champion of non-double-standardism, could you please justify your glaring use of a double standard when interpreting the testimony of the FDNY?

 

[RedIbis]

RI,

I'm interested in what was going through your head when you decided to leave out this qualification. Did you read it and decide that it wasn't important or something?

When was the final report released and what were its conclusions about diesel fuel?

 

[OneRedEye]

REALLY?!?!?!?!?! Do point us in the direction of this report. Please show it to us, as I personally saw WTC 7 before it fell, and I knew it would fall. I saw the bulge myself. Building that are not in dire conditions do not bulge over ~10 storeys.

Weren't you surprised when the NIST simulation did not include the bulge? The report includes brief mention of it in narrative accounts but it is neither an input to, nor a result from, their modeling. Weird, huh? I agree a 10 story bulge indicates dire conditions long before NIST's initiating sequence of events, but that doesn't seem to be the case at all in their scenario. There were already credible reports of a bulge near the NW corner and a transit was trained on that general location. You've added that the bulge not only extended to the east side but was also around 10 stories in vertical extent.

Even thought the NIST simulation deflections were not exaggerated (see here), any distortion severe enough to be seen with the naked eye and so extensive and progressive over time should have stood out like a sore thumb. All eyes should have been on the bulge in the simulation when thermal expansion came from behind to end up being the cause, in a photo-finish. Maybe not, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad. But the opposite extreme? Nothing? No mention of an attempt to obtain the transit measurements or conduct an interview with the firefighter(s) involved in tracking the bulge over time.

The first gross perimeter deflections depicted by the NIST are the ridiculous conformations (particularly on the west wall) accompanying collapse that hardly resemble the video and photographic evidence. This in fact was one of the points that was made by Dr. Greening in his original critique, for which he was derided by an expert or two here at JREF. I'll add that certain individuals, like rwguinn who is much lauded here and referenced in the link above, had plenty of time to dish out unwarranted criticism based on erroneous assessment but no time or personal integrity to acknowledge the mistake. Instead, he maintained he was correct despite the communication from NIST removing all doubt - he was wrong. Even the esteemed Gravy threw in his two cents well after the question of deflection scaling had been resolved, hurling accusations of being misled and calling ignorance when he was actually the one swimming in ignorance on this particular subject.

Not surprisingly, rwguinn was not taken to task by anyone but the person who handed his ass to him in front of everyone. So, in regards to this comment:

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.

If by that you mean in absolute numbers, taking into account the 7000+ threads in this forum, you are correct. In relative terms, however, the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of RedIbis' view:

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. If you are a twoofie, any errors will be pointed out to you ASAP and render any other argument you make irrelevant

That you were fortunate enough, johnny karate, to find a counterexample involving RedIbis in this very thread shows his statement to be a sweeping generalization but adds no substance to your assertion of 'utter nonsense'. In my best estimation, claims like yours actually outnumber instances of debunkers admitting they are wrong! In all fairness, though, and despite the cauldron of pathology that is the JREF forum, debunker accountability and conduct towards truthers seems to have improved lately... which isn't saying much.

 

[alienentity]

Hmmm, Kevin Barrett says something completely nutty? Go figure...

Kevin Barrett
'I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity.'
from We the People Radio Network


More nutty KB stuff here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4881571#post4881571


(Read this stuff while listening to the Twilight Zone theme music)

 

[T.A.M.]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception.

Yes we do. It didn't.


No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

So you are now SELECTIVELY believing NIST. You believe them when they say the Diesel did not supply the fires, but CHOOSE not to believe them when they give you a theory for how the towers collapsed?

How do you decide what to believe with NIST Red? Is it something like "well if it supports my view, I will believe it. If not, it is bunk."???

TAM

 

[johnny karate]

If by that you mean in absolute numbers, taking into account the 7000+ threads in this forum, you are correct. In relative terms, however, the ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of RedIbis' view

It's hard to argue with the rock-solid evidence you have offered to support this argument.

That you were fortunate enough, johnny karate, to find a counterexample involving RedIbis in this very thread...

It has less to do with my good fortune than it does with RedIbis' blatant and easy-to-detect dishonesty. As it turns out, he's not very good at this.

...shows his statement to be a sweeping generalization but adds no substance to your assertion of 'utter nonsense'.

Wrong. RedIbis' statement was absolute:

If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.

Therefore, I only need to provide one example of this not happening to prove him wrong. Which I did.

If someone says "All dog are brown", how many dogs that are not brown do I need to produce to prove this statement a falsehood?

In my best estimation, claims like yours actually outnumber instances of debunkers admitting they are wrong!

Again, the sheer volume of evidence you provide in support of your assertion is staggering.

In all fairness, though, and despite the cauldron of pathology that is the JREF forum, debunker accountability and conduct towards truthers seems to have improved lately... which isn't saying much.

You and RedIbis, or anyone else with hurt feelings, can report any behavior you feel violates the membership agreement to the moderators. Other than that, there's a little red "X" in the corner of your web browser. Feel free to click on it any time.

 

[OneRedEye]

Right back at ya

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?

Utter nonsense. Errors by debunkers are corrected and acknowledged all the time.

Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said. I've already provided TWO counterexamples from one thread to prove you wrong, in my previous post. You have to stop throwing bricks, you're not up to the task.

Truth be told, I see from your posting history that you're neither averse to making unqualified sweeping generalizations nor to ignoring (even single) counterexamples when making them. See:

Not to mention to facilitate the "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" collapse Truthers imagine took place.

I know more than one truther that does not imagine "faster than freefall" and "neatly in its own footprint" and so do you. To cover any silly objection you might have about supporting that claim, I'm going to pull a JREFer on you and tell you to do your own damn research. Hint: go to Gregory Urich's forum.

And there's:

Way to go, Truth Movement. You've tracked down one eye witness who supposedly supports you. Just a few thousand more to go!

followed later by:

Does this stunning new work of academia account for the fact that not a single person who witnessed these buildings collapse has expressed a belief it was due to controlled demolition?

Don't worry about me calling you stupid or a liar or otherwise hurting your feelings, I don't even feel that way. I don't apply the absurdly picayune criteria for qualifying statements you apply to others and not to yourself.

If someone says "All dog are brown", how many dogs that are not brown do I need to produce to prove this statement a falsehood?

So long as you remain preoccupied with irrelevant pedantry like this, you are not likely to do much but clog threads.

Again, the sheer volume of evidence you provide in support of your assertion is staggering.

After easily exposing you to be wrong and also plainly guilty of double standards within the last month, even skipping threads you've participated in like U.S. obesity problem intensifies and Michael Jackson Joke Thread, are you sure you want the pounding that will come from me in the course of supporting my opinion? 'Cause I would focus on you, 2600+ posts should be sufficient raw material.

It's rhetorical. I wouldn't waste a minute of my time trying to prove anything to someone like you. Fruitless and worthless on the face of it.

I truly regret letting useless annoyances like those introduced by johnny karate draw me into off-topic conversation.

 

[DavidJames]

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'.

Are you being deliberately obtuse. He said EITHER OR get it, it's EITHER OR. that leaves no alternative options.

 

[A W Smith]

Two Red Eyes

Nice catch DavidJames

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. <snip>

Neither did he qualify it with 'always'. Why did your mind automatically insert it? Shall I do the same with you?


Turns out I didn't have to insert or imagine the qualifier in your statement. All the time, you said.<snip> .

Careful you don't walk into your own ignorance OneRedEye. You might just get another red eye.

 

[OneRedEye]

Are you being deliberately obtuse. He said EITHER OR get it, it's EITHER OR. that leaves no alternative options.

Do you always omit question marks at the end of questions and leading caps in sentences? Or only sometimes?

Obviously, you also enjoy indulging in mindless pedantry when examining the posts of others. Do you like it when it's focused on you?

Please read my prior post again and make an attempt at comprehending it. jonny karate does exactly what he criticizes someone for (even worse), I point it out, and you jump on me? This is why I don't hit that little 'X' in the corner as much as I should. The drone-like behavior here never ceases to amaze and amuse.

PS with this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about doubles standards quite handsomely. Now, please continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again. Very sad.

Nice catch DavidJames

Hardly. It was quite lame. But you're entitled to your opinion, I won't demand you support it with evidence.

Careful you don't walk into your own ignorance OneRedEye. You might just get another red eye.

I'm not the least worried. You know, it is incredibly tiresome to squabble with people who demand that others fully qualify their every statement but wink 'dem eye at someone else who does qualify their statement with an absolute and is subsequently proven wrong.

BTW, just to keep it on topic, Dr. Greening's criticisms of the NIST report on WTC7 are generally sophisticated and well-constructed, unlike a lot of the cheap shots he has received in this forum.

 

[A W Smith]

Please read my prior post again and make an attempt at comprehending it. jonny karate does exactly what he criticizes someone for (even worse), I point it out, and you jump on me? This is why I don't hit that little 'X' in the corner as much as should. The drone-like behavior here never ceases to amaze and amuse.

you have been jumped on simply because your accusations are incorrect. Read again

His statement as it is written indicates debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug by other debunkers. He didn't say "usually" or "sometimes", or qualify it any other way.

He didnt insert "always" into a Redibis quote. He simply said his statement as written (either/or) indicated debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug

BTW, just to keep it on topic, Dr. Greening's criticisms of the NIST report on WTC7 are generally sophisticated and well-constructed, unlike a lot of the cheap shots he has received in this forum.

Cheap shots? like Greening contacting a forum members employer and trying to get them fired? How cheap is that?

 

[OneRedEye]

you have been jumped on simply because your accusations are incorrect.

Whatta load. I've demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect and in fact guilty of exactly the same transgression he complains about in that post, in that very post! I notice you have NO words to address that. Hmm... looks like you do double standards very well, too. You're in the right forum.

With this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about double standards quite handsomely, even if he failed to properly qualify it. You people stumble in to this like you planned it. Wow. Now, please do continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again.. Very sad.

He didnt insert "always" into a Redibis quote. He simply said his statement as written (either/or) indicated debunker errors are always ignored or swept under the rug Cheap shots? like Greening contacting a forum members employer and trying to get them fired?

No, but thanks for asking.

How cheap is that?

Really depends on whether that person deserves it or not, wouldn't you say?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception.

Yes we do. It didn't.


No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

Whoa. Hold on. You're now starting to take this in a direction I wasn't going in. And part of that is my fault for not being clear, but I didn't think this point was going to be nit-picked to death. Remember what I wrote:

... then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated...

When I talk about the diesel, I'm talking about it not causing fires in the critical areas where failure occurred. Whether it set fires off elsewhere in areas not involved with the failure initiation or not is unclear, but it bears noting that any diesel that was in the Salomon Brothers tank, as well as the Mayor's OEM tank, was not recovered. If those tanks were full (that is not known), then that's potentially 12,000 gallons (6,000 gal. per tank) that are unaccounted for. The only thing known is that they weren't empty at the start of the day since they were there for emergency power generation, but whether they were completely full or not is unknown. Now, the question is whether that missing diesel contributed to the fires, evaporated off, or got washed into the Hudson. Well, unfortunately the answer to that is "That's unclear", but the point is that the diesel was indeed missing. So it's not out of bounds to say that diesel might have contributed to some of the fires. What it didn't do was contribute to the collapse. And that was the whole point of pointing out the diesel fires back then: We thought it had led to the steel weakening that caused the collapse, but it turns out that ordinary office contents fueled that. Fires in collapse initiation areas were not fueled by diesel. And that is not incompatible with saying that the diesel might have burnt off somewhere else in the fires.

We were wrong about the diesel contributing to the collapse, but to try and say that it wasn't invovled in the fires at all is reaching. The answer is indeed "we don't know". And that is indeed not the wrong thing to say. NIST never said the diesel didn't contribute to the fires at all, just not to the collapse. And we aren't either.

 

[A W Smith]

Whatta load. I've demonstrated jonny karate to be incorrect and in fact guilty of exactly the same transgression (in that very post!), notice you have NO words to address that. Hmm... looks like you do double standards very well. too. You're in the right forum.

With this last set of exchanges, the drones have demonstrated RedIbis' point about double standards quite handsomely, even if he failed to properly qualify it. Now, please do continue whining unashamedly that he should have qualified it with something, instead of acknowledging that it not only happens a lot (NOT ALL THE TIME, HEH), it happened right here, right now, yet again.. Very sad.

ya think?

Originally Posted by RedIbis
Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here.If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable.

that redibis quote indicates all the time Bub.

Really depends on whether that person deserves it or not, wouldn't you say?

They deserved to be fired? for disagreeing with him on an internet forum? really? how petty and stalker like is that? do you know some free countries have internet stalking laws against that? Perhaps Greening had a moment of clouded judgment during one of his Friday night drinking binges he was famous for here? Oops I better be careful I don't get myself fired for that comment.

 

[OneRedEye]

ya think?
that redibis quote indicates all the time Bub.They deserved to be fired? for disagreeing with him on an internet forum? really? how petty and stalker like is that? do you know some free countries have internet stalking laws against that? Perhaps Greening had a moment of clouded judgment during one of his Friday night drinking binges he was famous for here? Oops I better be careful I don't get myself fired for that comment.

Well, you no longer have the option of retracting the comment, in any case.

Think whatever you want. It is of no consequence. Enjoy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Even thought the NIST simulation deflections were not exaggerated (see here), any distortion severe enough to be seen with the naked eye and so extensive and progressive over time should have stood out like a sore thumb. All eyes should have been on the bulge in the simulation when thermal expansion came from behind to end up being the cause, in a photo-finish. Maybe not, maybe I'm exaggerating a tad. But the opposite extreme? Nothing? No mention of an attempt to obtain the transit measurements or conduct an interview with the firefighter(s) involved in tracking the bulge over time.

The first gross perimeter deflections depicted by the NIST are the ridiculous conformations (particularly on the west wall) accompanying collapse that hardly resemble the video and photographic evidence. This in fact was one of the points that was made by Dr. Greening in his original critique, for which he was derided by an expert or two here at JREF. I'll add that certain individuals, like rwguinn who is much lauded here and referenced in the link above, had plenty of time to dish out unwarranted criticism based on erroneous assessment but no time or personal integrity to acknowledge the mistake. Instead, he maintained he was correct despite the communication from NIST removing all doubt - he was wrong. Even the esteemed Gravy threw in his two cents well after the question of deflection scaling had been resolved, hurling accusations of being misled and calling ignorance when he was actually the one swimming in ignorance on this particular subject.

Not surprisingly, rwguinn was not taken to task by anyone but the person who handed his ass to him in front of everyone.

Hold on a second. Why are we talking about the NIST simulation bulge issue again? Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?

The whole issue of the visual similarity between NIST's WTC 7 collapse simulation and the real collapse goes back to post #10 in this thread. In that post mrbaracuda quoted a critique of the NIST WTC 7 report written by Dr. Greening that was posted on The 911 Forum. The relevant part is this:

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. These images of the final collapse of WTC 7 from the north, west and south show very extensive buckling of the exterior columns especially near the mid-height of the building. 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.”

Soruce: The 911 Forum

In connection with this mrbaracuda posted a screenshoot of Figure 12-69 from NIST NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2.

The problem here is that everybody took Figure 12-69 and the claim by Dr. Greening at face value and jumped the gun. And from there everything went downhill with accusations going back and forth about the scale used. I am not going to repeat what has been posted, the interested reader can go back in the thread and find the relevant posts.

Because what nobody here did, as far as I can judge, was to check the context of that figure. Had they done so, they would have found that Figure 12-69 shows the final part of the NIST WTC 7 collapse simulation without WTC 1 debris impact damage. The fact is that the collapse simulation with debris impact damage is quiet similar to what the real collapse looked like in available videos.

On this page NIST has posted a video of the collapse together with animations of the collapse simulations with and without debris impact damage:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

The following figures from NIST NCSTAR 1-9A should also be relevant:

• Figure 4-43 to 4-45 showing the collapse with debris impact damage.
• Figure 4-61 showing the collapse without debris impact damage.

If this is the case, what is the error that's being complained about here?

 

[OneRedEye]

Hold on a second. Why are we talking about the NIST simulation bulge issue again? Wasn't it determined that the image not showing the bulge was in fact not one intended to reflect the actual event, but one showing what the collapse would be like if tower 7 had not been damaged by north tower debris?

No.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

No.

No, it wasn't the image Norseman pointed out? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Arus808]

No.

Provide a source for this beliefe

 

[A W Smith]

Well, you no longer have the option of retracting the comment, in any case.

Think whatever you want. It is of no consequence. Enjoy.

I don't intend to retract anything. Oh and Think whatever you want. the truth movement is of no consequence. Enjoy