Dr. Crockett Grabbe-National Swindle on the World Trade Center

Related Info:

Dr. Grabbe's website: http://www.sealane.org/

Dr. Grabbe's book: http://tinyurl.com/3s4sqcw

Dr. Grabbe's scholarly papers on the collapse of the WTC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Science in the Bush: When Politics Displaces Physics: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18344.htm

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

Response to NIST on Energy and Momentum: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/g/GrabbeToNISTenergyMomentum.pdf

Discussion of "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center:
A Simple Analysis" by K.A. Seffen (published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics): http://www.sealane.org/writings/Seffenrevpub.pdf

Collapse of the South Tower of the World Trade Center: http://www.sealane.org/writings/STcollapse.html

Response to NIST on Control Demolition Investigation Failure: http://www.sealane.org/writings/NISTresp2.html

Showing that the South Tower of World Trade Center Collapsed from Forces More Powerful than Gravitation: http://www.sealane.org/writings/newSTCsub.pdf

Re-analyzing the Physical Causes for Destruction in the World Trade Center on 9/11: http://www.sealane.org/writings/WTCdestphys.pdf

Discussion of "Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth," by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant: http://www.sealane.org/writings/Bazantrpy.html

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Tony Szamboti, M.E. - Mechanical Engineer

Factual back-up for Tony Szamboti's claims:

-1:47 South wall of WTC1 buckling/columns bowing inward

-4:00 Manipulated sagging models

-4:22 NIST stopped at “collapse initiation”

-4:37 Problems with Dr. Bazant’s analysis

-5:58 NIST’s distorted tilt

-6:33 Bazant’s deceleration flaws

-8:46 Verinage demolitions refute arguments

-9:33 Upper section destroyed, therefore can’t crush lower section

-10:07 NIST “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”

-11:02 Exaggerated sagging

-12:43 No explanation for high temperatures

-14:00 NIST misrepresents design loads of the Towers

-15:34 Small amount of steel saved for analysis

-16:36 No explanation for the molten flow from WTC2

-17:50 NIST acknowledges WTC7 free fall

-18:36 NIST’s WTC7 model doesn’t match the videos

-19:40 NIST’s model resembles natural collapse, but not WTC7 collapse

-20:00 NIST’s illogical reasons for dismissing controlled demolition

-21:06 Secret retrofit of the Citibank Tower refutes NIST’s arguments

-22:20 NIST misrepresents WTC7 construction

-23:11 NIST refuses to release data

-24:10 WTC7 sulfidized steel

-25:30 No other steel from WTC7 saved for analysis

-25:55 NIST never looked at any WTC7 steel in their investigation

-26:12 NIST misrepresents fire severity

-26:40 South Tower fire severity

-26:55 John Gross denies molten metal at Ground Zero

-27:57 NIST admits they never tested for explosives

-28:10 Over 100 first responders reported experiencing explosions

-28:52 NIST fails to follow NFPA 921 guidelines

Related Info:

Structural Aspects of Building 7’s Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti

Email from an Engineer in Phoenix

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog often tries to downplay the credentials of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other individuals in the truth movement. This email I received shows that even electrical engineers take classes relevant to the issues.

I've read the NIST report, and the speed of fall of the buildings was the clincher for me. All of the other evidence is tirelessly debunked, but if everyone could just be educated on the irrefutable, near-free-fall of the buildings, we could make more progress.

I have an electrical engineering degree, but I still had to take Statics and Dynamics.

Here is something I posted on a science blog (of all places!) where the CT/debunking argument typically raged:

I can understand why so many are fooled on this topic. I actually had doubts (you know, anything is possible...) and I took Statics (equations of bodies at rest) and Dynamics (equations of bodies in motion) to get my degree. Then I read the NIST report on WTC7. It's a computer model, worked backwards to explain the fast fall. It's hypothetical. And they admit free-fall for a time. I had to look up the equations of free fall (with air resistance) on wikipedia and nasa.gov. The equations are specifically for acceleration without structural resistance. That means NO resistance of "upper part of building crashing into lower part, then building collapses into its footprint".

Applying this to the twin towers, all the floors below the plane impacts had resistance, had to be impacted by mass from above, for the official story to be true. "Pancaking", or the "zipper" theory require some structural failure, and that adds time. There is simply no way the twin towers collapsed by structural failure, the resistance HAD to be removed somehow. We don't know by whom, or how exactly, but there are grains of truth among the CT strawmen that are put up. Some people, like me, reluctantly admit that there's more to 9/11 than the official story because physics demands it. Others understand it intuitively, because the video of the buildings collapsing looks just like a controlled demolition, just doesn't look right for a gravitational collapse by structural failure. For us, there's no going back to the lie. I wish the official story were true. I also know this country will never be united under a lie. It's a lie of omission, because the NIST Report ends at the initiation of collapse, and doesn't explain how the floors below impact fall like they had no resistance.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/11/napolitano_is_a_911_truther.php

Thanks for your website,
Barrett Hoines

Here is a post from blog contributor Adam Taylor proving that the collapse rates of the WTC buildings were consistent with controlled demolition.

A Critical Review of the "9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide"

We've all seen the film 9/11 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions. Likewise, I'm sure we have also all seen the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide, which claims to refute the entire film. Many have obviously read this Guide and believed it to debunk the entire film. Well, I've read the Guide also, and I wasn't so thoroughly impressed. That's why I am happy to announce that I have written an extensive refutation of the 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide. While not tackling everything in it (as 9/11 Mysteries does have some genuine errors), my critique shows that, for as many false claims that are in the film, the Viewer's Guide dwarfs the film by comparison. My critique of the Guide can be downloaded as a PDF document here. As I make clear in the introduction, please let me know if you find anything wrong in it. Also, feel free to use this critique in any way you want.

Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Mike King's May 13, 2007 article "Good Science and Demolition Theories" purports to demonstrate that conflating these terms regarding the WTC buildings on September 11th 2001 is a tenuous exercise.

King states:

There is... a crucial paper by Brent Blanchard on the Implosion World website at: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf. This paper alone should end any credulity towards the demolition theory, though its points need more elaboration for a non-technical audience. The reason that I highlight this paper is because it is the only one to date written by an authority on controlled demolition, based on access to data not available to either the official account or the counter-orthodoxy.

Well Mr. King, on Thursday (6/25/10) Tom Sullivan, a former explosive-charge placement technician, went public on the other side of this issue. Sullivan left the industry in the wake of the 9/11 attacks after it found itself in a steep decline due to a public weary of explosions and falling buildings. But his former employer Controlled Demolition, Inc. has boasted to have imploded "more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures" than the sum total of its competitors.

Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structure implosion by volume.



In the article "Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee," it is written:

Before he became connected to CDI, was an independent photographer during his early years in Maryland. He would be sent to CD sites and take still pictures of the jobs...

When asked, what made CDI the best in the business, he commented, 'their family had all the experience because they 'invented' the art of CD. They spent years traveling around the world, showing and educating people how this art form works.'...

Brent Blanchard, the photographer from the controlled demolition company Protec, has said, in criticism of the CD theory, that there would have had to been detonation cords strung all over the place and casings left in the rubble pile from the cutter charges. So we asked for a response from Sullivan. He noted that:

Remote wireless detonators have been available for years. Look at any action movie --and of course the military has them. The reason most contractors don’t use them is that they are too expensive -- but in a project with a huge budget it would be no problem. As for the casings -- everyone in the industry, including Blanchard, would know that RDX explosive cutter charges are completely consumed when they go off -- nothing is left. And in the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case. Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984.

This type of demolition technology has long been cited by the 9/11 truth movement, and Blanchard's paper was previously debunked by Jim Hoffman of 911research.wtc7.net in his essay "Reply to Protec's - A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT."

But since no demolition experts echoed these points we were being "credulous." So, what do the "debunkers" have to say now that this is not the case?

Commenter "TV" at the Screw Loose Change blog notes that the device patented in 1984 had "low gas output," but since then thermite technology has vastly improved.

Commenter Dave Kyte states, "You would think they could find a real controlled demolition expert of some talent and expertise. What ever happened to Danny Jowenko? Wasn't he going to blow the lid off the case? Oh. Wait, he says the towers fell from fire. Never mind. So now Sullivan is not a "real controlled demolition expert," but Blanchard is, that's rich.

It's just like when "debunkers" poo-pooed our arguments on the basis that "no engineers agreed with us," and then employed the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts after we garnered the support of 1,000 architectural and engineering professionals, including many structural and aerospace engineers. The goal line is again moving just out of reach as more and more people with demolition expertise are questioning 9/11.

As I have stated on this blog before:

Jowenko does not think the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition due to their unconventional nature, but as the website 911review.com has pointed out, "A demolition that is planned as part of a covert operation to fit a narrative of events that attributes the total destruction of the building to a different cause (such as a jetliner crash and consequent fires) has a very different set of requirements than a demolition that is planned to legally remove a building in an urban setting."

And despite claims to the contrary, he is quite sure WTC 7 was a demolition. Perhaps the more conventional nature of WTC 7's demolition can be explained by evidence that indicates 10:45 a.m. was the originally planned demolition time.

Similarly, 911blogger.com user "stallion4" noted:

The towers weren't conventional demolitions. They were "top down" demolitions, which are rare in the professional demolition industry.
This was achieved by strategically planting and detonating explosives beneath each tower's predetermined impact zone. This was done to create the illusion that airliner impacts caused the towers to fall.

Building 7 was a classic demolition job -- bottom up -- the type of demolition that Danny Jowenko is qualified to give his professional opinion on.

This is also akin to the fact we were told for years that we had to have peer-reviewed evidence to be taken seriously, but now that we have presented peer-reviewed evidence, it's still not good enough:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/04/nanothermite-debunking-rebuttal-deroy.html Another commenter at Screw Loose Change states that even wireless detonation systems require det cord. Be this as it may, it does decrease the amount of overall cord needed. As Robert Erickson, producer of the last year's National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth stated in an email, "I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible. Everyone seems to agree to the viability of radio signals setting off explosives. That would eliminate some of the primer cord."
This fact, in conjunction with the highly tailorable type of explosives that the evidence indicates were used would eliminate the need for any cord:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html

Sullivan states, "Fire cannot bring down steel-framed high rises -- period."

I know a demolition company that disagrees!

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/09/my-demolition-company-update.html

Sullivan's revelations come at the heels of, and add credence to, reports that respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart was personally told by the most prominent civil engineering company in the world that the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition.

But it doesn't take an expert to see that the WTC buildings show every characteristic of controlled demolition.



But the statements of DEMOLITION EXPERT Tom Sullivan might help others to see through their cognitive dissonance to the obvious truth:





Related Info:

A Firefighter, A Demolition Expert, and an Architect Look at Ground-Zero
Interview with Tom Sullivan, Richard Gage an Eric Lawyer:

Guns and Butter - April 28, 2010 at 1:00pm

Click to listen (or download)

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/60621

"I retired from FDNY in 1998. I knew many of the guys who died in the WTC collapses. May they rest in peace. I've read tons of information re. the deaths of my brothers on 9/11. I've watched the videos, listened to the rantings on both sides. It wasn't until 2006 that I began questioning the "official story" and did my own research. There is bad info on both sides, but I've concluded that the 'official story' doesn't add up. It sounds like a whitewash. The 9/11 Commission didn't investigate anything--they just took statements. We need a real, independent investigation, with supeona powers. If the 'offical' version is correct, so be it. And if heads are going to roll at any level of the government or military, so be it. Let's do it, and let's not be afraid of the truth. The brothers deserve that much." - Bryan Hunt, FireFightersFor911Truth.org

GET INVOLVED! CHANNEL YOUR VOICE! http://nyccan.org/join.php
Oh, How Typical ! Arch Debunker Pat Curley Grossly Misrepresents Firefighter Testimony and then Wrongly Accuses 911 Truthers of the Same Thing Really?

Explosive Evidence at WTC Cited by Former CDI Employee 24 June 2010 Written by Darcy Wearing and Richard Gage, AIA

Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition & the Debate about this Story at 911Blogger !

Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world’s most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.

Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition.html

After reading this post I was surprised to find a disagreement over the story running in a 911Blogger comments thread. Fellow "truthers" appeared to be at each other over nothing.

The ARGUMENT:
1.) John Bursill posts the story (above) from Kevin Barrett's blog where: the BBC journalist Alan Hart points to his knowledge of a big construction company's conclusions that the WTC buildings were subjected to Controlled Demolition. He further stated that it was his opinion that 911 was largely the work of a CIA-Mossad operation.

2.) Highly respected Victronix in the comments thread attacks Bursill's post because the story he put up, according to her, delves too far into unsubstantiated evidence territory (it's not dealing with verified reports or physical evidence). She claims it's borderline anti-semitic.

Analysis:

Kevin Barrett:
Barrett has a very poor reputation: he has associated with Jim Fetzer for a long time, has supported unfounded claims that Michael Wolsey is an "enemy" agent, makes many other mistakes when dealing with 911 issues leaving himself open to general ridicule and debunking attacks.

Could he be a mole to make 911 truth look bad? Victronix has warned us about such subversive tactics in her analysis of people like Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds.

CONCLUSION on Barrett: Generally, not to be trusted due to his history -- although he could be hawking good material on occasion.

OVERALL conclusion regarding Barrett's interview: The BBC journalist was offering an honest opinion. He provided a new lead, albeit unsubstantiated, on a big construction company that, with all the expertise at its disposal, concluded 911 was an inside job. His comments, reflecting a CIA-Mossad connection in relation to the overall crime, were valid ones. There seemed to be no obvious anti-semitic agenda in terms of the BBC journalist's story.

In my humble opinion, the interview was newsworthy, despite Barrett's reputation. This is because the information put forward was not Barrett's but that of the BBC journalist. The view offered was not anti-semitic either. It dealt with valid suspects and a credible CIA-Mossad scenario.

Readers should also note that a police investigation into 911, the next step in the story, would need to consider suspects as was raised in the interview. Other suspects from other countries would also be on the list.

There is more to the 911 crime than just an examination of the physical evidence. Questions about who dun it will arise. In this case the speculation did not seem too far fetched considering the record. However, having said that, a note of caution should always be pinned to all information presented by Barrett. Each claim of his must be considered on a case by case basis because of his past record.

SUMMARY:
There was nothing controversial with Bursill's decision to post the story on 911Blogger despite questions surrounding the interviewer Barrett. Obviously, more work would be welcome in order to establish the identity of the big construction company that remained unidentified in the interview.

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was recently listening to No Lies Radio when he caught Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage trying to fool the audience; Pat states...

"Gage does one little trick that's pretty obvious and I'd like to suggest that somebody catch him on it. When he talks about the columns being ejected from the building, it's because of explosives. But when somebody catches him on the lack of audible explosions, he dodges back to thermite/thermate/nanothermate. Well, nanothermate isn't going to give the explosive force he claims is needed to eject those columns."

Of course, I was outraged! How dare Gage try to trick me! So, I took Pat's advice and I "caught him on it," here is Richard's reply...

Hi John Michael,

He doesn’t know how much explosive force nano-thermite is or is not capable of – nor how loud it is. This is speculation. We have dozens of people (refer him once again to our DVD!) reporting huge explosions at the onset of collapse – one guy from the BBC in a blue shirt ducking having heard the explosion from behind him. And nano-thermite is quieter than C4 or RDX. And the columns were ejected at 55 mph instant speed from the side of the Twin Towers.

Richard

Boy am I glad I wrote Gage about this issue, because I almost had forgotten that, as Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division Michael J. Heimbach pointed out, "Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis!" Shame on me...

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

"One thing conspiracy theorists like to ignore is that controlled demolitions make noise." - RKOwens4

Conspiracy theorists like this?

Controlled Demolition Expert, Tom Sullivan, Discusses Controlled Demolitions on 9/11.



Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Richard Gage, AIA member

Alex Jones Interview
April, 2008
Richard Gage is interviewed in this latest show with host Alex Jones

911 Mysteries (Part 5 of 10)

911 Mysteries AND Facts - MOLTEN METAL

Terror Storm 2nd Edition Pt 9/12

Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2

Immortal Technique - Bin Laden (Remix) (Instrumental)

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed

Steven Jones & David Ray Griffin on the Alex Jones Show 11/19/2008

"If explosives were used on each floor of the World Trade Center, a succession of distinct explosions would be heard miles away. Yet, even at the base of the building, not a single explosion was heard." - RKOwens4

Excerpts from 1-A/B "9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is in Your Hands"

Continuous Explosions Leveled the Towers

The towers' destruction cannot be accurately described without the word "explosion." Huge clouds billowed out from the towers, starting around the crash zones, and grew rapidly as they consumed each tower, converting them to fine powder and fragments of steel, and depositing the bulk of the remains outside of each tower's footprint in a radial pattern.

Incredibly, this stark reality has and continues to be so consistently and widely denied in government, media, industry, and academia, that few Americans have even entertained the idea that the towers were intentionally demolished. One of the key underpinnings of that denial is the fact that the explosions were continuous, extending for the entire 15-second duration of each tower's collapse. Although witnesses describe loud pops at their onsets, the extended duration and loud roar of the explosions apparently prevented most people from thinking of them as explosions. Also, the repeated description of the events as collapses by the broadcast networks must have had a powerful effect in shaping people's understanding of them, particularly given the heightened state of suggestibility induced by the profound state of shock and disbelief most of them were in. Click here to read the entire article.

16000 firecracker explosion

9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation

FOX 9 11 Explosion sound waves reached midtown NYC