Kevin Barrett interviews Frank Greening

[jaydeehess]

While I agree with your point that when examining the post RED was responding to his comment isn't directly stating he was banned for talking about NIST.

I must apologize to RED, because I had my own twoofer reading comprehension moment. I took his statement out of context.

"Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago. Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses."

By itself, it appears to conflate the issues... RED I am sorry that I was wrong. You were making two distinct points.

Perhaps it would have been prudent of RI to add in a paragraph break such as;

""Greening is Apollo20 who was banned here about a year ago.

Apparently, it all went wrong when Greening started scrutinizing NIST's collapse hypotheses."
,which would have separated the two unrelated subjects.

 

[dtugg]

Then it would be time for you to produce a theory that is more plausible than NIST's. If you cant (or won't) do that then why should anyone believe any words that come out of your mouth (actually keyboard)?

RedIbis has claimed that he has a theory better than NIST's. In true RedIbis form, he runs away like a little girl when asked to expand. Observe:

RedIbis, what is your theory regarding the collapse of the WTC, you know the one that you claim is better than NIST's?

 

[T.A.M.]

Then you've been wrong before. Photos and video are documentary evidence, not physical evidence.

ok, I will accept this, but how do you propose they provide "physical" evidence for things such as "the fires" and "the areas that were on fire"?

TAM

 

[Heiwa]

Did you listen to the interview from today ? (above) He seems to hang NIST .

Yes, he seems to turn around. Fact remains he wrote, with Bazant, the BLGB paper.

 

[FineWine]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

You've been caught being goofy again. WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition. Jones and his accomplices are frauds.

 

[FineWine]

Yes, he seems to turn around. Fact remains he wrote, with Bazant, the BLGB paper.

Greening believes that NIST overlooked certain chemical reactions that prvided additional sources of heat. He rejects the explosives myth.

 

[FineWine]

DRG is a Christian. He is honest.

This is just another potshot from a Godless atheist.

DRG has been caught in many lies. He is dishonest. And so are you.

 

[Leviath]

Hopefully Greening will be given access to Harrit and Jones' infamous red chips? Now that he shows he is the only "honest, independent scientist" in the entire world.

 

[triforcharity]

This is all a moot point.

WTC 7 was proven by experts to be a controlled demoltion a long time ago.

Enough already!

REALLY?!?!?!?!?! Do point us in the direction of this report. Please show it to us, as I personally saw WTC 7 before it fell, and I knew it would fall. I saw the bulge myself. Building that are not in dire conditions do not bulge over ~10 storeys.

 

[triforcharity]

Red,

I believe (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) but here is the problem I sese with using this quote to prove anything.
Quote:

I believe there are many problems with the material presented in NIST’s Draft WTC 7 Report; most of these problems stem from the fuel loading assumed by NIST but I would add that NIST’s collapse hypothesis is not physically realistic and is not well supported by observations of the behavior of Building 7 during its collapse. I certainly believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for; an hypothesis that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th 2001.

This (I believe) is the draft report, which believed that diesel gas stored in the building contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. Hindsight says that it played zero effect on it.

Even up untill 2006, most believed that the diesel would have played a role, but, as we know today, it didn't.

 

[RedIbis]

ok, I will accept this, but how do you propose they provide "physical" evidence for things such as "the fires" and "the areas that were on fire"?

TAM

How about the thermally expanded floor systems and collapsed column?

 

[A W Smith]

thermal expansion for steel is 0.00000645in/in/deg F.

How about the thermally expanded floor systems and collapsed column?

the properties of steel are well understood. You need not posses the column or section in question to understand its properties.

An example
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.05/jim2.html

[SIZE=+1]One mile is 5280 feet so one mile is 12

5280 = 63360 inches. One inch of steel will expand 0.00000645 inches for every degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature so 63360 inches will expand[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]63360

0.00000645 = 0.408672 inches per degree.[/SIZE]
​

[SIZE=+1]Hence a 40 degree increase in temperature will result in an expansion of[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]40

0.408672 = 16.35 inches.[/SIZE]
​

 

[RedIbis]

Red,

I believe (I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) but here is the problem I sese with using this quote to prove anything.
Quote:


This (I believe) is the draft report, which believed that diesel gas stored in the building contributed to the collapse of WTC 7. Hindsight says that it played zero effect on it.

Even up untill 2006, most believed that the diesel would have played a role, but, as we know today, it didn't.

Don't be so sure someone will correct you. If you've noticed there is a real double standard around here. If you are fighting the twoofies, your errors either go uncorrected or they are considered understandable. If you are a twoofie, any errors will be pointed out to you ASAP and render any other argument you make irrelevant.

This report is from 2008. You're correct that it's a draft report of the final. The central conclusions didn't change a bit a few months later when the final draft came out. Even in this draft report they reject diesel as a cause of the fires.

 

[funk de fino]

Even in this draft report they reject diesel as a cause of the fires.

Who said diesel caused the fires?

The earlier draft reports said it may have contributed to fueling fires which may have contributed to the collpase and that this needed further investigation. This was because of missing diesel.

Can you point to anyone saying the diesel "caused" the fires?

Care to clarify this gem?

NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory,

 

[funk de fino]

delete

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Can you point to anyone saying the diesel "caused" the fires?

Whoa, wait. Before we jump anyone here too hard, keep in mind that I said it. And I remember quite a few others here and elsewhere did too. We were basing that conclusion on the FEMA BPR for the towers which hypothesized that diesel may have indeed played a role in setting off the fires.

It took a while to gather the information and realize this was not the case. For me, it was realizing that the Environmental Health and Safety teams reported recovering nearly all the diesel in certain locations. It was really only when the draft report of NCSTAR-1A came out that anyone really understood that diesel didn't play a role; IIRC, NIST tweaked their sims in a few directions and discovered that even if diesel lines had been spraying like was initially hypothesized during the time of the FEMA BPR, then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated.

Look, I have no problem admitting I was wrong about this. Unlike truthers, I'm willing to modify my conclusions based on real evidence when it comes out. And in the case of diesel fuel in WTC 7, that evidence came out. I in particular was wrong about that. Thing is, that doesn't validate truther theories one whit.

 

[A W Smith]

Care to clarify this gem?

Originally Posted by Red Ibis
NIST is suggesting two extremely atypical events at the center of their collapse theory,

As opposed to the two extremely typical events where a crew allegedly was sent into a burning building to wire it for CD. Which would have been the tallest building destroyed by controlled demolition??


Perfectly typical. right redibis?

 

[RedIbis]

Whoa, wait. Before we jump anyone here too hard, keep in mind that I said it. And I remember quite a few others here and elsewhere did too. We were basing that conclusion on the FEMA BPR for the towers which hypothesized that diesel may have indeed played a role in setting off the fires.

It took a while to gather the information and realize this was not the case. For me, it was realizing that the Environmental Health and Safety teams reported recovering nearly all the diesel in certain locations. It was really only when the draft report of NCSTAR-1A came out that anyone really understood that diesel didn't play a role; IIRC, NIST tweaked their sims in a few directions and discovered that even if diesel lines had been spraying like was initially hypothesized during the time of the FEMA BPR, then it would actually not have been able to influence the fires in the critical areas were failure initiated.

Look, I have no problem admitting I was wrong about this. Unlike truthers, I'm willing to modify my conclusions based on real evidence when it comes out. And in the case of diesel fuel in WTC 7, that evidence came out. I in particular was wrong about that. Thing is, that doesn't validate truther theories one whit.

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception.

Did diesel fuel for WTC 7’s emergency generators feed the fires?

Contents
9/11 Links Page


Short answer: we don’t know.

Yes we do. It didn't.

WTC 7 contained up to 43,000 gallons (162,273 liters) of diesel fuel for its emergency generators. It is believed that at least some fuel pumps did kick on after the Con Edison power plant went down at 9:59 (see FEMA, NIST reports), perhaps fueling the fires, although this remains speculation.

No it doesn't.

As you can see even this great repository of all things 9/11 requires extensive excision.

 

[BigAl]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I always find those posters willing to modify and correct themselves to be the most reliable and persuasive.

Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to get past the diesel fuel misconception.

That page you link to starts with this qualification about fuel:

"Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue"

You lose. Again.

 

[fourtoe]

Short answer: we don’t know. The final NIST WTC 7 report should shed more light on this issue, which is an important one.

RI,

I'm interested in what was going through your head when you decided to leave out this qualification. Did you read it and decide that it wasn't important or something?


Kevin Barrett is insane and a wuss. He used to always claim that no one with the proper background would come and defend the OT in a debate with him. What that assertion leaves out is the fact that his crazy theories are easily refuted by a bunch of people posting on a message board in their free time, why would any professional even bother trying to talk with someone as lame as Barrett?