• 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:
Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong, but prefers to leave it published as it is, "warts and all".

The crush down crush up model cannot possibly survive scientific scrutiny, for it relies upon the assumption that the top block remains relatively intact and that no more than 20% of the mass is "shed" outside the footprint, both demonstrably false. There is no top block, it turns to dust. Worse, the model treats the core as a series of "floors" that respond individually to each impact. In reality, a falling mass would encounter "the frame", which is founded on bedrock. All of which ignores how the top block goes into free-fall in the first place, an impossibility given that steel loses strength gradually.

Even forgetting these fatal problems, crush-down crush-up cannot explain the pulverization, so Greening denies it, as do JREFs. All of which led me to my conclusion that "Frank Greening is divorced from reality". This is taking Greening's crush-down crush-up paper at face value. Actually, a scientist of Greening's caliber could not possibly have missed the errors I just pointed out, so we conclude that Greening is disinfo. This latest disinfo piece, "Spiked Fireproofing" is just further proof.
Click to expand...


1. I doubt he referred to his "Crush" theory as a "joke". he likely admitted there were errors in it, that perhaps it needed to be revised. yes, post your emails TS, if you are not afraid to, please.

2. If anyone says it cannot account for "pulverization", it is because noone here has been show SCIENTIFIC proof of the complete pulverization of all the concrete in the WTCs. The dust make up was largely Wallboard, with concrete as one of many minor components.

I am willing to bet money that more than 50% of the truth movement feels that the Wood/Reynolds Energy Beam Weapon/no-plane theory is disinfo and/or rediculous.

TAM:)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong, but prefers to leave it published as it is, "warts and all".
Click to expand...



Ah yes, "The lurkers support me in e-mail". You'll excuse me if I take your claims with a grain of salt, until corroborated by Dr. Greening.
 
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
 
bje said:
Steven Jones announced his newest theory last week: 9/11 and Global Warming: the Chemtrail Link

911booger.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

i'm sorry. over exposure to vast amounts of 911 truthiness has interrupted the regular function of my sarcasmin detection. is that link serious? or is that sarcasim?
 
Apollo20 said:
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Click to expand...



WooHoo!


That is all.
 
OMGturt1es said:
i'm sorry. over exposure to vast amounts of 911 truthiness has interrupted the regular function of my sarcasmin detection. is that link serious? or is that sarcasim?
Click to expand...

'Tis satire, OMGturt1es :)

(Note the name of the blog for a - ahem - raging clue :D)
 
Ace, I'm sure you'll recognize the following scene....

Keyboard player: Jeez - that was really a mess!
Ace: It's okay, we'll fix it in the mix!
Click to expand...

As much as you'd wish it so, debating isn't a creative act, Ace! You can't pick and choose how you interpret something when the person who wrote it is right there to refute it. Are you unwilling to learn or just incapable of it? You can't sling your BS and then edit(fix) it in the studio when the debaters go home!

Any bets on whether Ace takes another wee sabbatical? :spjimlad: :spjimlad: :spjimlad:
 
LashL said:
'Tis satire, OMGturt1es :)

(Note the name of the blog for a - ahem - raging clue :D)
Click to expand...

sorry, but i've seen so many absurd theories seriously espoused by 911 CTers now that i can't tell the difference between 911 CT satire, and the real deal. I have to ask now when crazy theories are posted, as the last few that i thought were satire turned out to be 100% serious.

this is the same movement from which the "space beam energy weapons" and "holographic planes" theories have surfaced, both seemingly impossible to imagine anyone taking seriously.

the difference between 911 truth and satire doesn't exist if one doesn't consider the only characteristic that defines them: whether people actually, seriously believe the theories. other than that, there's no difference.
 
Apollo20 said:
AceBaker:

"Greening has also exposed his "Crush-down crush-up" theory as a joke. In a private email to me, he admitted that it is wrong"

I am sorry, Ace, YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT TRUE!
Click to expand...

Frank, old buddy old pal. I'll clarify. By working this latest "Spiked Fireproofing" hoax, Greening has exposed himself as a joker. Since I find crush down crush up to be equally as untenable as spiked fireproofing, I reason it to be equally as much of a joke. Perhaps Apollo would care to clarify which of his theories are to be believed, and which are hoaxes.

I contacted Dr. Greening saying that the assuumptions upon which his CDCU theory is based are provably false assumptions. Below is one passage in which he refers metaphoically to his mistakes as "warts". My interpretation of Greening's backpedaling is that he knows his theory is wrong. Forgive me if my wording was unclear.

Greening:
First of all I should tell you that some of the assumptions I used in my WTC collapse model were made only to simplify the math. In the year or more since my first published work on this subject in 2005, I have made many refinements to my calculation. I have simply not got around to writing a new paper. However, unlike Dr. Jones, I am not one to keep revising something I have already published. I prefer to leave my original paper more or less as it was first conceived (warts and all), and try to answer criticisms of it as best I can.……

But, be that as it may, let me say right away that although the assumption that all the mass remains in the upper block throughout the collapse was indeed made in my paper, this approximation is not crucial to a self-sustaining collapse. I and others, such as David Benson and Shagster on Physorg, have done many additional collapse calculations that consider so-called mass shedding and find that significant mass shedding can occur without causing collapse arrest. So any criticisms of my original paper with regard to this issue would be like criticizing the Wright brothers for not having wheels on their first airplane!
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't be like that at all. They would be like criticizing someone else's first airplane for not being able to fly. All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).

Frank, how bout I fly you down to LA for a day, and we can have our little debate in my studio? We've got a nice big screen, we can talk at leisure about spontaneous thermite, CDCU, spiked fireproofing, corruption in the Canadian nuclear industry, or anything that's on your mind. We can take a break and fool around with some blues and folk music. It would be delightful.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
No, they wouldn't be like that at all. They would be like criticizing someone else's first airplane for not being able to fly. All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).
Click to expand...


The issue isn't what we wish to name anything, the problem is what you wish to name it. Unless you have proof that there was some kind of volcanic eruption in Manhattan, stop using terms that make you, at best, look uninformed.
 
So enough of the horse Sheet TS, just admit you lied...be a man for once.

TAM:mad:
 
I still haven't seen TS1234 prove that he knows how to tie his shoelaces and the more posts of his that I read, the more likely I think it is that Velcro plays a large part in his life.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
All versions of CDCU make provably false assumptions about energy sinks (top block, amount of pulverizaion, mass staying in footprint) and ignore some energy sinks altogether (like the mushroom cloud, or anything else you wish to name it, the expansion of the pyroclastic flow, or anthing else you wish to name it).
Click to expand...

TS, a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom