Dr. Frank Greening
Updated: the original Youtube video was censored shortly after I posted it, a year go.
Better rip it if you want to keep it, because it isn't available anywhere else.
Benjamin Netanyahu said, in 2001:
"I know what America is, America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way."
Keeping that in mind, let's take Netanyahu's wise words to heart, as voiced in this speech:
June 17, 2009
Greening vs. Chandler and Newton’s Laws:
The occasion for Frank Greening’s letter is correspondence with several physicists, chemists,
and engineers discussing arguments I made in a video posted on the Architects and Engineers
for 9/11 Truth YouTube page:
This is my response to his letter.
Chandler concludes that the block was subject to a net force of 0.64M(upper)g. Prior to the
collapse of WTC 1, the lower portion of the building was perfectly capable of holding up the
Announcing two new papers by Dr. Frank Legge (Ph.D., Chemistry):
1) "Controlled Demolition at the WTC: an Historical Examination of the Case" provides a brief history of research related to explosive demolition at the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001, from Dr. Legge's point of view. Cogent and pithy; worth the read.
2) "Frank Greening versus Isaac Newton" provides a brief expose of the "lapse" by F. Greening in understanding Newton's Third Law -- and the significance of this gaffe by Greening. Sometimes humorous, certainly enlightening.
Comments on the Draft Report NIST NCSTAR 1-9: “Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7”, issued by NIST August 21st, 2008
(Revised and Extended Version of Comments Issued September 11th 2008)
By F. R. Greening
A preliminary (draft) version of NIST’s final report on the collapse of WTC 7 was issued on August 21st 2008 together with a call by NIST’s Investigation Team for the submission of comments on the Draft Report from interested parties within the general public. First I wish to thank NIST for producing such a detailed technical report on the collapse of WTC 7 and secondly, I applaud NIST for allowing researchers from around the world to offer technical feedback that hopefully will be duly considered by NIST before a final version of the report is issued.
Dr. Frank Greening (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) has written a withering critique of the new WTC7 report and has submitted it to NIST as public comment. If this is all NIST can come up with after 7 years, the assisted collapse (demolition) hypothesis becomes all the more relevant.
"In reading the Draft WTC 7 Report a number of issues emerge that are crucial to the credibility of NIST’s proposal as to how and why building 7 collapsed on September 11th, 2001. These key issues center on the narrative surrounding the ignition of the fires in WTC 7 and the spreading of these fires within the building prior to its collapse. The accuracy of NIST’s account of what transpired within the confines of building 7 during 9/11, is vital to NIST’s entire WTC 7 Report because it provides the basis for the computer modeling/simulation of the heating of structural elements on the fire-affected floors, which in turn, leads to NIST’s proposed collapse initiation and propagation mechanism.
In the following comments I will attempt to address each of the key topics - fire ignition and spreading, fire intensities and durations, structural heating, collapse initiation and propagation – and in so doing, highlight my concerns or objections to NIST’s position on these topics as presented in its Draft WTC 7 Report."
Well known "debunkers" submitted a paper for peer review and publication to Journal of Engineering Mechanics
I just wanted to make visitors of this site aware that a bunch of well known "debunkers" submitted to the Department of Civil and Envriomental Engineering at Northwestern University a paper on the mechanism of collapse of the WTC Towers for peer review and publication by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Here is a link to the paper concerned.
I want to raise concern so that scientists and engineers from the movement move to respond to this paper.
Over on Jref+Dr+Frank+Greening has been setting a few cats among a few pigeons with his cheeky debut as a Jref-er. Presenting himself as "Apollo20", Dr Greening first threw a flying punch at the Jref mentality of sheltering behind authority - including, ironically, his own paper on the WTC, much vaunted by the 'conspiracy smashers' in general and Ronald Wieck in particular.
I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:
(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.