Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dr. Griscom wins 9/11 Physics Debate; Dr. Griscom wins 9/11 Physics Debate. No scientists supoprt official theory
Topic Started: Mar 21 2014, 10:47 PM (1,293 Views)
TruthMakesPeace

Dr. David Griscom PhD (Physics, Brown University) wins the Debate
No physicists show up to support the official government story of 9/11
not even for the $1000 prize
 
Dr. Griscom donated his prize to the New Independent Dust Study
to add to the 20 studies published in peer reviewed independent scientific journals
www.911CA.org and www.JournalOf911Studies.org

Announcing the debate on the Dr. Kevin Barrett Show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1yogXSpyFM

The 9/11 Physics Debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m8XaLdGKBw


About Dr. David Griscom:

Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service.
Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003).  Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005).

Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

Dr. Griscom was selected by NASA as a Principal Investigator, to determine the chemical content of Moon rock, a very competitive position. He has published 194 papers in peer reviewed independent scientific journals.


Posted Image
Edited by TruthMakesPeace, Mar 21 2014, 10:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ManAgainstCrime
Member Avatar

'Debunkers' have long run out of excuses for the farce that is the official 9/11 story. Not surprised at the no show.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn5

Griscom is one of those people who claims that if something has not happened before, then that is evidence that it could not happen now.

He claims that since the WTC 1/2 towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 (at what speed, he never says), a modern airliner at high speed could not destroy them. What a B-25 did to the Empire State Building is not really relevant.

He probably thinks the people reading his report are stupid.

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

"He claims that since the WTC 1/2 towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 (at what speed, he never says), a modern airliner at high speed could not destroy them. What a B-25 did to the Empire State Building is not really relevant."

They designed the towers to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph.... At top speed a 767 can do 530 mph.... Even though the 707 is smaller in comparison the kinetic force from the 707 would be far greater.... And yes they did take into account of the fuel (but many duhbunkers would claim not).....

"He probably thinks the people reading his report are stupid."

And here comes the low brow attacks I am used to by duhbunkers..... But then again why use facts when your simplistic attacks truly show off the level of intelligence I would come to expect form the duhbunker side.....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ManAgainstCrime
Member Avatar

Ranb
May 4 2014, 10:09 PM
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#_edn5

Griscom is one of those people who claims that if something has not happened before, then that is evidence that it could not happen now.

He claims that since the WTC 1/2 towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 (at what speed, he never says), a modern airliner at high speed could not destroy them. What a B-25 did to the Empire State Building is not really relevant.

He probably thinks the people reading his report are stupid.

Ranb

If no steel-framed high rise has ever completely collapsed from fire and displayed characteristics of demolition, then you're right, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen. But bunkies behave as though lack of historical precedent is somehow favourable to their position! A very odd reversal, so typical of the bunkie mind-set. The point is, no steel-framed high rise has ever completely collapsed from fire and displayed characteristics of demolition and this makes the bunkie case very much weaker. Sorry.

Regardless of whether it's a 707, or 757/767, why would any of them crashing into the towers result in double complete implosions pulverizing nearly everything?

Same with wtc7.. "It was expected to collapse, man". Really... everyone expected it to completely and suddenly implode to the ground in seconds did they? Hardly!



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ManAgainstCrime
Member Avatar

darion
May 15 2014, 09:57 PM
"He claims that since the WTC 1/2 towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 (at what speed, he never says), a modern airliner at high speed could not destroy them. What a B-25 did to the Empire State Building is not really relevant."

They designed the towers to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph.... At top speed a 767 can do 530 mph.... Even though the 707 is smaller in comparison the kinetic force from the 707 would be far greater.... And yes they did take into account of the fuel (but many duhbunkers would claim not).....

"He probably thinks the people reading his report are stupid."

And here comes the low brow attacks I am used to by duhbunkers..... But then again why use facts when your simplistic attacks truly show off the level of intelligence I would come to expect form the duhbunker side.....

ref "Why make it such a demolition looking demolition?! (Eventhough it doesn't look like a demolition)" :D

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

darion
May 15 2014, 09:57 PM
They designed the towers to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph.... At top speed a 767 can do 530 mph.... Even though the 707 is smaller in comparison the kinetic force from the 707 would be far greater.... And yes they did take into account of the fuel (but many duhbunkers would claim not).....

Evidence to support this claim? I've never seen any, I doubt you have any either or else you would have posted a link.

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

I have a scan or screen cap of a scan of that article somewhere, so yes Ranb, it does exist.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

darion
Jul 17 2014, 02:29 PM
Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing.

When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, .....
Got any links to support your claims?
Is this the article you are referring to? http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698
If so then it doesn't support your claim that "the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing". Try again.

Ranb
Edited by Ranb, Jul 17 2014, 11:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

JFK
Jul 17 2014, 04:18 PM
I have a scan or screen cap of a scan of that article somewhere, so yes Ranb, it does exist.
Yeah right. Got a link?

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

darion
May 15 2014, 09:57 PM
And here comes the low brow attacks I am used to by duhbunkers..... But then again why use facts when your simplistic attacks truly show off the level of intelligence I would come to expect form the duhbunker side.....
If you actually read my post you might notice I haven't attempted any "de-bunking". I'm just skeptical of the stupid claims that Griscom is making. Spell correctly; makes you seem more intelligent dude.

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

In 2001, Leslie Robertson, a WTC structural engineer who worked as a subordinate to Skilling, claimed that the Twin Towers were only able to withstand the impact of jet airplanes going no faster than 180 mph. However, not only are these statements contradicted by the design test results, they also contradict statements made by Robertson in 1984/1985, when he said that there was “little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.”

Robertson also claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis. “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance,” he stated in 2002. However, not only is this statement contradicted by Skilling, but it also lacks common sense, according to 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan. “That’s kind of crazy… I don’t know how the planes would get to the buildings without jet fuel,” Ryan explains in a video presentation titled The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception. “Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”

Not only were the towers designed to survive crashes of large jet aircraft, but they were designed to potentially survive multiple plane crashes. This assertion is supported by Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

Demartini appeared to be so confident that the towers would not collapse that he stayed behind, after the airplane impacts, to help save at least 50 people. As a result of his actions, he lost his life on 9/11.

Like the firefighters who perished in the WTC buildings, Demartini may very well have risked his life to save others, but the evidence suggests that he did not think he was endangering himself by simply going back into the building.

In addition, investigators from NIST who examined the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers told The New York Times in 2007 that newly disclosed documents from the 1960s show that the new York Port Authority, the original owners of Twin Towers, also considered aircraft moving at 600 mph,slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers.

The information detailed in 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out demonstrates clearly that pre-planted explosives – not jet plane impacts and fires – destroyed the Twin Towers. The WTC designers seemed to be correct in their analysis in the 1960s, and the evidence that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition corroborates their conclusions.

“A previous analysis [by WTC building designers], carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Jul 17 2014, 11:24 PM
JFK
Jul 17 2014, 04:18 PM
I have a scan or screen cap of a scan of that article somewhere, so yes Ranb, it does exist.
Yeah right. Got a link?

Ranb
Amazingly you posted the link.

Do you deny the fact that the fuel load was taken into consideration ?

That is the argument that I hear most often from debunkers.

Note :
After rereading this thread I have removed the restrictions I placed on your account earlier.
You should be able to post after 10:30am EST 17 July 2014.
If you can not, PM me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

JFK
Jul 18 2014, 07:34 AM
Ranb
Jul 17 2014, 11:24 PM
JFK
Jul 17 2014, 04:18 PM
I have a scan or screen cap of a scan of that article somewhere, so yes Ranb, it does exist.
Yeah right. Got a link?

Ranb
Amazingly you posted the link.

Do you deny the fact that the fuel load was taken into consideration ?

That is the argument that I hear most often from debunkers.

Note :
After rereading this thread I have removed the restrictions I placed on your account earlier.
You should be able to post after 10:30am EST 17 July 2014.
If you can not, PM me.
Yes, I posted a link that says the WTC was designed to survive an airliner impact; it does not say anything about the speed.

Do you think the designers were thinking about a terrorist flying it at high speed into the building or one trying to land and out of position? Wasn't 9/11 the first time medium sized airliners were used as high speed missiles on a skyscraper? Remember one of the cornerstones of the 9/11 truth movement is that if something did not happen in the past,it is impossible or unlikely to happen at all.

I'm not denying that the fuel load was taken into consideration or not. I'm questioning the claims I see in this thread. So far the evidence for them is severely lacking.

I was not aware of any recent restrictions placed on my account.

So JFK and darion, when are we going to see a link to anything by a WTC designer that says the buildings were intended to withstand an airliner crashing into them at high speed? All I see are claims typed inside of quotation marks. Is this the standard of evidence on the forum now?

Ranb
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

darion
Jul 18 2014, 02:00 AM
Robertson also claimed that the fires caused by a jet impact were not incorporated into the WTC design analysis. “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance,” he stated in 2002. However, not only is this statement contradicted by Skilling, but it also lacks common sense, according to 9/11 researcher Kevin Ryan. “That’s kind of crazy… I don’t know how the planes would get to the buildings without jet fuel,” Ryan explains in a video presentation titled The NIST World Trade Center Report: A New Standard for Deception. “Who would design these buildings for jet plane impacts but not fuel fires?”
Is the Kevin Ryan you speak of the same one who was employed as a water tester at UL and wrote a letter on company letterhead making claims he could not prove, got fired as a result then sued his former employer and lost? I haven't read his original letter or read much on the lawsuit myself, just heard other things about it second hand.

If he is then perhaps you can understand why I would not rush to believe anything you attribute to him?

Ranb

ETA; Is this the letter that Ryan wrote? http://911review.com/articles/ryan/letter.html If it is, then why would he refer and link to some dingbat like Brown who can't get the melting temperature of steel right in an article on the WTC collapse?
Edited by Ranb, Jul 18 2014, 10:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Jul 18 2014, 10:15 AM
I'm not denying that the fuel load was taken into consideration or not.

Ranb
Do you care to clarify that statement ?
I read it as a non answer.

Once that is done then I shall proceed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ranb

JFK
Jul 18 2014, 04:02 PM
Ranb
Jul 18 2014, 10:15 AM
I'm not denying that the fuel load was taken into consideration or not.

Ranb
Do you care to clarify that statement ?
I read it as a non answer.

Once that is done then I shall proceed.
I've never read any accurate detailed description by a builder/designer of the WTC describing what it was intended to withstand. Therefore I am unable to say whether or not anyone took into account the aircraft fuel load and potential effects it would have on a building it crashed into.

Why on Earth would you proceed with an argument that consists of claims about the design of the WTC without being willing to provide any sort of evidence? It seems that your opinion is more important than the evidence.

Ranb
Edited by Ranb, Jul 18 2014, 06:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Ranb
Jul 18 2014, 06:41 PM
I've never read any accurate detailed description by a builder/designer of the WTC describing what it was intended to withstand. Therefore I am unable to say whether or not anyone took into account the aircraft fuel load and potential effects it would have on a building it crashed into.

Why on Earth would you proceed with an argument that consists of claims about the design of the WTC without being willing to provide any sort of evidence? It seems that your opinion is more important than the evidence.

Ranb
So am I to assume that the following statement in the article YOU linked to quoting John Skilling, the head structural engineer of the twin towers, means absolutely nothing to you and your argument ?

John Skilling
 
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."


If so you may as well leave of your own accord right now.

Edit to add - Perhaps you should start your reading with NIST NCSTAR 1-2, Top of page 306
( 420 if you are using Adobe's page numbering system ).

If YOU need more evidence than that I suggest YOU file a FOIA with NIST for all the documents referenced on those pages.

Another edit to add - Just in case you are too lazy to do the legwork... Point 3 specifically.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
Attached to this post:
Attachments: 306.jpg (153.36 KB)
Attachments: 307.jpg (148.76 KB)
Attachments: 308.jpg (123.19 KB)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Apparently Ranb ran away. :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

When backed up against the wall what else can he do.

He's probably in his room, rocking back and forth saying "Make the papers go away mommy'.... Or "Those aren't real documents" to make himself feel better....

Deluded people like him can find ways to justify anything....
Edited by darion, Jul 22 2014, 10:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Probably, I do not enjoy it but sometimes false realities must be shattered.

Anyway, another thread silenced. And people wonder why this forum is "dead".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
darion
Member Avatar

Unlike the JREF forums we don't slap each other on the back and pump us up with artificial egos. That maybe why this forum is 'dead'...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Michal

Yet still I check this forum frequently ... just because I know i will find good concrete info regarding this tragic historical event.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JFK
Member Avatar

Michal
Jul 26 2014, 11:13 AM
Yet still I check this forum frequently ... just because I know i will find good concrete info regarding this tragic historical event.
That's the part everyone misses, and yes Michal I do see you here a lot searching. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Breaking News · Next Topic »
Add Reply