Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[TruthSeeker1234]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?

 

[Pardalis]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.

How are you able to ascertain this? Source?

Do you have any sources besides your ass?

 

[pgwenthold]

First, if you think you've refuted Greening, then you could always email him and point this out. He's happy to reply to anyone with constructive criticisms.

Can I just re-iterate this?

Why is it that CTists "are just asking questions" but never really ask those questions of those who are in the best position to answer them? Given today's information resources, you can without too much trouble find contact information for pretty much anyone you want (heck, when I was in college (pre-WWW), I found the phone numbers for Mr. Wizard and Buzz Aldrin. I went to the library and looked up them up in the phone book - talked to Mr Wizard directly, but only got Buzz's answering machine)

I agree, folks like Greening will gladly talk to people who have _constructive_ criticism. Granted, it won't take him about a minute to realize that this guy is a loon, but really, truthseeker, if you are serious about any of this, contact Greening and show him your analysis, and explain what he got wrong.

I always thought the same thing about Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why in the world is anyone speculating about what he meant? Why doesn't someone go up and ask, "there has been a lot of speculation about your comment to "pull" WTC 7. What did you mean by "they decided to pull it"?" It's not like these guys are dead, or anything.

I've done stuff like this all the time in various arenas (nothing 9/11 related). For example, I have had plenty of interaction with Jeff Sagarin, the guy that does computer rankings for sports (pretty much everything) listed in the USA Today. The key to these things are to engage them in a reasonable discussion, and not to get accusatory or insulting. They will answer questions, if you have them, and will consider criticism (I pointed out to Sagarin that he was incorrectly treating overtime games in basketball - he acknowledged that I was right, but that he didn't have sufficiently consistent access to the necessary information to make the change worthwhile)

If you have something useful to say, serious people will listen. If you want to make a difference, you have to talk to them, and not hide behind internet discussion groups.

 

[uk_dave]

Truthseeker,

How many forum have you posted this same old stuff on time and time again and had all the answers given to you before you move on to the next forum to start all over again?

And where did you get the pictures you posted on the clemson university forum site showing (you claimed) the undamaged station below the wtc towers when in fact that station was over the river in NJ?

Were you lied to about those pictures, or did you choose to lie about them yourself?

Just asking questions here

 

[Loss Leader]

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Ah, but there is a difference, an equivocation to your statements.

For argument's sake, let us say that after the smoke and dust cleared, much of the mass may well have been gone. This does not tell us anything about how much mass stayed with the building on the way down or during the initial phase of the collapse.

I personally remember the south tower falling in a cloud of dust but only after it had mostly fallen did a huge wave of dust billow out to cover streets in all directions.

Even if you could determine what percentage of the mass of the tower eventually turned to dust, there is absolutely no possible way to determine what part of the mass of the tower survived as part of the tower at any given point in the collapse.

 

[maccy]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg

An argument from incredulity. Also, your argument doesn't take into acount:

1. the basement levels of the towers, into which much of the rubble will have fallen

2. that the photograph you have used is from directly above, giving us no idea of how tall the pile of rubble is

3. it does, however, show that as the tower hit the ground it did, indeed, spread out beyonf its own footprint.

 

[Alt+F4]

And where did you get the pictures you posted on the clemson university forum site showing (you claimed) the undamaged station below the wtc towers when in fact that station was over the river in NJ?

That's what I've been telling TS...undated, uncredited photos prove nothing. He says, "look at the lack of debris in this photo!" but we don't know if that photo was taken right after the smoke from the fires cleared or sometime in 2002.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

This tread is one of the most hilarious ones I have read in a long time, just think of all that mass being funneled down on the core inside the building on top of the head truss, disappearing all at once.

Dr. Greening has it right, and TruthSeeker1234 gos and proves it.

 

[Belz...]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.

Key word : IF.

For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.

Key word: Appears.

Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

What, exactly, is a "big" pile to you ?

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here.

Ah! Excellent. Actual numbers. Could you show your calculation and reasoning for that conclusion ?

 

[Horatius]

Ah! Excellent. Actual numbers. Could you show your calculation and reasoning for that conclusion ?

I sense the future...it comes on me like a wave...The Answer is....NO!


So where's my million?


What, judgement from experience isn't paranormal? Drat!

 

[mortimer]

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

We observe something totally different than that. We observe that, right from the beginning, very large quantities of matter are converted into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. Once outside the footprint, this mass does not contribute to the "collapse". Even dust that remains above the footprint does not contribute much if anything, because its surface area-to-mass ratio becomes too large, and it is resisted by air to a significant degree.

What exactly do you think that fine powder consists of?

 

[rwguinn]

What exactly do you think that fine powder consists of?

Steel
Invisicrete
Plastic
glass
what else can there be?
[/stupidity mode]

 

[mortimer]

Steel
Invisicrete
Plastic
glass
what else can there be?
[/stupidity mode]

Well it certainly couldn't be drywall, right? Someone claimed it was the third most prevalent building material (by mass? by volume? dunno) in the WTC behind steel and concrete. If it were drywall, it would certainly make sense that it didn't take much energy to "pulverize" and make thick gray/white clouds of dust. That doesn't fit in to what we observe at all! The concrete was pulverized into a fine dust (and thus not available to contribute to the progressive collapse), while the drywall went somewhere else...magically transported to Fresh Kills perhaps?

 

[Trigood]

That's what I've been telling TS...undated, uncredited photos prove nothing. He says, "look at the lack of debris in this photo!" but we don't know if that photo was taken right after the smoke from the fires cleared or sometime in 2002.

Or last week?

 

[Trifikas]

Isn't Greening just seperating the two stages out as a mathmatical shortcut to calculate an estimated time of collapse? I don't think he's actually saying they fell that way.

Free tip:
The Physics behind putting the towers up isn't easy. The Physics behind their collapse isn't, either. If you think your argument "Easily" defeats the Greening / NIST model of the events, or if you think you can explain it away with "Simple" Physics, you've probably overlooked something.

 

[pomeroo]

Next!

Dear Mr. Fetzer,

I assume that your silence communicates your refusal to debate Mark Roberts.

Ronald Wieck

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I swear, you could drop the twin towers from twice their height and they would leave far more and far bigger rubble than what we observe here. Imagine seven of those black banker's trust buildings being dropped out of the sky onto ground zero. How big would the pile be?

Sigh.

You know, I hope, that a human being's physical state is approx. 60% water? Take the H2O out of the boy and you'll be left with something noticeably smaller.

A building is not a solid block of matter. It "contains" a great deal of air/empty space. Remove much of the space (as with WTC collapes) and the remaining material will seem (to some) an abnormally small amount.

I don't expect you to acknowledge this, but oh well.

 

[Pardalis]

Welcom to the forum M. Wieck.

 

[Anti-sophist]

For the third time, at least. Greening's model requires that the mass accumulates. 14 floors drops down one. Now 15 floors drop down one. Then 16 floors, etc.

For the fourth time, you fail to demonstrate how the simplification from reality to the model effects the prediction. Demonstrating that the model is simpler isn't a significant accomplishment. Showing how the simplification adversely effected the predicted outcome is.

 

[rwguinn]

If you imagine the ground is at the 96th floor of WTC1, The behavior of the top 14 floors during the first several seconds of "collapse" is very much like a standard demolition, yes, absolutey.





For the forth time, at least. Most if not all of the mass appears to be pulverized and ejected outside the footprint, making it unavailable to push downwards on the structure.




Listen carefully counselor. After the smoke and dust cleared, the mass was gone. It did not "remain with the building" as you imagine. If it remained with the building, we would be able to see it. Big piles of it. But we do not.

Instead, when the smoke and dust cleared, we had obliteration. We had perimeter columns shredded and thrown all over hell, almost no sign of the core structure of either tower, positively no sign of a floor assembly anywhere. There was, however, 1"-2" of dust covering a couple of square miles, at least. This amount of dust accounts for the missing mass at ground zero.
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image141.jpg

That's an awfully big pile for only being "20%" (or whatever your latest analy-extracted number is)
look at the scale, ijit!
I swear, I have a yellow-handled screwdriver with more intellegence than you...