If it walks like a debunker, and quacks like a debunker... shoot it!

It's great to see that these clever professional debunkers are not fooling the Truth movement any longer.

Greening doesn't lean towards the CD hypothesis of WTC 1 & 2. Should he lie about his convictions, so as not to have people like you call him a "debunker"?

Personally, I'm not at all convinced by the Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson paper, but don't see it as particularly awful, either, compared to other attempts. IMO, the dirty secret of all of the collapse papers is that they can't come anywhere near the complexity needed, the amount of complexity needed is unknown, none has been tested, and perhaps none can be tested in the forseeable future (perhaps not even in principle, short of building lots of WTC towers and flying planes into them). I will guess that the most reasonable guess we can make analytically would draw from the literature on avalanche dynamics, and it's interesting to note that the only person to have done so, Charles M. Beck, found the NIST analyses dubious (including WTC 1 & 2). See http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+beck+AND+charles+m/0/1/0/all/0/1

As you know, Greening has criticized Professor Jones' claims about microspheres, and suggested ways to determine whether they are from the fly ash component of the concrete floors, or not. Were those criticisms and suggestions "superficial", or were they serious, scientific criticisms and suggestions? Try not to be superficial in your answer, OK? Nobody cares your suspicions about hidden agendas on Greening's part, at the expense of rational answers - at least, not if they're scientifically serious.

Finally, Greening was kicked out of JREF some months ago, where he posted as Apollo20. He was the target of some rather vicious "debunkers", who were about as rational as some CD true believers that I can think of.

http://www.therealnews.com
http://www.pdamerica.org
http://www.change-congress.org