• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debate! What debate?

I'm comfortable that Apollo20 is actually Dr. Greening. He and I had a useful conversation in the middle of this thread.

While some of his posts show more emotional investment than I expected, it's not too surprising given that he's been frustrated by managerial inertia at NIST and ASTM and similar agencies. Somedays I feel like that myself.

Doesn't matter, in the end the scientific method will prevail.
 
R.Mackey said:
I'm comfortable that Apollo20 is actually Dr. Greening. He and I had a useful conversation in the middle of this thread.

While some of his posts show more emotional investment than I expected, it's not too surprising given that he's been frustrated by managerial inertia at NIST and ASTM and similar agencies. Somedays I feel like that myself.

Doesn't matter, in the end the scientific method will prevail.
Click to expand...
I cannot disagree with you there--He did seem knowlegible about things that were in the original paper under discussion.
My problem is that when you (and I) began questioning him on lateral displacement not being a player in his model, he became political, rather than respond ingto the question.
A little strange, I think. But, time will tell.
 
He responded -- he said he'd have to mull it over. That's fair.

I think the benefit of the doubt applies here. Besides, the pattern is consistent with his posts at PhysOrg. I think that's just his style.
 
rwguinn said:
I bow to your experience in this matter. :)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Me too. I sent Dr. Greening a message, to which I haven't yet received a response. I don't know much about Ross, but P'doh and Ace, in addition to being loons, are low-IQ types (I say this more as an observation than as an insult) and could not pull off the scientific discussion Apollo20 had with R. Mackey. The problem I'm having is that the earlier posts seem somehow different from the later ones. They appear to have been written by an intelligent scientist. The others could have been written by a bright fantasist (I know, I know).
 
Gordon Ross would be sharp enough to carry on this conversation, but he's also in love with grandiloquence, so I don't see him producing the full spectrum of posts we've seen here either. Ross is also too cowardly to take me on directly -- though he will snipe at me from his own 'blog; see my comments here.

Dr. Greening is also Ross's worst enemy. The idea that he would masquerade as Dr. Greening over here is too much for me to swallow.
 
pomeroo said:
I don't know much about Ross, but P'doh and Ace, in addition to being loons, are low-IQ types (I say this more as an observation than as an insult) and could not pull off the scientific discussion Apollo20 had with R. Mackey.
Click to expand...


I am not Apollo20. I am Ace Baker. I score around 140 on standardized I.Q. tests.

Greening's gig is disinfo. He's engaged in the fine art of creating one's own opposition, just like Steven Jones. He doesn't need to convince OCTs of anything anymore, they already buy the official story. He's trying to capture truthers and fence-sitters, as Jones did, and lead them to a dead end, limited hangout.

He pulled a hoax, based on the Sokal Affiar, much as I did on Wikipedia with my Engineer Ed Hoax. Difference was, the OCTs on Wikipedia (Tom Harrison, Mongo et al) fell for Engineer Ed hook line and sinker, whereas I don't think anyone on any side bought into Apollo20's "spiked fireproofing". Next time disguise your voice, Frank.

Having said that, the two important pieces of information from this thread are:

1. Spherules of iron in ground zero samples.
2. Fireproofing upgrade from 1995-2001.

Both certainly worthy of investigation.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am not Apollo20. I am Ace Baker. I score around 140 on standardized I.Q. tests.

Greening's gig is disinfo. He's engaged in the fine art of creating one's own opposition, just like Steven Jones. He doesn't need to convince OCTs of anything anymore, they already buy the official story. He's trying to capture truthers and fence-sitters, as Jones did, and lead them to a dead end, limited hangout.

He pulled a hoax, based on the Sokal Affiar, much as I did on Wikipedia with my Engineer Ed Hoax. Difference was, the OCTs on Wikipedia (Tom Harrison, Mongo et al) fell for Engineer Ed hook line and sinker, whereas I don't think anyone on any side bought into Apollo20's "spiked fireproofing". Next time disguise your voice, Frank.

Having said that, the two important pieces of information from this thread are:

1. Spherules of iron in ground zero samples.
2. Fireproofing upgrade from 1995-2001.

Both certainly worthy of investigation.
Click to expand...


I am not Frank Greening, I am TAM. I score between 150 and 160 on standard IQ tests...lol

No, not really, but I do score close to that range...trouble is I don't feel the need to state it. I think my posting speaks for itself on most occasions.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I am not Frank Greening, I am TAM. I score between 150 and 160 on standard IQ tests...lol

No, not really, but I do score close to that range...trouble is I don't feel the need to state it. I think my posting speaks for itself on most occasions.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


I am not Frank Greening, I am Charlie Sheen. I scored an A, B and a C on my hepatitis tests. I like sleeping, chocolate donuts, fast cars and fast women. I think 9/11 was a conspiracy because explosions are cool and the government sucks. The only real thing worth investigating is that crazy looking stain on my sheets.
 
HyJinX said:
I am not Frank Greening, I am Charlie Sheen. I scored an A, B and a C on my hepatitis tests. I like sleeping, chocolate donuts, fast cars and fast women. I think 9/11 was a conspiracy because explosions are cool and the government sucks. The only real thing worth investigating is that crazy looking stain on my sheets.
Click to expand...

This gets my "Cola through the nose" award for today...ROFLMAO

TAM:)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
I am not Apollo20. I am Ace Baker. I score around 140 on standardized I.Q. tests.
Click to expand...

Lemme guess, you took an online IQ test? I did too, and I scored 25 points higher than I did in high school. Online IQ tests(especially the emode one) are not standardized in any way, Ace. Anything with a pulse can score a 140 on them.
 
rwguinn said:
Crazy C:
It is not that we are not interested in what wend on during the collapse.
If Apollo20 is Dr. Greening, he knows the reason why the investigation stopped at collapse--
There is no way to model it accurately. PEriod. Even for an empty, powered down building, the variables are tremendous--rivit configurations and conditions, joint status, material and geometry variations (No two things--beams, rivets, concrete pours, etc., are ever identical)--even construction techniques--were some bolts tighter fits in the hole, under a higher pre-load, etc.
Even if such were identified, the computer simulations break down when non-linear geometry and non-linear materials reach much past yield.
That is not to say it cannot be done, but currently there isn't enough computer power in the world to run the simulation post-collapse. When you add in the placement of desks/bookshelves/computers/people/knick-nacks (all floor loading--for 1 acre each floor), the state of the electrical load, the condition of the electrical equipment (Transformers, breaker configuration) the power draw throughout the collapse (important to determine the energy available when transformers and big electrical stuff goes Boom!)--all variables--the situation is simply too big, and too unimportant in the scheme of things to even consider. What is important is understanding events up to that collapse.
Not that it wouldn't be fun to try, but several generations of engineers and scientists would be involved in such an effort.
Click to expand...


That happens to be the very argument that I had with Cters. That the overall collapse would require more computer modeling than is currently available.

But certain aspects of the collapse might give indications as to what went on after and why the early air data, is confusing.
One thing I found out in studying the chemical composition of light weight concrete with steel reinforcements is that Calcium Chloride is replaced with outer Accelerators and watering agents, such as sulfates, Calcium Nitrate, Calcium ThioSulfate, and even Gypsum.
I took some steel exposed it for a few days to Calcium Sulfate fertilizer in a free Oxygen starved Environment, and then exposed it to air. The result was a blue sulfur and steel flame. Calcium thiosulfate was all I had to test though, I use it on my Straw Berries.
Calcium Chloride is simply to corrosive to have been used on reinforced steel in light weight concrete.
Now you can call me a loon, but I do not know what the effects would be in the towers, or if it was even applied when I contacted people to find out I was told to refer to the NIST report, I could find nothing on the accelerators used in the concrete.
I simply can not find any more information on it.
One wetting agent is, http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/20567

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/acclerat.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/water.htm

I can find no data on the chemical composition of the concrete, and it is more complex then I first believed.
If I am wrong then that is OK, I am happy with NIST, as the best answer so far, but when your looking objectively and you see data that remains curious and you wonder what the explanation is, and you can not find out then how can your curiosity be satisfied.
YOU KNOW I am not a Cter, just seeking explanations to mysteries still left unsolved.
I can not ignore a great unexplored mystery, Because as Apollo20 has said, I do think outside the box.
I could never afford the box big enough for me and my chainsaws, and have you ever tried to use a gas saw inside a box it does not work, both you and the saw require oxygen.
I live in a physical universe where A+B=C the air Data is C I am just looking for What A+B represent.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I could never afford the box big enough for me and my chainsaws, and have you ever tried to use a gas saw inside a box it does not work, both you and the saw require oxygen.
Click to expand...



I just had a flashback to my undergrad days, of a professor discussing a closed system as being a box: "....and the smaller the box, the quicker you die."

:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I am not Frank Greening, I am TAM. I score between 150 and 160 on standard IQ tests...lol

No, not really, but I do score close to that range...trouble is I don't feel the need to state it. I think my posting speaks for itself on most occasions.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

i am not TAM. i am turt1es. i never have taken an IQ test, because i don't need a confidence blow.

apollo, as a "budding" young scientist (see: undergrad geologist), i've had very little exposure to the political world of science that exists beyond my campus in in journals, conferences and such, but i've had a couple instructors that have, and have been blatently honesty about its failings.

not even science can escape the grasp of bias it seems, but it certainly escapse bias more so than any other wide scale method.

most of us here don't worship the NIST, nor do we claim that NIST got everything perfect. realistically, there is no way NIST could have gotten everything perfect. so why do we constantly back NIST?

because the competing theories are so weak that there's nothing remotely so worthy as NIST's work. perhaps you've found something that should require more study? i eagerly await your further posts-- those that have avoided the political slant!-- as i know that there are details in the WTC collapses that will likely be obfuscated forever. i am genuinely interested.

regarding the smoldering fires, let me offer a story to you from my childhood...

growing up in a rural community i found my childhood spent in our orchards. only 50 acres of trees-- not a great deal by any standards!-- but enough to keep my family busy, and food on the table. all year long various fuel was added to the burnpile-- brush from the walnut orchards, old rotten wood or furniture, etc. all gathering in a heap waiting for the fateful day when it was to be doused with gasoline and burned to a smoldering pit of ashes. generally, the burns only happened in the spring, while vegitation was still wet and moist, but the sun was bright.

all round the year my father would warn us all to avoid the brush pile. though it had been 6 months since fire had last burned, the warnings would still come.

my brother ignored the warnings. his shoes caught fire and he sustained large, welting blisters all over his feet. this was when he ran through the pile nearly a year after the last burn.

ancedotal? yes. but i enjoyed typing this. it brought back memories...

take care,
anthony.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
That happens to be the very argument that I had with Cters. That the overall collapse would require more computer modeling that is currently available.

But certain aspects of the collapse might give indications as to what went on after and why the early air data, is confusing.
One thing I found out in studying the chemical composition of light weight concrete with steel reinforcements is that Calcium Chloride is replaced with outer Accelerators and watering agents, such as sulfates, Calcium Nitrate, Calcium ThioSulfate, and even Gypsum.
I took some steel exposed it for a few days to Calcium Sulfate fertilizer in a free Oxygen starved Environment, and then exposed it to air. The result was a blue sulfur and steel flame. Calcium thiosulfate was all I had to test though, I use it on my Straw Berries.
Calcium Chloride is simply to corrosive to have been used on reinforced steel in light weight concrete.
Now you can call me a loon, but I do not know what the effects would be in the towers, or if it was even applied when I contacted people to find out I was told to refer to the NIST report, I could find nothing on the accelerators used in the concrete.
I simply can not find any more information on it.
One wetting agent is, http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/20567

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/acclerat.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/materialsgrp/water.htm

I can find no data on the chemical composition of the concrete, and it is more complex then I first believed.
If I am wrong then that is OK, I am happy with NIST, as the best answer so far, but when your looking objectively and you see data that remains curious and you wonder what the explanation is, and you can not find out then how can your curiosity be satisfied.
YOU KNOW I am not a Cter, just seeking explanations to mysteries still left unsolved.
I can not ignore a great unexplored mystery, Because as Apollo20 has said, I do think outside the box.
I could never afford the box big enough for me and my chainsaws, and have you ever tried to use a gas saw inside a box it does not work, both you and the saw require oxygen.
I live in a physical universe where A+B=C the air Data is C I am just looking for What A+B represent.
Click to expand...
Good Heavens, man! You want to add Chemical reactions in there too?
Holy (rule8)! Only the (theoretical) Creator has the CPU power to do all that, and I hear He's pretty well booked up, what with the Eagle Nebula and all...
 
rwguinn said:
Good Heavens, man! You want to add Chemical reactions in there too?
Holy (rule8)! Only the (theoretical) Creator has the CPU power to do all that, and I hear He's pretty well booked up, what with the Eagle Nebula and all...
Click to expand...
I don't know, the new gaming rig I have spec'd out...
 
Sorry if you now recheck my previous post the spelling error, from that to than is now corrected.
 
rwguinn said:
Good Heavens, man! You want to add Chemical reactions in there too?
Holy (rule8)! Only the (theoretical) Creator has the CPU power to do all that, and I hear He's pretty well booked up, what with the Eagle Nebula and all...
Click to expand...



This is why I advocate the creation of Real World Computational Simulations of the Towers.

That is, build 20-30 full-scale copies of the buildings, and destroy them in various ways, so as to determine which way most accurately resembles the 9/11 events.

It's the ony way to be sure*.





*And yes, this is a subtle reference to nuking at least one of them from orbit!
 
apathoid said:
Lemme guess, you took an online IQ test? I did too, and I scored 25 points higher than I did in high school. Online IQ tests(especially the emode one) are not standardized in any way, Ace. Anything with a pulse can score a 140 on them.
Click to expand...

Damn, you really know how to ruin a chaps evening. So I'm not the most intelligent person in the universe after all.....

...well at least I'm still the greatest lover :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom