Dr. Crockett Grabbe challenges NIST in new publication in the Journal of 9/11 Studies
ProfJones Fri, 02/01/2008 - 11:11am
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
ABSTRACT
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
- ProfJones's blog
- Login to post comments
MP3 Audio Clip - Dr. Stephen Jones & Richard Gage AIA
Thursday November 9, 2006
Professor Stephen Jones Calmly Discusses 9/11 Building Collapse Science on Public Radio
* source = http://www.kpfa.org
-----------------------------------
Wednesday October 24, 2007
Richard Gage AIA, Founder of Architects For 911 Truth, Talks Truth on Drive Time Radio About Vaporizing Steel Framed Buildings
* source = http://www.wtic.com/
-----------------------------------
More MP3 Audio Clips >
Energy
Yes, it is obvious that NIST in their answer to the energy question neglected the all important question of energy considerations related to the collapse, and that the airplane collision is only part of the energy equation. I read with interest the paper by Hoffman on the energy required to sustain the cloud of dust following each of the towers' collapse. But it seems to me that the cloud could be a result of displacement rather than of thermal expansion. Furthermore, while one generally assumes an inelastic collision of the building's components with the ground, this assumption may not be entirely correct, and there may be an elastic component to the collisions that could drive the energy of the dust cloud.
What I believe would be of greater interest is an analysis of the potential energy vs. the energy required to sever the steel beams in the building. We know from the rubble pile that the most of the steel had been severed into small pieces. Even a simple model could reveal a lot about the energy required to sever all the steel beams in the building. There are many ways to sever a beam, but a gravitational collapse narrows the ways in which beams can be severed, and this affects the energy requirements for each break..
I recall a paper that concluded based on seismological evidence that the collapse of the towers was slower than freefall. The difference between the kinetic energy generated from freefall and the energy due to the slower descent represents energy available to break the building apart. This figure could be compared with energy required to sever the steel beams, to see if it was adequate to do the job. Since I have not done the calculations myself, I would rather not pronounce a verdict on this question. 4x10^11 joules x 0.1 (estimating the excess energy not translated into kinetic energy) /2,500 ruptures of the core support beams gives one an idea. Is that enough energy to break a steel beam?
That is not an
That is not an answer,nowhere near an answer.We really are not questioning the aircraft strike we are questioning the near freefall collapse.That is where the laws of conservation of momentum and energy were clearly violated.This is not rocket science after all,anybody with even rudimentary understanding of physics know of these laws.My 14 year old son understands that freefall collapse is an impossibility.So as usual NIST just skirt around the issue.Collapse initiation and BANG!game over not touching anything else, too many anomolies to explain.You have to admire their hear no evil,see no evil,speak no evil pantomime.They really are mindblowingly shameless.
Conservation Of Momentum - Or Lack Thereof
WTC 1 collapse proceeds at free-fall speed, through the most obstructed path of travel - the highly redundant core: