Frank Greening Refuted Easily

[FactCheck]

R. Mackey:

I agree with you on that... I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives.

Yes, we can't rule out aliens teleporting into the towers and rigging cables to pull in the perimeter columns either. Which is why evidence is so very, very important.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, we can't rule out aliens teleporting into the towers and rigging cables to pull in the perimeter columns either. Which is why evidence is so very, very important.

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM

It wasn't the aliens.

It wasn't the leprechauns.

Ahem.

(Sounds of throat clearing)

It was DA JOOOS!!!

 

[T.A.M.]

was that orange or apple jooos?

TAM (derailing as usual)

 

[pomeroo]

was that orange or apple jooos?

TAM (derailing as usual)

TAM, I had an idea for a "Family Circus" cartoon. Shards of a broken vase litter the floor. Mom frowns at the sheepish little kid, who finally stammers: "It was the Jews."

It could be titled, "The Little Conspiracy Theorist."

 

[T.A.M.]

Ron:

You wanna get hate mail from Family Circus nut jobs...dont you?

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron:

You wanna get hate mail from Family Circus nut jobs...dont you?

TAM

(Shudder) Not the Family Circus crowd! Those guys will lop off your cajones and feed them to their pit bulls!

 

[pomeroo]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.

Your relentless sanity and intelligence is making me look bad. Please cut it out or volunteer for 'Hardfire' duty.

 

[T.A.M.]

C'mon, guys, relax. Dr. Greening is saying -- correctly -- that on its own, the NIST report or any calculation limited to the collapse itself, does not rule out explosives. Provided we compute a collapse is possible, as we do, this doesn't provide any evidence for explosives, either, but it in itself does not rule out explosives.

Rather, explosives are ruled out by the sundry other observations, not the least of which is there was no sign of them before, during, or after, and our calculations make it clear that explosives were unneccessary.

This observation is correct. Strict, pedantic perhaps, but correct.

100% agreement. Anyone who states that NIST proves explosives were not used is incorrect. Properly stated, the NIST report, along with the lack of evidence for explosives, make the case for the use of explosives almost nil.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

Or the leprachauns...why does everybody forget the poor leprachauns.

TAM

I've had jsut about enough of this "leperchon" disinfo! Everyone knows it was the pixies!

Why can't these "leapercons" disinfo shills be baned? Isn't this a serious forum, or what?

[/LCF]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...Finally, let me add that there is too much political ideology (on both sides) driving the 9/11 debate at the present time. This is why internet websites dedicated to discussing 9/11, such as the JREF forum or Physorg, are currently not good arenas for objective scientific debate. And that is why I hope to keep my postings on such sites to a minimum....

I have been following and engaged in this issue for over a year. It is my observation that this forum's discussions are minimally shaded with the political elements of the 9/11, except for where it is appropriate, given a particular thread's topic.

I should add that there are those who have tried to inject politics into random threads, but they seem largely to be proponents of "inside job" CTs. This, however, would occur at any open forum and is not characteristic of the JREF.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Clarifying

Frank, I'm sorry I said you lied. Perhaps you were honestly mistaken, but I doubt it. You did indeed tell Ron Wieck (pomeroo) that I had sent you computer virus. You sent me an email claiming I had sent you a virus. Wieck published a comment here stating that you told him I sent you a virus, and that you were having computer problems as a result. You said that "The December 31, 1969 virus" is a well-known virus, and that you had seen a thread discussing the December 31, 1969 virus. I don't believe that. I'm prepared to stand corrected, but I haven't found anything about that virus. What I have found is ample documentation that Mac computers reset their clocks to December 31, 1969 when the rechargeable battery is wearing out.

Frank, you did apologize, and I accepted your apology.

Now, on to why your Crush-Down Crush-up cannot be true.

 

[beachnut]

Frank, I'm sorry I said you lied. Perhaps you were honestly mistaken, but I doubt it. You did indeed tell Ron Wieck (pomeroo) that I had sent you computer virus. You sent me an email claiming I had sent you a virus. Wieck published a comment here stating that you told him I sent you a virus, and that you were having computer problems as a result. You said that "The December 31, 1969 virus" is a well-known virus, and that you had seen a thread discussing the December 31, 1969 virus. I don't believe that. I'm prepared to stand corrected, but I haven't found anything about that virus. What I have found is ample documentation that Mac computers reset their clocks to December 31, 1969 when the rechargeable battery is wearing out.

Frank, you did apologize, and I accepted your apology.

Now, on to why your Crush-Down Crush-up cannot be true.

Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving.

How long does it stop moving Ace? (it does not really stop ace; hint)

Give me a cookie and I will give you a hint about JW's work.

 

[ref]

R. Mackey:

I agree with you on that... I also believe it wasn't pre-installed explosives or incendiaries that brought down the towers.

I am only trying to make the point that a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible. A gravitational collapse was theoretically possible without explosives.

This is what we wanted to hear. You clearly state that you don't believe explosives were used. Because the defenders of the controlled demolition theory have a habit of quote mining. That means, that if you do not specifically state that you do not believe in explosives, your statements can be quoted in an effort to support the demolition theory.

By only stating, that the calculations do not rule out explosives, you gave the demolition theorists a chance to quote you in a way, that makes the use of explosives being supported by your very own statements. No matter how ridicilous that sounds, they can make you sound like a conspiracy theorist, unless you specifically state something that cannot be interpreted in any other twisted way. And now you did thanks for that.

I agree, that the calculations themselves do not rule out the explosives. It is all the other evidence, that does rule them out.

It has been shown, that the collapses were indeed possible without the explosives. Pulverization was possible without the explosives. Nothing is speaking for the controlled demolition. And nothing that happened was impossible without the explosives.

I also agree, that it is important to keep researching the actual causes of the collapse, even if they have already been adressed by some or many instances. Research does not hurt. But it's important to know, that wanting to do further research does not mean supporting some wild theories. It only means doing further research to learn.