• 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

Ace Baker Pwnd Easily by Greening

For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!
 
Foolmewunz said:
For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!
Click to expand...

Whasssup Tucson?! How is my home town these days? I haven't been for quite a while, although I've been in Phoenix quite a bit.
 
Foolmewunz said:
For those of you following this thread, but unaware of the Debate, What Debate Thread....

This just in from the Tucson Chapter of the Ace Baker Fan Club....

The reason for the bump yesterday was not April Fool's Day, although it's easy to see that possible association.... Apollo20(Dr. Greening) came to visit, and in this thread played with "CT Meets Bad Science". Ace didn't know when to shut up. The Doc fed him his hat, coat, and shoes when he lied about a private email he'd received.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78111

It's mandatory reading for TS1234/Ace Baker fans!
Click to expand...

I've posted the Greening email quote in the link above, with my interpretation. People should also know that Greening issued a whopper about me, lying that I had sent him a computer virus. I had to threaten to sue him to get an apology. He did apologize, I accepted his apology, and that was the end of it.
 
CHF said:
TS,

what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...

Sometimes we forget that not everyone participated in the original TS1234 threads (not recommended for reasons of sanity).

But as to our friend Alexander "Ace" Baker? Well, he's downright famous. A legend in his own mind. Musician, producer, mixer, sometime Robardian economist from the Vienna School, and all-'round Libertarian of the highest order.......

For the new kids on the block, I give you Ace Baker's greatest hit.

http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/BlownToKingdomCome.html

My favorite verse(but it's hard to say, they're all so brilliant):

Excerpted without permission, but with a loophole... Ace has generously permitted us to distribute this, all or in part, as long as it's for educational purposes.

Have you forgotten

What we saw as one?

Oh those towers turned to dust

They were blown to kingdom come

Have you forgotten

Just how fast they fell?

Office fires can’t do that

No there ain’t no way in hell

The "confession tape"

Looks nothing like bin Laden

Have you forgotten?
Click to expand...

Doctor Adequate is putting away his quill pen forever, I fear. Mercutio won't dare post any more verse at JREF now that Ace is in town.
 
TS,

what do you do for a living?
Click to expand...


Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.

I found Dr Greening's comment amusing.

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
stupidenglishgit said:
Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums, stu...er...SEG. :)

I don't think anyone's profession was being slagged off here. CHF didn't know what TS1234 did for a living. That's all. I haven't seen anyone disparage musicians on this forum. In fact, this place is full of music lovers.

There happen to be several musicians and DJs in the truth movement who are prominent and really, really, really paranoid and dumb. TS1234 gets criticized because his ideas are arrogantly idiotic. That doesn't reflect on the intelligence or sanity of all musicians.

As for people here with science and engineering credentials, there are many. I hope you'll stick around and learn from them as I have.
 
S.E.G.,
What Binglybert said!
I grew up around music and musicians, and wish I could so much as play a chord without it sounding like someone ran over a kitten. I have not one iota of musical talent, other than a good ear.
But if you'd have read through Ace's postings in his original colossal thread, and clicked the site to see the pretentious crap he put into that movement song, you'd have gotten a clearer idea of what I was talking about.
I also dangled his economics and political beliefs, as he's been silent on those topics for a while. I wasn't disparaging economists or politicos, either, but trying to give CHF a hint of the Big Package of Ace Baker.
We don't taunt Ace because he's a musician. We taunt him because he's illogical bordering on dementia, self-serving, and pompous ass!
 
Last edited:
This NIST petition offers a nice discussion refuting Greening's model.

Finally, the same section goes on to state “Since the stories below the level of
collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the
falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as
seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased,
further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the
moving mass.” (NCSTAR 1, p.146) Again, the reader is given no estimate or supporting
calculations of the “tremendous energy released by the falling building mass”, nor any
support for the statement that “the falling mass increased” as the stories failed. In fact,
pictures and videos of the collapses clearly depict mass in the form of building debris and
dust being ejected from the building in all directions during the collapses. Such ejected
debris and dust could hardly contribute to the falling mass as NIST has asserted. It is also
apparent from the videos and pictures of the collapses available in the public domain that
the upper portion of WTC 1 did not fall as a block upon the lower undamaged portion,
but instead disintegrated as it fell. Thus, there would be no single large impact from a
falling bock, as implied by the wording of the WTC Report quoted above. In reality,
there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper
portion arrived. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” used in the WTC Report
suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading. This deceptive wording indicates an
intent on the part of NIST to create a false impression of the manner in which the
collapse began and progressed, in the belief that the average reader would simply accept
the authority of the report and would not study the videos and pictures closely.
Click to expand...

source
 
It is also apparent from the videos and pictures of the collapses available in the public domain that the upper lower portion of WTC 1 did not fall resist collapse as a block upon against the lower undamaged upper falling portion, but instead disintegrated as it fell was impacted. Thus, there would be no single large impact resistance from a falling standing block, as implied by the wording of the WTC Report petition quoted above. In reality, there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper lower portion arrived were struck. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” "stories below" used in the WTC Report petition suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading. This deceptive wording indicates an intent on the part of NIST the petitioners to create a false impression of the manner in which the collapse began and progressed, in the belief that the average reader would simply accept the authority of the report petition and would not study the videos and pictures closely.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
“Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the
moving mass.”
Click to expand...


mass (măs) pronunciation
n.

1. A unified body of matter with no specific shape: a mass of clay.
2. A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity: “Take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates” (Herman Melville).
3. A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises.
4. A lump or aggregate of coherent material: a cancerous mass.
5. The principal part; the majority: the mass of the continent.
6. The physical volume or bulk of a solid body.
7. (Abbr. m) Physics. A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to its weight.
8. An area of unified light, shade, or color in a painting.
9. Pharmacology. A thick, pasty mixture containing drugs from which pills are formed.
10. masses The body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status: “Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (Emma Lazarus).
Click to expand...


In reality, there would be a series of small impacts as the fragments of the disintegrating upper portion arrived. In short, the phrase “falling building mass” used in the WTC Report suggests a solid block and is therefore misleading.
Click to expand...


In what way is this misleading? Wouldn't the jumble of parts that constituted the material that made it's way down the towers be accurately described as "A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity"? They just don't like the defintion that is being used, and insist on using a different one.

In fact, I'd suggest that the petitioner's use of "series of small impacts" is inherently misleading. "Series" implies a sequence of one impact after another, when in fact a large number of the impacts of individual elements would have been simultaneous. And "small" is hardly the word I'd use for the impact of multi-ton steel columns and floor slabs.

So who is it who's attempting to mislead the public?
 
"People should also know that Greening issued a whopper about me, lying that I had sent him a computer virus."

Ace, you know this is complete and utter CRAP.........

Is "wondering" the same as "lying" in your universe?
 
Apollo20:

Welcome back. I hope your stay is longer this time. Alot has been discussed about your initial entrance to this forum. I hope most of us will let that fall, and be open to any honest discussion you wish to have about the NIST report or other 9/11 topics.

TAM:)
 
Apollo20 said:
Just setting the record straight with Mr. Baker!
Click to expand...

Well if that is the only reason for your return, that is a shame. Perhaps at a later point, if you feel the forum has something to offer, or you something to offer it, than maybe you will return for more lengthy discussion.

TAM:)
 
stupidenglishgit said:
Why do us musos always get such a bad press? Could it be because we do for a living what many others do as a hobby - only we do it rather better? You might as well slag off a professional chef or a basketball player , but somehow I don't think you would.

Anyway, it would be nice to know how many of the regulars here have scientific qualifications. That would be very revealing.
Click to expand...



Welcome to the forums. :)

I created this thread inviting people to list their areas of expertise. An eye-opening read.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom