Dr. Grabbe challenges NIST...

[wildbilln864]

"Dr. Crockett Grabbe of the Dept. of Physics, University of Iowa, has challenged NIST in his latest paper: Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum

NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. These issues and their unmistakable implications are addressed."



READ the full paper here: http://journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

1. The first sign that Grabbe has no clue: he uses the term "squibs"

http://ae911truth.info/misinfo/aeppt97/054.html

That's about 7, not the towers, but the talk about what a squib actually is applies.

Grabbe is also disingenuous about NIST not addressing his jets of horizontally ejected matter, because they do so in the first set of FAQs.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.

Grabbe also loves to say that the collapses started suddenly and completely, but he must ignore the slow, long deformations observed in both towers that finally resulted in collapse initiation.

[jberryhill]

4. you'll like this...

Say what you like about Dr. Grabbe, but don't mess with his trailer...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=app%5C20020828%5C01-0794&invol=1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 2-079 / 01-0794
Filed August 28, 2002


CROCKETT L. GRABBE,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.

HOLIDAY MOBILE HOME COURT,
Defendant-Appellant.

I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe became a resident of the Holiday Mobile Home Court in North Liberty in 1982. He purchased a mobile home and rented a lot from Holiday. Grabbe suffers from a variety of physical ailments. In September 1998, he purchased a house in Iowa City, which he believed would afford him a better living situation, if modified to accommodate his disabilities. He lived part-time in both his residences until he could sufficiently fix up the house in Iowa City to meet his needs. He continued paying his rent to Holiday.

Joe and Allie Alberhasky, owners of Holiday, heard that Grabbe intended to move out of the park. Holiday sent Grabbe a letter dated September 30, 1998, informing him of its policy requiring certain mobile homes to be removed from the court upon sale. The letter informed Grabbe that this policy applied to his mobile home. Grabbe indicated to Holiday that he would be terminating his lease on December 1, 1998. Grabbe subsequently delayed the termination date.

On March 31, 1999, Grabbe delivered his monthly rent check to Holiday and indicated he planned to terminate his lease in May. That same day, Holiday initiated an action for forcible entry and detainer (FED) against Grabbe, citing as the reason that “tenant is no longer residing Holiday Court.” Holiday cashed Grabbe’s rent check a few days later. On April 5, 1999, Holiday sent Grabbe a sixty-day notice to quit dated March 31, 1999. Grabbe received the notice to quit by certified mail. The notice informed him his oral lease<1> of his mobile home lot would terminate sixty days after delivery of the notice to quit.

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. What, exactly, is the crooked picture in your post supposed to explain?

Please tell me you don't think the building is leaning in this picture....

Please, *please* tell me that...

If that's not what you're saying I apologize, and could you please enlighten me to what is going on, or what you think is going on, in your bottom picture?


Thanks...

Ghost

[LARED]

2. Willbill864, you should take a few classes in

statics and dynamics. Then you could join in on the just how much of a joke that paper is.

The references are a veritable who's who of the willfully ignorant and proven liars.

[jberryhill]

3. I like the reference to his own video interview...

...on innworldreport.net.

And then, dang whaddya know... Bilderberg, Rockefeller, Israeli lobby... all of the usual buttons being pushed over there.

[nebula]

5. They had to

NIST, in their latest Answers to FAQs, artfully dodges the important issues on the physics of conservation of energy and momentum in the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7.

How else would they be able to explain this?

[SidDithers]

7. Do you think the buildings were held up by cranes?...

Is that why you keep posting that meaningless pic?

Sid

[nebula]

8. Meaningless to who?

Non-thinking OCTbots?

[LARED]

9. Can you please explain what that image is supposed to mean

I've have never understood your point when posting it.

[nebula]

10. Ask yourself one question

how can A fall to the ground, if at all, as rapidly as B?

[LARED]

11. It can't, so what's your point? - nt

[nebula]

12. But it can,

with the aid of CD.

[LARED]

13. That not true, but even if it was

what does that have to do with the image you keep posting?

[nebula]

14. According to NIST it did

are you disputing the NIST report?

[hack89]

15. I thought there was a 50 percent difference?

what do you think was the difference between actual and free fall times?

[nebula]

18. As the saying goes

a picture is worth a thousand words.

That certainly is true, isn't it?

[hack89]

20. I didn't think you knew. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Can you cite the NIST report where it does that? n/t

[nebula]

17. Certainly.

Have you been to the NIST website lately?
Some mighty interesting stuff they got there.

You should pay them a visit sometime.

NIST Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

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)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[hack89]

19. So how long after the first panels hit the ground

did it take for the last piece of debris to hit the ground? Certainly greater then 11 or 9 seconds - right? Lets see a hard number.

[nebula]

21. Sure, but so?

A few last pieces are often still standing after any building demolition.
There isn't anything unique about the towers in that regard.

[hack89]

22. You missed the point

the 11 and 9 second times are when the first pieces of debris hit the ground. The videos clearly show that this debris fell well in advance of the main collapse zone.

How many seconds after the first pieces of debris hit the ground did the main collapse zone hit the ground?

[nebula]

25. One could make a comparison

of the collapse zone and falling debris. but the difference
in their respective rates of speed are rather negligible.

[hack89]

26. No

if it took, say, 16 seconds for the collapse zone to hit the ground, then it fell at 50 less then free fall speed. 13 seconds equals a 25 percent decrease.

50 percent is not negligible - don't you agree?

[nebula]

28. Interesting numbers you have there

I don't think NIST would agree with them, but quite interesting nonetheless.

[hack89]

29. What are NISTs numbers for the collapse zone hitting the ground?

what are your numbers? Do you have any?

[nebula]

30. No idea n/t

[hack89]

31. Then perhaps you shouldn't make such absolute statements.

until you get some real facts behind your arguments.

[nebula]

32. There is no significant difference in speed, if any

between collapse zone and falling debris.

that's pretty clear by looking at the collapse footage, especially when watching in slow-motion. if there was a real or significant difference, I'm sure NIST would have mentioned it somewhere, since it would probably help to bolster the official position.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. That is factually inaccurate, as anyone observing a video of the collapse can see.

You have been proven wrong about NIST's times of collapse. What you cited as a total collapse time was actually a time of first debris hitting the ground. As hack89 has told you, and as anyone who watches the videos can see, there is a significant difference in the time the first debris hit the ground and the time the collapse zone can be estimated to hit the ground.

On the same page (or the other FAQ, I can't remember which) NIST talks about the seismic information from the tower collapses. Those times are measured from the point at which debris starts to hit the ground and when debris stops hitting the ground. Can you find out the duration of that event is?

Will you be able to understand why this completely destroys your notion that the buildings fell at freefall speeds?

[nebula]

39. What does it say again?

My notion of freefall? Silly bolo.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” --NIST Factsheet

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Let's quote the whole answer, shall we?

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)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

So at the very beginning of this answer, the precise times of collapse initiation > first exterior panels striking ground are equated to the ball dropping. That is where the figures cited in the question come from.

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Essentially in free fall is not the same as free fall. It's close, but it is not precisely the same. Yes, the collapse zone followed very soon behind those exterior panels, and the overwhelming momentum accounts for this. But it is not exactly freefall.

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

By referring to this, nebula, am I to understand that you will be removing that graphic from your signature? Do you understand why this question demolishes that graphic?

I've told you many times: this is a battle of LOAD vs. STRUCTURE. It is not MASS vs. MASS, as your graphic implies.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

In other words, the assumptions being used to construct the CT question are invalid. The total collapse time was far longer than free fall speed time. The first part of the collapse happened quickly, essentially at free fall speeds, but not precisely at free fall speeds. The exterior panels fell at precisely free fall speeds. The collapse zone did not.

[mhatrw]

68. Whoa!

:spray:

[nebula]

69. Seriously, you should ease off the drugs bolo.

"Essentially in free fall is not the same as free fall. It's close, but it is not precisely the same."

:rofl:

[nebula]

63. What again?

oh, that's right.


"the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."
--NIST

[nebula]

27. btw, you like my new sig? eom

[SidDithers]

35. It's appropriate...nt

Sid

[nebula]

40. thanks

glad you like it.

[SidDithers]

41. You're welcome...

it's an easy and quick way for everyone to know exactly what to think of you.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

42. And what exactly would that be....

Sid? What would it cause people to think of him/her?

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. Wouldn't the "first pieces of debris" and the "first panels" be from

the TOP floors... you know, where the collapse initiated and things started falling?

The way I read it, the whole building collapsed in 9 seconds & 11 seconds, right? Am I reading something wrong here?


Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Yes, you are reading something wrong.

The times from the NIST FAQ are times from when the collapse starts to the time the first leading debris touches ground. This is not a total collapse time by any means.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. And the "leading debris" would be from the top of the building, right?

Or at least from the point where collapse initiated, right?

I'm high-speed challenged at the moment and hate watching youtube videos because they take forever to load. Is there a short clip available that we can watch and see the timing in the collapse?

Thanks

Ghost

[Ghost in the Machine]

45. **Deafening roar of silence**

[Bolo Boffin]

46. That is the sound of my tears for what you think. n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

47. Is that secret codespeak for "I have no answer"?

Please explain, in your *own* words, with your *own* logic and your *own* critical thinking skills, exactly where *you* think the "leading debris" from a top down collapse would come from.

Thanks,

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

48. ***checking my secret codespeak manual***

No, that actually means exactly what it says, Ghost. Secret codespeak for "I have no answer" appears to be "Thanks, Ghost."

Oddly enough.

[Ghost in the Machine]

49. Oddly enough....

just like one of your fellow "debunkers", you cannot answer a simple question because the simple truth of the answer goes against everything you believe in (the official story) and it would turn your world upside down, wouldn't it?

Simple truths with simple answers are a hard pill for you to swallow, aren't they?

What's wrong, bolo? If they don't have a cut & paste answer over at debunker central, you can't answer a question?

Let's try a different question. I'll make it multiple choice so you won't have to struggle for words, ok?

The "leading edge" of a storm is at its:

A.) Center or "eye"
B.) Front
C.) Rear

Take your time and concentrate there, lil buddy, you can do it!

[SDuderstadt]

50. No, it's like this....

1) You ask a question.
2) We answer it.
3) You claim we didn't and ask it again.
4) After we answer it multiple times, you ignore the answers and pose different questions.
5) You then claim we didn't answer any questions.
6) You then declare yourself to be "our worst nightmare".
7) We finally tell you to get lost.
8) You continue to claim we won't answer your questions.
9) When we subsequently ignore you, you go into megaflame mode until you get the entire subthread deleted.


Jesus, dude. Give it up. Trying to reason with you is like Charlie Babbit (in the movie "Rainman") trying to convince his brother, Raymond, that "who's on first" isn't a riddle.

Honestly, I don't know how many times someone has to explain to you that tiny scraps of sheetmetal are much lighter than pieces of a plane's engine and, thus, will travel further, especially in a good wind.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. Did anybody ask you for your half a cent worth?

I didn't think so. I've already exposed some of your falsehoods, haven't I, SDuderstadt? Now be a good boy and run along now, I'm trying to discuss something with someone else who, at times, seems rational.

I may not always agree with bolo, but by god, bolo WILL speak his mind, if he's inclined to. He just needs a little prodding sometimes, too. He even admits he's human and makes mistakes sometimes, which brings about a little bit of respect from me, even if I tell him otherwise at times.


tata, now... run along, before you miss your turn on the merry-go-round or swings....

[SDuderstadt]

53. Falsehoods?

This is funny. Point to any falsehood from me. Be specific

I notice you still can't be civil. Hysterical.

[Ghost in the Machine]

54. Point out your falsehoods? How's this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=190265#190856

As you can see, you spin and twist so much that you can't even keep up with your bullshit. You cherrypicked ONE definition that said sexual relations had only one definition or meaning, although there were 20 others that said otherwise. When I busted you on it and called you out on it, you attempted to say "that was wordnet's words, not mine - DUH", yet it was YOU who posted it as fact and called it "precision", right?

Don't you just hate links sometimes? I know it's a hard pill for you to swallow, but I've already told you that you've been moved to the "irrelevant bin" with me. Nothing you say is credible, in my opinion. I also told you that I was done with you, didn't I? That's exactly what I meant... now run along and quit stalking me through other threads with your childish antics.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Ummm, dude...

Let's get something straight, okay? I challenged you to point to any falsehoods from me and the best you can do is recycle one of our old exchanges in which you unwittingly destroyed your own argument? You're kidding, right?

Of course, this exchange began when you tried to call Bill Clinton a liar by misquoting what he actually said, remember? You stated he said, "I did not have sex with that woman....", when what he actually said was "I did not have sexual relations with that woman....". I called you on the misquotation, then you tried to claim that there is no difference between sex and sexual relations (I am assuming you have a problem with comprehending a Venn diagram).

I then supplied the definition given by doing a SEARCH in WordNet and then cut and pasted the SEARCH RESULTS, to wit:


"Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun sexual relation has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse"



Of course, you immediately go ballistic, claiming falsely that I and WordNet were claiming that the phrase ONLY has one meaning, which I NEVER EVER said, nor did WordNet, because you have reading comprehension problems. Read what WordNet says again. Remember, this is a SEARCH result. When it says, "The noun sexual relation has one meaning", it's hardly saying that it has ONLY one meaning or EXACTLY one meaning. You just took it to mean that without thinking. Typical.

Be that as it may, you then proceeded to destroy your own argument
by providing definitions from two additional sources. I'm pretty sure you didn't even click to the fact that you essentially refuted your own claim. You came back with:



"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
sexual relations
–noun
1. sexual intercourse; coitus.
2. any sexual activity between individuals. {emphasis mine}


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This sexual relations
pl.n.
1. Sexual intercourse.
2. Sexual activity between individuals. {emphasis mine}


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual%20relatio..."




I hate to break this to you, dude, but check out the FIRST listing IN BOTH of your definitions:

"1. sexual intercourse; coitus."

"1. Sexual intercourse."


Dude, the first listing is the preferred or main definition. Let me make sure I get this straight, then. You're claiming Clinton is a liar for relying upon the standard definition? Even if it were not the main definition, it's pretty lame to claim Clinton lied when it is an actual definition, so his statement is literally true. As I reminded you before, a literally true statement cannot be a lie. I think you've embarrassed yourself enough, don't you?

P.S. I'll respond to any posts I want to, okay? Last I checked, you don't own DU.

[Ghost in the Machine]

56. The only argument I destroyed was YOURS, buddy.. live with it...

You got caught up in your own web of lies, deceit & spin. You couldn't, and still can't, keep up with your bullshit. To prove this fact further, let's take a look at one of your opening paragraphs to this post I'm replying to, as once again, you cherrypick and leave out some of your own spin:

I then supplied the definition given by doing a SEARCH in WordNet and then cut and pasted the SEARCH RESULTS, to wit:

"Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun sexual relation has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse"

Of course, if we go back to the thread in question, what YOU actually said was:

3. The speaker must know it to be false and intentionally make the statement anyhow.

Is any of this registering? Do you have a problem with precision? See below: {emphasis mine}

Words > WordNet Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun sexual relation has one meaning:

Meaning #1: the act of sexual procreation between a man and a woman; the man's penis is inserted into the woman's vagina and excited until orgasm and ejaculation occur
Synonyms: sexual intercourse, intercourse

Yes, SDuderstadt, the words "Is any of this registering? Do you have a problem with precision? See below:" came from YOU, not from WordNet, not from off the internet anywhere else.. they came from YOU. Period. Then, and ONLY then, did you post the definition that you did, which you cherrypicked from 20 other sources showing more than one definition. You implied, and tried to pass off as fact, that 'sexual relations' had ONLY ONE DEFINITION.

The only person who has been embarrassed by any of this is YOU, my friend, and YOU alone. By all means though, please feel free to continue to embarrass yourself more, I find it amusing and look forward to many more great laughs at your expense. That's the only reason I don't put you on ignore... you're good for a laugh now and then...

[SDuderstadt]

57. Ummm, dude...

You're missing the point. It's one of (and, in fact, the primary definition, even according to your sources) the definitions. Think about what that means. Since it is the primary definition and you don't know which definition Clinton relied upon, how could he have lied? Is this sinking in? My comment about "precision" was pointing to a reference showing that definition.

Let me make sure I get this straight. Are you now claiming that a listener can assert that a speaker lied merely by pointing to an alternate definition other than what the speaker relied upon? Do you realize how goofy that is? In fact, that is why opposing counsel at trial will stipulate to specific meanings of words, so there is no confusion as to which definition is being relied upon.

The funniest thing here is that you still don't get it, even though I have explained it to you patiently over and over again. You seem to think Clinton had to consider all the possible definitions for the phrase "sexual relations" in order to avoid lying. How silly. The fact is you misquoted Clinton to try to call him a liar. Your hypertechnicality is making you look even siller...if that's even possible. Pathetic.


P.S. Please point to ANY lie I have told. Be specific.

P.P.S. Do you need me to define the word "specific" for you?

[Ghost in the Machine]

58. I don't want to hijack this thread any further... do you?

Let's just agree to disagree on this subject, because I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine, ok?

We have bigger dragons to slay, so lets focus on that.. ok?

The bottom line is this: politicians lie.... don't trust *any* of them any further than you can throw them. Especially this criminal junta... I don't understand, personally, how ANYONE can see how many lies this misadministration has told... PROVEN LIES.. and yet still believe any reports that come from them or any of their cronies and handpicked "investigative" panels...

Keep on fighting the good fight, the best way you know how, and I'll continue to do the same. We may even bump heads again a few more times before it's all over...

PEACE!, SDuderstadt....

[SDuderstadt]

59. Truce!

Let's go fight the GOP!

[jberryhill]

60. Don't need high speed to look at a picture, Ghost....

Notice that the debris falling *next* to the building is *lower* than the collapse front working its way *down* the building.

Why might that be?

Why did debris which fell outward hit the ground before the collapse of the building reached the ground, thus assuming a somewhat mushroom-shaped appearance overall?

Was the laterally ejected debris falling faster than gravity? Or perhaps the building was collapsing somewhat slower than the free-falling debris?

The "leading debris" is the stuff that *was* free falling, and reached the ground before the collapse completed.

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. Thanks for the picture, jberryhill

"The "leading debris" is the stuff that *was* free falling, and reached the ground before the collapse completed."

That's what I was trying to clear up and/or establish. Maybe I misunderstood the question I was originally responding to, but to me it sounded like he was implying that first pieces to hit might have been from the bottom of the building, which *would* be the case in a bottom to top collapse, such as WTC 7 or any controlled demolition.

PEACE!

Ghost

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

65. You claim to be an engineer and you don't understand a...

...simple drawing illustrating the concept of "path of least resistance" as applied to the towers?

Amazing.

[SidDithers]

24. Do you think the buildings were held up by cranes?..nt

Sid

[Sweet Pea]

6. The Guy Gives Hope To Anyone Anywhere Who Wants a PhD

Lends new weight to the term "If he can do it, anyone can!"

Why do some people here think that having a PhD after their name or a Dr in front of it or the fact they work at a university means they have something worthwhile to contribute? Do universities not occasionally hire lunatics? We know that is true because of Clemson and Va Tech (remember Judy Woods).

This guy is advocating explosives. That right there is enough to for me to ignore him.

[wildbilln864]

51. yet you're not ignoring him!

:rofl:

[Sweet Pea]

62. Ignoring who?

Or should that be "whom"? I never can remember.

[SidDithers]

23. Will the good Dr. Grabbe be publishing his findings...

somewhere other than a pretend journal with pretend peer-review?

Sid

[Flatulo]

43. Dr. Grabbe has contributed at least one worthy tome to 9/11 Truth

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

In this paper, Dr. Grabbe proves mathematically that if you drop a steel beam from 1000 ft, it will not catch on fire by the time it hits the ground.

I shit you not.

[jberryhill]

44. Wow... I could feel my head being filled with dumb while reading that

However, please note that it was not written by Grabbe. The paper you reference was written by a Morrone.

[wildbilln864]

66. A what?

:rofl: :rofl:

[jberryhill]

67. It's the author's name

Morrone is a major contributor to that journal.