• 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.

Debate! What debate?

TruthSeeker1234 said:
You could be right. Perhaps Greening's gig is to just offer as many competing theories as possible, to create as much reasonable doubt as possible. It was Greening who first came out with the "spontaneous thermite" idea. I don't think his AP idea is very workable to explain the observations below the fire areas. What would ignite it down there? And how would you control the timing?

It will be interesting to see if some truthers take the bait and run with it.

Micronukes and/or directed energy still seem more able to account for the data.
Click to expand...
Stick with whole tone scales.
 
Apollo20 said:
In a 10,000 page report NIST make no effort to quantify the RATE of rotation of the upper block of either tower. In fact NIST lose interest in the collapse about 2 milliseconds after collapse initiation. The rotation of the upper section of the towers, especially WTC 2, was SUBSTANTIAL and crucial to the collapse mechanism. NIST describe it differently in two different sections of the report. NIST's scientists, (god bless them), should do a better job of proof reading their reports and learn some trigonometry while they are at it! If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!

So you can call it "nit-picking" .... I call it "doing a full and complete collapse analysis"

As for the absence of peer reviewed papers contradicting NIST and Bazant - try reading Cherepanov's paper in I. J. Fracture 141, 287, (2006).

And as for X-ray analysis of materials, I did it for a living for 15 years. Peak heights for adjacent elements in an x-ray spectrum are a pretty good approximation because the x-ray absorption effects are about the same. Oh. and by the way, if chlorine was coming from the water it should be in every concrete spectrum. It isn't! Besides, chloride ion is a no-no in concrete and is generally kept as low as possible

As for a new collapse theory: I have some ideas but, based on the reaction of most JREFers to most of my points, I sense the NISTIANS (who appear to dominate this site) are not ready to look "outside the box", especially when its quite apparent they think they already know all the answers. This approach to 9/11 "research" is based more on CONVICTION rather than CURIOSITY.

I worked many years with nuclear engineers who behaved the same way. When we found a problem with a reactor, the engineers were more concerned about making up a plausible STORY to tell the Nuclear Regulators than getting to the truth. Looks like the engineers at NIST have the same mind-set.
Click to expand...
I think this may of been mentioned before, but here is Bazant's rebuttle to Cherepanov.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/p...re-RebutCherepanovCritiqueOfBazZhouWTC-06.pdf
 
ConspiRaider said:
Odd. I sent my Theory to those same 10 guys and 1 girl and got the identical responses. Maybe they all have an autoreply thing going on? Anyway my theory is that a freakish-sized (as opposed to a normal-sized), invisibility-shielded, fire-breathing Godzilla type creature is responsible for wreaking all the havoc on 9/11. It's simple, elegant and even satisfies the timeline. And the tracks Godzilla made as it traipsed from NYC to Washington then back to NYC then to Cleveland then back to NYC: Notice how many "new" lakes just happened to pop up in those areas soon afterwards? As Goddy's tracks filled with rainwater? This whole thing might have just been all about a promotion of sport fishing, gone overboard.
Click to expand...

1154353L.jpg
 
I am not convinced he believes in his own theory. Unless I am misreading him, he has left hints here that the AP theory was created by him, out of some science, to prove (a) that you can make up a theory, that seems to fit, but that doesnt make it true, and (b) to point out that NIST does have holes in it, that need to be looked at.

I have never once seen him claim he disbelieves that the planes and subsequent fires etc... were not responible for the collapses...

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I am not convinced he believes in his own theory. Unless I am misreading him, he has left hints here that the AP theory was created by him, out of some science, to prove (a) that you can make up a theory, that seems to fit, but that doesnt make it true, and (b) to point out that NIST does have holes in it, that need to be looked at.

I have never once seen him claim he disbelieves that the planes and subsequent fires etc... were not responible for the collapses...

TAM:)
Click to expand...
He still believes planes and the fires brought down the tower. Just has a different theory as to why.
 
Kent1 said:
He still believes planes and the fires brought down the tower. Just has a different theory as to why.
Click to expand...

Why, and by obvious implication, who. Does Greening think muslims spiked the fireproofing? Clearly he has announced his entry into the truth movement, and his abandonment of his own absurd crush down crush up theory.

The spiked fireproofing theory is not one I'm buying into at the moment. I could see how it might explain the observations in the fire area. But we see the same thing happening all the way down to the ground.

I see three possibilities for the motivation of Greening.

1. He has had a true change of heart, wants the truth to come out, and killed his own previous collapse theory. He does not believe the AP theory, but neded to put it out there to discredit his original theory, and to point out some interesting data (iron spherules, zinc etc.) that other researchers have overlooked.

2. He is and always has been a professional disinfo artist, is busy "creating his own opposition", and will continue to float as many bogus theories as he can come up with, regardless of whose "side" they favor, just so long as it complicates the debate.

3. He actually believes his new AP theory, and wants to test reaction to it.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Clearly he has announced his entry into the truth movement, and his abandonment of his own absurd crush down crush up theory.
Click to expand...



"Clearly" to the man who can't find any debris in a picture of a multi-story high pile of debris, or a plane in a video of a plane crash.

Just keep clutching at those straws, Ace!
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Why, and by obvious implication, who. Does Greening think muslims spiked the fireproofing? Clearly he has announced his entry into the truth movement, and his abandonment of his own absurd crush down crush up theory.

The spiked fireproofing theory is not one I'm buying into at the moment. I could see how it might explain the observations in the fire area. But we see the same thing happening all the way down to the ground.

I see three possibilities for the motivation of Greening.

1. He has had a true change of heart, wants the truth to come out, and killed his own previous collapse theory. He does not believe the AP theory, but neded to put it out there to discredit his original theory, and to point out some interesting data (iron spherules, zinc etc.) that other researchers have overlooked.

2. He is and always has been a professional disinfo artist, is busy "creating his own opposition", and will continue to float as many bogus theories as he can come up with, regardless of whose "side" they favor, just so long as it complicates the debate.

3. He actually believes his new AP theory, and wants to test reaction to it.
Click to expand...
WTF does his motivation matter? Either what he proposes is factually accurate and logically consistent; or it is not.
 
Again he's not saying any of this comes from pre-planted explosives etc.

File him under alternative theories.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
WTF does his motivation matter? Either what he proposes is factually accurate and logically consistent; or it is not.
Click to expand...

This is the "Conspiracy Theories" subforum. If it was just about the science, we should be down in the "Science . . ." subforum, which is where I wanted to be right from the get go. Then Lisa Simpson kept moving my threads up here, and here we are.
 
Kent1 said:
Again he's not saying any of this comes from pre-planted explosives etc.

File him under alternative theories.
Click to expand...

He's saying it comes from pre-planted incendiaries. File him under alternative theories that point strongly to an inside job, and which exonerate muslim terrorists.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This is the "Conspiracy Theories" subforum. If it was just about the science, we should be down in the "Science . . ." subforum, which is where I wanted to be right from the get go. Then Lisa Simpson kept moving my threads up here, and here we are.
Click to expand...

I have only been here a few days, and I see no science in what you post. Good call by Lisa.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
He's saying it comes from pre-planted incendiaries. File him under alternative theories that point strongly to an inside job, and which exonerate muslim terrorists.
Click to expand...

He is? Inside job??? I haven't seen that..uh..Frank? Why don't you better explain.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
This is the "Conspiracy Theories" subforum. If it was just about the science, we should be down in the "Science . . ." subforum, which is where I wanted to be right from the get go. Then Lisa Simpson kept moving my threads up here, and here we are.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, what does that blathering have to do with my question of, "What does his motivation matter?" Try again.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
He's saying it comes from pre-planted incendiaries. File him under alternative theories that point strongly to an inside job, and which exonerate muslim terrorists.
Click to expand...


Actually what I see him as doing, if I read him right now, is creating a theory out of whole cloth to illustrate that such can be done with a modicum of science knowledge.

Its an exercise in conspiracy theory creation and the author does not need to believe his own creation.
 
TS:

Theory #4:

He has issues with the truth movement, and their outrageous "scientific theories" on what really happened on 9/11, so decided to show just how easy it is to "make up" a theory that might have scientific merit, simply because the attacks were so complex, and involved so many unknowns.

TAM:)
 
jaydeehess said:
Actually what I see him as doing, if I read him right now, is creating a theory out of whole cloth to illustrate that such can be done with a modicum of science knowledge.

Its an exercise in conspiracy theory creation and the author does not need to believe his own creation.
Click to expand...

exactly...i concur.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom