Dr Crockett Grabbe - "Peer-reviewed article in Journal of Engineering Mechanics"

[Orphia Nay]

"Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972."

He "has succeeded in getting a paper successfully through peer-review with editors of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. His paper confronts Bazant who previously published a paper supportive of the "official 9/11 narrative" in the same journal." - Steven Jones

The paper will be published in the October edition.

http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-2...ring-mechanics

Anyone know what this guy's angle is on 9/11?

ETA: He has published a Kindle book, National Swindle of the World Trade Center which lists some of his claims - the usual debunked crap (fires not hot enough, squibs, etc)

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

-grabbe-peer-reviewed-paper-journal-engineering-mechanics[/url]

Anyone know what this guy's angle is on 9/11?

Skepticism.

[Scott Sommers]

I wouldn't get too excited about this. If there was anything really exciting, he wouldn't have waited 11 years. Some stuff about him...

I'm a little confused about what I'm looking at. I think it is his 2010 publication.
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000025
It appears to be a critique of Bazant. It is only 1 page long and appears in the 'Discussions & Closure' section of the journal. It's not a research paper.

Strangely, the author's affiliations are listed as
Research Scientist, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Iowa.
INN World News calls him "professor of physics at the University of Iowa"
But he is not listed on the department's webpage.

Also, when I did a Google Scholar search in his name, the results were very strange. Throughout the 1990s, he published a great deal about geophysics. The last paper he published was in 2000. After that, he published one thing in The Journal of 9/11 Studies co-authored with Dr. Steve. That's it.

So he hasn't published anything in 12 years except 1 piece on 9/11 conspiracy, and his name isn't listed on the faculty of the school he gives as his affiliation. He doesn't look very old.

He's not a member of this forum, so I will say bad things about him. I wonder if he went crazy. Does anyone know anyone teaching at Iowa? I know people who graduated there, but that was in Ed Psych and a long time ago. They won't be any help here. Anyone else?

[Scott Sommers]

This might explain something
http://www.prx.org/pieces/60173-croc...ain-hemorrhage

Quote:

Crockett has a PhD in Applied Physics from the prestigious Caltech. He considers this to be the greatest accomplishment of his 20s. He was diagnosed with a pituitary tumor and later had a major cerebral hemorrhage, which almost killed him. Crocket had to learn how to walk and talk all over again, which he considers to be the greatest accomplishment of his 40s. He never stopped working as a physicist, and has published all or part of 7 books and over 100 papers.

He has a webpage.
http://www.sealane.org/physics/
The CV on the page lists these notes as part of a presentation he did
Crockett Grabbe, "Showing South Tower of WTC Collapsed from Forces Stronger than Gravity," American Assoc. of Physics Teachers Chicago Meeting, Feb. 15, 2009. http://www.sealane.org/writings/Chicago209pap.html
and
Crockett Grabbe, "Showing South Tower of WTC Collapsed from Forces Stronger than Gravity," American Assoc. of Physics Teachers Chicago Meeting, Feb. 15, 2009. http://www.sealane.org/writings/Chicago209pap.html

His CV here lists publications I did not find with Google Scholar.

Crockett Grabbe - Explosives Caused the World Trade Center to Collapse
http://www.prx.org/pieces/66053-croc...the-world-trad

and then there's
Space weapons and the strategic defense initiative
by Crockett L. Grabbe

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

"Dr. Crockett Grabbe is a physicist who received his PhD from CalTech in 1978. He received a Bachelors of Science with Highest Honors from the University of Texas in 1972."

...
http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-2...ring-mechanics

Anyone know what this guy's angle is on 9/11?

ETA: He has published a Kindle book, National Swindle of the World Trade Center which lists some of his claims - the usual debunked crap (fires not hot enough, squibs, etc)

He is an crazy 911 truth nut. blogger? LOL, blogger is the source for idiotic claims on 911, a nest of woo.

Quote:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/l...gyMomentum.pdf

In the case of Building 7, there was no plane that hit it, yet it also fell at almost freefall speed, hitting the ground in less than 7 seconds. A source or sources of energy and momentum started that collapse and took it down at nearly free-fall speed, and no plane was involved. Where did it come from? Again, conventional explosives are the only answer.

His paper, rebuttal of Bazant will be called delusional nonsense, the same as his conclusion. Grabbe is not a skeptic, he is a delusional conspiracy theorists.

[Scott Sommers]

I just found this
http://www.sealane.org/writings/Bazantrpy.html
Interestingly, his affiliation is listed as
SeaLane Research & Consulting
of which he is the only employee.

I just read through
Crockett Grabbe, "Showing South Tower of WTC Collapsed from Forces Stronger than Gravity," American Assoc. of Physics Teachers Chicago Meeting, Feb. 15, 2009. http://www.sealane.org/writings/Chicago209pap.html

He appears to be trying to argue that there were bombs going off all over the WTC South Tower and that

Quote:

White horizontal ejections (which I call "squibs") are coming out E side,

in this picture
http://www.sealane.org/physics/publi...s/WTCslides/05

Quote:

In 3/4 sec new white squibs have moved out over 100 ft, so are
travelling ~ 50 m/s or ~ 100 mph!

http://www.sealane.org/physics/publi...s/WTCslides/11

Quote:

o The top segment has over 50% gone all up into the gray clouds that are
expanding out.

o Notice the bottom segment of the Tower is undeterred if nothing further
happens! It is stable, and the collapse would cease.

http://www.sealane.org/physics/publi...s/WTCslides/14

Quote:

Notice a squib emerging later below the collapsing part in the collapse
of S Tower.

http://www.sealane.org/physics/publi...s/WTCslides/15

[Oystein]

The Bazant-paper that Grabbe allegedly "refutes" in JEM is probably a more recent one from, iirc, 2011. Tony Szamboti along with a couple of collaborators also tried to publish a discussion piece on that, but apparently failed. So Grabbe did better.

Rehashing ozeco41's reasoning (and, coincidentally, Major_Tom's), Bazant is far out in a field where his WTC models don't resemble the actual collapses as he focuses on column resistance when in fact the main failure mode was tearing-out of the much weaker column-to-floor connectors, with columns following mostly behind.

Tony criticises some of Bazant's choices of values, such as mass of falling material or thickness of columns, but commits the same mistake of ignoring that it mostly wasn't the columns that failed but the floors.

I'd suppose Grabbe is on the same track.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Oystein

The Bazant-paper that Grabbe allegedly "refutes" in JEM is probably a more recent one from, iirc, 2011. Tony Szamboti along with a couple of collaborators also tried to publish a discussion piece on that, but apparently failed. So Grabbe did better.

Rehashing ozeco41's reasoning (and, coincidentally, Major_Tom's), Bazant is far out in a field where his WTC models don't resemble the actual collapses as he focuses on column resistance when in fact the main failure mode was tearing-out of the much weaker column-to-floor connectors, with columns following mostly behind.

Tony criticises some of Bazant's choices of values, such as mass of falling material or thickness of columns, but commits the same mistake of ignoring that it mostly wasn't the columns that failed but the floors.

I'd suppose Grabbe is on the same track.

I'm a little surprised at his 2010 opinion piece. He cites his own work and stuff from the J of 9/11 Studies. I wonder if the Journal of Engineering Mechanics has a very liberal policy about their Opinion section and edit things submitted from qualified people only for style. These guys have been fishing around for long enough. It's not surprising they've found something respectable that they can publish in. I didn't know that Tony had also tried this with them and failed, so it seems that even with this liberal standard, they can't get much published.

[JohnG]

Perhaps Crockett Grabbe is an unfortunate victim of nominative determinism?

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by JohnG

Perhaps Crockett Grabbe is an unfortunate victim of nominative determinism?

Unfortunately, I think he is a victim of a much more serious condition.
http://www.prx.org/pieces/60173-croc...ain-hemorrhage

Quote:

Crockett has a PhD in Applied Physics from the prestigious Caltech. He considers this to be the greatest accomplishment of his 20s. He was diagnosed with a pituitary tumor and later had a major cerebral hemorrhage, which almost killed him. Crocket had to learn how to walk and talk all over again, which he considers to be the greatest accomplishment of his 40s. He never stopped working as a physicist, and has published all or part of 7 books and over 100 papers.

He received his BSc in 1978. Assuming he was 22 then, that would mean he turned 40 in 1996. The timing's about right.

[JohnG]

That is unfortunate. It's frightening, sad and humbling just to contemplate just how fragile the human body and mind is. He has my sympathy and my respect for how he managed to claw his way back from the brink of death and disability, but that's as far as my respect for him goes.

[carlitos]

"Squibs" that travel at highway speeds rather than supersonic are not indicative of explosives. Why don't these chowderheads think a little about what makes an explosive an explosive?

[grandmastershek]

Jones must be pretty envious that someone actually went through a real peer review.

[Lenbrazil]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Unfortunately, I think he is a victim of a much more serious condition.
http://www.prx.org/pieces/60173-croc...ain-hemorrhage


He received his BSc in 1978. Assuming he was 22 then, that would mean he turned 40 in 1996. The timing's about right.

1] broken link
2] he got his BSc in '72

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Lenbrazil

1] broken link
2] he got his BSc in '72

Yes, he did. That would make him 40 in 1990. That's still about right. So sometime in the 1990s, he suffered tremendous brain damage. And then he became interested in 9/11 conspiracies. It's a really sad story.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Tony criticises some of Bazant's choices of values, such as mass of falling material or thickness of columns, but commits the same mistake of ignoring that it mostly wasn't the columns that failed but the floors.

I can't tell what's funnier: 9/11 bedunkers trying to revive the discarded pancaking collapse theory, or their belief that it's somehow more supported by the physics.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by ergo

I can't tell what's funnier: 9/11 bedunkers trying to revive the discarded pancaking collapse theory, or their belief that it's somehow more supported by the physics.

Who mentioned pancaking?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

I'm a little confused...
http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.10...3-7889.0000025
It appears to be a critique of Bazant. It is only 1 page long and appears in the 'Discussions & Closure' section of the journal. It's not a research paper.

Someone might want to inform Scott Sommers that reading a scientific or technical paper is a little different than reading Facebook profiles. There often is more than one page.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Who mentioned pancaking?

Right. Sorry. The floors failed, and they all fell... sideways?

Laterally?

Up?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

I can't tell what's funnier: 9/11 bedunkers trying to revive the discarded pancaking collapse theory, or their belief that it's somehow more supported by the physics.

You don't understand what is "discarded" and what isn't.

The early FEMA-theory that NIST discarded was "pancaking" as the initiation mechanism for collapse, i.e. FEMA believed that the collapse started when some floor disconnected from columns and dropped onto the one below. NIST says this was not the first major failure that started the rapid phase of collapse, and that instead the rapid phase was iniated by the failure of inward bowing columns.

In either case, the dominant mechanism for collapse progression was still what you might call "pancaking", i.e. floor failures racing ahead of column failures as the main driver.

Originally Posted by ergo

... There often is more than one page.

Do you have links to openly accessible copies of the Seffen paper itself, and the closure? For completeness's and context's sake. Thanks.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by ergo

Right. Sorry. The floors failed, and they all fell... sideways?

Laterally?

Up?

False trichotomy. Is downwards chaotically too hard to understand?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

False trichotomy. Is downwards chaotically too hard to understand?

"downwards chaotically"... hmm, okay. Can you point me to the published engineering analysis that describes this chaotic floor movement?

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by ergo

"downwards chaotically"... hmm, okay. Can you point me to the published engineering analysis that describes this chaotic floor movement?

If you can't understand that, you won't understand an engineering analysis.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

If you can't understand that, you won't understand an engineering analysis.

So, yes, there is one? Can you provide a link, or a name, or a title? Thanks.

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

If you can't understand that, you won't understand an engineering analysis.

To be completely fair, the non-understanding may be deliberate.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

False trichotomy. Is downwards chaotically too hard to understand?

It's actually a common sophist technique. Mock everything except what is actually claimed. And even if you mock something the other guy claims, you still don't actually have to say it's wrong.

Originally Posted by ergo

Someone might want to inform Scott Sommers that reading a scientific or technical paper is a little different than reading Facebook profiles. There often is more than one page.

Congratulations. You pointed out someone was looking at the wrong website and corrected them on an entirely minor and almost irrelevant detail. How's that CD theory coming?

Originally Posted by ergo

So, yes, there is one? Can you provide a link, or a name, or a title? Thanks.

Why should anyone bother? You've demonstrated an amazing faculty for conveniently misunderstanding other people.

And if ON refuses to give you a link, I am absolutely sure you'll try and conflate "won't" with "can't".

What does ergo have against Scott anyway?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Yes, he did. That would make him 40 in 1990. That's still about right. So sometime in the 1990s, he suffered tremendous brain damage. And then he became interested in 9/11 conspiracies. It's a really sad story.

Nice blend of poisoning the well and ad hominem you got there. You might wait until you read the paper and judge it on its own before you begin casting aspersions.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nice blend of poisoning the well and ad hominem you got there. You might wait until you read the paper and judge it on its own before you begin casting aspersions.

First off, this publication is not a paper. It is an opinion sent to the editor of the journal. The comparison is similar to 'a letter to the editor' being called 'an article'. Anyway...

Your point is fair enough. Except my judgement of him is based on a review of his other writings and opinions about 9/11. It's clear where he stands on these things and whether or not the opinion piece is good or not, his other work is weird. You may not feel it's weird, but from my side of the forum, he expresses points that no educated person should. This nonsense about 'squibs' is just silly. So while I admire him as a person and respect some of his academic work, in my search for why such a person would write such nonsense about 9/11, I have to look to his unusual neurological condition.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nice blend of poisoning the well and ad hominem you got there. You might wait until you read the paper and judge it on its own before you begin casting aspersions.

No need for that, the guy believes the WTC was CD. That is nuts based on the evidence he has, zero evidence. He did come up with his theory after he had major brain problems, it takes years to learn to walk, and think rationally, it failed with him. It is sad he suffered the brain problem, it is sad he is not rational on 911.

Read his paper, it is poppycock. Do you do more than trash your fellow JREF members, or can you figure out this guy is full of nonsense?

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

First off, this publication is not a paper. It is an opinion sent to the editor of the journal. The comparison is similar to 'a letter to the editor' being called 'an article'. Anyway...

Nice...so yet again Jones is demonstrating he is either incompetent as an academic or doesn't care about the facts.

[000063]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Nice blend of poisoning the well and ad hominem you got there. You might wait until you read the paper and judge it on its own before you begin casting aspersions.

Yet you have no problem with Ergo repeatedly doing worse, and adding no real content to the thread?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

The early FEMA-theory that NIST discarded was "pancaking" as the initiation mechanism for collapse, i.e. FEMA believed that the collapse started when some floor disconnected from columns and dropped onto the one below. NIST says this was not the first major failure that started the rapid phase of collapse, and that instead the rapid phase was iniated by the failure of inward bowing columns.

I'm not sure where you find NIST making this distinction. Please provide a citation. In any case, the problems with the pancaking model became obvious very quickly, and pancaking was quietly discarded.

Quote:

In either case, the dominant mechanism for collapse progression was still what you might call "pancaking", i.e. floor failures racing ahead of column failures as the main driver.

As I asked Orphia Nay, please cite the published engineering analysis that currently stands as the official explanation for the collapse progression.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by ergo

I'm not sure where you find NIST making this distinction. Please provide a citation. In any case, the problems with the pancaking model became obvious very quickly, and pancaking was quietly discarded.

So quiet they put it online back in 2006:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

First off, this publication is not a paper. It is an opinion sent to the editor of the journal. The comparison is similar to 'a letter to the editor' being called 'an article'. Anyway...

Discussion articles are standard with the JEM, and standard in scientific publishing. They are in fact what advances scientific theory and understanding on a matter. They are not "letters to the editor". Good lord.

I thought I was just joking when I said that Scott Sommers doesn't understand scientific publishing. But it's true. He really, really doesn't.

[ergo]

Thanks, Shek, for providing the backup to my point.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by ergo

Discussion articles are standard with the JEM, and standard in scientific publishing. They are in fact what advances scientific theory and understanding on a matter. They are not "letters to the editor". Good lord.

I thought I was just joking when I said that Scott Sommers doesn't understand scientific publishing. But it's true. He really, really doesn't.

Being "standard" doesn't mean they are peer reviewed as Jonesy, & apparently you, like to pretend. The ASCE has an entire page on submissions other than actual studies. The only type of submission they note that undergoes peer review, other than actual studies, are forums.

Originally Posted by ergo

Thanks, Shek, for providing the backup to my point.

Your point was that they make no distinction. I showed they did. You really have a problem seeing eye to eye with reality.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

Being "standard" doesn't mean they are peer reviewed as Jonesy, & apparently you, like to pretend. The ASCE has an entire page on submissions other than actual studies. The only type of submission they note that undergoes peer review, other than actual studies, are forums.

Wrong again. Any discussion of an article published by JEM also goes through peer review.

What is it with 9/11 bedunkers and their complete ignorance of scientific publishing? Perhaps the only standard they know are publications like "Skeptic" magazine.

Quote:

Your point was that they make no distinction. I showed they did. You really have a problem seeing eye to eye with reality.

You apparently see different words there than I do. Please indicate where they state, or even hint, that collapse progression was characterized by pancaking floor collapse.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by ergo

Wrong again. Any discussion of an article published by JEM also goes through peer review.

You should let the ASCE know. Apparently you know their own journal and practices better than they do. I guess we will just have to take your word for it.

Quote:

You apparently see different words there than I do. Please indicate where they state, or even hint, that collapse progression was characterized by pancaking floor collapse.

They don't. I know this is hard for you Ergo as it takes confronting reality. As we cans see based on your claims about ASCE discussion papers, the facts & reality are irrelevant. But this is the conversation you were having:

Quote:

Oystein:
The early FEMA-theory that NIST discarded was "pancaking" as the initiation mechanism for collapse

Quote:

Ergo:
I'm not sure where you find NIST making this distinction. Please provide a citation.

Quote:

Me:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse...

Did you say NIST makes no distinction? Yes. Did I show them making that distinction? Yes. Keep up with the back-flips.

[000063]

Originally Posted by ergo

Wrong again. Any discussion of an article published by JEM also goes through peer review. ...

And yet, you provide no evidence for that claim.

2. A submitted manuscript shall contain detail and reference to public sources of information sufficient
to permit the author's peers to repeat the work or otherwise verify its accuracy.

Let me guess; you think that's the same as "all manuscripts are peer reviewed". Saying "all manuscripts need to have enough public sources to be reproducible or fact-checked" is not the same as "all manuscripts are peer reviewed".

The document GMS linked clearly says exactly what he says it does. You, meanwhile, continue to not provide evidence. Almost as if you didn't have any. Strange.

Quote:

You apparently see different words there than I do. Please indicate where they state, or even hint, that collapse progression was characterized by pancaking floor collapse.

GMS is claiming exactly the opposite. He even quoted it. You, of course, ignore the part where you were proved wrong, as usual.

Also on the page he linked;

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST or by the New York City Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department, or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

I'm not sure why you're asking for evidence from an organization that disagrees with you.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

First off, this publication is not a paper. It is an opinion sent to the editor of the journal. The comparison is similar to 'a letter to the editor' being called 'an article'. Anyway...

To which edition of the JEM are you referring? The discussion was published in 4/10, this new paper passed the peer review process (according to Jones )and will be published in 10/12. It was either peer reviewed or it wasn't. Jones is either right or wrong. We might wait a few weeks and find out.

Quote:

Your point is fair enough. Except my judgement of him is based on a review of his other writings and opinions about 9/11. It's clear where he stands on these things and whether or not the opinion piece is good or not, his other work is weird. You may not feel it's weird, but from my side of the forum, he expresses points that no educated person should. This nonsense about 'squibs' is just silly. So while I admire him as a person and respect some of his academic work, in my search for why such a person would write such nonsense about 9/11, I have to look to his unusual neurological condition.

Just because you disagree with his earlier work, doesn't give you the license to employ fallacious argumentation, such as poisoning the well and ad hominem.
Aren't you in the academic community? Do you really think such attacks on the man's mental health is a responsible, persuasive argument?