April 2007
Crockett Grabbe, a longtime physics professor at the University of Iowa, is convinced that the twin towers and a third World Trade Center building were felled by explosives.
In an exclusive interview with INN World Report's Lenny Charles, the physicist, who has done research for NASA and the Naval Research Laboratory, disputed an argument by a government physicist, Manuel Garcia, that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 had been brought down by fires weakening key points.
Garcia's article may be found in Counterpunch. The Grabbe interview is available via innworldreport.net. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has yet to complete its inquiry into WTC7's collapse. For more background on Garcia's views, see Scientists clash over 9/11 collapses at 911science.blogspot.com (link at right).
Grabbe endorsed an argument by Steven Jones, recently retired as a Brigham Young University physics professor, that the quantity of melted steel found at the trade center sites indicated the use of a Thermite-type explosive. The fires in the buildings did not pack enough energy to melt steel, he said. The NIST has also said the fires were insufficient to melt steel, but said nothing about much molten steel found on site.
The physicist, who has been listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, said if collapse of the 47-story WTC7 was initiated as Garcia theorized, it should have fallen chaotically -- not symmetrically nor so swiftly. Additionally, Grabbe argued that though there may have been enough thermal energy for Garcia's model, there wasn't enough power -- the rate at which energy is expended -- to account for the quick, symmetrical collapse.
Grabbe also said that the top block of World Trade Center 2, the first building to fall, had too little energy to knock down the entire building. The laws of the conservation of momentum seem to have been violated in the government theory, he said, an argument previously made by David L. Griscom, a former government physicist who once worked for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Grabbe cited a number of "squibs" -- puffs of smoke -- prior to collapse in each building that he called direct evidence for the use of explosives. He also said the idea that the twin towers had each fallen as a result of compression from gathering momentum had only a very remote probability of truth. The NIST offered no explanation for most of the puffs.
Grabbe, like Garcia, specializes in plasma physics and has a number of recent research papers to his credit. Grabbe is also an expert in the earth's magnetic field, an area of endeavor important to space technology and hence to NASA and the Pentagon.
In the era of the "Star Wars" debate, Grabbe wrote a book on space weapons, an area where plasma physics is important. In the INN interview, the scientist never brought up the possibility that the buildings were destroyed with Star Wars particle beam weaponry, a conjecture put forward by a few people with academic credentials.
Comment from physicist David Griscom:
No peer review for NIST's 9/11 report
October 18, 2006
Physics Professor Steven E. Jones is undergoing academic scrutiny over his role in the 9/11 truth movement.
A Brigham Young University official has said Jones was suspended over concern that his paper on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The suspension however occurred after Jones voiced suspicion that radical neocons, who are known for their militantly pro-Israel stance, had been behind the attacks.
Jones' paper cites what he considers numerous problems in the government's conspiracy theory. The paper had been easily available via Google but is now not readily accessible via the popular search engine.
Supposing that a committee of peers is reviewing Jones' work, several points should be made:
Crockett Grabbe, a longtime physics professor at the University of Iowa, is convinced that the twin towers and a third World Trade Center building were felled by explosives.
In an exclusive interview with INN World Report's Lenny Charles, the physicist, who has done research for NASA and the Naval Research Laboratory, disputed an argument by a government physicist, Manuel Garcia, that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 had been brought down by fires weakening key points.
Garcia's article may be found in Counterpunch. The Grabbe interview is available via innworldreport.net. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has yet to complete its inquiry into WTC7's collapse. For more background on Garcia's views, see Scientists clash over 9/11 collapses at 911science.blogspot.com (link at right).
Grabbe endorsed an argument by Steven Jones, recently retired as a Brigham Young University physics professor, that the quantity of melted steel found at the trade center sites indicated the use of a Thermite-type explosive. The fires in the buildings did not pack enough energy to melt steel, he said. The NIST has also said the fires were insufficient to melt steel, but said nothing about much molten steel found on site.
The physicist, who has been listed in Who's Who in Science and Engineering, said if collapse of the 47-story WTC7 was initiated as Garcia theorized, it should have fallen chaotically -- not symmetrically nor so swiftly. Additionally, Grabbe argued that though there may have been enough thermal energy for Garcia's model, there wasn't enough power -- the rate at which energy is expended -- to account for the quick, symmetrical collapse.
Grabbe also said that the top block of World Trade Center 2, the first building to fall, had too little energy to knock down the entire building. The laws of the conservation of momentum seem to have been violated in the government theory, he said, an argument previously made by David L. Griscom, a former government physicist who once worked for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Grabbe cited a number of "squibs" -- puffs of smoke -- prior to collapse in each building that he called direct evidence for the use of explosives. He also said the idea that the twin towers had each fallen as a result of compression from gathering momentum had only a very remote probability of truth. The NIST offered no explanation for most of the puffs.
Grabbe, like Garcia, specializes in plasma physics and has a number of recent research papers to his credit. Grabbe is also an expert in the earth's magnetic field, an area of endeavor important to space technology and hence to NASA and the Pentagon.
In the era of the "Star Wars" debate, Grabbe wrote a book on space weapons, an area where plasma physics is important. In the INN interview, the scientist never brought up the possibility that the buildings were destroyed with Star Wars particle beam weaponry, a conjecture put forward by a few people with academic credentials.
Comment from physicist David Griscom:
Nice article, Paul. It's good to know that more physicists are taking a hard look at 9/11. There are actually many, many reasons for believing the attacks were an inside job. [Griscom then posts a link, which is now inapplicable.]
No peer review for NIST's 9/11 report
October 18, 2006
Physics Professor Steven E. Jones is undergoing academic scrutiny over his role in the 9/11 truth movement.
A Brigham Young University official has said Jones was suspended over concern that his paper on the collapse of World Trade Center 7 had not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The suspension however occurred after Jones voiced suspicion that radical neocons, who are known for their militantly pro-Israel stance, had been behind the attacks.
Jones' paper cites what he considers numerous problems in the government's conspiracy theory. The paper had been easily available via Google but is now not readily accessible via the popular search engine.
Supposing that a committee of peers is reviewing Jones' work, several points should be made:
- Many university scientists post non-peer reviewed writings online. For example, nobelist Brian Josephson writes about mental telepathy, a topic that is so controversial it can't easily be published in peer-reviewed publications. Many others publish "preprints" on ArXiv. Preprints are not peer-reviewed and many are never submitted to peer-reviewed journals.
- The NIST's report on the collapse of the twin towers did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal. Considering the numerous omissions, distortions and public relations gimmicks, no serious journal would have published it.
- An academic committee that reviews Jones' actions should also review the NIST's main report and all its back-up reports, to see whether Jones makes a good case for scientific fraud by the NIST's principle report writers. This means that the committee should contact all scientists involved in the WTC probe to get their views on the NIST investigation.
- An independent panel of physicists and structural engineers should form itself to assure that academic freedom isn't being sacrificed on an altar of national security deception.
- The Bush administration has been repeatedly chided for misrepresentation of scientific studies. Cherry-picking of facts, failure to consider the prevailing scientific consensus and misrepresentation of the views of government scientists are major concerns, scientists have said. However, it appears that when it comes to 9/11 science, the government's word is holy writ. If Jones' work is to be checked, it is only fair that the NIST's work be rigorously checked.
- A great deal of information is missing from the NIST study, to the extent that one can only conclude that a scientific fraud was perpetrated, one meant to hoodwink non-specialists. Jones pointed out that the NIST never even checked the alternative hypothesis: that the buildings had been downed by explosives (later the NIST tossed in a last-minute disclaimer, but produced no work to back up the disclaimer). The NIST also wrote no report on the forensic findings of first-responders, including the FBI, the CIA and the New York City police and fire departments. There is no indication that the NIST even reviewed those reports, though the agency complained that a great deal of evidence was missing by the time it opened its inquiry.
No comments:
Post a Comment