• 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

TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes. Here is a picture of a collapse about 1/3rd over. Yes, it appears that about 1/3rd of a tower's worth of material has been rendered into fine powder and ejected.
Click to expand...

Key word: APPEARS. The problem is, what looks like a small chunk at that distance is really several meters long.

I jump into this thread periodically to remind you that Greening uses that for his MODEL. He doesn't claim that's what actually happened.
Click to expand...

LOL
Click to expand...

Oh, so you DON'T understand the difference ?

I am not the one who says it goes poof, Greening is. And by extension, you Jrefs. You say most of the mass stays within the footprint, pushing down, accumulating, pulverizing, and then . . .when its all over . . .it's gone!!
Click to expand...

Except for a 5-storey high pile of rubble that reaches across the street.

In reality, most of the mass of the towers was turned into power, and ejected outside the footprint
Click to expand...

Yes, that IS your assumption. Care to prove it ?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the experts can't be trusted, but armchair analyses of low-resolution pictures at bad angles can ?
 
Belz... said:
Oh, so the experts can't be trusted, but armchair analyses of low-resolution pictures at bad angles can ?
Click to expand...

And not trusting any experts makes it very convenient for armchair analysts and their low-resolution pictures at bad angles, doesn't it?

Even the most robust and effective refutation of one's position by a recognized expert in a relevant field can be hand waved away by simply not trusting any experts.

I like it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Click to expand...

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?
 
The Almond said:
Ummm, huh?

...snip....


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?
Click to expand...

because they project their personalities onto everyone--just like the fundies do.
The worst part of their character is what everyone would be like without their limiting factor...

Just my opinio.
 
The Almond said:
Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?
Click to expand...

NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
NIST did not study the "collapses" of the towers.
Click to expand...

While the focus was on the initiation, they DID study the collapse. If you read the NIST report you could see for example the section called "Events Following Collapse Initiation" in section 9.3.3. There is also other sections where they discuss Bazant's paper and the observations regarding the antenna collapse.
 
Last edited:
The Almond said:
That's it? That's the entirety of your response?
Click to expand...

What else can he say? The claim that the NIST's numbers, or ANY numbers that show the official story may just possibly be the most logical explanation are 'made up' is ludicrous, and troothydude knows it.
 
The Almond said:
Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?
Click to expand...

Because once you start down the "conspiracy theory" delusion trail, the only way to keep going is to keep piling more delusions on top of your earlier delusions. All the evidence that proves you wrong must have been faked; all the evidence that would prove you right must have been covered up; and anyone who can't see these "obvious truths" must be either in on it or stupid. There isn't anything that can't be worked into the "theory" by just adding another delusion.
 
Kent1 said:
While the focus was on the initiation, they DID study the collapse. If you read the NIST report you could see for example the section called "Events Following Collapse Initiation" in section 9.3.3. There is also other sections where they discuss Bazant's paper and the observations regarding the antenna collapse.
Click to expand...


They also studied it while in high school....I believe the topic was called 'gravity'
 
Roger_Harris said:
Because once you start down the "conspiracy theory" delusion trail, the only way to keep going is to keep piling more delusions on top of your earlier delusions. All the evidence that proves you wrong must have been faked; all the evidence that would prove you right must have been covered up; and anyone who can't see these "obvious truths" must be either in on it or stupid. There isn't anything that can't be worked into the "theory" by just adding another delusion.
Click to expand...

Ah, the fundamental aspect of religion.
 
Belz... said:
Wow.

I actually expected you to answer what Almond said with either "Yes, that's exactly what I believe" or "No, I'm not that dumb."

Instead we have this unrelated piece of drivel.

Rich.
Click to expand...

I was kind of hoping for a yes/no answer as well. I mean, I actually might have respected him more if he actually said yes. That would indicate that the strength of his convictions is actually motivating him, rather than some pathological need for attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom