Gordon Ross responds to some of his critics.

[reprehensor]

http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist...

In this article I will deal with some of the responses to my work as presented on this web site and elsewhere. At the end I will, in time, list some of the favourable comments, but firstly I will deal with the criticisms. Please forgive me for dealing with the easy ones first, but when such inviting targets present themselves, it is difficult not to take advantage, and they do provide some very welcome light relief. The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available. The "fact" presented there regarding the absence of any Gordon Ross in Dundee's register of births, would make me at least 120 years old, and I must admit that as I read through the site, I did begin to feel every day of that extended life span. So what was their explanation for my existence, or more correctly, my non-existence? According to the evidence presented there, I am actually Professor Jones masquerading as someone else.

And we are the conspiracy theorists?

Luckily my new found nameless status has been remedied by several people across the internet, who have provided ample name calling to give me recompense. In retrospect I did prefer Gordon Ross to some of the replacements but I just can't argue with cold hard facts. No Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the 1880's and that must be an end to it. So let's work through some of the proferred alternatives to see if we can find a suitable replacement...

Continued...
http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc

To whom it may concern
Frank R. Greening
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf

Reply to Dr. Greening
Gordon Ross
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC1
Gordon Ross
http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf

[Generarth]

1. Excellent work

Tom Ross (I think) if you pop in here, all I can say is I'm loving your work. I must remember to pop back on JREF and have another go. I have several fave posters over there....

You too Reprehensor. I've seen you around the traps and in my view you're also one the best posters re 911.



edited for clarity.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. That guy is great. He sure tears JREF a new one. His

"Reply to NIST" is spot on. As he points out, they won't send anyone to debate, they just write there own questions and then answer their own questions.

That's so phony it stinks.

Here is his well thought out argument. http://gordonssite.com/id3.html

It is firstly noted that NIST have refused continual invitations to debate these issues, but instead choose to answer their own interpretations of the many unanswered questions. But even in doing so it is apparent that their story is falling apart like an old suitcase.

Nist have ruled out pancaking, but they seem to forget that one part of their story, the "squibs", is dependent on another part, the pancaking. NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder stated, "Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." In order for a pressure to build up two floors must come together. This can only happen in two ways one of which, involving at least one floor becoming detached, is ruled out by NIST now saying that this pancaking did not occur. The only other possibility is if the columns supporting the floors buckle or fail in some way. Nist are asking us to believe that the air then ejected as squibs some thirty or more storeys, some 100 metres below the collapse front, rather than through the very obvious route offered by the failed columns around the entire perimeter of the building. Not only does this defy credibility, the very fact that NIST thought that they could get away with this, defys credibility.

Here we see why NIST have decided to ask their own questions. They say,

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

Whereas the question could be posed as, "Why did the structure offer minimal resistance to the falling upper mass?" ....more

[greyl]

3. A less than truthful troofer. What a shock.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64150&highlight=Gordon+Ross

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=565220

[Generarth]

4. No Gordon Ross's in Dundee? ROTFLMAO

I'll put some money on that one. How much?

[greyl]

5. You don't comprehend the meaning of my post. nt

[Generarth]

6. That's because I'm just a stoopid twoofer

Dat's why.

I'm so thick.

So Mr Intellect, if that wasn't the intended meaning of your post what was?

I'm waiting.........

[greyl]

7. Don't be so hard on yourself.

I bet you'll figure it out if you focus on comprehension while reading the links I posted.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

9. I'm not too worried about it.

Besides, now we're nearly even because I have no idea what you mean by 62 years.

[John Q. Citizen]

11. It's obviously such a superior quality post that only a real JREFer could

ever decipher it's true meaning. Bwha ha ha ha.

No shit Sherlock. Did you find a clue?

Ha ha ha. You guys are brilliant, just brilliant.

What I like most about your post is the desperation. Oh pleeease oh please let him be a sock puppet.....

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Let's compare the actual post to Ross's take on it.

I'm totally prepared to be proven wrong, but googling to find certain experts often finds them referenced only on 9/11 CT sites, while others come up with other cross-references, (although not so regularly). The former is the case with Gordon Ross. Every result I find that's not at a CTer site for "Gordon Ross" is apparently not the publisher of the document that has Toof1234 all in a frenzy.

Purely out of curiosity, I went a little further.
I find no Gordon Ross born in Dundee from about 1880 to present.
His alma mater did not exist in 1984 - it was then called the Liverpool Polytechnic. Would you call your school by its current name rather than the name when graduated? I suppose so.

I'm not a master-googler by a far cry, and I don't have access to technical journals and membership records, so I'm prepared to be wrong, as I said. I'm just asking questions.

Maybe this is a tempest in a teapot? If so, let it drift out of sight to the bottom of the board. But it did occur to my conspiratorial mind that maybe it's Jones or someone pulling a hoax? They love documents so much that it wouldn't be beyond them to make up a sock-puppet expert. And choosing obscure origins and schools would make sense then.

Ross says that the JREF thread says no Gordon Ross was born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th century. The poster actually says he can find no Ross. That's two different statements.

The JREF poster also says twice he's prepared to be wrong. He says he's not that good at Internet research, and he doesn't have access to any other way to verify Ross' existence. He also says that the faked Ross idea is something that appeals to his "conspiratorial mind".

In other words, the JREF poster clearly states his opinions, the limits of his research, the likely nature of his speculations, and is careful to state simply the facts in his search.

Gordon Ross then misrepresented the nature of the post and what was actually said in it.

This is not how to run a "truth" movement.

[greyl]

12. I'm happy you had the patience to explain that

to what I thought must be a minority of people who didn't get it. ;)

[Generarth]

13. What a crock

really.

[greyl]

14. No, that post was forthright. nt

[Generarth]

16. A forthright crock of ***t? nt

[John Q. Citizen]

17. This does seem a tad paranoid, though....

.....But it did occur to my conspiratorial mind that maybe it's Jones or someone pulling a hoax? They love documents so much that it wouldn't be beyond them to make up a sock-puppet expert. And choosing obscure origins and schools would make sense then.

First he(?) all but admits he is a conspiricist. Then he(?) jumps to the conclusion that someone is out to get him (?) by pulling a hoax, or they are the evil diabolical Dr. Jones, (apparently his(?) nemesis?) masquerading as someone else.

Is this normal?

edited to reflect new info from greyl.

[greyl]

19. I think you posted in the wrong spot, or you have me confused with someone else nt

[John Q. Citizen]

26. Oh, I thought with the links you posted that

you were the paranoid JREFer.

When you wrote "You didn't comprehend the meaning of my post," I thought you were referring to the post provided in the link you provided.

You might want to get that person some help or at least try to calm them down a little. While they may not agree with Dr. Jones, I hardly believe it's reasonable for the poster to fantasize that Dr. Jones is out to get him.

[greyl]

28. There's more than one JREFer who acts paranoid.

However, I wouldn't say they're representative of the "sanctioned" JREF attitude.
What would you expect to find at a forum that focuses on "crazy shit that people believe" and allows people from all sides of the issue to participate?

[Generarth]

23. Oh they're all paranoid...

That we might actually expose it.

That would be reallllly bad.

[greyl]

25. Your post gives the impression that you're quoting me, but you aren't.

Please edit it.

[Generarth]

29. Oh poor widdle Greyl......

Are you familiar with these letters?

H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

[mhatrw]

32. Are you posting from an insane aslyum?

Of course I am prepared to be wrong about this, but it appeals to my conspiratorial mind.

Forthright enough for you?

[John Q. Citizen]

15. Let's look at some more from Gordon Ross...

From Gordon Ross' website: http://gordonssite.com/id4.html

Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.

My opinion is that Greening is full of shit.

[greyl]

18. If your opinion of Greening is based on Ross's opinion,

I'm sorry.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Apology accepted. Are you a proponent of the natural thermite theory?

Or just a proponent of all of Greenings theories?

[greyl]

21. That was sarcasm, not forthrightness. nt

[Generarth]

24. And this is forthrightness and sarcasm. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

30. You don't say if you are a proponent,. n/t

[petgoat]

22. Greening is a physical chemist, so I was very surprised that

when he weighed in on the sulfidation attack issue that he claimed
that since most of the sulfur in the WTC pile was drywall, therefore
the sulfidation attack must have been caused by drywall.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Yes, he seems to like to gather atoms from the environment

and place them, as if by magic, in the proper proportions at the proper locations by mysterious mechanisms to support his theories.

I noticed the similarities in his two different theories also.

Dr. Greening; Charleton or simpleton? - You be the judge.

[wildbilln864]

31. kicked...

!