Cal-Tech Physicist weighs in on the collapse of the World Trade Center

innworldreport.net — Dr. Crockett Grabbe rejects Garcia's physics and the NIST/FEMA reports' fire-based "explanations" (whatever they are or may be) for the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7, and instead suggests the evidence points to the use of explosives as the only plausible explanation for the destruction of the WTC. He also embraces Dr. Steven Jones thermate hypothesis Apr 24, 2007 View in Crawl 4

Save
Bury

36 Comments

mstoneburner Apr 25, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

Why are you referring to Crockett Grabbe as a Caltech physicist? He works at the U of Iowa.<a class="user" href="http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/">http://www.physics.uiowa.edu/~cgrabbe/</a>Also you're an idiot if you think the WTC was brought down by anthing other than the huge planes that hit them at high speed and then burned.

guydevice Apr 25, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

@hensworth:"It's strange isnt it, the amount of explosives needed to destroy the towers weren't even spotted by office workers and support personal..."Are you implying that the towers needed a large amount of explosives in order to be taken down?@Herkimer56:Where did you get your information from?"On the weekend of [September 8-9, 2001], there was a 'power down' condition in . . . the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up. . . . The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded . . . . Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors [while] many, many ?engineers? [were] coming in and out of the tower." <a class="user" href="http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html">http://www.911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html</a>

anastrophe Apr 25, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

this may come as a shock to you, but BOTH WTC towers collapsed that day. where's the record of the power down in the other tower? there was none. which means security cameras, security locks, etc, all in place.even with 36 hours, in order to wire up 110 floors to be able to be triggered in a coordinated fashion - with override for the floors above the crash zones - would take hundreds of people weeks if not months to put in place. but beyond all that, why bother? the blind sheik's followers successfully blew up a bomb in the basement of the towers in 1993. the blast wasn't sufficient to bring down the towers. so you say they increased security for the garages after that? BFD! so you get your islamist nutjobs to drive a couple of double semi-truck trailers filled with high explosive next to the buildings, and finish the job.why concoct this 'outlandish' cover story of planes being flown into the buildings?oh, sorry, i already know the answer. you'll start chanting "NWO! illuminati! Fight the power!" while playing Rage Against the Machine on your ipod.

guydevice Apr 25, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

@anastrophe"even with 36 hours, in order to wire up 110 floors to be able to be triggered in a coordinated fashion - with override for the floors above the crash zones - would take hundreds of people weeks if not months to put in place."You're presenting the same false dilemma fallacy that hensworth used. "Either the planes brought down those towers or there had to have been 100's of strategically placed explosives.""so you say they increased security for the garages after that? BFD! so you get your islamist nutjobs to drive a couple of double semi-truck trailers filled with high explosive next to the buildings, and finish the job."There were reports of vans filled with explosives in the area, and a lot of them were stopped by police. Perhaps the perpetrators thought it would be easier to tell NORAD to stand down. BTW, they most likely would not want bring down the buildings by bomb vans alone because they wanted to cause minimal damage to the buildings that weren't losing them money. But like xdream said, the burden of proof on how/why someone did this is not on us.Whether or not you believe that the government was involved, it is obvious that the government has something to hide, and we should be demanding answers. President Bush used 9/11 as the main excuse for invading the Middle East on the backs of U.S. taxpayers and passing laws "for our protection" (those probably cost money too), and yet when asked to testify to the 9/11 Commission about the events surrounding that day he insisted on being interviewed in private, with Dick Cheney, and not under oath!

guydevice Apr 26, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

You consider molten steel at the wtc bases circumstantial evidence? Prove how steel can melt at such a low temperature. Do you support an independent investigation? You should, since you're so interested in everything being explained.

anastrophe Apr 26, 2007

0 diggs
-0 / +0

Show Buried Comment
Report

Digg
Bury

QED.nobody has yet provided actual *evidence* of "molten steel" at the base of the towers. not one shred of *evidence*. people saying "there's molten steel down there!" sure, several of the search and rescue crews afterwards said so. evidence? nope.i've issued the challenge before, i'm still waiting for them to be answered - where's the spectrographic analysis of any sample of any "molten steel" that was recovered from ground zero? there is none. not. one. single. sample.photos of glowing stuff? you betcha! analysis of the composition? nope. nada. zilch.if there *were* samples of what was reported to be "molten steel" there would be data representing what was in the metal, whatever it was. more likely it was agglomerations of tin, aluminum, copper, and who knows what. but proof of the assertion that there was "molten steel" there *does not exist*.you find it, you drop me a line, y'hear?