911blogger.com — Hannity & Colmes have Webster Tarpley on to ridicule him about "c**kamamie conspiracy theories" re: Kerry's foot in mouth comment that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Although the hosts had their mikes turned up higher than the guest, so the average viewer probably didn't catch much, Webster managed to make all the main points in just 3 minutes.
May 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
ronaldwieckMay 10, 2007
Stallion is lying about Dr. Greening, who has never claimed that the molten metal was steel, much less the ludicrous claim that it existed BEFORE the collapse of the building. Fantasists should not attempt to put their nonsense into the mouth a serious scientist.
stallion4May 11, 2007
ViperDaimao: "have a link to that?"<a class="user" href="http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512">http://www.911blogger.com/node/7512</a>ViperDaimao: "And it's a nice paragraph, but so?"So? Where have you been? So-called "debunkers" have been using Greening's previous 9/11 research (on 911myths.com) to "debunk" 9/11 controlled demolition theories for years. And now he's come out against NIST and has said that it's possible that explosives may have brought the buildings down. In Greenings own words about his previous 9/11 research on 911myths.com:"these studies are not PROOF that explosives were NOT used. And Occam's Razor is merely a dictum, not a universal law... a calculation cannot rule out explosives, it can only show you if something was possible."ViperDaimao: "Do you think that somehow provides proof or that believes it was an inside job, cause i see no indication of that."Again, in Greening's own words..."I am curious what Bush meant when he said we should not "tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories". I wonder about the word TOLERATE....Bush says (in the home of the brave and the land of the free) we should not allow, or permit certain theories about 9/11?" From the same Bush speech: We face enemies that hate .... the TOLERANCE OF OPENNESS and CREATIVE CULTURE that define us." Conspiracy theories only come from doubt. Those who believe/accept the official theory shouldn't worry about those that doubt it." -Dr. Frank GreeningGreening directed his comments at so-called "debunkers" on a forum known for "debunking conspiracy theories". There are also comments made on that Forum by Dr. Greening expressing his doubts about the US government not telling the truth about what happened on 9/11. I personally could care less what the man has to say since I figured out that 9/11 was an inside job years ago. However, I do commend the man for coming forward now, knowing that the people who supported his work in the past -- the 9/11 "debunkers" -- wouldn't be as eagerly supportive of his recent "conspiracy theories" about NIST's "investigation" into the twin towers and Building 7, or his claims that explosives could have possibly brought the buildings down.
xornetoMay 11, 2007
Great discussion. I love introducing people to WTC 7. First they tell me "what, no, there were only two towers destroyed on 9-11" After watching it be demolished, they are flabbergasted, and only want to know more about this tower which somehow wasn't ever reported in magazines like Time, U.S. Weekly, Newsweek, or any other Mainstream Media mag. Why wasn't it reported? Because it was a classic controlled demolitiion that must have planned well before 9-11. Why was it demolished? Who benefits from having thousands of Securities and Exchange investigation files destroyed? The liberated bear the burden of liberating.
viperdaimaoMay 11, 2007
No, I don't accept it. It's highly improbable and there's much evidence that show it to be so. Greening understands that, but you seem to enjoy twisting his words for your own benefit. Ive quoted posts where Greening specifically discounts Jones and other CD theories. Your claiming he doesn't flies in the face of what he's said. That's why you cherry pick quotes from a scientific discussion that is frankly above all our heads for the most part.Read the other posts"I do not believe that Apollo20 is referring to anything that has to do with thermate-thermite, and his ideas do have basis what I have seen and done tells me that this is a real possibility in the real physical Universe and something that could have went unobserved by Nist simply over looked.<a class="user" href="http://www.cheresources.com/ironfires3.shtml">http://www.cheresources.com/ironfires3.shtml</a>This is still under research, if you would like to help find out where and when accelerators were used on the concrete to cure it in cold weather, which slabs of concrete were poured in cold conditions.This is an important discussion because there are other buildings, of similar construction to the twin towers.I can not say more, at this time.I believe Dr. Greening is being cautious, because he is now criticized by both sides for simply exploring possibilities, though the scientific method as best he can with his knowledge and his limited resources.If you wish to criticize me than feel free to do so, I do not give a dam about it, I admit that I may be wrong, but my curiosity got me into this and it will not let me stop now! PS. I hope I am wrong, because if right thousands of lives in future fires could be at risk in similar buildings.PS. Apollo20 is aware that sono Chemical reactions would effect any thermites-thermates in said twin towers, the likely hood that they could survive the plane crashes is almost 0 probably less.I think he is proposing a concise cognitive theory, not a CT, he is just trying to add up a few loose ends.Nist did not have unlimited funding or unlimited time, or a god like ability to view every aspect of the collapses, it was simply good people doing a hard job with what they had. There are always unanswered questions, loose ends, but nothing that needs to be included in loose change final cut.Curiosity and honnest research, sometimes mean that someone must look at other aspects as possibilities as longs as they are possible in the known reality of the known universe and do not involve invisible elves with invisible explosives."<a class="user" href="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2487471&postcount=287">http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2487471&postcount=287</a>"Note that I do not discount additional sources of combustion through unexpected metallic reactions, that would be quite interesting -- but I still see absolutely no evidence that any alternate collapse theory is superior to the NIST hypothesis."Dr. Greening<a class="user" href="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2488146&postcount=294">http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2488146&postcount=294</a>"I take this to mean that prior to collapse initiation the mass above the impact zone slowly slumped ASYMMETRICALLY DOWNWARDS and added strain energy to the columns below. Eventually the lowering of one side of the building was such that the maximum strain energy capacity of the structure was reached. At this critical juncture the columns on the weakened sides of the building underwent rapid failure and the floors above the impact zone pivoted en masse about one side or corner, causing this section of the Tower to fall obliquely on to the floor below.""The tilting of the upper section of a tower is easily included in energy balance calculations using the fact that the lowering of the center of gravity, D, of an upper section (as a function of tilt angle q) is given by:D = ? { h [ 1 - cos q ] + w sinq}where h and w are the height and width of the upper section of the Tower, respectively.Application of this formula to the tilting of the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2 shows that a 2? tilt was required to bring WTC 2 to collapse initiation while a 4? tilt was required for WTC 1"Controlled demo doesn't cause the buildings to pivot. He at no time gives credence to controlled demo. He's basically pointing out minor quibbles with the NIST report. The only "theory" he puts forth, did not involve controlled demo or themrite, and he then explicitly stated that he was just making up a "conspiracy theory" to show how easy it is to do."There are many many people -- who don't believe the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory -- that have the knowledge, expertise, and open mind to actually question the NIST report. There are structural engineers, demo experts, physics experts, military experts, FAA experts, etcetera etcetera etcetera."Finally, I find this unlikely as I've not seen one credible one. Former professor Steven Jones is usually the one that's trotted out like a show pony, but Dr. Greening, and Jone's entire faculty of engineers discount his sloppy reasoning and conclusions.
ronaldwieckMay 12, 2007
Sorry, stallion, liars who call me a liar are not my favorite people. You can't name a demolition expert who swallows your snake oil because there aren't any. I really don't care how many unqualified observers referred to the molten metal as molten steel: the consensus is that it was not steel, but a mixture of several metals. You are not terribly honest, but you accidentally spoke the truth when you stated that I regard everyone who promotes the fantasist myth about explosives in the WTC as frauds and charlatans.
stallion4May 12, 2007
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?" -Dr. Frank Greening, 6th April 2007, Jref Forum - Debate! What Debate?, pg. 14
nordicMay 13, 2007
Ronald, in a press interview Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition (as well as Peter Tully of Tully Construction) has stated that molten *steel* was found in the rubble of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7:"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"<a class="user" href="http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html">http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cutter_charges_brought_down_wt.html</a>And is this or is this not what mr Greening has written?"there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
ronaldwieckMay 14, 2007
The uninformed and highly dishonest "stallion" continues his deceptive practices. Dr. Greening has NEVER claimed that there were "pools" of molten steel. Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained that he made offhand comments about a photo that had been sent to him by a clean-up worker. He referred to molten "metal," and went on to state that he is not a metallurgist and would not be able to distinguish molten steel from a mix of various molten metals. He did not observe the molten metal in person: he was commenting on a photo.There were no pools of molten steel. The liars are lying, as usual.
nordicMay 14, 2007
Well, in so far as stallion quotes Greening verbatim, Greening is of course saying that there was molten iron or steel in the towers: "Iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C"1539 degrees Celcius is well above the melting point of steel.What about Peter Tully's description that he had seen "literally molten steel" in the rubble?