• 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

stateofgrace said:
This from F.R.Greening via Ronald Wieck has just been posted.

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/11/pulverization-of-concrete-in-wtc-1.html

Any comment BS1234?
Click to expand...

Greening has now changed his story, this is progress, as Greening now evidently admits that a very large percentage of the concrete was rendered into fine powder. Perhaps he now got around to actually watching the videos, for his new theory is a step toward describing what we actually observe, though it's not there yet. He used to say that the top block went all the way down first, then the top block collaped. Now he says that the top block and the intact structure mutually anihilate, one floor at a time.

There are serious problems here. GreeningOld will refer to his first theory, GreeningNew will refer to the new one.

1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore. What mass would be present below floor 83 to wipe out the remainder of the structure, the strongest, heaviest part? Everything above has already been pulverized, according to GreeningNew.

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.

I can study this more, its just my intitial reaction. The fact that he seems to be finally admitting the obvious, that is the floor assemblies were rendered into fine powder. Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Greening has now changed his story, this is progress, as Greening now evidently admits that a very large percentage of the concrete was rendered into fine powder.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no he doesn't. He says Vast quantities of dust and debris were dispersed and he says "much" of the material in the Twin Towers was completely pulverized. At no point does he state what percentage of the concrete was pulverized let alone state that such a percentage was "very large."

Now he says that the top block and the intact structure mutually anihilate, one floor at a time.
Click to expand...

He does not appear to state this. He nowhere states that the first two floors anihilated each other, leaving the next two floors to meet. It's just not in the paper that you are citing.


In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore.
Click to expand...

He does not state that this is what happened. Moreover, even to the extent that he does state that concrete was particlized, nowhere does he state that it disappears. Even if 100% of floors 96 and 97 were turned to dust (which Greening does not claim), the dust does not evaporate. It does not wink out of existence. It (or much of it) remains right there, trapped between floors 95 and 98. It continues to have mass and it continues to exert force.

After the towers collapse, this dust is available to spread out over New York which is, according to your beloved video evidence, when most of it does so.

Seriously, you should buy a pair of glasses or something because I don't think you can read. Or maybe you just can't read things that prove you wrong.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
There are serious problems here. GreeningOld will refer to his first theory, GreeningNew will refer to the new one.

1. In WTC1, the top 14 floors "fell". According to GreeningNew, floor 97 falls onto 96, and both of them pulverize. Then 98 falls onto 95, and both of them are gone. Then 99 onto 94, which mutually anihilate, and so on. What happens after floor 110 and floor 83 mutually self-destruct? There is no floor 111 to be "the self destructing sledgehammger" anymore. What mass would be present below floor 83 to wipe out the remainder of the structure, the strongest, heaviest part? Everything above has already been pulverized, according to GreeningNew.

I can study this more, its just my intitial reaction.
Click to expand...

It probably would be a good idea for you to study the paper a little more. You have totally misunderstood his point "energy sinks should be summed over two WTC floors per impact ...". All Greening is doing here is accounting for the energy used in the pulverization of the floors above the collapse initiation. This is simple bookeeping, and Greening is doing it very conservatively. He is most definitely not claiming that each floor above the collapse initiation level individually collapsed a single floor below the collapse initiation level.
 
Didn't read it all did you BS?

A study of the growth of the kinetic energy of the upper section of WTC 1 as the Tower collapsed shows that the mass specific impact energy of the first four collisions increased from 3.4 J/g (1st impact), to 6.4 J/g (2nd impact), to 8.7 J/g (3rd impact), to 11.7 J/g (4th impact) - See Greening’s “Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse Events of September 11th 2001” and subsequent Addendum. Hence, by the 4th impact, the energy supplied to the concrete was sufficient to cause it to fragment to the limiting size distribution noted above. At this point, and for all subsequent impacts, the energy consumed in pulverizing the WTC 1 concrete was essentially constant and progressively less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy as illustrated in Figure 2.

Thus we conclude that:

1.50 % of the WTC 1 concrete was pulverized to particles less than 1 mm in diameter, (and 30 % was smaller than 100 microns).
2.For all impacts of the upper section of WTC 1, less than 15 % of the available impact kinetic energy was dissipated in pulverizing the concrete.

For the all-important first impact of the upper section of WTC 1 on the floor below (i.e. the upper section impacting the 95th floor), the data in Table 1, (combined with the known 627 tonne mass of impacted material), indicate that 234 MJ of kinetic energy would have been consumed in pulverizing the concrete on the first impacted floor. In the Addendum to Greening’s WTC Report the energy consumed in crushing the concrete on the first impacted floor of WTC 1 was estimated by an entirely different method to be 213 MJ in reasonable agreement with the present calculation.
Click to expand...

I have just received the entire document it is word format and is too big to upload as an attachment; it is 144k in size. I really don't want to do a copy and paste job. It is 21 pages long.

Any advice?
 
stateofgrace said:
Didn't read it all did you BS?



I have just received the entire document it is word format and is too big to upload as an attachment; it is 144k in size. I really don't want to do a copy and paste job. It is 21 pages long.

Any advice?
Click to expand...

Put the word "Fnord" at the top of the first page and again at the bottom of the last page so that TS$1.98 won't be able to read it. :D
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Put the word "Fnord" at the top of the first page and again at the bottom of the last page so that TS$1.98 won't be able to read it. :D
Click to expand...

Ha-ha, I'm led to believe it'll be available on 911 myths shortly. All 21 pages of it. I’m sure BS 4-5=9 will give us all his full rebuttal of it soon afterwards
:jaw-dropp
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could apologize for claiming any validity whatsoever to Reynolds's "no-plane" paper, and then when it was thoroughly debunked, just slinking off without admitting your error.
 
Edit to delete double post.
 
Last edited:
Didn't read it all did you BS?
Click to expand...

He seems to only "read" what he wants to see. And then gets even the parts he chooses to see dead wrong. It's a very common trait among tinhatters.

TS1+2=4:

Dr. Greening lives not far from where I live. His contact information is readily available, and he seems like a pretty approachable sort of man.

It is apparent that you are not willing to approach him yourself with your accusations and your purported "refutation" of his work, so here is my proposal to you:

Send me your specific refutation of his work (be sure to show your own work and be specific about what it is you think he got wrong so that the dialogue has some meaning), and I will contact him, arrange a meeting with him, and ask for his specific response to your specific "refutation". I'll even spring for lunch.

What have you got to lose?

It's time to put up or shut up.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
He used to say that the top block went all the way down first, then the top block collaped.
Click to expand...
You lie again. BS1234, everyone reading this knows that you're lying in this statement - why even bother writing it?

2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse.
Click to expand...
He's abandoned the notion of accumulating mass in the collapse? Can you point me to exactly where he says this?

'Cause the mass of that stuff still accumulates, that's why.
 
New Greening Paper

A new paper by Dr. Frank Greening on the pulverization of concrete at the WTC appears on 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
2. Now that he has abandoned the notion of accumulating mass required in GreeningOld, we have lost the mechanism used to explain the sensational speed of collapse. GreeningNew is thus mutually exclusive with GreeningOld, they can't both be true.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this little bit?

However, regardless of the details of the concrete particle size and contribution to the WTC dust, it is concluded that 2/3rds of the concrete debris fell within the approximate footprint of the two towers.
Click to expand...

I guess so.....
 
I've just read through the pdf version of the paper. He does a much better job than I in figuring out the mass of the dust layer. I guess I can just post a link to his paper now.

We have previously shown that the WTC dust was made up of concrete, gypsum, manmade vitreous fiber and cellulose-based material of which only about 40 % was concrete. Thus we estimate that the collapse of WTC 1& 2 deposited about 50,000 tonnes of concrete outside the footprint of the towers. If we consider that the total mass of concrete in the two towers was about 150,000 tonnes we conclude that 100,000 tonnes of concrete fell within the footprint of the towers. This has important implications for the issue of mass-shedding during the tower’s collapse. It suggests that more than 90 % of the mass, (concrete and steel), in the damage zone created at each impacted floor was retained by the descending “hammer” thereby sustaining the progressive collapse of WTC 1
Click to expand...

So he has it as about 33% of the concrete as dust outside the footprint area of the towers, which is more than what I came up with, but not unreasonably so.

It's also nice to see how he connects his work to various different, but related subjects - concrete fracturing, mining of rock, and collisions of astronomical bodies - to show the mechanisms are pretty much universal. That's how real science works - if it works here, it'll work anywhere, and we don't need to make up all sorts of fairy-land stuff about death rays or hushaboom nukes. Nice to see after weeks of CT nonsense.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Perhaps you JREFs could apologize for being so adamant and rude to me, and claiming that they weren't pulverized. Of course they were, and this settles it.
Click to expand...

You just lied to the readers of this forum about the content of Greenings paper and you have the gall to ask us for an apology?

Your social grace is as lacking as your scientific & technical literacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom