• 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.

Frank Greening Refuted Easily

Try again.
Russell, "Truthseeker1234" is a very dishonest person who has no problem lieing. You can ask him yourself. He certainlly lied to me on e-mail. I also believe there's a strong possible chance of mental illness.

As a side note, I do NOT agree with all of Greenings papers. I'll have to look through this new paper and ask him some questions to better clairify. I believe others should do the same.
 
Truthseeker,

Great thread!

I love watching the tizzy fits and insults thrown around when these people are confronted with evidence they can't handle.

I noticed they even tried to make you look bad for posting the video as if they don't post the same when it is in their favor.

I am glad to see they use the same MO on you. It's almost like they have an organized strategy!

Keep up the good work.

Russell
Yawn.
 
Russell, "Truthseeker1234" is a very dishonest person who has no problem lieing. You can ask him yourself. He certainlly lied to me on e-mail. I also believe there's a strong possible chance of mental illness.

A tiny good natured spoofing in my first email to Kent. I used my real name, but I claimed to believe in the official story. I said it was my cousin who was the truther, and could I please have some help debunking.

I was just afraid that if I let on which side I was really on, he wouldn't talk to me. I "confessed" to Kent shortly thereafter. That's what I "lied" about.

The other "huge lie" told by me is "the Engineer Ed Hoax", modeled after the Sokal Affair, where I gave empirical proof that an editorial bias existed at Wikipedia. I also "confessed" to that "lie" as soon as I had made my point. I am proud of the Engineer Ed Hoax.
 
What about all the other lies? Like the recent one that I called you on, where you said that Greening believes that WTC1's top section didn't disintegrate until it hit the ground?
 
What about all the other lies? Like the recent one that I called you on, where you said that Greening believes that WTC1's top section didn't disintegrate until it hit the ground?

THat is exactly what Greening's paper says. It's quoted in the OP.
 
A tiny good natured spoofing in my first email to Kent. I used my real name, but I claimed to believe in the official story. I said it was my cousin who was the truther, and could I please have some help debunking.

I was just afraid that if I let on which side I was really on, he wouldn't talk to me. I "confessed" to Kent shortly thereafter. That's what I "lied" about.

The other "huge lie" told by me is "the Engineer Ed Hoax", modeled after the Sokal Affair, where I gave empirical proof that an editorial bias existed at Wikipedia. I also "confessed" to that "lie" as soon as I had made my point. I am proud of the Engineer Ed Hoax.

You didn't "confess" until I confronted you with it,.... after I said "blown to kingdom come"
I deal with dozens upon dozens of e-mails who have no problem telling me the truth.
 
Last edited:
Greenings language is clear. He means that the top block goes all the way down to the ground. He has to mean that. His theory requires that the mass is accumulating. Utterly divorced from reality.

say what? Are you trying to suggest that mass was being destroyed? That would be a first and would involve thermonuclear processes. Are you advancing yet another dumb theory that this is the case?

Intact or not the mass is going to get bigger as each floor adds to the one below it.

It's pretty simple - almost as simple as you appear to be.
 
Let's back up. Yes or no, did Frank Greening say this:

We now apply this simple model to the WTC collapse. We assume that both
WTC building collapses began with an upper block of nfloors collapsing onto a series of
lower floors as in the “domino effect”. We shall refer to this process as the first stage of
collapse. For this stage, (see equation 1), we have an initial mass nmf falling onto the
floor below and becoming mass (n+1)mf. This new, enlarged, block of floors descends
with velocity v2= {n/(n+1)}v1through a distance hfat which point itstrikes the floor
below and becomes mass (n+2)mf moving at velocity {n/(n+2)}v2, and so on. This
implies a first stage collapse sequence for WTC 1: all floors from 110 to 96 (= 14 floors)
collapse onto floor 95; all these floors collapse onto 94 93 92 and so on to 32 
1; for WTC 2 all floors from 110 to 81 (= 29 floors) follow the same sequential process.
At the end of each of these collapse events we envision a second stage of collapse
involving the destruction of the upper block of the WTC buildings: for WTC 1 the 97th
floor, plus all floors above, collapse onto the pile of rubble topped by floor 96; this is
followed by floor 98 (plus all floors above) collapsing onto floor 97 and so on. The 2nd
stage sequence for WTC 1 ends with floor 110 collapsing on to all lower floors. For
WTC 2 the 2ndstage involves floor 82 collapsing onto floor 81, followed by 83, 84, etc,
collapsing on to the pile of rubble until floor 110 collapses onto all lower floors.
 
You didn't "confess" until I confronted you with it,.... after I said "blown to kingdom come"
I deal with dozens upon dozens of e-mails who have no problem telling me the truth.

Let's see. I have a song linked from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth homepage, with my real name. I email you with my real name. Does it really sound like I'm trying to "pull one over on you" for all time? No.

I have emailed dozens of people who refuse to talk to me, yet will gladly talk to (equally insignificant) people who are "on their side". It's just how it goes. Like Jonathan Barnett, for instance. And Bazant. And Jim Glanz.

All I have ever "lied" about is my identity. Even so, I am the one who currently is "out of the closet". You all know exactly who I am. Strip away the ad hominem attacks on my character, and we can see how shallow the "argument" for the official story really is.

Honestly guys, the ad hominems only embolden us.
 
say what? Are you trying to suggest that mass was being destroyed?
Intact or not the mass is going to get bigger as each floor adds to the one below it.

Mass was not destroyed. It was, however, rendered into a fine powder and ejected outside the footprint of the building. It is the official story which must believe that the mass of the towers somehow disappeared, because when the "collapse" is over, there is no pile.
 

Back
Top Bottom