• 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?

T.A.M. said:
CC:

Sounds like you suffered a Brachial Plexus Injury. very nasty. You are lucky to have the use of your limb to any degree.

As for Dr. Greening, it is sad that he considers the defense of NIST as obstructive to his work. I would suggest that those who bark the loudest, often myself, have the least amount of background in it, so we take much of it at face value, because it was created by a panel of legitimate scientists, and was such an openly available work. Like all science, it can only become better through the work of other scientists to critique, and where needed, correct it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Yes that sounds like the Injury that I have, I can move my shoulder both at the back bone, and at the shoulder several inches out of displacement.

He does not consider the defense of NIST, to be obstructive, However he feels that many Scientist and intellectuals are merely using NIST as a shield against the fire breathing Dragon of the Cter-Truth movement.
What he feels is needed is not the shield but the sword,
That sword is a comprehensive theory of the collapse and what caused it base on good sound science.
With out the Sword the CTER Dragon is simply going to blow fire on us until the Shield melts.
Dr Greening would rather throw off the NIST shield, grab the sword and slay the dragon than to hide behind the shield until it melts.
Which Dr. Greening feels that it eventually will if it is not revised, and updated to reflect a true Theory of all that he stated.
I have not heard from him for days, and as far as I know few have, I have not seen him on physorg either, I think he is going to find the sword and slay the dragon at least he seems more excited than he has been in years.
At least since the evidence of Sono Chemical reactions came out.
 
rwguinn said:
CC:
Does the NIST report address possible localized temperatures which may (Probably) were in excess of the average, widespread temperatures addressed so much.
At the time of collision and combustion of the fuel-air mix, there were likely local areas which had a lean fuel/air aerosol which could have been hot enough and contained enough heat to melt small cross-sectional areas of steel, especially in the area of the shredded stuff where the plane/structure impact actually was.
Such would be expected, and not particularly notable, IMO
ETA--this is especially a likely scenario when one considers the friction effects of everything either coming to a screeching halt, or, in the case of the landing gear/engines, slowing down very quickly. Lots of mass there...
Click to expand...

Are you talking of chimney effects like in the air handling system, or of the magnesium wheels, or the titanium in the engine burning.
I have looked at all those as I believe has DR. Greening the amount of spiracles is just to much for that.
We have been over it a thousand times, there is just not enough instances of extreme localized heating.

Most of the evidence for the sulfur reaction, comes from the information from the air samples from Scientist that were on the scene and that Dr. Greening personally talked to, and they told him about a funny fuel layer under the concrete of the floors that burst into flame even though cool when they were flipped and exposed it to air.
Flames from sulfur are almost unmistakably blue in color.
Sulfur Burning produces white smoke, has anyone ever claimed to have seen white smoke in the collapse.
It produces temperatures that would cause the quick lime process degrading the concrete to lime dust. It would even destroy the reinforcements that helped to hold the concrete together.
Hot iron oxide would make Molten aluminum or carbon black react.
Hot Iron oxide would cause car tires to explode they are black because of the carbon black they are formed from.

IT just fits so well, although I do admit it might just be another looney theory, and I do not know for sure if that is what Dr. Greening is thinking of.
I will have to wait like all of you to find out if I am a loony tooney or not.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Yes that sounds like the Injury that I have, I can move my shoulder both at the back bone, and at the shoulder several inches out of displacement.

He does not consider the defense of NIST, to be obstructive, However he feels that many Scientist and intellectuals are merely using NIST as a shield against the fire breathing Dragon of the Cter-Truth movement.
What he feels is needed is not the shield but the sword,
That sword is a comprehensive theory of the collapse and what caused it base on good sound science.
With out the Sword the CTER Dragon is simply going to blow fire on us until the Shield melts.
Dr Greening would rather throw off the NIST shield, grab the sword and slay the dragon than to hide behind the shield until it melts.
Which Dr. Greening feels that it eventually will if it is not revised, and updated to reflect a true Theory of all that he stated.
I have not heard from him for days, and as far as I know few have, I have not seen him on physorg either, I think he is going to find the sword and slay the dragon at least he seems more excited than he has been in years.
At least since the evidence of Sono Chemical reactions came out.
Click to expand...

As I have said, I believe many of the posters here, at least the ones that do not have the degree of expertese needed, use the NIST, as you have said like a shield, because we trust it based on (1) the PANEL of scientists, all extremely qualified, who worked on it, and (2) the fact that its findings have been made public for years now, are presented at universities to study building design and safety, yet there has been no big uprising against it. As a result, I think it gets a stamp of approval based on these things.

Does NIST have errors, almost definitely...name a scientific report or paper that does not.

The incorrect approach however, is to dismiss it because it has said errors.

It is like me dismissing a paper on the benefit of "Bisphosphinates in the prevention of Osteoporosis" simply because the trial had one or two biases, or did not quite generate the proper p value needed. Critical Analysis, yes, of course, it is what seperates true science from Pseudoscience, but I just felt that Dr. Greening came in here determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater...I hope I am wrong.

TAM:)
 
Crazy:
No one is obstructing your studies.
No one is obstructing Frank Greening's studies.
Please stop with the martyr bit.
I'm sorry that my suggestions for the next step in researching this issue didn't strike you as being sensible.
A minor correction: most concrete in the towers was not reinforced.
 
T.A.M. said:
As I have said, I believe many of the posters here, at least the ones that do not have the degree of expertese needed, use the NIST, as you have said like a shield, because we trust it based on (1) the PANEL of scientists, all extremely qualified, who worked on it, and (2) the fact that its findings have been made public for years now, are presented at universities to study building design and safety, yet there has been no big uprising against it. As a result, I think it gets a stamp of approval based on these things.

Does NIST have errors, almost definitely...name a scientific report or paper that does not.

The incorrect approach however, is to dismiss it because it has said errors.

It is like me dismissing a paper on the benefit of "Bisphosphinates in the prevention of Osteoporosis" simply because the trial had one or two biases, or did not quite generate the proper p value needed. Critical Analysis, yes, of course, it is what seperates true science from Pseudoscience, but I just felt that Dr. Greening came in here determined to throw out the baby with the bathwater...I hope I am wrong.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

He came on here for the same reason he was on physorg he wanted inspiration.
He was stuck in a Rut, and needed new Ideas, where else was he too turn the loose Change forum?
He came here because he thought that Jerf might inspire him out of the Rut he was in, I think he wanted honest opinions and a honest discussion, so he did not want his name used.
Though I can not speak for him of course, I think he just wanted some one to express ideas some one who would listen and offer incite not criticism if he wanted that as he said he could go back to Author on Physorg.
I just think he was new and did not know if your going to present something in CTer mode here just post that your going to switch to CTer mode.
That I think is what was wrong, he just did not know how the system works around here.
Dr. Greening respects one thing most of all, good science the parts of NIST reports that are good science, he respects that parts that are not good Science he rejects that is just how it is.
He is not talking of simply throwing NIST in the garbage he wants to lift it higher by building up on what was done with new research and new incite, but that can not happen until people stop being on the defensive and take the offensive.
Because it requires more than simply reciting a reference over and over it take critical thinking and incite.

I just had a steel worker who worked in the twin towers tell me that the concrete was like powder, in the buildings and this was before the fire that means it had a high Gypsum content, and since Gypsum is Sulfur and lime it probably had a high sulfur and sulfide content too.
What that means I really do not know I will have to leave that to more intelligent people than myself for that I have come to rely on DR. Frank Greening, and I can tell you it would not be the first Idea I have had that he laughed at.
It will also probibly not be the last.
 
One thing I might have missed in this thread is the samples themselves. When were they taken, where were they taken, how were they taken, how many samples were taken, how were the sampling points dispersed, etc. Where is this information?
 
Here's an interview with Greening and Fetzer discussing this thread.

checktheevidence.com/audio/911/Frank%20Greening%20-%20WTC%
20-%20Dynamic%20Duo%20-%20Jim%20Fetzer%2004%20Apr%2020007.mp3
 
Gravy said:
Crazy:
No one is obstructing your studies.
No one is obstructing Frank Greening's studies.
Please stop with the martyr bit.
I'm sorry that my suggestions for the next step in researching this issue didn't strike you as being sensible.
A minor correction: most concrete in the towers was not reinforced.
Click to expand...

See now your helping and I believe your right about he concrete not being reinforced, and I am not trying to be a martyr, just explained why my arm was hurting and why it is so frustrating continuing to research this.
Actually Gravy many of your Ideas are completely sensible, and Reasonable, it is just people are so feed up with the Cters That they avoid anything to do with 9/11 rather than be a part in spreading the pestilence of CTer dumb.

It makes me want to bang my head against the computer screen sometimes, it is really sad when you email someone a Question, and all you get back is look at my report in NIST, and if the answer was in NIST I would not have sent the Email in the first place.

It just seem that there is now a wall there with a do not cross sign on it. A Berlin wall of the mind, and I agree no one is physically obstructing the work it is more attitude than anything else.
I think I am just worried about Dr. Greening, I will be glad when we hear from him again and will be very interested in what he has found.
 
I notice when Fetzer asks Greening about his own problems in the Nuclear company, Jimmy tries to get Greening to imply that if he hadnt whistleblown, it might have ended in "Catastrophic" consequences, to which Greening says...

"No , not really...more economic".

Nice try Uncle Fetzer

TAM:)
 
try AW Smiths link above, I have made a seperate thread for this, as i think it deserves its own discussion.

TAM:)
 
Dynamic Impacts

I was googling around for papers on dynamic impacts on I-beams. I couldn't find anything close to what I was looking for on the "regular" google. However, at scholar.google.com, there were many reference to papers on dynamic impacts, including on square (hollow) rods.

Unfortunately, I can't see them unless I pay $$, or go to a technical library.

Nevertheless, "the truth is out there".

One of the papers referred to (by Chih-Cheng Yang) can be viewed online.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I can't post URLs at JREF, yet, but I've posted links on the physorg thread, "9/11 Events - part 3", p. 134
 
metamars said:
I was googling around for papers on dynamic impacts on I-beams. I couldn't find anything close to what I was looking for on the "regular" google. However, at scholar.google.com, there were many reference to papers on dynamic impacts, including on square (hollow) rods.

Unfortunately, I can't see them unless I pay $$, or go to a technical library.

Nevertheless, "the truth is out there".

One of the papers referred to (by Chih-Cheng Yang) can be viewed online.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I can't post URLs at JREF, yet, but I've posted links on the physorg thread, "9/11 Events - part 3", p. 134
Click to expand...


Google Scholar is wonderful.

The question is, will the papers provide the truth YOU are looking for.

TAM;)
 
Gravy, did you say that the concrete flooring was not reinforced? Didn't they use rollout lath? One of the building I worked on when I was a lather (many moons ago) used rollout lath instead of rebar.

I Am He
 
I Am He said:
Gravy, did you say that the concrete flooring was not reinforced? Didn't they use rollout lath? One of the building I worked on when I was a lather (many moons ago) used rollout lath instead of rebar.

I Am He
Click to expand...

I remember reading in part of the nist report that they had two layers of welded wire fabric. which is typically 6 x 6 inch flat semi rigid mats or comes in a 5 foot wide 50 foot roll. I can tell you the rolls are a pain in the butt to get flat. And are not usually (not ever i can remember) doubled up especially in only a four inch thick slab. I don't know if they staggered the mats to make a 3x3 inch overlay or set it at two different heights in the slab with what are called high chairs. But I have only seen high chairs used for rebar. By viewing a construction video of the towers it doesn't look like they were overly concerned with the wire placement in the slab by they way the laborers were marching around on it in the wet concrete during the pour with their boots.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith

What we used on that one job was a rollout lath which came in roll that we would tie down on one end and roll it out and then tie it down as we went along. For the life of me I can't remember what they called the pieces we used to tie it to. They were about 3' to 6' long ( if memory serves) and had legs on them to keep the lath from touching the floor so the concrete would go under them. This was done before they made the pour. The thing that you are describing I have never worked with. Only rebar and that one rollout lath job. Like I said, it was so many moons ago I'm lucky that I'm still remembering it. :D

I Am He
 
WildCat said:
One thing I might have missed in this thread is the samples themselves. When were they taken, where were they taken, how were they taken, how many samples were taken, how were the sampling points dispersed, etc. Where is this information?
Click to expand...
Crazy Chainsaw, can you answer this? Greening?

Wouldn't you need to know this before you could draw any conclusions about the iron sphericals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom