Adventure Game Studio

Is anyone familiar with the 9/11 research by Dr Judy Wood?

Long video (~2.5 hrs)

http://youtu.be/bITl3lmbWb8

Short video (~15mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBG1LBALXQ&sns=em

I discovered Dr Wood's work earlier this year and have become obsessed with it. Her research is not conspiracy theory. It is evidence. And it is overwhelming evidence too. It is evidence that was somehow obscured from public awareness for a long time but is now readily available. And the evidence must be explained.

I like Dr Wood's approach to the subject. She presents information in a methodical, captivating and creative way. But it's the actual evidence she presents that speaks for itself. It is simply mind boggling.

I felt compelled to share this. People need to know this.

9/11 was basically a crime scene. The first question we ask in any crime is WHAT happened. Then HOW it happened. Then finally WHO did it and WHY. The problem is we were told the answer to those last two questions immediately after the event but bypassed the important first question of WHAT THE FUCK actually happened!

I personally remember watching the horror of 9/11 on the family TV as it unfolded. It was shortly before my final exams at high school and I was 18 years old. It all seemed so surreal and unbelievable. But everyone just accepted the images we were watching and the accompanying interpretation and side stories. I think we'd all been conditioned by similar scenes and plots from dozens of movies we'd all watched prior to the tragic event.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was the government agency responsible for explaining the technical aspects of the demise of the World Trade Center buildings (including building 7). I believe Dr Wood is the only person to date to refute the NIST reports by filing a formal request for corrections.

While the implications of Dr Wood's research are mind blowing, I find it more unbelievable that more people didn't see the reality from the start. The evidence was right there all along and witnessed by many. The only thing missing from 9/11 was a movie soundtrack.

To save others some time: Her theory is that the towers were destroyed by some sci-fi "energy beam" superweapon that was able to disintegrate their molecular structure.

I love a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy (but only from a story telling standpoint).

As for nine-eleven... I go with Occam's Razor.  Religious shit heads murdered a few thousand people in the name of their peaceful religion.

Simple.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 10/04/2015 12:07:55
To save others some time: Her theory is that the towers were destroyed by some sci-fi "energy beam" superweapon that was able to disintegrate their molecular structure.

Well I'm convinced.

  This one is even nuttier than the other theories.  She claims there was a "lack of debris".

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 10/04/2015 10:25:40
It's a bit of a lengthy YouTube video, but do take the time to watch it.

The longer a youtube video is, the less true it's likely to be, especially if it's on the subject of something like 9/11, or videogame journalism. Because they need to set up a narrative and all of their crazy tangents from reality, and they need you to walk through their thought process to do it. And when you summarize it (Laser beams did 9/11) it falls down. Because in the end, it's just a story, and taking bits of a story out of context sounds crazy until you have the rest of it.

Truth can be seen from multiple angles, conspiracy theories generally only have one - and they only work when you believe every part of them.

Really interesting video all the way through. Thanks for sharing.

Also, I wish people weren't so dismissive when it comes to potential tinfoil stuff. Rejecting everything for the sake of it is almost as ignorant as buying into all of it.

Thank you Cuiki for actually watching the video.

Again, I encourage EVERYONE to watch it. It is a compilation of evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SOME of the evidence is:

1. The towers fell at free fall speed.

2. The retaining wall structure known as the "bathtub" at the base of the buildings was not significantly damaged. More damage was done to the bathtub by earth-moving equipment during the clean-up process.

3. The seismic signal was too small compared to other controlled demolitions (in particular building 7 that was not much greater than background noise).

4. The debris pile was far too small to account for the total mass of the buildings.

5. Copious dust was created, covering the streets and floating away.

6. Vehicles "toasted" in strange ways found near the site and several blocks away.

7. "Weird fires" with the appearance of fire, but without evidence of heating.

8. Unburnt paper littering the streets.

9. "Melting" steel cap workers boots, but without high heat.

10. Air tanks on fire trucks and fire trucks exploding that were parked near the WTC

11. Hurricane Erin, located just off Long Island on 9/11/01, went virtually unreported in the days leading up to 9/11, including omission of this Hurricane on the morning weather map.

12. Tritium, an extremely rare hydrogen isotope associated with nuclear reactions, was found in abundance at the site.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see there is overwhelming evidence and hence why the video is lengthy. The evidence is there and the official story does not explain it, let alone acknowledge it.

"Conspiracy theory" has a stigma attached to it. Interestingly however, a recent social psychological study shows that people of "conventionalist" or anti-conspiracy persuasion may not be the mainstream now.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/22/scientific-study-reveals-conspiracy-theorists-sane/

To avoid bias, let's not label this conspiracy. Let's call it what it is. It's simply evidence you weren't aware of until now.

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 10/04/2015 23:59:47
To avoid bias, let's not label this conspiracy. Let's call it what it is. It's simply evidence you weren't aware of until now.

It's conjecture at best, and most of these are based on faulty assumptions anyway.

But even if it were true, to what end? What possible reason would the US Government have for setting loose a Sci-Fi Superweapon on the WTC, but not use it elsewhere? Surely it would be a pretty amazing weapon if we were able to disintegrate buildings without ever having a visible setup for them. And it's been, what, 15 years? Why hasn't it been used again? Why attack the WTC? To get people on your side for a war? Well, that would have pretty much have failed immediately, since people were widely and vocally against war anyway. There is no possible reason for the laser beam theory to actually be there without the US Government being both too smart to be caught by the populace and too dumb to know the consequences of their actions.

Why didn't the US Government just say "Hey, the terrorists have a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, we should stop them before they use it again!". That would have been great for riling people up for war! Why even include planes at all?

If the attacker wasn't part of the US Government, why dress it up like a plane hitting the building? They could just say "We have the fucking hand of God here, stop your heathen ways" and then that would have been a way better terror attack than a plane.

Like, the plane-hitting-the-WTC theory is pretty robust. Desperate people using desperate measures against the USA.

The laser beam theory just... doesn't have any grounding in anything that came before it.

But here's my counter argument to your "evidence":

That weapon doesn't exist.

Prove that it exists, can be reproduced, and that the technology was available in 2001 and then I'll entertain it. And if such a weapon exists, why isn't it being used in lieu of drone strikes, which are our current unmanned siege weapon?

A Google search gives me these definitions.

Fact.
noun
A thing that is known or proved to be true.

Conjecture.
noun
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

--------------------------------------

Used in 9/11 context.

FACT:  Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion.

CONJECTURE: The weapon doesn't exist.

--------------------------------------

Talking about questions of who did it and why are distractions from looking at the evidence. Again, I encourage EVERYONE to look at the extensive evidence Dr Wood has compiled in the video.

In addition to what Scavenger says: Each tower was hit by a fucking airplane. People saw it happen. It was caught on camera (in the case of the second plane, on lots and lots of cameras, and broadcast live all over the world). There is no remotely plausible argument that can be made that it didn't happen.

Then the buildings burned for a while, then they collapsed. Even most conspiracy theorists acknowledge that the towers probably would collapse by themselves given the crash and the fire, they just think the way they collapsed isn't right. But this is a ridiculous argument: if the buildings were already about to collapse, why complicate whatever nefarious plan was going on by also using a top-secret energy beam or even just controlled demolitions to bring them down slightly faster?

Analysis of the physics of how the collapse happened can be interesting, but we need to acknowledge that our models of exactly what happens during a big fire are both complex (with the risk of making mistakes) and limited. There are phenomena we don't fully understand or can't predict. (I'm reminded, for example, of that guy who was convicted of murdering his family and burning down his house because scorch patterns on the floor were interpreted as signs of someone having doused it with gasoline, until later experiments showed that such patterns can form naturally in a fire without involving any propellant.)

Your list of "evidence" strikes me as a collection of random factoids that may or may not be true individually, but add up to nothing that undermines the obvious explanation or even comes close to suggesting the doctor's crackpot theory.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 11/04/2015 08:17:24
CONJECTURE: The weapon doesn't exist.

By calling that conjecture, you're asking for it to be backed up with facts, but that's impossible. It's hard to prove a negative, just like Bertrand Russell can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). The onus isn't on someone else to prove that a hitherto unknown energy beam doesn't exist.

Religions and conspiracy theories like to tie unrelated, unexplained phenomena together into a reassuring narrative that suggests someone is in charge. As Alan Moore puts it:

Quote from: Alan Moore"The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless."

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion. There are many photographs and videos including news reports showing this. There is even a before and after photograph of a full car park; the cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. The images did not receive much publicity in the aftermath.

The planes obviously took center stage and got all the attention that day. But just because we saw it on TV replayed again and again and again does not make it any more true than the cars. The planes appear to be a distraction from the other stuff going on.

And what about Building 7? That building was the third to collapse that day, but like the cars did not receive much attention. No plane hit that building. The NIST report explanation is that a fire somehow started as a result of the destruction of the other two taller buildings, and that the fire caused one single column to fail leading to a total global collapse of the building, symmetrically and neatly into it's own footprint. If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise in the known universe.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but..

I encourage EVERYONE to watch the video in its entirity before forming an opinion.

Even if she can't give any absolute and undeniable proof that this new weapon was indeed what caused it, one could argue she does a pretty good job at (implicitly) debunking the jet-fuel theory at least.
(skip to 2:00:30 to see it all summed up in a nice table)

Just remember people often act in what seems like strange and unpredictable ways, so saying "they had no reason to do it" is not exactly a sound argument against what looks like scientific evidence.
I'd rather not play the "who-did-it-and-why" game, though. I'm just saying it's an interesting video that gives a different perspective on the things.

Quote from: Cuiki on Sat 11/04/2015 14:09:54
Even if she can't give any absolute and undeniable proof that this new weapon was indeed what caused it, one could argue she does a pretty good job at (implicitly) debunking the jet-fuel theory at least.
(skip to 2:00:30 to see it all summed up in a nice table)

Jet fuel doesn't need to melt steel beams. Oh my god, do you not know that heat causes expansion in metal and also metals to become more pliable and weaker at higher temperatures? We wouldn't hot forge swords if this wasn't true! And it's not as if the large amount of pressure from a huge falling weight coupled with the massive amount of flammable material inside of the WTC couldn't have raised the temperature! As FEMA puts it:

QuoteThe large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

The jet fuel set the fires, it was additional combustion within the WTC that weakened the structure. All the fuel had to do was spread fire. It didn't have to be particularly hot. It just needed to set enough OTHER fires that WOULD become hot enough to weaken the steel frames.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 11/04/2015 11:47:08
FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion. There are many photographs and videos including news reports showing this. There is even a before and after photograph of a full car park; the cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. The images did not receive much publicity in the aftermath.

Ah yes, the large shockwave from the building's collapse, the hot air expelled from it couldn't have anything to do with it, it must have been lasers... which wouldn't have caused the cars to be toasted, since the laser would have to have been going on way after the building's collapse, and we would have noticed it.

QuoteThe planes obviously took center stage and got all the attention that day. But just because we saw it on TV replayed again and again and again does not make it any more true than the cars. The planes appear to be a distraction from the other stuff going on.

Ah yes, the planes are a distraction from.... the giant laser beam setup the government obviously had. Tell me again why they would want to cover this up? If the enemy has the Hand of God, why did they need planes for a distraction again?

QuoteJust remember people often act in what seems like strange and unpredictable ways, so saying "they had no reason to do it" is not exactly a sound argument against what looks like scientific evidence.

No, no, it is. What you're saying is:

"There is no reason not to believe that hundreds, if not thousands of people, worked on a top secret laser project to blow up the World Trade Center while planes were flown into them, and it was set up and deployed without anyone knowing or caring about the outcome, causing the needless deaths of thousands of people, without a single one of these people stepping forward to admit that they worked on a top secret Superweapon that blew up the World Trade Center. This technology, far beyond what lasers are capable of, was built completely secretly and the planes were just a DISTRACTION from the REAL weapon, even though the use of this superweapon for whatever reason would have got the sympathy of the American public far more easily than a couple of planes. This weapon was never, ever used again in any circumstance, nor any technology like it. The government successfully covered it up until a single person managed to uncover the truth, which for some reason hasn't been silenced by the Government which is perfect in it's covering up of this giant laser right up until now."

You may as well say that aliens came down and blasted the WTC, because there's no reason to believe that they didn't! And there's no reason not to believe that Russell's Teapot didn't fall from the sky onto Building 7 and caused it to collapse, because there's no reason that teapots can't do that apparently. You literally have to believe that the US Government is a cartoon villain who is smart enough to build a giant laser beam, and dumb enough to try and cover up attacking their own people with planes hitting their laser beam target. It's utterly ridiculous.

Once again, prove that this weapon exists, and then this theory will be taken seriously. Until then, I'm not wasting hours of my life on 9/11 truther videos.

The identity and motivation of whoever was behind it becomes an issue because the only way theories such as this could remotely work (even if we grant the possibility of an energy beam weapon being deployed) would be if there was a gigantic coverup, prepared in advance. For example, Dr. Wood has apparently claimed that during the clean-up work, they were shipping in dirt and stuff to Ground Zero just so there'd be debris to remove.

So now you have two implausible claims:

(1) That, contrary to all appearances, the towers weren't brought down by the planes that very clearly hit them, but by some other, secret means that doesn't even exist as far as we know.
(2) That someone staged the whole thing to look like a terrorist attack, which would involve the collusion of many, many people in government, media, intelligence agencies, various private citizens, and even the terrorist group that took responsibility, in the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Americans (including in many cases their own friends, family members and colleagues) for some purpose unknown. And all this without any of the participants spilling the beans, or any credible evidence of the conspiracy leaking in the decade and a half after the act.

Against the alternative: That the terrorists who were on the flights, from the group that had tried to blow up the WTC before, in fact crashed the planes into the towers, just like we saw on TV, for the reasons their leader stated over and over. That the destruction and the fires set by the crash caused the towers to collapse, just like it seemed, and that various stuff around was destroyed as well, by fires, debris, shock waves and other things you might expect.

That doesn't mean that every last piece of data you can drag up can be properly explained. There might be some mistakes and misinterpretations in the official accounts (just as there clearly are in the analyses of freelance/amateur experts who post their reports on YouTube), and there might even be some details that were covered up for various reasons. (For example, measurements of certain toxic particles in the air in the aftermath may have been suppressed because they desperately needed people on site to clean up; there could conceivably have been some secret intelligence or military activities going on in the buildings that they didn't want people to know about... stuff like that.) Minor unexplained details or discrepancies don't invalidate the broad strokes of the official account, and certainly don't point towards a secret superweapon.

You know, if your equations tell you that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, you don't start raving about the secret levitation rays that have been installed all over the world, and that their flapping wings are just a distraction from what's really going on. First you check your calculations for errors, and if you can't find any you figure there's something missing from your model, that they do in fact fly because of their wings but we don't yet understand in every detail how it happens.

Quote from: Scavenger on Sat 11/04/2015 17:47:10
... You may as well say that aliens came down and blasted the WTC ...

But..but..but..isn't that that where they got the super laser beam technology.  I mean there's no way human beings are smart enoguh to invent such a thing...it had to be space aliens!
(laugh)

I think Snarky and Scavenger have said any counter-arguments I would have made so I won't engage in that regard!

I have always been (and continue to be) fascinated by how differently people can interpret the same events (particularly controversial events like nine-eleven).

The counter argument I usually make to people that insist nine-eleven was an inside job (or postulate some conspiracy) is the president can't get a blowjob without the world finding out about it.  You think something THAT massive (a cover-up of the murder of thousands of American citizens) would even remotely be possible?  I really just can't accept it.

The other thing I always consider is that human beings have a remarkable ability for "connecting the dots" (call it pattern recognition, etc.).  It's an evolutionary thing that has, for the most part, been a survival tactic.  That large predatory cat hunched up its legs and crept low to the ground when it attacked Ooga last month, and Grump last week... I have determined that when it does this, there is a danger.  Flash forward a couple thousand years and we're not, for the most part, concerned with large cats on the plains stalking us... so this "gift" turns to imagination instead of survival.  We like to draw parallels, make connections, see things even when they aren't there (Jesus in toast anybody?).

This ability is really fantastic!

Here's a challenge I'll put forth; somebody give me an absolutely INSANE theory about nine-eleven (even nuttier than super freak'n laZer beams) and give me 10 years and I can find "facts" and "evidence" in all the data from nine-eleven to support it.  No matter how nutty the theory, the human mind (imagination) can drum up connections and lines of "reason" to support that claim, make it sound "official" and people would believe it.  Just as they do Dr. Wood's theory.

I don't take anything from Dr. Wood... I'm sure she'll go viral, write a book, make a million or two, etc. 

This is, I suspect, her intent with the whole thing anyway.  Not finding any answers or "truth". 

That's just my nutty theory though (nod)

Gee, thanks for being so patronising. :tongue:

I'm not articulate enough to explain my point of view and to argue with the three of you (not that I want to, anyway), especially as this is starting to look a bit like one of those religious threads... ;)

But let me just say this and then I'll shut up:
You don't believe it's possible for a relatively big number of people to keep a secret like that hidden from the public eyes? Okay, might be true. I never even claimed that's what 9/11 was all about. But I wouldn't be so sure about the absurdity of grand schemes being hidden from the public in general. Think about the NSA and how many people worked there for years before somebody was brave (or crazy) enough to *publicly* expose their activities. Why didn't any of the other employees say anything sooner? Who knows. Maybe they though they were doing the right thing, maybe they were too scared (and quite rightly so), or maybe they just couldn't give a fuck and quite liked their jobs. But it worked. (And it does to this day, as far as I know.)

This thread belongs on Project Avalon forums. :) Seriously, however you wanna call it, "conspiracy theory" or "truth", you're gonna find more of it there. And each "truth" backed up with 6-hour long video. Look, I get it. We all want our world to be much more interesting place. Take that Sun portal theory for example. All stars in the universe are just jump gates to planets that surround them. Is it true? I don't know. Never say never. Maybe in a 100 years it'll be common means of travel. It sure sound cool. Hell, cool enough to make a sci-fi AGS adventure game out of it! Right? :)

People who believe in such conspirational theories often forget, that 100 affirmations and 1 negation of a statement means it is false. Therefore when you come up with a theory, you should start with thinking why it may be wrong, not why it may be right - exactly the opposite of what most of the conspirational theoretics do.

And the 9/11 conspiracies in general are ridicoulous.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sat 11/04/2015 20:03:21
The counter argument I usually make to people that insist nine-eleven was an inside job (or postulate some conspiracy) is the president can't get a blowjob without the world finding out about it.  You think something THAT massive (a cover-up of the murder of thousands of American citizens) would even remotely be possible?  I really just can't accept it.

Exactly.

And the always repeated doubt about suspicious fall of the skyscrapers... Well, I've never heard such thing from someone who would actually know something about statics. "It doesn't feel right" sums up most of the theories - like if we could know how a skyscraper usually falls down after being hit by a plane. Even on a normal day, there were thousand of different forces present affecting the structure.

Ok. Let's try this again..

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion as shown in many photographs and videos. The cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. No organic things like people or trees were toasted though. Some videos show cars that appear to be on fire, but the "weird fire" targeted certain materials on the car e.g. a police car plastic lights and tyre were not affected but the surrounding metal was.

The planes obviously took center stage. The planes and the endless talk about them were a distraction from the things that were there in plain sight too, such as the cars and Building 7.

Again. Building 7 was the third to collapse that day, but this event was overshadowed by the taller buildings collapsing and the planes. No plane hit Building 7. The NIST report explanation is that a miscellaneous fire caused the building to collapse. If fire caused Building 7 to collapse, it would be the first ever fire-induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise in the known universe.

I don't want to sound like a broken record, but..

I encourage EVERYONE to watch the video in its entirity before forming an opinion. I find this stuff intriguing. You should too! Don't judge a book by it's cover.

Quote from: Cuiki on Sat 11/04/2015 22:01:05
You don't believe it's possible for a relatively big number of people to keep a secret like that hidden from the public eyes? Okay, might be true. I never even claimed that's what 9/11 was all about. But I wouldn't be so sure about the absurdity of grand schemes being hidden from the public in general. Think about the NSA and how many people worked there for years before somebody was brave (or crazy) enough to *publicly* expose their activities. Why didn't any of the other employees say anything sooner? Who knows. Maybe they though they were doing the right thing, maybe they were too scared (and quite rightly so), or maybe they just couldn't give a fuck and quite liked their jobs. But it worked. (And it does to this day, as far as I know.)

I think that's a great example of exactly the opposite of what you claim. Very little of what Snowden leaked were entirely new revelations. The existence of most of these programs had already been leaked and reported before; the big difference was that there was now much more in-depth information about the programs, the details and the scale of them (allowing journalists to examine things like the oversight mechanisms and the abuses that had occurred). And since it was based on internal documents and not anonymous sources, they couldn't be discredited. The intelligence agencies couldn't simply deny the story or stonewall reporters like before.

Also, these were programs by a known agency that exists to do precisely this type of work, so any individual detail that leaked wasn't exactly sensational, and the intelligence groups asserted a legal basis for the programs in well-known laws such as the PATRIOT act (which had rightly been criticized by people warning against exactly this type of thing happening) and for a purpose that has been one of the most high-profile policies of the US governments. They could therefore recruit people for the job (which required security clearance and background checks) relatively easily. And finally, despite some controversy, NSA surveillance has always enjoyed widespread support (last I remember, almost two thirds of Americans were still in favor, mind-bogglingly enough).

So yeah, despite all of those favorable conditions, these secret programs still leaked (not just once, but repeatedly), because some people thought it was wrong. And even if we hadn't known about the precise things they were doing (on what scale and how successfully), it was never secret that they were doing things like this, since the agency, the laws and the policy goals were all public knowledge: you can't keep something of that magnitude entirely hidden.

That's the kind of secret government program I buy. The idea that half the country in effect works for Hydra, not so much.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 11/04/2015 23:02:24
Ok. Let's try this again..

FACT: Cars were destroyed in unexplained ways by apparent spontaneous combustion as shown in many photographs and videos. The cars were curiously "toasted" AFTER destruction of the towers. No organic things like people or trees were toasted though. Some videos show cars that appear to be on fire, but the "weird fire" targeted certain materials on the car e.g. a police car plastic lights and tyre were not affected but the surrounding metal was.

Give me evidence it was laser beams that did this and not, say, the normal consequences of fire and flying debris and shockwaves? (https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM)

Oh, and some rebuttals for the other points. (https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics.HTM) Luckily, these only took me two minutes to read through, far less time than a 2.5 hour conspiracy video.

Until you have actual scientists doing actual tests and trying to reproduce the actual evidence with your sci-fi energy gun, you're just barking a conspiracy theory. Again, show me the laser beaaaaams. Show 'em! Show me that technology has progressed enough that laser beams that can destroy metal but can't destroy organic matter are possible in the realms of physics!

I kinda started to lose hope in her when she couldn't find her OWN laser at the start of the clip.

What hope does she have of finding some huge super-secret laser fired over a decade ago when she lost the laser-pointer she put on her podium like 10 minutes earlier?

I honestly thought that this was a set-up to some joke or point about missing lasers...but nope!

Okay, snarkiness aside:

I actually watched about the first 40 minutes of the video and....yeeeeaaaahhh....Her "evidence" is very sketchy. For example: She says that if you jumped from the WTC with an open bag of flour under each arm you would not be able to simulate the dust we see coming off the falling beams in the video clip she shows...Really?! I wouldn't know, because she only says it and offers no demonstration to prove her point. This is lazy science.

And this is only one example. Another would be when she talks about the seismic data and how the collapse of Tower 7 does not register above the background noise of Manhatten. What she doesn't give is clear data on exactly how much (if at all) the collapse should have registered above the background noise. Manhatten is a pretty big place and there's a lot going on. If someone was to tell me that the collapse of a relatively small structure probably wouldn't register above background noise I wouldn't really be that surprised. But yeah... she just states the fact without any backup of what should have been expected.

She does provide an example of what a larger structure collapsing looks like seismically and compares that to what the Tower 2 data looked like. Fair enough...But she doesn't mention how each set of data was recorded. Whether the two sets were recorded with exactly the same instruments, whether the ground consistancy was greatly similar at the two sites, and (most importantly) how far away the recording devices were from the two events.

She also mentions many times the million tons of debris which "should" have been piled up in the footprints of the towers. She shows pictures of what the site looked like and says that this is not what a million tons of debris looks like. Again: I wouldn't know. She doesn't show any example of how high a million tons of debris should have been piled up. I've never seen a million tons of debris piled up. I have no way to judge!

Now, I'm not saying that a person jumping from the WTC with flour bags under each arm would look like the falling beams or that the collapse of Tower 7 wouldn't register above background seismic noise, or that the later seismic comparison wasn't a valid example, or that the photos of the site did look like a million tons of debris. I'm just saying that I don't know because she didn't present the data that would allow me to judge one way or the other.

So after 40 minutes of lazy science I just had to give up sorry...

I just made some popcorn and have been eating it while reading this thread. This is better than just about every movie I've watched in the past year.

From the outside looking in...

The conspiracy theory is getting hammered. I would call a time out and regroup. Or at least bring in some ghost and alien stuff to cause a distraction.

Scavenger

Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars. I can't say for certain what phenomena is doing that but I think it's pretty cool to think about. It's science. It might be something similar to a microwave oven that just targets water molecules. If you watch the end of the video they talk about cold fusion, something that is somewhat of a scientific myth at this stage. From what I understand, early experiments have been carried out by a few scientists that relate to cold fusion. One such scientist is John Brockis

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris

Curiously, Judy Wood does not have a Wikipedia entry.

I never mentioned the word laser and I don't think Dr Wood did either. A laser is something hot, isn't it? The evidence seems to point to a cold process.

Mandle

Thanks for actually watching the video. I encourage you to watch the rest though. Keep an open mind.

I believe if there were any issues or questions regarding Dr Wood's data, then NIST would have been the first to jump on it. They haven't. Not as yet since 2007 when Dr Wood's request for corrections was filed.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 12/04/2015 03:52:54
Mandle

Thanks for actually watching the video. I encourage you to watch the rest though. Keep an open mind.

I kept a totally open mind which you will probably see from my comments: I watched 40 minutes into the presentation while the troubles set in...

My main problem was that the science was very faulty right from the start in that she never gives a comparison when making sweeping claims...

So...what about this flaw in her scientific method? You did not comment on this.

You only have to watch MythBusters to see how this kind of science is really done (and...yeah...they don't get it right all the time)...

But what they DO get right is that they compare the expected result to the mythical result and show both side by side via the actual data they obtain...They compare the data and then rate the myth "Confirmed","Plausible", or "Busted"...And this is just a TV show for entertainment...

They are already doing a much better job on the science than our Doctor does in her presentation...

In this video she makes many sweeping statements without showing any kind of comparison to support them...

For all I know she could be completely correct: But nothing in her presentation proved anything to me because the science just wasn't there...She only ever shows the side that supports her theory...

If I could see her proven side-by-side comparison then I might get interested in what she has to say...But for now there is just way too much data missing from the opposite side of her theory which is not presented...

I was just thinking about the Myth Busters. Here's what they say on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLUPXhZIuJo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I see your point Mandle. She is perhaps not the best presenter. But you can't expect her to show a demonstration of everything she says. Use your own knowledge, experience and imagination. Don't get hung up on the bags of flour thing. She is just making a point that chunks of falling debris shouldn't have large amounts of dust trailing off them. Not the amount of dust we see anyway. It's a lot of dust!

As you mention she does compare the seismic data to the demolition of the Kingdome stadium in Seattle. So I think you're really just questioning the data acquisition. I believe she collected the data from five separate seismic recording stations nearby. A Richter Magnitude is calculated for an event. The magnitude is calculated using the seismic wave amplitude, measured on a carefully calibrated seismometer, and is corrected for the distance between the seismometer and the event epicenter. I don't expect Dr Wood to explain all that in her presentation. She only has 2.5 hours and there are more interesting things to talk about..

Like cold fusion.

Maybe the Myth Busters should do a segment on cold fusion. (roll)

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 12/04/2015 03:52:54
Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars.

The page Scavenger links to (and in particular two additional pages linked at the bottom that address Dr. Wood's claims more directly) convincingly debunks this idea. The fires were probably mostly lit by burning debris. They may have smoldered for a while before flaring up (with no one attending to them in the general confusion). The fires wouldn't necessarily spread (it's hard to set fire to a sheet of paper lying flat on the ground), so it's not surprising to see unburnt paper nearby (people and trees are even less flammable, and people unlike cars wouldn't let embers smolder on their surface until they caught fire; plus of course a large number of people did die on 9/11), but the photos do in fact show paper burning around the burning cars.

Fire is fickle. I can rebut your assertion that it doesn't look like "a real fire" by saying that to me it does. It's not a strong argument.

BTW, according to those pages, a number of the "facts" you claimed earlier (e.g. that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed) are trivially false.

QuoteI believe if there were any issues or questions regarding Dr Wood's data, then NIST would have been the first to jump on it. They haven't. Not as yet since 2007 when Dr Wood's request for corrections was filed.

I think maybe you overestimate how seriously NIST takes her or her ideas.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 11/04/2015 23:52:53
I think that's a great example of exactly the opposite of what you claim. Very little of what Snowden leaked were entirely new revelations. The existence of most of these programs had already been leaked and reported before; the big difference was that there was now much more in-depth information about the programs, the details and the scale of them (allowing journalists to examine things like the oversight mechanisms and the abuses that had occurred). And since it was based on internal documents and not anonymous sources, they couldn't be discredited. The intelligence agencies couldn't simply deny the story or stonewall reporters like before.

Also, these were programs by a known agency that exists to do precisely this type of work, so any individual detail that leaked wasn't exactly sensational, and the intelligence groups asserted a legal basis for the programs in well-known laws such as the PATRIOT act (which had rightly been criticized by people warning against exactly this type of thing happening) and for a purpose that has been one of the most high-profile policies of the US governments. They could therefore recruit people for the job (which required security clearance and background checks) relatively easily. And finally, despite some controversy, NSA surveillance has always enjoyed widespread support (last I remember, almost two thirds of Americans were still in favor, mind-bogglingly enough).

So yeah, despite all of those favorable conditions, these secret programs still leaked (not just once, but repeatedly), because some people thought it was wrong. And even if we hadn't known about the precise things they were doing (on what scale and how successfully), it was never secret that they were doing things like this, since the agency, the laws and the policy goals were all public knowledge: you can't keep something of that magnitude entirely hidden.

That's the kind of secret government program I buy. The idea that half the country in effect works for Hydra, not so much.

Thanks, that was a pretty great reply. :P

I'm not sure how much of what you said about me claiming the exact opposite is due to having the advantage of hindsight, though. Don't take me too seriously, but consider:
1. Back in 2012, if I had claimed mass surveilance was possible, and indeed very likely - based on the assumption that we use all sorts of services we don't really know anything about, and that it would simply make a lot of sense, considering - I bet someone on these forums would've called me a conspiracy theorist, if not severely paranoid. That's because, despite all the leaks, the idea wasn't really part of collective consciousness before Snowden's documents made it public. (And that makes sense, because none of us could really tell what exactly was going on).
2. Let's assume jet-fuel official reports turn out to be a lie ten years from now. Let's just assume. If someone on the forums then opened a thread saying "told you", how many people would think something along the lines of: "Well, that's hardly a secret, a lot of people have been telling for years that there was something fishy going on with the official reports"?

Even if you think mass surveilance was a bad example, it still doesn't change the fact that there have been a number of other theories proven true throughout history. Conspiring is definitely in human nature (of some humans), so why do some of you see it as such a ridiculous concept? I'm absolutely aware of how many theories out there are complete crap, with some of them possibly designed with the sole purpose of discrediting the term itself. I don't want to claim I know with any degree of certainty which ones fall under the 'true' or at least 'partly true' categories, it just annoys me when people who have been reading too much Wikipedia would go and dismiss the whole concept as 'crazy talk'. I'm not refering to you, Snarky, or to anyone in particular. Just people in general, I guess.

Sorry for completely derailing the discussion. I'm not sure what to make of 9/11 yet (or anymore), but I'll try to keep an open mind nevertheless.

Quote from: Cuiki on Sun 12/04/2015 18:29:16
1. Back in 2012, if I had claimed mass surveilance was possible, and indeed very likely - based on the assumption that we use all sorts of services we don't really know anything about, and that it would simply make a lot of sense, considering - I bet someone on these forums would've called me a conspiracy theorist, if not severely paranoid. That's because, despite all the leaks, the idea wasn't really part of collective consciousness before Snowden's documents made it public. (And that makes sense, because none of us could really tell what exactly was going on).

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

It was known well before Snowden came forward.  He filled in some gaps, but the overall idea of the NSA spying on American people is far from a new thing.

Also, it really wouldn't be that much of a conspiracy theory for an organization known for spying to spy on people.

Okay, fair enough. ;)

Quote from: kconan on Sun 12/04/2015 19:00:54It was known well before Snowden came forward.  He filled in some gaps, but the overall idea of the NSA spying on American people is far from a new thing.

And yet, as of last week, people still don't believe this program exists (to the extend that it does): Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzGzB-yYKcc). Maybe they are misinformed, misguided, naive, ignorant, or simply not interested in the subject.

All that being said: I did show enough respect to watch the video before commenting here (and I have to say that she's not a good presenter in my opinion), and my take-away message was that (these) skyscrapers are intrinsically flawed in their design, and we still don't fully understand what happens when things get out of hand (I also don't see any need for skyscrapers in a city...at least not since the invention of birth-control).

That - by the way - is in my opinion a much more interesting (and relevant) discussion: should skyscrapers exist a world that has invented birth-control?

I'm a bit surprised that this is the third person in the past month who, completely out of the blue, starts a group conversation about a 9/11 conspiracy theory (the second being a random guy I met at the bar, the third being a good friend who really should know better than that). I guess it's in fashion to disbelieve that huge explosions can actually destroy buildings, or something?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 12/04/2015 03:52:54
Look at the evidence again. If it were a real fire I'd expect to see more paper, trees and people burning. I don't see that. It's just the cars. I can't say for certain what phenomena is doing that but I think it's pretty cool to think about.

I'm sure it's cool to think about, but that doesn't suddenly make you an expert on pyrochemistry. Plenty of scientific processes don't work in the way that you might expect them to; that only means that your expectations could use some adjusting.

"It's amazing how good governments are, given their track record in almost every other field, at hushing up things like alien encounters." - Terry Pratchett

Quote from: Radiant on Sun 12/04/2015 23:14:06
"It's amazing how good governments are, given their track record in almost every other field, at hushing up things like alien encounters." - Terry Pratchett

Ahhhhh...but you see...that's where they are so insidious: They pretend to leak made-up stuff so that we think they are a sieve, and keep the real stuff hidden... ;)(laugh)

I watched the entire video just for kicks, but the most silly thing of all was when she pointed out the ambulance in the beginning. She says.. Look at that ambulance, it doesn't have any damage. Your right lady, it looks relatively unscathed except for some dust on it. Now tell me, which you never mentioned, when did it arrive? Why are you already reaching at something that can so easily be debunked. That ambulance could have easily have arrived after the first collapse. Not to mention that maybe nothing fell on it.

The dust rising is pretty hilarious too. I'm not a scientist, but it looked exactly how I would have imagined it to look. A building collapses on itself and pushes a dust cloud out in a circle. At some point that dust cloud will stop and go in all kinds of directions, including up. She even mentions that dust clouds from a collapsing building can fly up as high as the building was tall.

There was tons and tons of sheetrock, tile and marble, not to mention cement in those buildings. Why all the dust? Really? Dust mixed with smoke is exactly what I would have imagined also.

The best part may have been when she mentions the fire fighters walking by the burning car. She says...why aren't they putting it out, aren't they worried about it exploding? In case you haven't noticed lady, two giant freaking buildings have collapsed and tons of people have died, including many of their coworkers. A burning car is not on the priority list. Fire fighters are not scared of a burning car like yourself. I've seen them run towards burning cars all my life, this is utterly ridiculous that she would mention this.

Contrary to popular belief (not to mention Michael Bay movies), burning cars do not in fact explode on a regular basis. This is probably because most cars don't run on nitroglycerin.

Phew. Tough crowd.

Alrighty then. Let's try this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBG1LBALXQ&sns=em

This the the first video I watched that introduced me to Dr Judy Wood.

It's a shorter video. It's a radio interview with Judy Wood.

The first thing the video talks about is perhaps the biggest white elephant in the room on 9/11. There was a massive hurricane sitting right off the coast on 9/11. Did you know that? It has a Wikipedia entry.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Erin_(2001)

I guess it was this that first captured my imagination to begin with and then got me interested in the rest of it. Perhaps I should have posted the shorter video first.

Look. I can understand people judging and being nit-picky with Dr Wood. But at the end of the day she's only human. Standing in her shoes, if I had made the discovery and was tasked with presenting the controversial information, I doubt I'd do any better. In fact I'm sure I'd be terrible.

I'm not really interested in arguing about the he said she said stuff. As the shorter video mentions, 9/11 was a physical destruction and a psychological destruction, the latter of which is still ongoing and evident in this thread right now. We are caught up arguing about opinions and speculation, but not really addressing or even looking at the evidence.

You can take stabs at trying to disprove one thing or another but at the end of the day, unless you can disprove ALL of the evidence, you're wasting your time. There needs to be a unifying theory that matches ALL of the evidence.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 13/04/2015 14:40:45
You can take stabs at trying to disprove one thing or another but at the end of the day, unless you can disprove ALL of the evidence, you're wasting your time. There needs to be a unifying theory that matches ALL of the evidence.

This is a ridiculous fallacy. One need only point out that your second sentence directly contradicts your first: By your own logic, if you disprove ANY of the evidence in favor of Dr. Wood's "unifying theory", it no longer matches all the evidence and the whole thing falls apart.

But the bigger mistake is to assume that any "fact" you cite (I'm confident that upon closer examination many of these "facts" would turn out to be wrong, e.g. the speed of the collapse, how fires spread, etc., but we'll ignore that for the sake of argument) is necessarily relevant. OK, so there was a hurricane. So what? Surely the most reasonable assumption is that this was an entirely unrelated and irrelevant circumstance, and hence doesn't need to be "explained" at all.

Snarky

Yeah, I think you got me. (laugh) English was not my best subject. All I'm trying to say is that ALL of the evidence needs to be looked at and explained.

There was indeed a big hurricane. Hurricane Erin. It was born on September 1st and travelled towards New York for 10 days, coming in proximity to New York. Then after the towers collapsed the huurcane moved away.

Now, you can argue that that might just be a coincidence. The shocking thing is that is was not announced on the media like other hurricanes usually are. As I understand it, hurricanes can be unpredictable, so shouldn't the people of New York have been told about the hurricane? You know, just in case it continued on it's path towards the city?

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 13/04/2015 15:47:12The shocking thing is that is was not announced on the media like other hurricanes usually are. As I understand it, hurricanes can be unpredictable, so shouldn't the people of New York have been told about the hurricane? You know, just in case it continued on it's path towards the city?

monkey424, I was honestly trying to follow this thread, but I must confess it is where I stumbled.
What should be the point of this argument? That all the NY officials, or whatever communal services are usually responsible, did not prepare their citizens for hurricane, because, .. what? they all knew that it will be bounced off by a beam weapon, so they should not bother?
I am confused here.

E: If I would try to look at the situation from conspiracy member angle, I would think that using experimental technology of named kind in this act would be way too costly and risky. There's enough risk already, why rely on something so complicated?
That's why I think there were bombs in these buildings.

Spoiler

BTW, not to steal the thread, but in Soviet Russia we have our own 9/11 folklore.
Here's some russian magazine, published just few days before the attacks (9th September, I think):

Spoiler

(http://www.gamemuseum.ru/Images/9.11/1-1.jpg)

[close]

As you may see, it displays the WTC towers crossed, as if it were warning not visiting them in nearest future.
Also, if you zoom a photo, you may see something like a mason sign in the left-bottom corner.

[close]

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 13/04/2015 15:47:12Yeah, I think you got me. (laugh) English was not my best subject. All I'm trying to say is that ALL of the evidence needs to be looked at and explained.

Yes, and the point is that Mrs. Wood isn't actually doing that. Rather, she's cherry-picking the points that could be used to support her hypothesis, and ignoring the points that contradict it.

1. We have only Dr. Wood's claim that the hurricane was not reported in the media. Personally, I don't trust her to have done a thorough review or to provide an accurate, unbiased report of it.
2. According to weather.com (http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/september-11-hurricane-erin-missed-new-york-city-20140911), "Hurricane Erin was never a threat to landfall in the Northeast"; meteorologists knew that a cold front would push it east, off-shore (as in fact happened). If it didn't in fact get much attention in the news, this would probably be why.
3. Even if there was something odd about this, there'd still be no evidence that it had anything to do with the attack on the WTC. I'm sure lots of other odd, inexplicable or suspicious things happened that day that were completely unrelated to these events. Believing that everything must be connected is typical conspiratorial thinking.

Also, it doesn't pass the crazy test: As CW says, even if the hurricane was somehow an element in this nefarious scheme, what would be the point of a vast media conspiracy to not warn people about it?

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 13/04/2015 16:46:15
1. We have only Dr. Wood's claim that the hurricane was not reported in the media. Personally, I don't trust her to have done a thorough review or to provide an accurate, unbiased report of it.

Actually, she has references to media reports on her own website, so probably there's a misinterpretation of her arguments here.
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/CNN_Erin.html

Quote from: Crimson Wizard on Mon 13/04/2015 16:31:00

Spoiler

BTW, not to steal the thread, but in Soviet Russia we have our own 9/11 folklore.
Here's some russian magazine, published just few days before the attacks (9th September, I think):

Spoiler

(http://www.gamemuseum.ru/Images/9.11/1-1.jpg)

[close]

As you may see, it displays the WTC towers crossed, as if it were warning not visiting them in nearest future.
Also, if you zoom a photo, you may see something like a mason sign in the left-bottom corner.

[close]

YES, IT ALL FITS!

(http://i.imgur.com/XHN7k9F.gif)

I live in New York, and anyone else that lives here knows that tons of these hurricanes go out to sea exactly like this one did. Only a rare handful ever hit NY. I would love to see the data on how many go out to sea. I've lived here for 40 years and I can count on one hand how many have hit NY. All of the rest turn exactly like that one did. If there was ever a threat, we would have been warned.

She mentions that people hanging out of the windows didn't have any shirts on. This must be because a large energy weapon was heating everything up...dear god lady. Did she ever think that these people stuffed them under the doors to stop the smoke from coming into the rooms. Because they were wearing them on their faces, and also waving them like crazy at the news choppers for help?

The bent metal was great too. They find a bent beam and can't figure out why it's bent?

This is no disrespect to you monkey, but I think she's nuts.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 13/04/2015 21:26:24I would love to see the data on how many go out to sea.

Was going to post this earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_hurricanes). New York doesn't worry about hurricanes because they generally don't make land there. Source: I lived in New York when hurricanes hit, both post 9/11. Do we want to bring climate change into this thread too?

This video of Dr. Judy wood getting destroyed is great. She appears to have some type of energy weapon on her during the whole interview, and I love how she doesn't want to hear what he has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 13/04/2015 23:55:39
This video of Dr. Judy wood getting destroyed is great. She appears to have some type of energy weapon on her during the whole interview, and I love how she doesn't want to hear what he has to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

Somebody in the comments of that video makes the great point that, if you watch the many films of the collapse you will see the top section of the tower which was above the impact hole of the plane falling all the way down and crushing the lower building on its way down. You can also see the smoke from that part of the building getting dragged down with it, which perfectly explains why there is smoke rising up during the collapse. It's not "nano-particles". It's ordinary smoke from the fire in the top section of the tower.

I just want to say how pleased I am that the AGS forums respond so rationally to this kind of conspiracy theory. But I'm also really pleased that the fans of Dr. Wood are being so nice about people challenging them. I'm just impressed by how civilised this all is so far.

I'm regularly bringing up source criticism in school, and all the surrounding stuff; urban myths, conspiracy theories, etc. One thing I've noticed is that it's damn near impossible to convince someone who's just seen a youtube clip about whatever conspiracy that it is only that - a conspiracy theory. It's like they need to some time to be un-programmed, and then some couple of days later we can talk calmly about it again and they'll agree it looks a bit fishy in hindsight.
We have some kind of innate proclivity for embracing alternative versions of what is commonly known, as if we're let in on a secret.

Like Darth said, any theory, no matter how crazy, can sound plausible and even convincing after some smooth talking, some charts and a bit of math. It's extremely hard to protect yourself against a really skilled conspiracy theorist...

It is very easy to fall prey to the "you would expect x to do y, but z happened, therefore [completely implausible claim without a shred of evidence]" narrative. Somehow those claims seem way more likely than the possibility of being wrong about basic (or complex) physics or chemistry (which is not that surprising).

Here's a perfect example of a conspiracy theory like that; it spread like wildfire on youtube for a few days, then got crushed by how stupid it was:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/03/conspiracy_debunked_atlanta_snow_doesn_t_melt.html

This is the same, just more elaborate. The conspiracy theorists make all the typical mistakes, and the red flags are all there. It can seem very convincing, but only if you've never been inoculated against that kind of credulity.

My favorite "argument" from Daniel Ray Griffin I believe, paraphrased: "According to the official version, the airplane's nose pushed a hole out of the Pentagon's C ring. But the nose is made of aluminum, and mostly hollow, there's no way the nose made a hole like that, therefore it was a missile."
The first problem here is that the official version doesn't say the hole was pushed out by the nose. But you wouldn't know that from just watching Griffin.

Quote from: Andail on Tue 14/04/2015 10:31:36
We have some kind of innate proclivity for embracing alternative versions of what is commonly known, as if we're let in on a secret.

Good point!

The feeling that we know some hidden thing that others don't know about can be a great feeling. We've all loved this feeling since we were kids and answered that question in class that nobody else could figure out.

This feeling grows less and less frequent after we grow up, and I guess we kind of miss it...

Another feeling that grows less frequent as we grow up is wonder: We all probably believed in Santa Claus, ghosts, fairies, magical wardrobes, etc etc. as kids and one by one we discovered that these things are just not real.

So we might compensate a bit to rediscover this feeling of wonder in conspiracy theories as adults. They are myths and legends, but they seem based in a reality that we can take seriously: the real, modern world...

I've followed a few of these theories down the rabbit-hole myself over the years on the internet (especially when the internet was new and seemed less suspicious) and I noticed that, indeed, I did feel the same kind of wonder while believing these stories that I felt as a kid believing in Bigfoot, phantom hitch-hikers, and Bloody Mary (I've still never tested that one though ;) )...

Eventually I realised that it was a feeling I was really glad to have recaptured, and then also realised that I should be very careful of the theory that had made me feel that way. I realised the person presenting the theory was preying on that response from me. They were targetting a feeling I missed from my childhood and was jonesing for without knowing it...

Now this is not a terrible thing: This is what fantasy movies do for us, and sci-fi novels, and Adventure Games...but if we allow ourselves to start believing that there really are Terminators or that Monkey Island is a real place (well...there is an island in Tokyo Bay called "Saru-Shima"...and on the sign it says in english "Monkey Island: Your gateway to adventure") then we have crossed a line into something that could become a dark obsession...

Let the listener beware!

Quote from: Andail on Tue 14/04/2015 10:31:36We have some kind of innate proclivity for embracing alternative versions of what is commonly known, as if we're let in on a secret.

Yes this.

I also think that we humans have a deeply rooted need to make sense of the senseless and to make the "reason" something happened have major significance (when in reality it doesn't).

I wonder if there's a name ... like the anti-occam's razer.  Occam's mask maybe? 

The simplest explanation just isn't good enough and we quest for something deeper and more powerful to explain it so that the tragedy might, in some small way, be less tragic?

All that having been said; I still think she's just milking a tragedy to make some money.  **shrugs**

Quote from: Mandle on Tue 14/04/2015 11:39:08We all probably believed in Santa Claus, ghosts, fairies, magical wardrobes, etc etc. as kids and one by one we discovered that these things are just not real.

The hell you say!!!

Quote from: Ali on Tue 14/04/2015 09:38:23I just want to say how pleased I am that the AGS forums respond so rationally to this kind of conspiracy theory. But I'm also really pleased that the fans of Dr. Wood are being so nice about people challenging them. I'm just impressed by how civilised this all is so far.

Have to agree 100%. 

I keep expecting this to go off the rails and it's stayed civil!

However, Ali, you need to stop posting and get back to work on a certain game we're all desperately waiting for (nod)!

Personally I also thought this thread was just a lot of fun. (No disrespect to the victims of 9/11 intended.) I'm tempted to get into it with Cuiki about conspiracies in general, but I think I'll leave it alone...

Quote from: Khris on Tue 14/04/2015 11:34:23
Here's a perfect example of a conspiracy theory like that; it spread like wildfire on youtube for a few days, then got crushed by how stupid it was:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/02/03/conspiracy_debunked_atlanta_snow_doesn_t_melt.html

That is brilliant! It's like a conspiracy theory by someone who has no idea how either snow or lighters work.

I started this thread to promote awareness of Dr Judy Wood and her research. I'm happy if I have achieve that albeit the mostly skeptical responses thus far. Dr Wood is perhaps the most controversial speaker on 9/11 but relatively unknown. She is the victim of censorship and smear campaigns, the history of which is documented by fellow human Andrew Johnson. Free eBook download:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=238&Itemid=60

Dr Judy Wood is also the only person to challenge NIST. That is not a trivial thing.

For the record, I don't usually get sucked in to this sort of stuff. I usually adopt a skeptical and apathetic attitude to most things. Having said that, “conspiracy” is a real thing and has occurred numerous times throughout history. Its current negative connotation is a result of propaganda. As political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith says: “The CIA's campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time”.

Dr Judy Wood's research has resonated with me. Maybe one day it will with you too. Maybe the information just needs time to sink in. At least now you know who she is and some of the anomalies present on 9/11 that you probably didn't know before.

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 00:34:49
Dr Wood is perhaps the most controversial speaker on 9/11 but relatively unknown.

If she's relatively unknown, then by definitition she is not anywhere near the most controversial speaker.

See, the term "controvsery" means that there is substantial support on both sides of the issue. Here, that is entirely not the issue. One fringe speaker against the entire scientific consensus is not a "controversy". For example, within the field of law, legalizing soft drugs is a controversy. Legalizing cold-blooded murder is not a controversy, even if some individuals might be found in support of that.

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 00:34:49
Dr Judy Wood is also the only person to challenge NIST. That is not a trivial thing.

And, as you said before, NIST has never dared to challenge her back!!!

They never answered her emails etc...

I think we only have to look at the youtube video NickyNyce posted to understand maybe why...

She is completely unprepared in this interview to answer any questions that are presented in a scientific framework...

(I was actually feeling really bad for her when she forgets the scientific word for "element" near the start *cringe*)

She even comes to the interview with no materials to support her claims and even has to borrow the "snowball" picture from the interviewer to show her points on it, which she backs up with no numerical data:

Dr. Wood: "I like to call it the Snowball..."

She just holds her finger a random bunch of distances above the photo to try to show where the smoke really was...

Dr. Wood: "It was here....ummmm...sorry I haven't looked at my own website data for a while...ummm...maybe it was about here...NO shut-UP...I'M talking now...Yeah it was about here..."

Interviewer: "Actually, what I was trying to ask you about was something different..."

Dr. Wood: (condescending chuckle) "What you are asking doesn't even matter because...YOU CAN'T TRICK ME INTO SAYING THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED!!!"

(While the whole time the interviewer is pointing out that the "nanoparticles" she is pointing at existed before the tower started collapsing and were just smoke from the fire in the floors above the impact point)

She also keeps stating that the numerical data matters in no way...As long as you FIRST learn WHAT happened...

I actually wanted to hear from the interviewer the amount of energy needed to evaporate ("dustify") the million tons of steel and concrete...

But she wouldn't let him say it!!!

And I cringe when she says in glee: "That's my favorite photo!!!"

LADY!!! This is a photo of thousands of people DYING!!!

Sorry monkey, and no disrespect either for being a believer, but the more I see of this woman the more I have to HATE her:

She is on some kind of weird self-promoting trip while circling the graves of thousands of people like a vulture...To make a BUCK!!!

So yeah....There is a reason why NIST never got back to her on her claims:

It's because Dr.Woods AND her claims are INSANE!!!

Just watch the end of the video NickyNice posted and tell us about how all the debris from the collapse just "evaporated"...

Or were all those photos where you see the rubble stacked like 50 meters deep (and that's above the many meters below ground) photoshopped fakes?

Sorry to sound a bit angry about all this...It's not directed at you monkey...

It's directed at Dr. Wood...

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 00:34:49“conspiracy” is a real thing and has occurred numerous times throughout history. Its current negative connotation is a result of propaganda. As political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith says: “The CIA's campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time”.

It's rather meaningless to say that "conspiracy" has occurred numerous times throughout history without a better definition of what we mean by the term. Governments have secret programs, and groups of people do come together to plan and commit crimes. Was the Manhattan Project a conspiracy? Was Enron a conspiracy?

If we take a wider definition, I certainly believe conspiracies happen, all the time. For example, I believe cops cover up cases of police misdoings (bad shootings and the like). In cases of conflict (war, revolution, civil war, etc.) there's definitely propaganda and disinformation spread by various governments and other interested parties about what the different sides are doing. But can you point to any well-established historical "conspiracy" that resembles what Dr. Wood is suggesting?

"Conspiracies are real"
"This is a conspiracy"
"Therefore this is real"

....um, no. :grin:

monkey424, the things you said in your last post are almost word for word the exact same things believers say about the most ridiculous things.
"I'm usually a skeptic", "(s)he's the victim of a smear campaign", "(s)he's only presenting facts", etc. etc.
This is what people say, whether it's about Bigfoot, or Aliens, or Chemtrails.

The most important thing you said was this: "Dr Judy Wood's research has resonated with me."
That's the problem right there. It's why people like Wood actually get to sell their books to thousands of people.

The stuff Wood says is ONLY convincing until you hear somebody from the other side answer her claims. Just a quick look at the photo page linked to earlier in the thread nicely demonstrates how wrong Wood actually is about basic stuff.

I think instead of going public and trying to make people actually believe her theory she should have just sold the script to Hollywood. 

There have been other nine-eleven movies so it's not "too soon" and we all know Hollywood would pimp out their own mothers if the profit was right.

Personally I LOVE her theory (even though I could not be convinced to give it a shred of credibility)!

It's very imaginative and creative and just the sort of thing that would make a great movie (or maybe an HBO 10 part mini-series).

FULL DISCLAIMER: I have not watched the entire youTube (if I had that much time I'd record those lines for you monkey!!)

NickyNice. I was familiar with that video you posted by the way. It was an ambush interview by Greg Jenkins and is part of a smear campaign as documented here:

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=46&Itemid=60

I feel sorry for Judy Wood. She'd been set up to look foolish.

I'm not feeling the love from you guys on the Judy Wood thing. As far fetched as it may be, her theory resonates with me because the other theories just seem so much more ridiculous in comparison. Three buildings fell that day, one without a plane hitting it. They all fell in exactly the same way. It looked like a controlled demolition but we didn't see any flashes indicating explosives. Again, no plane hit Building 7. The bathtub structure and basements survived the impact of the buildings with barely a scratch and no flooding occurred despite initial concerns from engineers. The seismic data corresponds with the insignificant impact on the base structures and the lack of debris seen. The lack of debris was questioned by those present as mentioned by a news reporter. Numerous statements from first responders reveal a significant amount of dust was present. They could still breath so it wasn't smoke. Others reported cars spontaneously combusting. Some cars were about 1 km away from the site. Firefighters reported air tanks rupturing/exploding. Firefighters boots were also disintegrating yet no burnt feet were reported.

There is just too much here to dismiss. The devil is in the detail.

Experiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

Come on guys. It's not rocket science.

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 14:53:20
There is just too much here to dismiss.

Not at all, you just need to listen to the experts (instead of, you know, dismissing them). For example, that untrained laymen think it looks like a controlled demolition is completely meaningless. Do people who actually know about demolition have the same opinion?

Spoiler

No, they don't.

[close]

QuoteExperiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

(http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/cnc/images/e/e0/TeslaCoil.PNG/revision/latest/scale-to-width/250?cb=20090422120450)

Ah, that explains it. It was a Russian attack with Tesla coils!

If you can't sit down and have an interview about WHAT happened,  it's because you're full of it. He went toe to toe with her for all the world to see, and he made her look foolish. If it was a smear campaign it's because she's full of it, and he's trying to show the world. Believe what you want monkey, go on tour with her, buy her book, and invest in energy weapons now. If you watch that video for 3 minutes, it speaks for itself. She refuses to listen to what he has to say because she knows he's right. If she is right, why not sit down and prove it, instead of having Jesse the body Ventura...a fake wrestler, who has his own conspiracy show, talking on her video. Her seminars are filled with conspiracy believers, not scientists.

Did you also know she was fired from her job? I read that somewhere too.

I also found other conspiracy theory videos saying she's nuts and that she's wrong, and you should believe their conspiracy theory instead.

Again, this has nothing to do with you monkey, and my anger and judgement is not directed at you.

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 14:53:20
Experiments by John Hutchison trying to replicate the work of Nikola Tesla show that materials can do strange things when placed in an electrostatic field (generated by a Van de Graaff generator for example) and subjected to interfering electromagnetic radiation. Hurricane Erin could have provided an electrostatic field.

Come on guys. It's not rocket science.

Okay, now demonstrate the science that makes a giant energy weapon powered by Windy Tesla Coils disintegrate a skyscraper without any visible setup or equipment. You know, replicate the results seen on 9/11 on a smaller scale. That's science. Without experiments and testing of theories, it's just conjecture. If you can show me an energy weapon disintegrating boots and not feet, and destroying matter entirely, and creating fire without heat, then you will have my ear.

You see, science is replicable. If you have a result that is the same over a long period of time, and is demonstrable as a phenomenon, then you have a basis for a scientific theory. Dr. Wood has not built any energy weapon, or even demonstrated that such a weapon could possibly exist in real life. Her claims are bombastic, and completely anecdotal. You can't build a scientific theory like "The Government has Energy Weapons That They Fired At The WTC and Used Planes As a Distraction" without a significant grounding in actual science. Does Judy Wood build Energy Weapons? Does she even know if the things she is supposing are physically possible?

No. She spends most of her time flippantly dismissing other people's conspiracy theories, according to her website. I haven't seen any kind of actual scientific theory from her. Just:

"Stuff happened --> Ergo secret beam weapon, obviously. How stupid do you have to be to not believe in the secret beam weapon? It's called Star Wars!"

This reminds me of a lecture by a ufologist I once attended. He had a story about a farmer somewhere in the US, who heard some weird noises at night, and the next morning he found a piece of metal that he hadn't seen before. And no matter what, he was unable to bend this piece of metal.

So the lecturer concluded, this must clearly be extraterrestrial matter.

Spoiler

How about NO? I would bloody well hope that we can manufacture metal parts that cannot be bent by some random farmer who doesn't know anything about metallurgy. I'm sure the UFO explanation is more fun but that's what we have scifi books for.

[close]

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 14:53:20
Three buildings fell that day, one without a plane hitting it. They all fell in exactly the same way.

Did they? Are you an expert on what different forms of building collapse look like? Isn't it quite likely that different building collapses could look pretty similar (to the layman) even if the reasons aren't the same?

QuoteIt looked like a controlled demolition but we didn't see any flashes indicating explosives.

According to experts on building demolitions, it did not look like a controlled demolition, in particular wrt the distance of spreading debris, and the collapse starting in the middle or closer to the top rather than at the bottom.

QuoteThe bathtub structure and basements survived the impact of the buildings with barely a scratch and no flooding occurred despite initial concerns from engineers.

So what? "Initial concerns" (from engineers who probably had to make quick guesstimates based on incomplete information about the construction and what exactly happened in the collapse) would just mean they thought there was a risk. A risk is not a certainty.

Like so many of these other pieces of "evidence", there's nothing here to establish that there's anything weird about this in the first place.

QuoteThe seismic data corresponds with the insignificant impact on the base structures

... according to the analysis of one amateur with a pet theory.

Quoteand the lack of debris seen. The lack of debris was questioned by those present as mentioned by a news reporter.

Maybe random bystanders didn't have a realistic expectation for how much debris there should be? Maybe they didn't consider that a lot of it would fill the underground levels? Maybe it was obscured by dust clouds? Maybe it wasn't clearly visible from where they were standing, or they didn't get a sense of the true scale (perhaps confused by the disappearance of a major, familiar landmark). Come on! This is like saying that because you heard someone say "Huh, I thought it would rain", that's evidence that the government is manipulating the weather.

The fact is that photos and the long clean-up process show evidence of a great deal of debris,

QuoteNumerous statements from first responders reveal a significant amount of dust was present. They could still breath so it wasn't smoke.

Isn't that exactly what you would expect after a building has collapsed? The crushing of concrete, drywall and other materials would of course produce a significant amount of dust. Do a Google Image Search for "controlled demolition" and you'll see a ton of images with a "significant amount of dust" produced by the collapse (e.g. this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward%27s_Building#/media/File:Woodwards_building_Vancouver_demolition_2.jpg)).

QuoteOthers reported cars spontaneously combusting.

Spontaneously, or due to smoldering fires no one had noticed in the confusion finally flaring up?

QuoteSome cars were about 1 km away from the site.

OK? What does that prove?

How far might embers or burning debris from, let's just say, the three big fires in the skyscrapers be spread by the wind, or thrown by the collapse? I don't know; do you?

But I also doubt the claim in the first case. I see references to claims having been made based on photos that appear to show cars that have clearly been towed, probably away from the immediate site and left temporarily along nearby roads.

QuoteFirefighters reported air tanks rupturing/exploding.

Without more detail, it's impossible to say whether that's weird or completely expected.

QuoteFirefighters boots were also disintegrating yet no burnt feet were reported.

Firefighters' boots melting seems to me to be one of the least surprising things imaginable as they have to clamber over the wreckage of a collapsed, recently burning building. As for no burnt feet being reported:

1) The point of the boots is to protect their wearers. Just like the front of a car crumples to reduce the impact for the driver and passengers, their destruction could very well be by design.
2) Maybe the firefighters noticed their feet getting hot and moved away before they got burns, but not before the boots were ruined? Avoiding getting burned seems like a pretty basic part of being a firefighter.
3) Is there even a public, centralized registry that breaks down injuries to the level of "burnt feet"?
4) Isn't it possible that with all the death and the serious injuries suffered, firefighters considered minor burns not worth reporting?

I mean, I don't know. I'm no expert and I haven't looked into this specific detail; these are just the first things that spring to mind. The point is that the assertion is so weak, full of holes and has so many possible explanations that unless you're already convinced there's something mysterious going on, it just doesn't help prove anything.

QuoteThe devil is in the detail.

Indeed.

QuoteCome on guys. It's not rocket science.

We can agree on that, at least! It really is not rocket science. Or any kind of science, for that matter.

This whole thing reminds me a lot of the Ancient Aliens believers.

Look, the ancient Mayans made this thing that looks exactly like a spaceship (or a bird)!  How could they have done this??

Well... perhaps it was a toy bird for a small child to play with?  Perhaps it was a depiction of a bird by a [admittedly shitty] artist?  Nah... it HAS to be aliens!  There's simply NO other explanation [because we refuse to listen to anything that doesn't support our own theories!].

2000 years from now some future culture will find a toy Millennium Falcon and make the assumption that aliens had visited us. 

How could it be anything else?

As far as:

Quote from: monkey424 on Wed 15/04/2015 14:53:20I feel sorry for Judy Wood. She'd been set up to look foolish.

Don't feel bad for her! 

She's getting exactly what she wanted. 

Publicity and money.  Win/win.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 10/04/2015 12:27:21
... Religious shit heads murdered a few thousand people in the name of their peaceful religion.

Well said Darth.

Would anybody here buy a used car from Dr. Wood?

So those cars that mysteriously caught fire blocks away...was that because they tested the weapon on a Nissan Maxima first? Or because the weapon malfunctioned and hit some cars far from the real target? Or they decided to destroy cars blocks away because it was so much fun destroying the towers that they got trigger happy and couldn't control themselves?

how could cars blocks away ignite, but not in between?

Is the weapon so awesome that it can destroy one car at a time. Does it have a laser pointer setting and a giant block long setting?

The flight recordings of the terrorists on the plane were faked?

The planes that crashed into the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania were faked?

The airports were involved in the conspiracy?

All the people that lost loved ones on those planes are fake?

Why not just plant bombs on every floor of those towers and say that the terrorists did it?

The planes were real but the energy weapon was just to make sure the buildings collapsed?

Yeah...the energy weapon makes way more sense.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Wed 15/04/2015 20:55:00
So those cars that mysteriously caught fire blocks away...was that because they tested the weapon on a Nissan Maxima first? Or because the weapon malfunctioned and hit some cars far from the real target? Or they decided to destroy cars blocks away because it was so much fun destroying the towers that they got trigger happy and couldn't control themselves?

That Nissan Maxima was KEY to the Government's plan. They needed to destroy it in suspicious circumstances, otherwise who knows what untold damage it could do to their cover story?

I read another perfect example of how conspiracy theorists' points can seem remarkable at first, only to utterly collapse when you actually do a bit more research.

After the terrorists hit Charlie Hebdo, they fled in a car. At some point they had to switch cars, and police found a passport in the car they left behind, "conveniently" lying right there on the seats, pretty much out in the open. Conspiracy crackpots of course jumped on that, remarking how strange it is for the terrorists to leave a passport behind, right for the cops to find. Up to this point, that's indeed weird, and could reasonably give you pause. However, that's exactly what terrorists on the run do once the borders are closed: they are making sure that their families are getting the reward money from the terrorist organizations.
I just found it interesting how a suspicious anomaly like that suddenly has a perfectly rational explanation.

I don't think the "evidence" is trivial. Why trivialize it? (I say "evidence" in quotation marks because that seems to be the fashion these days). As I said, the devil is in the detail. If you are quick to dismiss and trivialize data then I don't believe you are actually looking at the data in the first place.

No one has addressed Building 7 yet. That's the one that no plane hit! I don't think for one second that the building fell as a result of a miscellaneous fire as NIST would have us believe.

What does the evidence tell us about Building 7. It barely made a sound when it came down according the the seismic data. Witnesses nearby attest to that. A firefighter remarked "If the building collapsed, why don't I remember the sound of it?" The quiet nature of the building coming down is also captured in the sound recording on video footage. It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks!

If you're going to respond to this post, respond to Building 7. Do you believe a fire caused it to fall? It would be the first ever fire induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building in history!

And speaking of history..

--------------------------------

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla

Nikola Tesla was a brilliant scientist and inventor. He gave the world AC electricity, electric motors, radio, remote control, x-rays and lasers. He also attempted to build a system to enable wireless communications, however funding was cut when it was discovered that the system would apparently also harness limitless free energy (a conflict of interest with the investor).

Tesla also claimed to have worked on plans for a directed energy weapon from the early 1900s until his death. (See the Wikipedia link above).

When Tesla died in 1943 the FBI seized all of Tesla's belongings including papers still classified by the US government.

I'll leave it to you to speculate on what the government did next with Tesla's documents. I don't know so don't ask me.

--------------------------------

One rhetorical question for you all..

Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 19/04/2015 12:18:37No one has addressed Building 7 yet. That's the one that no plane hit! I don't think for one second that the building fell as a result of a miscellaneous fire as NIST would have us believe.

I had some trees in my backyard.  One of them needed to come down (it was too big and was in danger of damaging my house).  I used a chainsaw (thinking this would be the best way to go about it) and calculated that if I cut a certain way it would fall a certain way (y'know, in my many years of tree-cutting I deduced all that).  Well about half-way through the trunk the tree started to tip (oddly enough it tipped in another direction than I thought it would - so much for my calculations!).  The entire thing came down tearing up the roots (even pulling most of them out of the ground) and some of the upper branches came in contact with another tree.  Didn't seem to do too much damage that I could see.  Well, a few weeks later, that other tree started dying (leaf rot, etc).  About a week later I was able to push the tree over by hand.

I knew right away that I was being targeted by an energy weapon of some kind :D

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 19/04/2015 12:18:37Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

That's not a valid argument.  That's like theists telling atheists that they have to prove that god doesn't exist.  The burden of proof falls on Dr. Wood's shoulders, not her detractors.

Note to everyone:
Stay on topic, and no moderating if you're not a moderator, please. If you think someone has crossed a line, use the Report to Moderator button, otherwise let people debate.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Sun 19/04/2015 13:40:11

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 19/04/2015 12:18:37Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

That's not a valid argument.  That's like theists telling atheists that they have to prove that god doesn't exist.  The burden of proof falls on Dr. Wood's shoulders, not her detractors.

(http://i.imgur.com/IUqKxhF.png)

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 19/04/2015 12:18:37
What does the evidence tell us about Building 7. It barely made a sound when it came down according the the seismic data. Witnesses nearby attest to that. A firefighter remarked "If the building collapsed, why don't I remember the sound of it?" The quiet nature of the building coming down is also captured in the sound recording on video footage. It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks!

If you're going to respond to this post, respond to Building 7. Do you believe a fire caused it to fall? It would be the first ever fire induced collapse of a steel-frame high-rise building in history!

I still don't know whatthe seismic data on such a collapse would look like or if it would register above the normal background noise of Manhatten...

Witnesses nearby were wandering around shell-shocked and in a semi-coherent state...I have seen the videos of attempted interviews with the people coming out of the dust cloud...They are zoned out on autopilot...

"A firefighter remarked..."...Give us his name and please link us to this remark, otherwise it is exactly the same as every other urban myth of "My mate's mate swears this is a true story"...

"It should have sounded like it was raining dump trucks"...Do you have a comparitive recording using the same instruments under the same conditions and at the same distance to compare this with? I don't know what a building falling down sounds like. I don't know how fast it fell. I don't know if it slowly bended into the ground or  pancaked...Do you?

NYC is built on Bedrock,  perhaps this was a factor with the seismic readings...not that I believe a word that comes out of her mouth. Her favorite words are snowball and poof.

So where was this energy weapon pointing from? The sky? The top of another building?

How large would this weapon have to be in order for it to do what the Doc is telling us?

The buildings started collapsing from where the planes hit the building, not from the top down. So is this where the weapon was pointed, at the points of impact? Was it pointed from the ground up?

All of this is about making money and her book.

You mentioned that no steel-frame building has ever collapsed in history, and that it is impossible for a fire to bring one down. What about if two giant 110 story buildings collapsed next to it first, and then it caught fire?

Just because she can't put two and two together doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. She's saying that an energy weapon that doesn't exist, made two giant 110 story buildings disappear in seconds. Just watch the video I posted again, and you can see within minutes that she has no clue what she's talking about. She gets up and leaves for a reason, because she's sitting down with someone that can answer her questions instead of one of her followers.

Again:
Since this is a potentially inflammatory area;
* Stay on topic!
* Avoid one liners that don't contribute!
* If you want to write silly jokes, go to the rumpus room!
* Be extra polite when debating!

Thank you.

Did I really say something wrong?

What did I say that anyone here would get mad at?

Nothing I said is directed at anyone here. What silly joke did I make?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 19/04/2015 12:18:37
Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?

Yes.

I am absolutely certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used.

For that matter, I am also absolutely certain that the event wasn't caused by invisible three-eyed aliens from Pluto. Note, however, that all the evidence you've posted is consistent with the hypothesis that the event was in fact caused by invisible three-eyed aliens from Pluto. So, I would be interested in any evidence or arguments that does support the hypothesis of an energy weapon, and does not support the hypothesis of aliens from Pluto.

First of all Monkey, thanks for getting everyone engaged in the forums.  There was recently a discussion about how quite things are around here now days.  Thanks.

Now for some levity and a video we can all sit back and enjoy.  Radiant you can fast forward to 6:10 for the evidence you seek.   

https://vimeo.com/50941741

If that don't put a simle on everyone's face ... :-D

Quote from: NickyNyce on Sun 19/04/2015 19:53:44
Did I really say something wrong?

What did I say that anyone here would get mad at?

Nothing I said is directed at anyone here. What silly joke did I make?

Hehe, relax buddy, it wasn't aimed at you.
I've already had to remove some posts here, and had concerns expressed in pm's regarding the tone in this thread. It's just a bit sensitive territory, is all.
You'll know when I direct my remarks at you :=

Sorry Andail, I thought about this afterwards and realized it might not have been me.

Monkey does have a tough job here and doesn't have much help on his side besides Dr. Woods and RickJ's video, which is perfectly placed...lol

Hi!
Like some people before me, I find this thread very interesting and entertaining, and I prefer to just watch and not to participate in the debate. I have not seen the long clip with Dr. Judy, and perhaps this is addressed there, but I would like to know more about the motives! For, me the official explanations of the causes and the motives behind the events feel very believable (and also idiotic, ofcours). But if the planes didn't cause the buildings to collapse, and if it was an energy weapon, who ordered the attack? And if it was the U.S., why? Please elaborate on this since I'm very curious (or if Judy speaks of this in the clip, please summarise (since I very seldom have 2 hours to watch youtube clips)) !

I haven't watched the original video (no point), but I have watched the interview by Dr. Jenkins.
I recommend you watch it, because it nicely illustrates science vs. pseudoscience.

-Her main line of reasoning is akin to "moon landing is fake because no stars in pictures" (or the classic "we'd expect x but see y")
-Holding a still frame from a video that shows debris raining down, says she sees dust going up
-Hypothesizes an energy weapon that needs less energy to "remove/dustify" steel than is required to evaporate it but has no idea of the type of weapon or type of energy, says it's not important
-Doesn't want to be "distracted" by basic calculations about how much energy would be required
-Claims there's no debris after destruction of building when there's copious amounts

Quote from: RickJ on Sun 19/04/2015 20:07:16
First of all Monkey, thanks for getting everyone engaged in the forums.  There was recently a discussion about how quite things are around here now days.  Thanks.

Now for some levity and a video we can all sit back and enjoy.  Radiant you can fast forward to 6:10 for the evidence you seek.   

https://vimeo.com/50941741

If that don't put a simle on everyone's face ... :-D

HAHAHAHA!!! That was AWESOME!!!

I've never seen that one before: It was quite dark for a Looney Tunes...and HILARIOUS!!!

Cheers for the link!

Has anyone investigated the potential use of this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator)

Quote from: Eric on Mon 20/04/2015 20:00:33
Has anyone investigated the potential use of this? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla%27s_oscillator)

Yup!

THESE GUYS DID... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_%282006_season%29#Episode_60_.E2.80.93_.22Earthquake_Machine.22)

Quote from: Yahoo Answers
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110315120912AAtbCUr

Concrete does not burn, but somewhere around 1200 degrees it will produce steam to become calcium oxide.

Ca(OH)2 -> CaO + H2O

Calcium oxide is a white powder which melts at nearly 3000 C.
Source(s):
I'm a chemist!
Roger S · 4 years ago

It's my understanding that the towers were built with a concrete core that housed the elevators and utilities and that also carried a good portion of the vertical load. The combustion of the jet fuel heated the concrete enough to fail and the weight of the building did the rest. 

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Quote attributed to Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher.

-------------------------------------

Once you accept the 9/11 evidence and realise it is irrefutable then you'll see that there is a bigger picture. I'm not interested in debate here. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of opinion. The WTC buildings simply could not have fallen as quickly as they did using a progressive collapse model. You can't argue with this let alone the other evidence. You'd be fooling yourself if you did.

-------------------------------------

The bigger picture goes beyond Dr Wood's work. It involves the "9/11 truth movement" and developments in the field of cold fusion and free energy.

Groups and individuals are trying to undermine and suppress the work of Dr Wood. One such individual is Steven E. Jones who was involved in early research of cold fusion. The most famous cold fusion claims were made by electrochemists Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. Steven E. Jones, a reviewer on behalf of the US Department of Energy, denounced Fleischmann and Pons work and effectively threw a spanner in the works for further cold fusion developments. That same individual is affiliated with the so called "9/11 truth movement" and actively denounces Dr Wood's theory in favor of his own misleading theory based on thermite being used to destroy the WTC buildings.

As mentioned before, a significant amount of Tritium was found at the site (but not ionising radiation) which is indicative of a cold fusion process.

This video covers the above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lASyX1SP2UM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

-------------------------------------

Recent developments in cold fusion:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline

-------------------------------------

In regards to directed energy weapons; these have been a focus of US defense programs initiated by the Reagan administration in the 1980s.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative

-------------------------------------

A press release of the legal proceedings of the Dr Wood vs NIST case..

http://www.prlog.org/10260429-911-qui-tam-case-will-have-its-day-in-court.html

This article highlights the legal loopholes of the case. From what I understand, the NIST report must by law be based on truth and not include erroneous statements, however information can be omitted. NIST denied Dr. Wood's RFC, admitting they did not analyze the collapse.

The report did not actually analyze the building collapse!

One interesting note from the article; one of the defendants, Applied Research Associates (ARA), were one of the contractors for the NIST reports and are also a significant developer and manufacturer of Directed Energy Weapons and/or components. This therefore would be one example of where there was a "conflict of interest" in producing a truthful report.

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 21/04/2015 11:36:14
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Just because new truths may be ridiculed, doesn't mean that anything that's ridiculed is therefore a new truth.

(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyaqanjmpu1qdl7ho.gif)

Pons and Fleischmann...! And free energy.

monkey424, before continuing down this rabbit hole, please read this primer about conspiracy theories (https://davidkramer.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/how-to-create-a-great-conspiracy-theory/), if only to understand the reactions to your claims.

monkey424, I think you are making a mistake, which is quite usual for people infatuated with particular topic or theory: you keep throwing in some random data here, which is supposedly familiar to you, but have you questioned how difficult and time-consuming that would be to properly examine and investigate all those links and theories for people who are seeing this for the first time in their lives?

You can't expect someone to just trust you because you linked an article filled with scientific terms and big names in it. One would have to assign a good amount of time to study the topic, - which may require read and understand a lot of scientific material, - and be able to rationally judge whether the statements are correct or wrong (this applies to you too, BTW).

Throwing more and more questionable arguments, articles and stuff will only lead to people get wary of this talk and ignore what you say completely (and that would be a natural reaction).

To actually get a grip of people's attention (and earn some trust) you would need to take just 1 (one) thesis, discuss and prove it to the end, showing by example that the rest of the theory deserves time to spend on it.
Instead of this, you are just adding to stockpile of unproven claims. This will not end well, regardless of whether they are true or false.


PS. Unlike possible belief, posting quotes like you did with Dr. Schopenhauer, produce a reaction quite opposite to desired...

Monkey, the article about the court case you linked says that it was dismissed. This means that the party bring suit failed to show that they had legal standing or failed to show the slightest chance of prevailing. 

As I pointed out in my earlier post concrete disintegrates into powser when heated to 1200F.  It weakens long before that as the different materials it is comprised of have different thermal expansion coefficients.  You can test this yourself; just take a blow torch to any random concrete sidewalk and see how much time passes before chips start flying off in all directions.  A 747 holds about 40,000 gallons of jet fuel that burns at 1800F.

In the interview Dr Wood doesn't want to talk about her own assertions.  She doesn't want to talk about the magnitude of particle beam energy rerquired to do what she says it did.  She wave her hands around and says it's not important when it's plain and obvious that it is important.  She seem to me to be an incoherent nincompoop. :=

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 21/04/2015 11:36:14
Can anyone say for certain that a directed energy weapon wasn't used?!?
...
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
...
Once you accept the 9/11 evidence and realise it is irrefutable then you'll see that there is a bigger picture.
...
I'm not interested in debate here. As far as I'm concerned it's not a matter of opinion.

Monkey424, these statements unfortunately undermine - and nearly disqualify - your entire line of argument. It's slightly odd that you don't recognize them as rhetorical and logical fallacies, because they are almost universally known as such.

For instance, you have the onus probandi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof), which is when you make a claim, and then place the burden of proof on those who question it.

The truth quote above is a perfect example of a simple logical fallacy, where you imply that since A -> B, then B -> A, as in the claim "I shower, therefore I get wet". It may be tempting to reverse this by saying "I am wet, therefore I must have taken a shower", although this isn't a logical consequence (you could, for instance, have taken a bath or peed your pants or whatever).

You also have the proof by verbosity, which is when you, instead of discussing a topic point by point, overwhelm your opponents with copious
information and complex theories that are simply too time demanding for a person to bother dealing with. This is usually why conspiracy theorists are fans of websites of the format "1001 arguments against evolution" - they hope that the sheer quantity of arguments will deter anyone from questioning them.

Like Crimson Wizard said; take one argument at a time, and when people have responded to that (like the topic of how concrete deteriorates by heat) discuss the response instead of just linking to yet another video discussing yet another theory.

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 21/04/2015 11:36:14
The WTC buildings simply could not have fallen as quickly as they did using a progressive collapse model. You can't argue with this let alone the other evidence. You'd be fooling yourself if you did.

This reminds me of the biggest "fact" I have heard over the years about 9/11 which everyone who disbelieves the official version points out as the "smoking gun":

THE TOWERS COLLAPSED AT FREE-FALL SPEED!!!

SO many people heard this "fact" even just once back in the day and it seems that it was just one of those things that sticks in peoples' minds to the point where it can be so easily disproved to them dozens of times but the initial input of the idea will always win through over time. It seems they just forget admitting the claim was wrong when confronted with the TONS of data that disprove it and the original false claim retakes the throne of truth in their minds.

I have honestly given up even opening my mouth whenever somebody brings up this claim, and in many cases it is somebody I have already "convinced" that the claim is not true, AND they were blown away at the time to find out they had been duped!!!

This is one site I found just now, and I don't remember if it was the same one I used to show to people, but it's close enough:

CLICK HERE (http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm)

Here's a quote from the site that needs no further explanation for those who don't wish to read the whole thing:

Spoiler

(http://www.debunking911.com/pulledin.jpg) (http://www.debunking911.com/vpyc1j.jpg)

In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.

[close]

(If you do read the whole page you will find all the physics data which clearly shows the collapse happened at exactly the speed expected for a building of that structure and size)

Also the pictures I show here from the site debunk the whole "dustification" of all falling debris or the so-called "snowball" quite well I'd say...You can clearly see MAJOR portions of the building's girder structure falling all the way down to what is almost street level in the latter picture. Or were these just the pennies someone had left on their windowsill? :P

I'm a former nuclear safeguards wonk and this is literally the most conversing about tritium I've ever seen on a website not devoted to arms-control.

I just finished reading the original ACS paper studying the tritium readings.  (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xq88667#page-1)

I agree that the results fall in "strange, but not inconceivable" territory, and more importantly, all other proposed explanations for the tritium uptick would raise a host of other red-flags that I have yet to see.  Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

I really have no interest in the rest.  I just wanted to talk about tritium for a minute or two.

Quote from: KodiakBehr on Tue 21/04/2015 16:42:38
Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

I'm interested in what this particular part of your post meant:

Occam's Razor means that the least complicated explanation is usually the right one...

Does this mean you have a simple explanation for this material being present?

The linked article identifies three sources Exit Signs on the aircraft, time pieces, and scope mon gov weapons stored at the site.

Thank you all for giving me a case study to discuss in my Intro to Comm. Theory class today. We covered Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, in which he states that we don't really accept arguments based on rational applications of logic, but rather that we hear stories and then decide whether or not they are coherent and ring true to us.

Exit signs in the towers if I read correctly. Which could consist of 5 or more on each floor..times that by 220.

The thread that Khris provided is a step by step guide on this entire thread. Coincidence?

Quote from: Eric on Tue 21/04/2015 18:52:14
Thank you all for giving me a case study to discuss in my Intro to Comm. Theory class today. We covered Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm, in which he states that we don't really accept arguments based on rational applications of logic, but rather that we hear stories and then decide whether or not they are coherent and ring true to us.

This article may be useful for you (http://www.cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fallacies-that-make-you-wrong-more-than-you-think.html). It discusses, among other things, how people's belief is strengthened when they are shown evidence that their belief is provably wrong.

Speaking of which, the same site has an article on Conspiracy Theories That Are Shockingly Easy To Debunk (http://www.cracked.com/article_20466_5-conspiracy-theories-that-are-shockingly-easy-to-debunk.html), which actually includes this one as number three, and cites a number of interesting sources.

Quote from: Mandle on Tue 21/04/2015 17:11:18
I'm interested in what this particular part of your post meant:

Occam's Razor means that the least complicated explanation is usually the right one...

That is actually a (very common) misunderstanding of Occam's Razor. This misconception has become so common indeed, that almost everyone using Occam's Razor on the internet is doing it wrong; and that misconception/misuse has also moved into (scientific) literature as a result.

To explain, I'll add some quotes from this paper here (http://homes.cs.washington.edu/~pedrod/papers/dmkd99.pdf):

QuoteOccam's razor is often considered one of the fundamental tenets of modern science. In its original form, it states that "Nunquam ponenda est pluralitas sin necesitate," which, approximately translated, means "Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Tornay, 1938). It was formulated by William of Occam in the late Middle Ages as a criticism of scholastic philosophy, whose theories grew ever more elaborate without any corresponding improvement in predictive power. Today it is often invoked by learning theorists and KDD practitioners as a justication for preferring simpler models over more complex ones.

the second razor mentioned below corresponds to the common misconception (though represented in the article more scientifically and with different words).

QuoteAll the evidence reviewed in this article shows that, contrary to the second razor's claim, greater simplicity does not necessarily (or even typically) lead to greater accuracy.

-- more info in the hidden tag --

Spoiler

QuoteIf we accept the fact that the most accurate models will not always be simple or easily understandable, we should allow an explicit trade-off between the two. Systems that first induce the most accurate model they can, and then extract from it a more comprehensible model of variable complexity, seem a promising avenue.

QuoteThe second razor is often justied by pointing to its success in the "hard" sciences. (Although these arguments are fuzzier, they should still be addressed, because they form a large part of the razor's appeal.) A popular example comes from astronomy, where it favors Copernicus' model of the solar system over Ptolemy's. Ironically, in terms of predictive error the two models are indistinguishable, since they predict the same trajectories. Copernicus's model is preferable on the intrinsic merits of simplicity.
...
Another favorite example is relativity vs. Newton's laws. The following passage is from Cover & Thomas (1991):

QuoteIn the end, we choose the simplest explanation that is consistent with the observed data. For example, it is easier to accept the general theory of relativity than it is to accept a correction factor of c/r3 to the gravitational law to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, since the general theory explains more with fewer assumptions than does a "patched" Newtonian theory.

In fact, the general theory of relativity makes more assumptions than Newton's gravitational law, and is far more complex, so this cannot be the reason for preferring it. The preference comes from the fact that the c/r3 factor is a patch, applied to (over)fit the theory to a particular observation. As Pearl (1978) insightfully notes:

QuoteIt would, therefore, be more appropriate to connect credibility with the nature of the selection procedure rather than with properties of the final product. When the former is not explicitly known ... simplicity merely serves as a rough indicator for the type of processing that took place prior to discovery.

Yet another example is Maxwell's four concise and elegant equations of electromagnetism. In fact, these equations are concise and elegant only in the notation of differential operators that was introduced many years after his death. In their original form, they were long and unwieldy, leading Faraday to complain of their incomprehensibility, which precluded him from empirically testing them.

QuoteOccam's razor can be interpreted in two ways: as favoring the simpler of two models with the same generalization error because simplicity is a goal in itself, or as favoring the simpler of two models with the same training-set error because this leads to lower generalization error. This article found the second version to be provably and empirically false, and argued that in the first version simplicity is only a proxy for comprehensibility.

[close]

In short: Occam's Razor does not state that the simplest (least complex) explanation is usually (or likely) the right one. It states that when you have a fitting explanation, you should strive for the one that is easiest (to grasp), and you should try to take away clutter as much as possible without loosing accuracy. The answer lies in the version of a fitting model that is easiest to grasp, not in the simplest model itself.

If your model is wrong, no matter how simple it is, it will still be wrong. If your model is correct, no matter how complex it is, it is still correct (but can be made even more correct - and more generally applicable - by using Occam's Razor).




EDIT: I noticed that copying from the PDF mysteriously removed some characters...often the letter f (and it's close neighbour). Please just read around that.

Quote from: Mandle on Tue 21/04/2015 17:11:18

Quote from: KodiakBehr on Tue 21/04/2015 16:42:38
Regarding the tritium, I choose you, Occam's Razor.

Does this mean you have a simple explanation for this material being present?

It means I read the simple explanation posed by Semkow, Hafner, Parekh, Wozniak, Haines, Husain, Rabun and Williams, and found it to be plausible, although impossible to prove.

EDIT:  I stand corrected Misj'.  It appears Occam's Razor falls into the category of: things I should get out of the habit of casually dropping.  My sentiments remain, of course.  Fun-fact, the word "moot" is another one of those things that has been horribly misused contextually and I had to remove from my lexicon out of convenience.

 
The example about relativity misses the point but comes to the right conclusion anyway.  Relativity is a simpler and less convoluted theory of how time, space and matter work than is Newton's theory. Newton's theory seems to be simpler on the surface because it leaves a lot of things without explanation.  If one were to "patch" Newton's theory so that it explained everything as well as Relativity it would become extremely convoluted and complex.

There is a difference between complexity and difficulty.  For example Newton's theory is expressed using basic algebra and Einstein's theory is expressed using advanced calculus.  While it's true that algebra is easier to understand than calculus, it is not true that algebraic expressions are always less complex than ones represented in calculus.  In fact, quite often the opposite is true (anyone who studied electro-magnetic wave theory knows this). 

Applying Occam's Razor to model accuracy, as described in the link, is misguided IMHO.  It seems folks are conflating accuracy and correctness.  Newton's model is incorrect, as shown by the behavior of Mercury, not just inaccurate.  Creating a mathematical expressions to fit a given data set may be referred to as a model but it can only be characterized in terms of accuracy and not in terms of correctness.

@RickJ

I think you are making a few mistakes in your argument. The behavior of Mercury does not show that Newton's model is incorrect, it shows that it is not general. Newton's model accurately describes (relevant) events under a limited set of conditions (basically Earth), and the Mercury behavior shows that it fails when the conditions are changed. That in itself does not warrant the statement that Newton's model is incorrect. One could either chose to make a new model for the other conditions (which is bad practice) or 'patch' the existing model to fit other conditions (which is not necessarily bad, because it falls within the realm of 'when you find your model is incomplete you correct your model'). The reason why relativity is preferable is, because we already have a single unified model that (accurately) matches both (and more) conditions without the need for patching.

QuoteApplying Occam's Razor to model accuracy, as described in the link, is misguided IMHO.
...
Creating a mathematical expressions to fit a given data set may be referred to as a model but it can only be characterized in terms of accuracy and not in terms of correctness.

This goes against most of modern science in my opinion. First of all, a 'mathematical expression to fit a given data-set' may not only 'be referred to as a model', this is a model pur sang (pardon my French :)). That is the entire basis of (modern) mathematics and statistics. But more importantly, when a model accurately describes our data (based on many learning-sets) then we can make the assumption that it also has accurate predictive value about new data-sets; and as a result we may assume that our model is correct (until proven otherwise based on new data that it cannot cope with). Yes, we accept that our model may not be complete or entirely correct under (unknown, and possibly non-existing) future conditions; but as long as it both accurately describes and accurately predicts it should be considered correct. This is the fundamental concept of falsification in science (the example here uses mathematics and statistics, but applies to other fields of science in very much the same way).

EDIT: determining which model is correct if multiple models are equally accurate is of course another problem. And if that is what you mean by 'a model can only be characterized in terms of accuracy no in terms of correctness' then you are of course correct about that.




As for Wood, I think that the first half of her talk wasn't all that bad. All she claimed was that the current model does not accurately describe the data (this is something you can argue with of course), and that a unified model is needed. People should not object to this (though they might feel it's redundant). Things go wrong when she dismisses data (the planes) and has to make her model more complex to validate this ('they were a distraction') then has to make her model even more complex to argue that point (that the event was meticulously planned), and even more complex by adding data that is not related to the actual event of the towers falling to 'corroborate' this additional complexity (the hurricane). Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

Quote from: Misj' on Wed 22/04/2015 07:52:08Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

Yes, that is the key flaw here, and one of the main distinctions between science and pseudoscience.

I'm sorry if I'm presenting a lot of information here but it is quite a complex discussion. I'm trying to inform you of what I know and not get side-tracked. From the responses I'll try to address the main issues.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RickJ

From what I understand the court's decision to dismiss the case wasn't based on merit, i.e. the ruling did not actually address the evidence. The court ignored the evidence.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mandle

Interesting link you provided. The link includes an analysis by Dr Frank Greening. I found another article (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf) that points out that Greening is ignoring Newton's third law in his analysis (i.e. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction).

Judy Wood's analysis is here and is more scientifically satisfying.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RE: working from the data

Quote from: Misj' on Wed 22/04/2015 07:52:08
Also, in my opinion she does not work form the data, but towards a predetermined solution.

I believe she IS working from the data. Her main selling point is the data. The data stands on its own. Pseudoscience more accurately describes NIST's approach. They claim that the planes dislodged insulation (fireproofing) allowing the fires to do its damage. Where is their evidence that fireproofing was dislodged? Isn't this an assumption? What about Building 7 (which no plane hit)?

Link to NIST's NCSTAR 1 report.

http://911crashtest.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NIST.pdf

I also understand that NIST had constructed a model of one of the buildings and subjected it to twice the amount of alleged heat for twice the duration. The model didn't fail yet they still concluded that fire did it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

RE: tritium

Some healthy discussion of tritium here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Another piece of evidence I forgot to mention was the remains of a filing cabinet found in the debris â€" I believe it was the only filing cabinet found â€" a twisted ball of amalgamated metal and paper file folders. Apparently there was also paper money inside the twisted metal and was returned to the owner from Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lado_melted-metal-filing-cabinet-at-the_news

If the metal melted, why didn't the paper burn?

If steel-cap boots melted, why didn't feet burn?

If cars were destroyed, why was the metal affected but not paper?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 25/04/2015 08:33:19
If the metal melted, why didn't the paper burn?

If steel-cap boots melted, why didn't feet burn?

If cars were destroyed, why was the metal affected but not paper?

Oh come on, this is easy stuff.

1) The metal filing cabinet was found in the debris. To melt metal, you need only massive amounts of heat. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. The paper didn't burn because there was insufficient oxygen to burn the paper. Not to mention, the pressure and heat might have weakened the filing cabinet and crushed it into an unrecognizable mess, but might not have melted it.

2) The steel toe capped boots are designed to protect the feet. Either the people working didn't stand long enough for their feet to burn, or they did get burned and didn't notice. It's almost as if the steel toed boots are made to protect against this kind of thing, even at the expense of their own integrity. Gasp!

3) Superheated dust and ash particles landed on the cars, heated them up. Cars are a bigger target than pieces of paper, which could have been blown there by the wind. And there was a lot of burnt paper, too.

Now, how does all of this evidence point towards a fictional energy weapon again? You're doing exactly what conspiracy theorists are known to do. "But what about these additional other pieces of unrelated data!!!!?".

Prove the energy weapon can exist, then I'll take her seriously.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 25/04/2015 08:33:19
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mandle

Judy Wood's analysis is here and is more scientifically satisfying.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry mate...Oh and by the way: a belated Happy Birthday!!!

Yeah but sorry: I read the article in this link and the science was once again so airy-fairy and flawed that I couldn't take it seriously.

Here's one example:

Quote
(http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BBEpics/img_1479.jpg)

The alert observer will notice that much of the paper is covered with dust, indicating that this dust reached the ground after the paper did.

Sorry again, but male cows actually defecated all over this!!!

Apart from the fact that most of the visible papers are sitting on top of the dust with very little dust on their upper surfaces, even the ones that aren't obviously have much more dust under them than on top of them.

That's a NYC street curb we are looking at there and you can't even see where the sidewalk drops down to the road there is so much dust. I would hazard a crazy guess that the amount of dust under the papers is much greater than the amount on top of them in the few cases where the papers actually have dust on them...

So how did this dust get on top of those couple of papers??? Gee...maybe there was some wind blowing around? Or could somebody have walked by and kicked some dust onto the papers? Or .....actually...wait!!!

/me goes away to dust his living room as an experiment...

I started dusting my living room and at the same time threw some papers into the air. I came back a bit later and found that a lot of the dust had actually landed on top on the papers!!! It seems that dust can actually fall slower than a sheet of paper!!!

Now I'll admit that there is slightly less dust in my living room than was created by the WTC collapse, but I still think my small-scale experiment has some merit...

Of course this was just one example of a flaw in a long article but to even present it as "scientific data" at all just screams FRAUD in huge capital letters. I mean: why even include such "data" if the actual "science" was already doing so well?

I still don't get who pushed the button on this would be energy weapon and why.

Quote from: Lasca on Sat 25/04/2015 13:39:23
I still don't get who pushed the button on this would be energy weapon and why.

Dr. Wood would probably argue that the " Who" and the "Why" are not important enough to even consider until you can define "What" actually happened...

Quote from: Mandle on Sat 25/04/2015 14:44:45
Dr. Wood would probably argue that the " Who" and the "Why" are not important enough to even consider until you can define "What" actually happened...

She hasn't even demonstrated the "How" yet, I don't think she'll ever get to the "Who" and "Why".

(Seriously, I've scoured her website for any kind of scientific testing of energy weapons that can "melt" metal but leave organic material untouched, nothing. All she does is say "Nuh uh!" to other conspiracy theorists.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y2LxmESkV0Q

Very graphic video, be warned. Everything I see in this video makes my stomach churn and it has nothing to do with energy weapons. I'm very sorry to post this terrible video, but this does explain some things that happened that day. Not that any video you watch and listen to is true, but after watching it, it just puts things back in perspective for me. I see nothing except a horrible tragedy that Dr. Woods is trying to make money on.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Sat 25/04/2015 15:48:08Dr. Woods is trying to make money on.

Ding ding ding.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 25/04/2015 08:33:19
RE: working from the data

I believe she IS working from the data. Her main selling point is the data. The data stands on its own.

She dismisses a large piece of data (the planes) based on a single argument 'it is a distraction'. Now there are very valid arguments to dismiss data; however, the distraction-argument is never such. I can therefore not conclude otherwise than to say that she dismisses data because it distracts from her hypothesis.


ps. as for NIST, that is irrelevant. The invalidness of that report (if so) does not - in any way - mean that Wood is allowed to disregard data in favor of her hypothesis, nor does it argue in favor of her hypothesis in general. At best it argues that we still don't know what really happened.

Following recommendations of Andail and Crimson Wizard I'm going to hold back on overloading you with more information and instead try and address your individual concerns.

---------------------------------------------------------

Scav

1) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn?

2) Re: Steel-cap boots. As Dr Wood says: "When your oven starts to melt you know the turkey is done!" Why were there no reports of burnt feet?

3) Re: Toasted cars. Was the dust superheated? No witnesses reported this. In fact they reported the dust was cold / warm. However the cars definitely appeared to be on fire. But organic things like trees, paper, etc were not affected. Why?

This evidence is among an extensive amount of evidence / phenomena that can't be explained by the official story. But as I've mentioned, experimental scientist John Hutchinson can replicate all these effects using Tesla type technology.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/

---------------------------------------------------------

Mandle

Did you read the billiard ball example? I think Dr Wood does an excellent job of explaining the physics so most people will understand. The two tall buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) collapsed straight down; from the top and straight down. They didn't topple. NIST didn't actually analyse the collapse, but it is inferred to be a progressive or "pancake" type collapse. This is like dominos falling, however unlike dominos which are free to fall, each collapsing building level should be met by a reaction (upward) force of the underlying level / columns. It is unlikely that fires weakened every single column in the building. There should have been some resistance as the collapse was progressing downwards.

Now, regarding dust and paper. I actually agree with you. There are indeed other ways dust could have come to rest on those papers. One thing you and Dr Wood don't mention is that maybe that paper landed there long before the dust came on the scene. It's possible. Then again, the sky is pretty hazy. And I believe the dust was suspended there for many weeks. That is unusual.

Nevertheless, your dust experiment inspired me to conduct my own, being the science nerd that I am. For this experiment I used flour, assuming this is similar to concrete dust. I went up to the balcony and dropped a sheet of paper and threw the flour up in the air. The flour hit the ground first. But your experiment has merit too. You have demonstrated that living room dust is similar to the dust in the hazy photograph, i.e. they are both composed of very fine particles that stay suspended in the air.

---------------------------------------------------------

Lasca

I can tell the suspense is killing you. Sorry, I don't know who did it. Maybe try following the money. I believe the US military and affiliated businesses are raking in the profits from the ongoing "war on terror".

---------------------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

I don't believe Dr Wood's grand scheme is to make a profit from this tragedy. She's a scientist at the end of the day, not a politician.

---------------------------------------------------------

Misj'

The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane? Remember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building. We all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed. Just watch any YouTube video on a plane crash and you'll see how vulnerable they are. Eg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:09
Mandle

The two tall buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) collapsed straight down; from the top and straight down. They didn't topple.

The twin towers were designed (as are all modern skyscrapers) to collapse downwards into their footprints if ever a fatal structural flaw happened. If skyscrapers were NOT designed this way then the entire city of NY (or any other major city) would just be a dominoes chain waiting to happen: If all the buildings could topple over then just imagine the carnage from this event. No...sorry but people already thought about how to stop this from happening...

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:09
Mandle

Nevertheless, your dust experiment inspired me to conduct my own, being the science nerd that I am. For this experiment I used flour, assuming this is similar to concrete dust. I went up to the balcony and dropped a sheet of paper and threw the flour up in the air. The flour hit the ground first. But your experiment has merit too. You have demonstrated that living room dust is similar to the dust in the hazy photograph, i.e. they are both composed of very fine particles that stay suspended in the air.

Oh man...I just gotta say...I'm sorry and at the same time killing myself laughing...but mostly sorry!!!

I didn't actually do the dusting experiment in my living room that I said I did. It was kind of intended as a bit of tongue-in-cheek humour about dodgy science, and I thought that it was obvious that I was joking about it. So...sorry again for that but....does there happen to be a video of you performing the flour experiment? That would be AWESOME to see!!!

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:09
Misj'

The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane? Remember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building. We all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed. Just watch any YouTube video on a plane crash and you'll see how vulnerable they are. Eg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_NT43aJ_Jw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Are you actually suggesting here that the planes hitting the towers was completely faked?!

This is SO disrespectful to every one of the many thousands of people who lost someone important in their lives who was on one of those planes that I cannot even fathom it...

Are all the people reading off the names of lost loved-ones at the anniversary memorial ceremonies hired actors???

Or did you mean something different?

SIDENOTE:

I have noticed a rather large inconsistancy in the way the "impossible" survival of "the bathtub" and the "impossible" collapse of "Tower 7" are treated:

Let me get this straight:

(A) The bathtub walls could not possibly have survived the impact of both towers collapsing.

(B) There was no logical reason for Tower 7 to collapse.

In case (A) the bathtub walls were buried underground and reinforced massively...In fact: Why would they have NOT been designed to withstand the collapse of the towers??? Did the engineers that designed the entire structure think that the towers were going to stand forever like the Pyramids and never have to get replaced??? Or did they think that when the towers finally became obsolete that they were going to be taken apart one rivet at a time instead of detonated in a controlled demolition? Anyway...I digress: The bathtub walls survived which it seems was highly suspicious but...

In case (B) the collapse of Tower 7 was impossible to explain even given that millions of tons of rubble had just rained down a few blocks away, even though this structure was above ground and not underground secured by millions of tons of earth and concrete...AND was closer to the collapse than the bathtub walls...

I think this is a huge inconsistancy!

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:091) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn

This is flawed thinking. 

Rub your hands together and it'll generate heat without fire/flame.  The sheer amount of friction created from the collapse of those building would have generated tremendous amounts of heat/energy (enough to say, vaporize human beings).

Also; consider that there might have been fire elsewhere which caused the heat but didn't come in contact with the filing cabinet.  Think of a fireplace in a home.  The fire is in one area but the heat fills the entire house.  One year around Christmas I put a candle too close to the fireplace and the wax completely melted leaving the [un-burned] wick behind.  Not really the same thing but you get the point.

I find nothing fantastical or mysterious about metal melting and not burning paper.

Dr. Wood just claims it's impossible, and won't take the time to actually prove it's impossible, because that would only serve to disprove her theory by either showing that it CAN be done (melt metal without burning paper) or that the tech for he mystery weapon isn't possible.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:09
Scav

1) Re: Filing cabinet. You reckon heat melted the filing cabinet? Ok. Heat from where? Fire? Fire needs oxygen to burn, so i suspect there would have been oxygen present. To burn paper, you need heat + oxygen. So why didn't the paper burn?

Look here (http://amhistory.si.edu/september1/collection/record.asp?ID=40).

Hey look at that picture, looks like it didn't melt, it was just charred and crushed. Like a pancaked Baked Alaska. Can you show me a picture of an actually melted filing cabinet to compare?

And what's THIS (http://amhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=8)? Burnt and crushed together paper with unburnt paper in the middle? OH MY. Something sandwiched between those bits could have been protected by the outer layer!

Quote2) Re: Steel-cap boots. As Dr Wood says: "When your oven starts to melt you know the turkey is done!" Why were there no reports of burnt feet?

Give me evidence the steel in the boots was melting, and not the soles. Besides which, a firefighter's boots have multiple layers of insulation. Their boots are designed to protect them, even if the outer layers of the boots (perhaps the rubber in the soles?) loses integrity.

Quote3) Re: Toasted cars. Was the dust superheated? No witnesses reported this. In fact they reported the dust was cold / warm. However the cars definitely appeared to be on fire. But organic things like trees, paper, etc were not affected. Why?

Wood is an insulator, and especially in a place like New York, it's pretty wet, it doesn't catch fire easily. Metal (perhaps on CARS) is a conductor.

You've given me no evidence it was a energy beam. And the website is a nightmare to navigate, it has no clear direction, it's the diary of a madman.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 27/04/2015 14:26:09The reason she doesn't focus on the planes is not because they appear to be a distraction but because there is not enough evidence related to the planes.

The following is a transcript from the original youtube video you cited:

Quote
2h10m
Question: You haven't gone into ehm about the airplanes.

Wood: Well, good question. As I like to say: the towers turned to dust. Airplanes can't make buildings turn to dust. Real airplanes can't, and neither can fake airplanes. So they're a distraction. But often people have - they've been taught that there's been airplanes that hit...what happened to the passengers what happened to the airplanes. I don't get into that because it's such a distraction. But it is an interesting question. What happened to the airplanes? – Joey Moore, that flight attendant that flew out of Boston that morning he saw the flight attendants of flight 175. That was the last time he saw them.

Someone in the audience mumbles.

Wood: The flight attendants of flight 175? – He saw them that morning in Boston. The one's that supposedly ended up in the south tower, flight 175.

Question: They didn't really go into the plane?

Wood: Yes, but he doesn't know where they went after that. We don't know.

She herself stated that the reason she doesn't go into the planes is, because they are a distraction. It's her words, not mine. Now, her argumentation as to why they're a distraction is as followed: airplanes can't make buildings turn to dust. However, the turning to dust is supported only by her hypothesis (not in my opinion by the evidence she presents). So the reason they are a distraction - and should be ignored according to her - is, because they do not fit within her hypothesis.

Quote... because there is not enough evidence related to the planes. Think about it. Did we see any wreckage? Apparently a landing wheel or two were discovered at ground zero somewhere (in addition to some guy's passport). But where was the rest of the plane?

Take a step back for a minute.

I have never seen any physical evidence of the twin towers. I have seen photographic evidence but can they be trusted? - I have also never seen any physical evidence of the planes flying into the twin towers only photographic evidence. But you are now telling me – and Wood is hinting to it in her answer – that this photographic evidence can't be trusted because the planes were fake.

Now if we assume that the photographic evidence of the event are tainted and cannot be trusted. Then why rely on photographic evidence at all (her entire argument for dustification is based on photographs)? – Either you have to trust it all or mistrust it all, or you have to have a very good reason not to trust specific parts while trusting others. In this case her reason is solely based on them not fitting her hypothesis.

QuoteWe all saw a plane fly into the tall building, like a knife through butter, but is this actually possible? Judy Wood and others assert that it isn't. You'd expect to see some resistance from the concrete and steel structure resulting in some distortion / wreckage of the plane, regardless of it's speed.

Do I understand you correctly when I conclude that you state that: rather than a distraction, the – apparently fake – planes are a cover-up?


EDIT:

QuoteRemember, a plane did not hit Building 7, suggesting that maybe you don't need planes to demolish a building.

I think that most people here agree that throughout history there has been ample proof that - under the right conditions - buildings can be destroyed without the need for a plane. That in itself is, however, not really an argument to proof that when a plane and a building try to occupy the same space, said plane cannot be the cause of the collapse of said building.

These are two good examples of preferring urban legends over fact checking.

"Buildings topple over". Yes, in cartoons they do, but to expect anything resembling a real-life skyscraper to topple over belies a complete ignorance of the structural physics involved. No, buildings do not topple like that.
"Wood burns easily". No, it actually doesn't. As anyone who has tried to light a campfire can attest, it's not exaclty easy to get wood to burn; that's why you use e.g. pieces of paper to start the fire.

Essentially, whenever you see a statement like "I'd expect X to happen but..." you know whoever said that hasn't bothered to do basic fact checking.

You are also forgetting that tens of thousands of people witnessed these planes hitting the towers with their own eyes. Even people inside the towers watched the planes hit, and some of them escaped to tell about it. People from miles and miles away saw these planes and knew something wasn't right due to their flight path.

Nothing like this has ever happened before, and this is the perfect breeding ground for conspiracies to pop up, because there is nothing to compare it to. Apparently Dr. Woods is the savior of the universe, and will tell everyone about it when you buy her book. Was she standing there that day when the planes hit? Was she there when people were climbing the rubble looking for survivors?

Let's face it, some things that happened on that day are not easily explainable, but that does not mean that energy weapons did this. You still have not answered my question about where this weapon was, and where it was pointed. The towers collapsed from the points of impact, not from the top. So the energy weapon thing makes no sense at all. Fire fighters boots were hot and melting...yep, I would expect that. That is not strange at all. The ground was hot and smoking for weeks after the collapse. Out of all the people that watched those towers come down(tens of thousands), nobody has said a word about an energy weapon or that something looked fishy. But Dr. Woods says they were all fooled and are too stupid to see what really happened. There is an old saying...There's a sucker born every day...and people like Dr. Woods, prey on that.

You also mention that they found some pieces of the plane. Did you expect anyone to find all of it? Are you insinuating that someone placed those pieces there when nobody was looking?

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 27/04/2015 21:12:38
You also mention that they found some pieces of the plane. Did you expect anyone to find all of it? Are you insinuating that someone placed those pieces there when nobody was looking?

You just gave me a great image of an adventure game character looking around sneakily and then pulling an airplane's landing gear out of his pocket... (laugh)

Don't tell me this discussion has petered out? I'm bored. Tell me more about the cold fusion death rays!

Hey Snarky. Don't worry mate, I'm back! ;)

Anyone else besides the usual crowd want to join the debate? Just dive right in!

-----------------------------------

Mandle

Firstly addressing your baffling bathtub conundrum.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/images/_1553074_flooding_300inf.gif)   (http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image90s.jpg)

Diagrams sourced from this website..

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

Notice the relative position of the bathtub wall and the WTC buildings. As you can see the wall is directly adjacent to WTC1 and WCT2 while WTC7 is further away, outside the bathtub enclosure and across the street. The bathtub wasn't designed to withstand the impact of a building collapse, and if they wanted to demolish / dismantle the buildings for some reason they wouldn't dare use explosives because that is too risky! Engineers were concerned about this when clearing the half collapsed buildings; they specifically didn't use explosives. There are other ways to dismantle a building, piece by piece if necessary.

-----------------------------------

Mandle and Radiant

Yes, buildings can topple. Like this one in Shanghai.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ&autoplay=1

The WTC buildings that fell neatly and symmetrically into their own footprint is more reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

-----------------------------------

Mandle and  Misj'

An aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics (but perhaps you won't believe that until MythBusters cover it). As unbelievable as it sounds, it can only mean that the planes were indeed fake!!

Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

The technology to create an illusion of planes adds yet another level of complexity. The planes might have had something to do with the mechanism that brought down the towers (excluding Building 7) but we can only speculate here because there is not enough evidence.

-----------------------------------

Darth

I accept that heat can come from other sources such as friction. But I don't accept that friction alone can result in metal melting. Your Christmas candle probably melted from infrared radiation.

-----------------------------------

Scav

I mentioned those three things (i.e. filing cabinet, steel cap boots and toasted cars) because there is a similar theme going on. Another one is the exploding air tanks on the firetrucks prior to the building collapse. You have to admit that all of these occurrences are strange. What specific evidence would you like to see to convince you that a directed energy weapon was used? Have you seen it before?

Another anomaly is the curious curved holes that appeared in windows of nearby buildings (compare this to a regular break in glass caused by a projectile and you'll see there's a difference). This along with the other anomalous effects can all be replicated in John Hutchinson's experiments involving interference of energy fields.

-----------------------------------

NickyNyce

Why is a directed energy weapon such a ridiculous idea? Think John Hutchinson, not Dr. Evil. We know that the physics involved can be replicated. We also know that the Reagan administration commissioned a defense program to develop such technology. Nikola Tesla was likely the first to discover the technology back in the early 1900s. You cannot deny that the existence of the technology is a possibility if not a probability.

In regards to your question of the whereabouts of the weapon. Simple answer - I don't know. How could I possibly know that!? There is evidence of an energy weapon and that's all I can say. The evidence points to something other than the alleged planes causing all the destruction. The buildings mainly turned to fine dust. Planes and fires cannot do this. But John Hutchinson's experiments strongly implicate a class of technology that can.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 02/05/2015 14:56:20
Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

I didn't watch the whole video (they are all too long), but I did watch the carefully reconstructed 3D representations of the second plane striking.

I don't want to have a go specifically at you, monkey242. But I find it extraordinary that anyone could watch video after video of a plane hitting a building, and listen to the screams of the onlookers, and draw the conclusion that no planes hit that building.

None of us have an innate, gut sense about what happens when planes fly into buildings. And our models are not always correct (c.f. the unsinkable ship of 2012, the uncrashable stock market of 2008).

What happened to WTC 6?

Quote from: Mandle on Sat 02/05/2015 16:56:44What happened to WTC 6?

(http://i.imgur.com/7ytx6gh.jpg)

Not that it matters but here are some facts:

Aliens
Yup.  Aliens!
(http://www.jumpnow.de/p/season3/312/312_045.jpg)

Airplane Wings
Each wing is made from a solid piece of aluuminum ~5 inches thick at the fuselage end and 1-2 inches thick at the tip.  The Davenport Iowa, Alcoa Aluminum factory makes them for Boeing.  I had several projects in this factory, over a period of several years, and walked by the NC milling machine that cut these out of a solid aluminum plate.  Ribs, skin, and other parts, I was told, are attached to the solid aluminum substructure. Here is a satelite view of the  Alcoa factory (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Alcoa+Inc/@41.5356776,-90.4613137,2333m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m7!1m4!3m3!1s0x87e23760d6163f47:0xe2851f8709ad6d75!2sAlcoa+Inc!3b1!3m1!1s0x87e23760d6163f47:0xe2851f8709ad6d75)

WTC Construction
The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society (http://www.tms.org/society/pdfs/TMSFactSheet.pdf) have a good description of the WTC towers' construction.  You can read the full article here. (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html)  Here are a few facts from the article.

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight.  Modular construction methods were used (i.e. lots of bolts)

A lightweight “perimeter tube” design was used (i.e. 36 cm square steel tube, able to support weight but not so much lateral impact)
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif)

Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story (i.e. to support a concrete floor).
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig5.gif)

The building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air.

So they used this weapon to kill civilians, police officers and fireman trying to put out two towers that were hit by an illusion. Yep, sounds totally reasonable.

And how silly of them to not know that a car would catch fire, a tank would explode, boots would melt and windows would have funny looking cracks in them while they used this weapon. Who do they think they're trying to fool here. Good thing we have Dr. Woods and her book that's on sale to figure this out. If this was all true, Dr. Woods would already be 6 feet under ground. FACT!

Here's some fun video's.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0R4RRGjOSo0
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBxUEZh4jOM

Ok, I'm not even going to begin questioning this whole fake airplane theory, since it's just too outrageous for me to ingest and form stringent arguments against, so I'll focus on the energy weapons themselves...

Whoever has these weapons... why aren't they using them for, say, taking over the world? Or, for something. Has it run out of batteries?
Was this the only usage they had, destroying offices buildings and killings thousands of civilians, an act which had only negative consequences for everyone?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 02/05/2015 14:56:20
Yes, buildings can topple. Like this one in Shanghai.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pktM__i-8IQ&autoplay=1

Did you notice (1) how this building is constructed in an extremely different fashion and from completely different materials than the twin towers, and (2) how it is called "amazing" that this happened, i.e. the very title of the movie you link already points out that this is not normal behavior for a building?

QuoteThe WTC buildings that fell neatly and symmetrically into their own footprint is more reminiscent of a controlled demolition.

Are you a controlled demolitions expert? No? Thought not.
Actual controlled demolition experts have gone on record stating the exact opposite of what you claim. Simply put, expert analysis trumps amateur guesswork.

Christ, there's too much here to form an overall response. I think it would be most interesting to see a list of things monkey424 is unwilling to accept because of some perceived weaknesses in the evidence, vs. things he's ready to believe in despite huge holes in the theories. To take just one:

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 02/05/2015 14:56:20
Think John Hutchinson, not Dr. Evil. We know that the physics involved can be replicated.

That's the problem though! Hutchison's "effect" has not been shown to be replicable by reputable researchers or under controlled conditions. Indeed, there seems to be rather better evidence of fraud in his videos than in the videos of planes hitting the WTC:

QuoteOne particularly damning piece of evidence against him is a video he produced for a television special which shows a toy UFO levitating and jumping around wildly. A string is clearly visible in the upper left-hand corner of the video, wiggling in sync with the UFO's movements. At first Hutchison claimed that it was a wire which was part of the apparatus, but later he confessed that he was "creative" with the footage because he has been unable to reproduce the effect since 1991.

The best possible spin he could come up with is that he's admittedly faking videos because he himself has been unable to reproduce the effect since 1991! (It might also be noted that the Wikipedia article on the "Hutchison Effect" was deleted on the request of John Hutchison, apparently because it was too critical in tone.) You'd rather believe this guy has discovered some sort of magic levitation/energy field, than accept that a building could collapse because of fire?!

So one has to ask, why do you reject the obvious, well-documented, happened-in-front-of-our-eyes explanation the moment someone just claims there's any inconsistencies in the physics, while you're perfectly happy to accept the most outlandish science fiction and conspiracy theories (and sorry, but when you're talking about faked planes and suppressing news of a hurricane, you're definitely in conspiracy-land) despite the fact that the "scientific" principles they're supposedly based on have been widely discredited? (Cold fusion, most prominently.) It's not particularly rational.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Sat 02/05/2015 21:25:45
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KBxUEZh4jOM

This video Nicky posted is really good! The guy in it has read Dr. Woods' book (although in this video he only talks about the first 2-3 chapters...He plans a series...) and gives a very sensible review of it. After hearing him read from the book and seeing some of the pictures in the book I must say that Dr. Wood is a fairly despicable person with no feelings whatsoever for the people who lost their lives or for their loved-ones. Anyone who watches the video should be able to pick the exact point I'm talking about. It's really psychotic and offensive in a jaw-dropping way.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 02/05/2015 14:56:20Mandle and  Misj'

An aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics (but perhaps you won't believe that until MythBusters cover it). As unbelievable as it sounds, it can only mean that the planes were indeed fake!!

Thank you for the completely inappropriate MuthBusters remark. I have never mentioned MythBusters, nor do I consider them doing (good or otherwise) science. I know they were mentioned, but not by me. I also know that you said this as a joke but at the same time - I feel - to belittle my (valid!) comments.

Quote
Check this out..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTSzHmHnR78

This video includes 3D model analysis carried out by Richard D Hall. Various videos showing the plane flight path and impact, many filmed by amateurs, were superimposed onto the 3D model and are all consistent with available positioning data from civilian radar. It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

I watched the video; just as I watched the original video you posted. And in my opinion it too has the same problem as Wood's video has.

For those who do not want to watch the video, to summarize: the presenter created a 3D model (to scale) and projected the official (3D) flight-path based on radar-data on it. He then shows that the civilian and military radar reports do not overlap (for both planes). Next, the videos are compared to the flight-paths, and he shows that they coincide with with the civilian - and not the military - flight-paths.

Based on this he states (around the 31:15 minutes mark) that: "if we consider the two official flight-paths it stands to reason that both sets of radar data cannot be correct. Either one or possibly both have to be fraudulent. Let's make an assumption that the military radar data is correct. This would mean that Daniel R. Bower's radar report is fraudulent and has been constructed to match the images that were witnessed on video. So we are saying that the military radar detected a real solid object and that object was not recorder by cameras and presumably not seen by witnesses. Is it not possible that this object was some kind of drone aircraft, with stealth capability - making it invisible to the naked eye - using a projection system to generate a visual image of a plane in the sky? - Meaning: the videos were real and the plane was fake."

Let's look at this conclusion.
1. The fact that both official flight-paths do not overlap does not mean that either is fraudulent. It can also mean that one is less accurate than the other, or that they use a (slightly) different point of origin. Fraudulent means that someone explicitly choose to alter the data (as they claim).
2. If you see that all video evidence matches the civilian radar data, while the military data does not, then the logical conclusion is, that the civilian data is more accurate. Making the assumption that the one one that does not match the evidence is correct is - again - working towards a goal not working from the evidence/data.
2.b Why would be military data be more accurate? - According to the remarks about 13 minutes in, it is, because the military data is presented in a table (with fewer time-points) while the civilian data is presented in graphs and images.
2.c If you assume that the flight-path data is fraudulent, then which one would have been easier for the government to alter? - The military data (that they have direct control over) or the civilian data?

QuoteAn aircraft penetrating a building like a knife through butter defies the laws of physics...
...
It appears that the videos were not faked, however since planes ultimately can't penetrate a building like Wile E. Coyote through a pavement, the only explanation is that the planes existed as an illusion.

So we have empirical evidence based on video data that the planes penetrate a building in this way, and we have a claim that this is physically and ultimately impossible. Rather than correcting the (physics) model we remove data because it doesn't fit our preconceived ideas.

In short, I come to exactly the same conclusion as before: they are dismissing data - using very cumbersome and obfuscated reasoning - because it doesn't fit our hypothesis, rather than changing our hypothesis based on the evidence.

(http://i.imgur.com/Vw6B3Qd.png)

Quote from: Misj' on Sun 03/05/2015 11:51:11
Thank you for the completely inappropriate MuthBusters remark. I have never mentioned MythBusters, nor do I consider them doing (good or otherwise) science. I know they were mentioned, but not by me. I also know that you said this as a joke but at the same time - I feel - to belittle my (valid!) comments.

While Mythbusters has some issues, it at least follows the basic tenets of science (you know, exactly in the way that Mrs. Wood doesn't). So I actually find it hilarious that a disciple of Wood would look down upon Mythbusters. Basically, Miesja, in attempting to belittle your valid comments, he is actually complimenting them without realizing it :D

(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/unscientific.png)

Just to followup what Misj said about the radar.  There can be many explanations as to why the radar data is different.  Antenna location, calibration, age and purpose of the radar sets, among other possibilities.   Is there anybody here that seriously expects that the military would reveal to the public just how accurate and percise their capabilities are?  My guess nis that either the data is from an older radar set, or one intended for long range observations, or that the data was modified to obviscate capabilities. 

In any case, both radars tracked solid and massive objects along similar paths which ended when the "supposed" plane struck the building. Being scientific and all if the object or objects didn't strike the building then one would have to an alternative explaination of how their mass and momentum  were dissipated.  Oh yeah, I forgot about the energy beam weapon.  Guess that just proves the existence of the weapon. ???

Also...seeing as nobody else has brought this up yet I'm wondering if it's just me so:

Is it just me or does Dr. Woods appear to be either quite drunk and/or stoned when she speaks in all the videos, or is that just the way she speaks/acts all the time? Or is she quite drunk/stoned all the time?

Or is it just me...?

It appears to me like she's on an acid trip that never ended. Very strange behavior for someone that has the background that she has. Again, her two favorite words are snowball and poof. She never wants to talk about science or anything that might discredit her book. She uses the dust cloud, which hides the collapse, to make things up.

I seriously believe she has mental issues. The video's speak for themselves.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 04/05/2015 12:38:00I seriously believe she has mental issues.

She doesn't have mental issues. 

She just knows how to milk a tragedy and make some money off it.

It really is, for some people, simply impossible to accept that nine-eleven was done in the name of [peaceful] religious beliefs. 

They NEED an explanation that is larger than that. 

Dr. Wood is capitalizing on that. 

Successfully.

I don't think it's wise to speak so categorically about the motives or mental state of someone else. The truth is, we don't know – and cannot really know – why she says what she does, or how much of it she really believes. AFAIK, you're not a mental health professional, Darth, and in any case it would be bordering on malpractice to make a diagnosis just based on web sites and YouTube videos.

But whether she's crazy, misguided or a charlatan is pretty much irrelevant to the question (of course, if she was institutionalized with full-blown psychosis, or caught admitting that the whole thing is a fraud, that would undermine her credibility). We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03I don't think it's wise to speak so categorically about the motives or mental state of someone else.

I was offering my opinion.  Just like everybody else in this thread.  Nothing wise or unwise about it.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03The truth is, we don't know – and cannot really know – why she says what she does, or how much of it she really believes. AFAIK, you're not a mental health professional, Darth, and in any case it would be bordering on malpractice to make a diagnosis just based on web sites and YouTube videos

That is common sense, of course.  As I have proven in past threads, you cannot really know another person's motives or thoughts.  You can state your opinion, as I did, though.

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Her argument would have to have merit in the first place.

All-in-all I'm enjoying this thread!  It's great entertainment.  It serves to prove a theory of mine (and I'm sure it's not just mine) that internet debates/arguments are completely pointless.

From my angle of reading this thread Dr. Wood's silly theory has been systematically dismantled and shown to be completely ludicrous.  Yet Monkey is still convinced Dr. Wood is right!  He (Monkey) has continued to post the "evidence" to lend strength to his and Dr. Wood's belief on the matter and nobody, who has been opposed to the theory, has had a change of heart.

Circle jerk. 

Entertaining though.

I posted the Ancient Aliens guy... all that's needed now is somebody to involve Hitler and this thread will be complete.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 15:38:58
From my angle of reading this thread Dr. Wood's silly theory has been systematically dismantled and shown to be completely ludicrous.

Don't you see? Because some scientific truths were laughed at when they were first proposed, that means that anything that's laughed at must therefore be a scientific truth! For reals! :grin:

Quote from: Snarky on Mon 04/05/2015 14:01:03
We can simply deal with her argument on its merits, because the fact is that it is unbelievably shoddy "science".

Yup...Let's get back to the science...

I want to retract my comments on her being possibly drunk or stoned (although either would explain a lot)...

Let's look honestly at the possibility of holographic projectors making fake airplanes crash into the middle of Manhatten viewed from multiple angles on both the live TV news and later discovered self-recorded video from thousands of witnesses...

Now we have to also believe that the hologram image was also accompanied by the entire speaker ensemble of Iron Maiden, Metallica, and Disaster Area to supply the massive explosive noises recorded on every single version of the plane impacts no matter where it was being recorded from...

WHY IS IT NOT SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT AMERICA GOT PWNED VIA A GAP IN THEIR SECURITY CHECKS THAT FANATICAL INDIVIDUALS SLIPPED THROUGH???

So yeah...To answer Dr. Woods' question of "WHAT" happened on 9/11:

This is exactly "WHAT" happened:

A bunch of people that hated America enough to die for their cause trained in the desert slitting the throats of camels with boxcutters for practice until they were confident enough to use them on flight attendants and then entered the U.S.A. on student visas to train as pilots...

And then...

They trained at their schools and even drank alcohol and experienced the "Infidel" lifestyle with American girlfriends to "pretend" to fit in and STILL were pre-programmed enough to board the planes, show off their fake bombs made out of playdough, slit the throats of some flight-attendants for crowd-control, gain access to the cabin of the plane, kill the pilots, take control of the planes, target the planes on the World Trade Center towers as they had trained to do so in Microsoft Flight Simulator in their spare time on their PCs...and BOOM!!!

This is honestly what happened...

The flight trainers at their schools even said after the fact that they felt it was weird the way the students trained on the simulators for level in-flight practice and were not interested in training for landing the planes...

All that happened was that America got pwned by a low-tech cult that hated them and thought up a clever way to slip under their radar long enough to do something that would hurt them bigtime...

Osama Bin Laden even said that he had not actually expected the Towers to collapse but was very pleased that they had...

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 13:03:43
It really is, for some people, simply impossible to accept that nine-eleven was done in the name of [peaceful] religious beliefs. 

Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

Why on earth would the government use a weapon on the towers that would turn them to dust for all the world to see? It makes no sense at all. Fake planes, energy weapons, cover ups, for what? Why not have 20 planes hitting the towers? Why only two? Why do they need energy weapons when they could have detonated 30 bombs in each tower? None of it makes any sense. If they wanted the towers destroyed, they didn't need to have fake planes, planted bombs and energy weapons to do it. There would be far easier ways. Common sense goes a long way.

Why would they have one plane crash in Pennsylvania? Or fake the crash because it was a hologram? It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Quote from: Scavenger on Mon 04/05/2015 19:06:10Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

Just a little jab at religion.

I didn't want to derail the thread and turn it into another pointless religious debate so I wanted to [try to] keep it subtle.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 22:05:17

Quote from: Scavenger on Mon 04/05/2015 19:06:10Why do you keep highlighting "peaceful"? That's twice in the same thread you've done it, and it's making me feel uncomfortable, like there's some subtext there going on in the background.

Just a little jab at religion.

I didn't want to derail the thread and turn it into another pointless religious debate so I wanted to [try to] keep it subtle.

Al Qaeda and indeed ISIS are not religions. They are cults which use a religion as an excuse to wield power over others and wage war against anyone trying to take that power from their hands.

I believe Snarky's post regarding John Hutchison is the most important to respond to in this round. But first I'll address some other points starting with the recent can of worms I opened with the planes.

-------------------------------------------------

THE PLANES

Impact

"None of us have an innate, gut sense about what happens when planes fly into buildings." - Ali.

I don't accept this. We must use our knowledge, experience and imagination. Let's pretend  it's pre-9/11, back in the 1990s and we've not seen a plane hit a building before. What would you expect would have happened? The plane might penetrate the building, and given the right material it might even make a plane shaped hole. But we should all be familiar with Newton's Third Law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This means the building is applying the same force to the plane at the moment they come in contact; it is equivalent to the building hurtling towards a stationary plane. You would expect to see a reaction from both the building and the plane the moment they come in contact.

In the 9/11 context, we know Newton's Third Law applied because the building did eventually stop the plane. But if you watch the impact video carefully (and in slow motion) you'll notice that the plane shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The plane just glides smoothly into the building until fully embedded or obscured from sight. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.

WTC structural design

According to the Wikipedia entry, the WTC towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.

Radar data

In regards to the 3D analysis in that last video I posted; thanks Misj' for mentioning the radar data in more detail. I personally don't know why the two data sets are inconsistent; the main thing I got out of the analysis was that claims of video fakery can be dismissed. So it was either a real plane or a real illusion, and I hate to admit it but the impossible physics as I mentioned above force me to acknowledge the latter as the more sensible option. If I was to speculate, maybe there was a real object that hit the building (as detected by radar) but made to appear like a plane.

--------------------------------------------------------

TAKING THE PISS

NickyNice

I've seen the Greg Jenkins video before and have already pointed out it is an ambush interview to attempt to undermine Dr Wood. Did you not read this article about that particular video? Please read and comment.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=46&Itemid=60

The other video you posted is just some guy judging a book by its cover. For a more detailed set of reviews, look for the book on Amazon and read the reviews there.

-------------------------------------------------

JOHN HUTCHISON

I cannot comment on the credibility of John Hutchison. I understand he is not a "typical" scientist (i.e. no formal education, tends not to write things down, etc). I believe he is more of an enthusiast trying to replicate Tesla's work, and may have succeeded. The photographic evidence of his experiments are either real or fake. He is a fool if he deliberately used fakery in attempt to prove he can replicate the effects. So, did he really admit to fakery? I don't know. I can't find any record of the man himself saying that. I also heard that the video with the toy UFO was taken out of context. Nevertheless it is indeed problematic that he allegedly cannot replicate the results on demand.

-------------------------------------------------

EVIDENCE

Now, in my opinion Judy Wood didn't need to mention John Hutchison or the inferred energy weapon. She could have just presented the evidence. I think this is the most important thing to focus on.

List of things I believe are true:

1. Buildings were destroyed and resulted in an unrealistic amount of debris, which was immediately questioned by people.

2. Most of the buildings turned to dust. You can actually see falling pieces of debris had large amounts of dust trailing off them. After the the bulk of the building had peeled away, 200 m tall steel core columns were left standing, appearing rigid with crisp edges against a blue sky, then became fuzzy and apparently turned to dust in mid air. There was no evidence that the columns tipped over because that would have taken out the neighboring blocks.

3. The seismic signal doesn't make sense assuming a normal collapse like the Seattle Kingdome. Likewise, the survival of the bathtub, basements and underground train line also don't make sense in this regard, however these facts do make sense given the above two statements.

4. Anomalous effects including:
- materials disintegrating / breaking down (and continuing to break down);
- excellerated rusting (e.g. steel columns of Bankers Trust building once stripped down prior to rebuilding);
- steel beams twisted into unexplainable shapes;
- apparent spontaneous combustion / weird fires targeting certain materials;
- pools of molten metal but no evidence of heat (i.e. no reports of burnt feet; oxygen fuel hoses laid near to the molten pools, potentially dangerous if extreme heat is present);
- curved holes in windows unlike normal holes caused by a projectile;
- toasted cars displaying some of the above phenomena (some not even near the site, like at FDR Drive where a firefighter witnessed apparent spontaneous combustion)

5. First hand witnesses describing similar experiences:
- dust felt cool, not hot
- unusually quiet collapse (e.g. "If a building was hitting the ground hard, why don't I remember the sound of it?" - EMT Michael Ober, p10 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110093.PDF))
- odd sensation like being swept into a tornado or weather event, being picked up and transported 30-40 feet

List of things I can't accept:

1. A couple of planes can cause all of the above.
2. Planted explosives or thermite in the buildings can cause all of the above.
3. All of the scrap steel had been immediately shipped off to China within two days.

List of things perhaps unrelated to the events but nevertheless true:

1. Hurricane Erin. Check the Wikipedia entry for it's movements (i.e. closest to NY and most intense on 9/11). It received virtually no media attention.

2. Earth's magnetic field exhibited a pattern of fluctuations coinciding with specific events on 9/11, including when the planes hit.

-------------------------------------------------

MYTHBUSTERS & GOOD SCIENCE

I referenced MythBusters as a joke of course, but I have nothing against the show. I believe it is an example of good science, i.e. actually testing to see if something is true. Judy Wood's evidence (e.g. small debris pile, little impact, toasted cars, etc) is just that - evidence. No science or theory required at this stage - just observations. This is what happened.

Now try and replicate it.

What would MythBusters do? First test the myth that fire did it. So, they'd construct a small scale model of one of the buildings, subject it to fire and see what happens. When it doesn't fail they'd step it up a notch and apply more heat and let it burn for twice as long. When it still doesn't fail they'd blow it up! But the point is they will ultimately say "Myth busted!"

Well, believe it or not, this is the exact experiment NIST carried out. But when their model didn't fail they instead said "Myth plausible". They didn't even consider the explosives theory! That is bad science.

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
In the 9/11 context, we know Newton's Third Law applied because the building did eventually stop the plane. But if you watch the impact video carefully (and in slow motion) you'll notice that the plane shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The plane just glides smoothly into the building until fully embedded or obscured from sight. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.

The behavior that you describe is possible if the head parts of the moving object get destroyed much enough to not provide any obstacle for the rest of the structure, which continues to move by inertia it had.

Here is an example of head part of moving object not being destroyed:
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2186272/crash-test-dummy-o.gif
As you may see, the head of the car is hard enough to maintain integrity after impact, and thus provide impenetratable obstacle to the rest of its structure, making it decelerate and finally stop before even touching the wall.

And here is an example of moving object being destroyed on contact with an obstacle:
http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/Bullet+hitting+concrete+wall+fucking+awesome_b07d26_3742988.gif
As you may see, the bullet shows no sign of resistance or deceleration. The bullet just glides smoothly into the concrete until fully... err... splattered. It then decides to stop, pretty much instantaneously.
The difference between the bullet case and 9/11 case is obviously the fact that destroyed parts of the bullet do not go inside the wall.

So, the question is, what happened when the plane hits a non-uniform construction, which contains both very hard parts ( steel columns ) and relatively softer parts.
I would not pretend I am expert on planes hitting buildings, so, unfortunately, I cannot give the "correct" answer here; however, I can use the amount of knowledge, experience and imagination I possess, and suggest, that plane destruction could look like shown on this computed model:
http://i.imgur.com/nVSAQYF.gif

By the way, speaking of plane "gliding into building".
If you look closely on this plane hitting WTC:
http://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-content/uploads/911-plane-anim.gif
you could notice its engines (probably having harder structure, and less hard connection to the rest of the plane) fall off on impact.

UPD: I was not sure if I should mention this first, but you can't expect to observe "correct" deceleration on objects hitting obstacle on such a high speed anyway without properly set recording mode (which the news crews and occasional witnesses did not have).

I'm not going to address the countless typical conspiracy theory red flags or the anomaly hunting that's exhibited over and over again. Instead I'm just mentioning something that was discussed on the most recent episode of one of my favorite podcasts, the SGU.

It was about the Dunning Kruger effect, and Steven Novella basically said that people who are experts in a certain field will often notice other people or the media getting it wrong, often spectacularly so. However, precisely because they have reached expert level in a certain field, they also tend to overestimate their competence when it comes to other fields. What they fail to realize is that they suck just as bad at "other field X" as the guy they found cringe-worthy a minute ago sucks at theirs.
He also mentioned how he would look back at the time he got out of med school (out!) and basically knew nothing, despite having studied for years, compared to his current knowledge.

There's also the famous Asimov quote:

Quote“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

This is why I will follow NIST's assessment over that of random internet people's again and again and again, no matter how "weird" it might appear to me.

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
TAKING THE PISS

NickyNice

I've seen the Greg Jenkins video before and have already pointed out it is an ambush interview to attempt to undermine Dr Wood. Did you not read this article about that particular video? Please read and comment.

http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_contentask=view&id=46&Itemid=60

The other video you posted is just some guy judging a book by its cover. For a more detailed set of reviews, look for the book on Amazon and read the reviews there.

I read the link you provided here and all I really have to say is:

The guy that wrote it links all his photographic evidence to photobucket.com...

Really?! Is he presenting an actual serious paper here or releasing an AGS game?

And this line is also great:

"Further comments about the interview can be found here (http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=106193&st=0). From this selection, I found this comment to be one of the most pertinent."

Just try clicking on the "here" link, or to save you the trouble I will just say what happens: Server not found error!

(Yeah... I reproduced the quote and link here but I took the actual URL from the original site link)

So...we have here a guy linking his photographic evidence to a Photobucket account and a further link to a site that no longer exists but the URL contains his name...

This is obviously some keyboard jockey typing a blog out of his parents' basement but couldn't keep up the payments on his site's domain and lost interest anyway so it disappeared...

Real reliable material all around anyways!

Also he talks over and over again about this being an "ambush" interview... Well all I can say about that is that if Dr. Woods actually knows what she is talking about then no interview..."ambush" or not...should be able to discredit her in the way that this one has...

As for the "judging a book by its cover"...Nope, this guy has read the book. He even opens it and shows you all the parts he has read that he has good points about conerning the falsehood of what is claimed in those parts...

He even reads the part where Dr. Woods started cracking up laughing while watching the footage of the plane striking the side of the building while watching the event as it unfolded live on TV:

This woman actually wrote that she was laughing while watching the planes hit the buildings on 9/11...

And she even shows a photoshopped image on that page of what a Warners Bros. cartoon cutout of a plane hitting the building would look like for additional comical material...

Sorry Monkey. I'm also loving this thread and having fun in it talking about these conspiracy theories...

But Dr. Woods is a despicable human being...

What's the name of the effect where the public overestimates the capacity of their government's ability to keep secrets from them?

Under the list of things you can't accept, you might want to consider adding:

"4.  A massive conspiracy to commit the greatest fraud in human history*, implicating hundreds, if not thousands of weapons scientists, engineers, public officials and others, all with their own personal agendas and loyalties, has been uncovered by an exceedingly small group of individuals who are alive and continue to speak freely, sharing their discovery with the masses without impediment."

Why is social engineering exempt from analysis?

* I am also willing to accept the premise that the country of North Korea itself may be arguably the greatest fraud in human history, in this case perpetuated against it's own people, but that is way, way, way off-topic.

Quote from: Mandle on Tue 05/05/2015 02:54:29Al Qaeda and indeed ISIS are not religions. They are cults which use a religion as an excuse to wield power over others and wage war against anyone trying to take that power from their hands.

Did I say that al Qaeda and ISIS were religions?  I don't think I said (or implied) that in any way.  They do, however, carry out their barbaric agenda in the name of religion.  To me there's no difference.  Also, from how you phrased that, you make it sound like the leaders of these groups are pretending to be religious?  And then using that to make 12 year old kids strap bombs to their bodies?  Not trying to be confrontational, really, just genuinely curious what you meant.

I don't want to derail this thread any further though ... if you have any desire to discuss it further feel free to PM me!

Now... back to the entertainment!!

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Tue 05/05/2015 14:52:32
Also, from how you phrased that, you make it sound like the leaders of these groups are pretending to be religious?  And then using that to make 12 year old kids strap bombs to their bodies?  Not trying to be confrontational, really, just genuinely curious what you meant!

I meant that they are using the facade of religion to create a weapon of mass followers so that they can wield power in a power vacuum.

I'm sure that anyone intelligent enough to be able to build such an infrastucture of fanatical followers is not completely ignorant of that fact that they are running a business and that they are the CEO...

Would you say the same thing about all other groups that have used terror, supposedly in the fight for some cause? Was the IRA just using Irish independence/unification as a facade to justify their campaign of violence, for example?

Basically, just as with Dr. Wood, I don't think there's any good basis for dismissing the leaders' stated reasons and declaring them opportunistic frauds. While I'm sure there's some cynicism in every movement of any significant, and while some ideological groups have been known to deteriorate into mere gangsters or marauders, I think we're better off assuming that they are basically sincere in their motivations, twisted as they may be, unless proven otherwise.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Mon 04/05/2015 15:38:58
All-in-all I'm enjoying this thread!  It's great entertainment.  It serves to prove a theory of mine (and I'm sure it's not just mine) that internet debates/arguments are completely pointless.

I don't think this is a particularly good position to take. People here are obviously rather invested in the subject at hand, so claiming you're just here to be amused strikes me as slightly condescending.

Also, I don't know why some people keep saying that internet debates are pointless. I don't think they're very different to real life debates, only that they're usually much better since people can provide links and sources, and also you can't backtrack or lie about what you've said earlier. If we should rate discussion contexts, I would say that discussing dr Wood during a late night pub crawl after some 5-6 beers would be much worse for... being the opposite to the things I just wrote.

A debate isn't pointless just because everybody doesn't suddenly end up agreeing - that would be beyond fruitful, that would be sheer magic. I for one find this debate rather rewarding because it's given me lots of new arguments against dr. Wood, formulated by people with special knowledge and insight that I didn't personally possess.

Now, let's reserve this thread for those who wish to debate the subject further. 

Quote from: Andail on Tue 05/05/2015 18:42:43I don't think this is a particularly good position to take. People here are obviously rather invested in the subject at hand, so claiming you're just here to be amused strikes me as slightly condescending.

I find those ripping into Monkey/Dr. Wood far more condescending than my simple comment.  It's all interpretation I guess.  I am enjoying this pointless debate.  I consider it, just my opinion here, to be pointless.  That doesn't mean I won't take part, just that I don't expect any real resolution other than it turning ugly and heated eventually.   I don't think I said, or implied, that I was only here to be amused?  I guess I could see how it could be misinterpreted as such though.  **shrugs**

Carry on.

I think this is all mainly pointed at Dr. Wood and not monkey. There's no reason to be angry or mad at monkey for having an opinion, but Dr. Wood is another story. I think monkey has done an OK job at defending her theory considering how crazy I think it is.

So if the planes were holograms, how is it that the shadow of the plane was caught on video from street level in some of the videos. And if the explosions were really bombs, how did they make a plane shaped hole in the building in precisely the same place the planes hit. I'm not aware of bombs that make plane shaped holes in buildings, so I would say that the planes striking the buildings are way more believable. There were plane parts found all over the place, not all of the plane, which is of course not expected to be found, but some of it.

If you look at all the video of the towers collapsing, the inner core that is left standing does not disappear, it falls down seconds later which is very easy to see. Just because smoke or dust is seen coming off of it does not mean is turns to dust. Try looking at all the videos and not just one bad angle. The building does not collapse at free fall speed. Some of the outer shell of the building falls at free fall speed and clearly out races the rest of the building which is hidden in smoke from the fire and dust from the collapse

So what if they ambushed her and did it illegally. If that's what it took to ask her questions that she didn't want to answer, it doesn't change the fact that she can't have a conversation with him. She only wants to talk about things that are questionable, and is clearly not able to answer anything else in the video I posted. So what do people have to say about it...she's tired and wasn't prepared. Do you need to be prepared to talk about science if you're a scientist?

There are tapes of phone calls from the plane, and a voice recording from the cockpit of the plane that was hijacked, or are all these fake too?

Everything that happened on that day you're saying is fake...except of course for what Dr. Woods says. The whole entire world and all the videos, witnesses and family are wrong, but Dr. Woods is correct. The energy beam weapon was kind of fun, but the fake plane argument has turned this upside down. This is where what little argument she has falls apart.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYW89xEYg0

It is worth noting that the highly scientific documentary known as "age of ultron" shows an uncontrolled demolition that doesn't involve the building toppling over onto the next building like a set of dominoes...

While I am at it, I'll just add couple of more notes:

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
1. Hurricane Erin. Check the Wikipedia entry for it's movements (i.e. closest to NY and most intense on 9/11). It received virtually no media attention.

I already noted before (you seem to ignored what I said though), that there are examples of media coverage listed on Judy Wood's own website: http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/CNN_Erin.html.
Of course, the hurricane that never hit NY would receive less attention than terroristic attack on city in the later days.

You also seem to ignore the reply of NY citizen, telling you that this hurrican behavior was not unusual:

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 13/04/2015 21:26:24
I live in New York, and anyone else that lives here knows that tons of these hurricanes go out to sea exactly like this one did. Only a rare handful ever hit NY. I would love to see the data on how many go out to sea. I've lived here for 40 years and I can count on one hand how many have hit NY. All of the rest turn exactly like that one did. If there was ever a threat, we would have been warned.

Also, I asked you, what is your vision on motives, reasons of those who did not cover this hurricane:
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636511229#msg636511229
Yet, you never gave answer. This still bothers me.

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 05/05/2015 11:07:47
- unusually quiet collapse (e.g. "If a building was hitting the ground hard, why don't I remember the sound of it?" - EMT Michael Ober, p10 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110093.PDF))

This is a phrase out of context. If you read the full paragraph, you would see that the man describes how they ran away from falling building:

Quote
Just as we got to the Chiefs, the rumbling started again, and it was just like a sound I'll never forget. Days afterwards I heard a rumbling noise and I was hiding. You knew what was happening, we turned around and the second building was coming down. So we took off running again <...>

So he did hear it crumbling.
He also describes his state of a shock and "devastation":

Quote
Then I just, I don't even know... time was just a blur, I don't remember what time it was. <...>
I remember getting down there, that's about it. I don't remember exactly what we did once
we got down there. It was weird, it was probably the most devastating thing I've ever
seen in my life, and so much of it I can't remember.<...>
etc

So, he was obviously scared and in shock from what was happening. What he meant is not that there was no sound, what he sais is that he has lost many memories of the event. Maybe he was also still confused about whole thing when giving this interview (it was one month later).

Anyway, here's a video of one of the tower's collapsing with sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiye0R-65RE
You may hear a rumbling when it falls.

Here I found a video of building demolition with sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMpJQgbKsms
There is a loud sound when the demolition starts (explosion, and cracking), but it turns to relatively softer rumbling noise. This rambling gets more quiet as the building collapses.

To me these cases sound similar.

E: tad corrected grammar and removed unimportant comments.

I think those videos show very nicely that buildings that are collapsing don't make unbelievably loud noises like some would expect. They also create lots of dust for buildings their size. What a strange coincidence.

I think another big factor why the towers were crushed so badly is because they collapsed from the top down, and also from near the middle down while on fire. They didn't collapse down from the first floor.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Wed 06/05/2015 15:20:34
I think those videos show very nicely that buildings that are collapsing don't make unbelievably loud noises like some would expect.

Well, just to make it clearer, my main point was not that it's not loud. I would suppose that it's pretty loud if you happen to be right at the building. It's hard to tell for sure, because the recording devices do not do well with all the surrounding sounds on all of those videos, and sound often reach peak levels and distort.
My points were that that guy's phrase was taken out of context and probably did not mean what monkey (or whoever brings this as an evidence) implied; and second point was that the sound of WTC crumbling is pretty much usual compared to sounds of other collapsing buildings.

I get really upset with what this generation does where they try so hard to believe that something is more than it is.

This is why if a government had knowledge of extraterrestrial life - they would undoubtedly hide it. Just imagine the chaos if we can't believe two planes knocked down two towers.

I'm all for questioning events, but WTF Judy. Wtf.

What I want to know is Woods view on the Pentagon... Was that also imaginary or did the government needed a good excuse to justify remodelling? (roll)
Oh, wait... this is probably one of those "not relevant stuff" that she likes to dismiss.... :tongue:

Quote from: Cassiebsg on Thu 07/05/2015 17:58:56
What I want to know is Woods view on the Pentagon... Was that also imaginary or did the government needed a good excuse to justify remodelling? (roll)
Oh, wait... this is probably one of those "not relevant stuff" that she likes to dismiss.... :tongue:

Interesting point! If I remember correctly though the plane that hit the Pentagon actually hit the one section that had just actually been remodelled (and fortified) as the start of entire overhaul of the building...

I did not know about this until today. It aired 6 months before 9/11.

[embed=640,480]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIJeJEoShBc[/embed]

Edit: But anyway, the only conspiracy theory I'm willing to give any consideration to is that a government entity set the whole thing up - it's plausible but I don't give it much weight. Any theories with the planes being a "distraction" and that there was actually explosives in the buildings, or an "energy beam" (which is the WORST theory by far) is complete bullocks IMO.

Quote from: Ryan Timoothy on Fri 08/05/2015 13:32:09
But anyway, the only conspiracy theory I'm willing to give any consideration to is that a government entity set the whole thing up - it's plausible but I don't give it much weight.

Well, the gov armed Al Quaeda to fight for them against the russians in afghanistan. While it is possible that some double agent infiltrated the Al Quaeda back then and passed on the plan he got from some sick warmongers I doubt it. But I think they at least knew about the 9/11 attacks and still let it happen.
If any intelligence agency knew about it and was monitoring the whole thing they couldn't have revealed what they knew without unpleasant questions afterwards, like where did you know this from, are you like... buildung the ultimate surveillance machine into the internet or what? So someone in the military might have decided it's better to sacrifice 3000 people, when you can go to war afterwards, have some economic boom in the weapons industry and build an even denser surveillance state on your way to conquering the world. This is the ultimate excuse for going to war (besides: this country's undemocratic leader is just like / worse than hitler / a terrorist that plans another 911). Who needs proof when you can say Hitler and 9/11 in one sentence! >:(

Quote from: Ryan Timoothy on Fri 08/05/2015 13:32:09
I did not know about this until today. It aired 6 months before 9/11.

Yeah...lol...The pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen" TV show...I only saw that episode a few years after 9/11 and thought it in such bad taste (thinking it was recently made) that I googled it and was STUNNED to find out that it came out 6 months before 9/11...

Then I wondered if Osama Bin Laden had maybe seen the episode and had gotten inspired by it but realised that the perps would have already been in the USA attending flight schools at the time the show aired...

Also a book called "Titan" about a massive "unsinkable" passenger ship that hit an iceberg in the mid-Atlantic and sank on its maiden voyage also came out about a year or so BEFORE the Titanic disaster occured...

So, do artists have some kind of foresight due to their gift of perceiving unsensed links between commonplace things or are these just huge coincidences?

Back to the track of this thread though:

What about the fact that Al Qaeda had already attempted to bring down the WTC by bombing it from underground parking garages once before and failed. Was this just a part of the conspiracy to set up the likelyhood of them trying again via a different route and succeeding?

Why wouldn't Dr. Evil have just deployed his energy beam weapon on this first attempt to achieve the same result as on 9/11? Or was he still trying to bargain the ransom price up from the ONE MILLION DOLLARS?!

Howdy y'all. I'm glad we're all having fun with this thread. I just want to thank you all for contributing. I think it's healthy to discuss the issues. Far from pointless. There are so many unanswered questions, so why not talk about it? Even if an idea sounds far fetched, we should have the courage to at least give it some thought.

-------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

The quote I was referring to was on page 10 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110093.PDF).

Michael Ober said:

I don't remember the sound of the building hitting the ground. Somebody told me that it was measured on the Richter scale, I don't know how true that is. If the building is hitting the ground that hard, how do I not remember the sound of it?

He then talks about dust:

The smell was just --- it has a distinct smell. I've been to Manhattan many times since then, and that smell just brings back every single...I don't know if it's like World Trade Center cement. I don't know what exactly it is. It's just that like, the smell that we inhaled so many times with the rest of the dust and everything in the parking garage. It's just a nasty smell.

More on dust later..

Regarding Hurricane Erin, CNN.com might have mentioned the hurricane but it was virtually unreported on the TV networks. But as local New Yorker NickyNyce points out this may not be so unusual since hurricanes off the coast of NY typically behave like this. Fair enough.

-------------------------------------

NickyNyce

Where in NY do you live? Are you familiar with the site? I believe many of the surrounding buildings that were at least partially destroyed on 9/11 were later demolished as a result of that damage.

1. North Tower (WTC1)
2. South Tower (WTC2)
3. Marriott Hotel (WTC3)
4. WTC4
5. WTC5
6. US Customs House (WTC6)
7. WTC7
8. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (all but disappeared on 9/11)
9. Bankers Trust Building (130 Liberty Street)
10. Fiterman Hall (30 West Broadway)
11. 4 Albany Street
12. 130 Cedar Street
13. 133-135 Greenwich Street
14. 21-23 Thames Street
15. 90 West St.

Do you know anything about these buildings, or can you confirm these buildings were demolished? Surely some could have been repaired if they were just damaged by regular old falling debris (kinetic energy). Apparently the Bankers Trust Building was repaired, then dismantled soon after due to alleged mould infection. Once stripped down to grade level some steel columns were revealed to be severely corroded.

-------------------------------------

THE PLANES!!!

Cassiebsg

You (and others) may be interested in this video featuring Dr. Morgan Reynolds - The fake planes of 9/11.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c4d2Mt2a6iM

Dr. Reynolds was the other contributor to the Qui Tam case with Dr. Judy Wood. His research focused more on the planes rather than the buildings. The video covers the other plane crash sites and gives more information about the WTC site, including the impossible physics and suspicious plane debris found at ground zero.

-------------------------------------

Greg Jenkins

What sort of person conducts an illegal ambush interview? A slimy cunt, that's who! The Greg Jenkins video is blatant propaganda commissioned by those who knew Dr. Judy Wood was getting too close to the truth. The guy is so slimy, he reminds me of a Batman villain (guess which one).

-------------------------------------

9/11 - FINDING THE TRUTH

Jenkins is just one of many dodgy and suspicious characters intent on undermining Dr. Wood. Many are affiliated with the so called "truth movement". If you are interested in learning more about the 9/11 cover-up you should become familiar with the work of Dr. Wood's colleague Andrew Johnson.

1. Compilation of articles "9/11 - Finding the Truth" by Andrew Johnson:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf

----------

2. YouTube video discussing Andrew Johnson's work:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dhMPlJ9C__Q

----------

3. Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson together discuss various aspects of their work:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ChzRz4pmKc

----------

4. Reynolds, Wood and Johnson discuss the 9/11 memorial:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UZeZvz_2wzo

Play from 56:00 to hear a recording of someone inside the building as it was turning to dust. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording.

------------------------------------------

Underwriters Laboratories

This company certified the WTC structural steel and also performed a fire simulation test on a scale model as requested by NIST. The myth that fire did it should be busted.

http://www.911truth.org/ul-executive-speaks-out-on-wtc-study/

------------------------------------------

EMT Alan Cooke

He reported explosions at the seaport along FDR drive.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NYT9-11AccountsAnalysis/txt/9110040.txt

------------------------------------------

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Ryan Timoothy

The Lone Gunman clip you posted is among many TV shows and movies that hint at 9/11, including the Back to the Future trilogy, The Simpsons, Terminator 2, Men In Black, and many others. Just YouTube it. I didn't want to mention this until someone else did. I don't consider this solid evidence, but it is creepy. It may all just be a coincidence, like Hurricane Erin.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 18/05/2015 12:06:05
Howdy y'all. I'm glad we're all having fun with this thread. I just want to thank you all for contributing. I think it's healthy to discuss the issues. Far from pointless. There are so many unanswered questions, so why not talk about it? Even if an idea sounds far fetched, we should have the courage to at least give it some thought.

That's a hilarious remark which completely misses everybody else's point.

No, there aren't actually "so many unanswered questions" - there are many answered and explained questions, and then there's conspiracy theorists that reject the given answers because they discredit their pet conspiracy.

Science is not about taking a far-fetched idea and trying to find support for that (and selectively ignoring any and all facts that don't fit). In fact, science is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

But yes, we're having fun.

Golly gosh! That was a quick response! 8-0 You responded to the one thing that didn't relly warrant a response! Please read all that other stuff I talk about, and then respond to something that actully deserves a response.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 18/05/2015 12:17:53
You responded to the one thing that didn't relly warrant a response!

No, I responded to the foundation of your argument, as it makes assumptions that are clearly incorrect.

This means that "all that other stuff you talk about" is unsound, and doesn't deserve a response. Start with the premise; if your premise is wrong, there's no point to the rest of the argument.

I have watched Dr. Reynold's video and I just have to ask the obvious question:

If the plane crash in Shankesville was faked then WHY was it so "BADLY" faked?

Let's look at two possible options:

(1) The crash actually happened: A massive plane nosedived into the ground at huge velocity which just does not happen in normal airplane crashes and the crash site does not look comparable to normal airplane crashes where the pilots were still attempting to save the plane right up until the point of impact.

(2) Somebody with mind-boggling resources and power prepared a fake crash site but did not bother to make a "realistic" crater size, did not set fire to enough of the surrounding area, and did not scatter at least a few plane parts around the site to even make it seem semi-"realistic" as per what the expected result of the crash should have been. Furthermore they even allowed first responders into the area to comment on the lack of debris, lack of spreading fires, etc.

Isn't it just much more likely that there is a huge gap between what we expect to see from such a crash and what we see from what actually happened, than that somebody faked it without adding in all the details of what people would expect to see?

If these guys are such masterminds then why the hell didn't they throw a few tons of aviation fuel around the site, set it on fire, and plant some random plane wreckage here and there? Or even just crash a real plane there by remote control for that matter?

There is also a huge problem with Dr. Reynold saying that planes are too flimsy to break through the steel structure of the towers or penetrate the concrete of the Pentagon but should have made a much larger crater in Shankesville.

Dirt absorbs and spreads energy very efficiently. We have little to no data on how a crash site should look of a plane nose-diving straight into the ground. It was not a WW2 "bunker-buster" with explosives designed to dig out a huge crater. It was a light-weight (for its size) plane with fuel that I'm guessing did not fully ignite because of some sort of "blow-out" effect from the very force of the crash...Only guessing but yeah:

Why wasn't it "faked" better?

This Reynolds guy is clueless. I started watching the first video and skipped ahead. I happened to land at the part where he discusses how THEY should at least fake the planes consistently, and then he says the plane hitting the Pentagon should've turned on impact, with the tail section getting flung off: https://youtu.be/c4d2Mt2a6iM?t=648

Really? Come on. I mean, seriously? Did he throw a model airplane at a wall to determine that? What a clueless and arrogant idiot.

monkey424: stop focusing on "9/11 + beam weapon". You need to read up what the problem with conspiracy theories is in general. You got caught up in this one, and you keep ignoring the facts and arguments that clash with it. You are hyperskeptical of the official version, but don't apply even the most basic skepticism to Wood's claims (which is typical of conspiracy believers).

You need to understand that it is ALWAYS possible to provide the kind of "evidence" you keep posting, even if the hypothesis is completely absurd and obviously false. Piling video on top of video is going to do nothing for us, no matter how convincing you think they are.
There are very well-made documentaries full of Ph.D.s in white lab coats out there that provide ample evidence why climate change isn't happening, vaccines cause autism, HIV/AIDS doesn't exist, the earth is the center of the universe, etc etc. Go watch those, then read what's wrong with them, and you'll get an inkling of our position here.

Quote from: Mandle on Mon 18/05/2015 16:05:41
Why wasn't it "faked" better?

Because governments in conspiracy theory land are simultaneously capable of future alien tech beyond the current understanding of men (like giant laser beam arrays that disintegrate buildings), but haven't got the scientific knowhow to do something relatively simpler, say, like buying a plane and crashing it by remote control. That's just way beyond the mastermind's plan - because as everyone knows, government scientists are completely useless at anything that's not complete science fiction.

Besides which, it opens up an avenue for the conspiracy theorist to feel smart when they've UNCOVERED THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND THE GOVERNMENT'S LIES.

Honestly this feels like a badly written airport thriller novel (you know, the really thick hardcover ones with the gold author text) more than an actual sequence of events that would actually happen.

Well the underlying presumption is that according to the laws of physics a comercial jet cannot penetrate hollow steel tubes of which the WTC buildings are constructed.  Well let's do a few quick calculations/approximations.

Boeing 747 Specifications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
Weight = 833,000 lb, 377,842 kg
Wingspan = 211 ft

Impact Force
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/impact-force-d_1780.html
Impact Speed = 264m/s
Impact Force = (0.5(377,842 kg)((264m/s)**2))/0.5m = 30665194560 kN = 6875604161435 lbs

Note: 0.5m slowdown distance is greater than column width.


Impact Area
The plane's super structure is essentially composed of the 4 in aluminum slabs.  One slab within each wing and one lying along the length of the fuselage.  The rest of the plane's structure is air and a 1/4 aluminum shell.  So let's just consider the super structure.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html
The hollow steel columnus on the upper floors were approx 1 ft square and their wass were 1/4" thinck.  They were spaced approcimately 3.4 feet apart.  So over a 211 ft wing span we would expect to have (211/3.4) 62 columns. 

The impact area of of the plane's infrstructure on the columns would be A = (4in)(62x12) = 2976 sqin.

The impact force distributed across that area is Force/Area =  (6875604161435 lbs)/(2976 sqin) = 2310350860 psi (lbs per sqin)

Sheer Modulus of Steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_modulus
Sheer modulus is the amount of sheer force that can be applied before steel fails.  I am not certain of the effect of thinckness, however, the columns are only 1/4 in thick. 

Sheer Modulus of Steel = 79Gpa = 11457981 psi

Ratio of Applied Force to Modulus =  2310350860/11457981 psi = 201

According to the crude approximation above the impact force of the plane was 200 times greater than the sheer strength of the hollow columns on the perimiter of the building.  According to the laws of physics a plane penetrating the WTC seems entirely plausible.

Where are Dr Wood's calculations?

Quote from: RickJ on Tue 19/05/2015 01:39:39
According to the crude approximation above the impact force of the plane was 200 times greater than the sheer strength of the hollow columns on the perimiter of the building.  According to the laws of physics a plane penetrating the WTC seems entirely plausible.

Where are Dr Wood's calculations?

I expect they're something like this:

A building is a big thing. A plane is a small thing. A small thing cannot destroy a big thing. Poof! QED.

An interesting read on red flags that an article is pretending to be scientific but is really bogus,

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-warning-signs-advertising-disguised-as-articles/

Mandle

I like your responses in this thread because you actually watch the videos I post and think critically and raise some interesting questions.

"Why wasn't [the Shanksville crash] faked better?"

This is an excellent question! There was virtually no evidence that a plane had crashed there at all! I can only speculate that maybe that particular crash wasn't part of the grand plan.

But while we're on the topic, WHY weren't many other things executed better?

- WHY didn't a third plane hit Building 7? It might have made its destruction more believable.
- WHY couldn't they get the right plane wreckage planted at ground zero? At least get the correct Boeing engine!
- WHY was there no actual evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon? No substantial wreckage, no bodies, no luggage..?

---------------------------------------------------

Khris

You keep posting the same sort of message - that you don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. This is fair enough. From what I understand conspiracy theorists have a bit of a reputation, like that ancient alien guy. I didn't even know about that guy until someone posted a picture of him in this thread. I watched a video or two of him rambling on and had a good chuckle. What's with the hair? I mean, come on. If you want someone to take you seriously at least get a more appropriate hairstyle, like Greg Jenkins.

But I digress.

I've become invested in Dr Judy Wood's hypothesis because it is based on evidence that I see as solid and irrefutable and I see the efforts to debunk the evidence as superficial and twisted. Just read Andrew Johnson's account of how Dr Wood's findings have been treated by individuals within the "truth movement" and you'll see what I mean.

Spend some time looking into this. Resist the urge to skip videos.

---------------------------------------------------

Greg Jenkins

a.k.a. Dr Jonathan Crane (Scarecrow) villain from the Dark Knight Trilogy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jpLbzLzY9HY

I forgot to post this video earlier. It's actually his video, edited differently, and exposes his efforts to obfuscate the facts.

---------------------------------------------------

RickJ

Using your values I get:

Impact force = 26,334 MN (I suspect you've made an error with units).

I'm not sure about the impact area you've used (which is about 2 m sq). The diagram shown on the Wikipedia page suggests 7.7 m x 9.3 m dimensions for the fuselage cross section. Based on the 3.4 feet (~1 m) steel column spacing, the fuselage cross section area should come in contact with about 40% of steel. So an impact area would be in the order of 7.7 m x 9.3 m x 0.4 = 28 m sq.

So impact pressure should be ~ 1000 MPa.

You need to consider the strength values of steel, not the modulus. The ultimate tensile strength of steel is about 500 MPa, and the ultimate shear strength is about 75% of this.

So the ratio of applied pressure to strength is about 2.

Considering Newton's Third Law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) the impact pressure would also apply to the plane. The ultimate tensile strength of aluminium is 300 MPa, which gives us a ratio of applied pressure to strength of about 3.

---------------------------------------------------

Radiant

"A building is a big thing. A plane is a small thing. A small thing cannot destroy a big thing. Poof! QED."

This pretty much sums it up actually. Does it need to be any more complicated?

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 22/05/2015 16:06:37Spend some time looking into this. Resist the urge to skip videos.

No, I don't have to. If the conspiracy claims were believable, lots and lots of people more knowledgeable about the subject would agree with the truthers. Wood's hypothesis is not somehow more plausible than any other crazy crackpot idea out there.

To me this is about basic plausibility and probability. What's more likely? That Wood is onto something, but just her and her small group found out the truth? That means all the experts out there who support the official version are wrong, or paid off.
Or that she's just another crackpot with a claim that's superficially believable, as long as you don't understand the physics well enough, and a small following that fell for the old "I can't imagine how X could've been caused otherwise", aka argument from ignorance?

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 22/05/2015 16:06:37
"A building is a big thing. A plane is a small thing. A small thing cannot destroy a big thing. Poof! QED."

This pretty much sums it up actually. Does it need to be any more complicated?

Just one small problem: It's utter nonsense!

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 22/05/2015 16:06:37I can only speculate that maybe that particular crash wasn't part of the grand plan.

So the grand plan was to use magical holographic projectors to fake planes crashing into some buildings to cover the existence of a space laser and then blame the attacks on terrorists and had nothing to do with Flight 93.

Then on the day these evil geniuses (aliens) were carrying out this grand plan in New York (and DC?) a group of terrorists (from the same group the conspiracy would lay blame on) just happened to hijack a plane and force it to turn around and head back east but were thwarted by some of the passengers?  I mean I believe in random coincidence but...

I think it's far more plausible that Flight 93 was part of the grand plan and it was a fake hologram plane too and the holographic projector failed.  Then some "backup" protocol kicked in and fired the space laser at the ground in Shanksville where the projection failed to "sort of" simulate a crashed plane (it was improvised after all).  Then the conspirators contacted all the loved-ones of the passengers of that fake plane (who weren't really on the plane but had been kidnapped/abducted after being forced to tell their loved ones they were gonna get on a plane going to San Francisco (even the ones that were going "home" to San Francisco)) and convince these loved ones to go along with the "they were on that plane, they're heroes" line of reasoning.  Then they faked all the phone calls that were reported from the plane to these aforementioned loved ones/co-conspirators.

Yeah... It all makes sense now!

I was just reading in the news the other day that amongst Osama Bin Laden's large collection of English-language books taken from his compound was a conspiracy-theory book which claimed 9/11 was an inside job.

I don't know if Dr. Woods' book was out at that time, but wouldn't it be classic if OBL had been reading it for shits and giggles, maybe on the crapper...

In any case it's still pretty funny and at the same time bound to spawn a dozen new conspiracy theories just on its own...

(Yes folks, OBL was as confused as everybody else as to whodunnit and was trying to find the culprit to clear his own name!!! DUN DUN DUUUUUN!!!)

Thanks for starting this thread, monkey424.  I've enjoyed reading it in that I find myself intrigued by conspiracy theories.  I appreciate their creativity.  This one is unique. 

Just a few thoughts from personal experience: 

I think 9/11 is a little less mysterious to those who were close to it all.  I had family that was there.  They saw it happen.  I was in the DC area.  I lived in NYC a few years later, worked with people who lost family, listened to their stories... Some of them were convinced that it was a conspiracy, but none of them doubted that the towers were hit by planes.  A few people held the idea of controlled demolitions, but after awhile, even they changed their minds under the weight of the data.

One of the problems with the government conspiracy theories is that they are far too elaborate.  The US government is just not that organized.  I grew up around it, worked in and around it... it's generally not that interesting.  Fiction is much better than reality.  I even have a friend who worked on the NIST fire report.  I might see him this weekend.  I'll see what he thinks about the videos.

The buildings were hit by planes. They collapsed under the weight of falling concrete after the bonzo-hot, fuel-driven fire destroyed the support at the impact.  They were crazy-huge buildings.  Lots of paper on every other floor, far, far from the fire.  They were so big that you would fall backwards from dizziness when you tried to see the top from the sidewalk below.  That's tons and tons of weight.  I've never stopped to calculate the mass required to tip them, but it would take way more than a plane.  The collapse created much collateral damage.  It was sad and shocking.  That's all. 

What may have been the most shocking thing about 9/11 is that the general public did indeed think that the government was more organized, omniscient, and so forth.  But those who have worked in and around it weren't too surprised.  It's the government. 

This is a link to the latest version of one of my projects from when I was a Software Engineer in the DC contracting world.  Nothing secret about it.  http://www.necam.com/Biometrics/doc.cfm?t=IntegraID 

The point is this:  I was surprised to learn that one of the major topics at the NEC Internet conference (advertised on that page), even one of the hopeful purposes of the software, was to develop standards so that agencies could communicate... because... they didn't.  This was the late 90s.  It wasn't surprising to hear the reports about 9/11 and how the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, local law enforcement, etc., etc., did not see it coming because no one talks to each other.  Silos.  All of them.  Agencies compete.  It's no secret.   There's no cabal.  They talk more now, but they definitely didn't communicate before 9/11.  About the best ground for conspiracy is the links when heads of governments get together for golf.  Now even the POTUS is getting snubbed...  Is he still a functionary of the one world government?   

I know that what I've described does not speak to this particular theory, but they all have similarities.  Plus, this is an adventure game forum, and these theories are (not trying to offend anyone by saying this... just IMHO...), very well-spun stories.  Fertile ground for SciFi like LOST, X-Files, Fringe -- in other words, there's a game here somewhere!  Thanks for sharing!  Bonus points for the first game dealing with the backstory of the building-destroying-super-death-ray.  Fringe gave it a good treatment in season four. 

Oh, and on Flight 93, just yesterday I was in the home of a person who had jet fuel dumped on their farm as it flew over their house.  So... no holograms there.  Unless it's more like STTNG replicator technology. ...which has yet to be ruled out... 

...and, Mandle, that's another fantastic idea for a story. Even OBL was trying to clear his name... Maybe so? 

Khris

A large number of professionals are supportive of the alternative theories primarily advocated by the organisations collectively known as the “truth movement”. This means a large number of civil engineers and the like at least believe the official story is bullshit. There are likely more people that have not yet subscribed to one of these organisations or spoken out. Furthermore, a recent poll indicates that almost 50% of people in New York believe 9/11 didn't happen the way we were told.

There should be no doubt that alternative theories have a large support base. The problem is that these theories (excluding Dr Wood's) are based on little snippets of truth here and there but are ultimately dead-ends (by design). Many people wishing to find the truth have been (and still are) herded into following the mainstream alternative theories, which initially included Dr Wood and colleagues. Dr Wood nevertheless conducted her own independent research that was exclusively evidence based, unlike the mainstream “research” led by people like Steven E. Jones that largely ignored the evidence (or only dealt with it when needed). When Dr Wood realised that her work was being attacked quite undemocratically from within the “truth movement”, she left the scene. Much of this history is documented by Andrew Johnson (such as the Greg Jenkins ambush interview).

Can you please identify the “experts” who support the official version?

I consider an expert to be:
- someone who can identify the WTC building failure mechanism (e.g. progressive collapse) and provide an explanation that reconciles with the data observed/recorded. Note that NIST contractors do not qualify as they only commented up to the point before collapse; they did not extend their analysis to the actual collapse.
- someone who does not ignore Newton's Third Law in their analysis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Darth

Thank you for that entertaining account of what happened to Flight 93. I personally like to stick to evidence, however if I was to speculate, maybe Flight 93 was intended to target Building 7 but due to technical issues (involving the Earth's magnetic field misbehaving and thus unable to produce the desired impact effect, as it appeared was done for the other two buildings) the plane was forced to crash at Shanksville. The phone calls from the plane were faked with voice editing software.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mandle

I always get a good chuckle from your posts. Bin Laden on the crapper reading Dr Wood's “Where Did the Towers Go?” Fucking brilliant!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

BitPriest

Thanks for showing an interest in this.

I don't doubt the towers were hit by what appeared to be planes. My argument is that many have missed the subtlety of the impact. When looked at critically one should realise that what we saw was physically impossible. Some people may argue that a bullet can penetrate a given material and therefore a plane can penetrating a building. However bullets are designed to do that - they are designed as a weapon. Passenger airliners are not designed as a weapon. Planes have fragile wings and a tail that you would expect to break on impact. Planes are designed with a much lower factor of safety (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factors-safety-fos-d_1624.html) than buildings, i.e. permanent structures like buildings are effectively over-designed typically by a factor of 3, whereas planes are just designed to stay up in the air with relatively little over-design or extra weight. Aluminium is weaker than steel by a ratio of about 3 to 5. To create a plane shaped hole in the building the plane would need to be travelling much faster at a speed comparable to that of the speed of sound in steel (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-solids-d_713.html) (provided the plane does not tear apart while travelling at such speed).

Regarding your friend who worked on the NIST report.
- does he acknowledge the results of the fire simulation test by Underwriters Laboratories (http://www.911truth.org/ul-executive-speaks-out-on-wtc-study/) which indicates that fire could not have caused the collapse?
- does he acknowledge that the actual collapse was not analysed?

Regarding your experience with a lack of communication within the government. I interpret this as creating the perfect environment for keeping the majority of people in the dark with a select few in the know. The perpetrators may not have even been directly part of the government. Again, this is wandering off into the realm of speculation where we just don't have enough evidence to really say anything definite.

You insist that the WTC buildings were hit by planes which initiated a progressive collapse. You also acknowledge they were massive buildings. Do you also acknowledge:
- the buildings fell too quickly
- a larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)
- a larger seismic signal should have been recorded

I keep repeating these three main points because they are the most obvious problems with the official story. If we can agree on these points then we are getting somewhere. So far no one to my knowledge has effectively debunked these points whether it be within this forum thread or the wider global community. If people want to seriously participate in this discussion, start by making a serious effort to address these three points.

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20
If people want to seriously participate in this discussion, start by making a serious effort to address these three points.

Hang on...This thread did not start as a discussion solely about these three points so I don't think you can suddenly limit it to them partway through...Just my opinion as always but it seems a bit unfair (and also a bit like what Dr. Woods seems to do when points she doesn't want to deal with pop up.)

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20If people want to seriously participate in this discussion, start by making a serious effort to address these three points.

Monkey, you don't get to demand that people address your specific points when you've been systematically ignoring their points.

Also, your points are all based on false assumptions, since neither you nor Ms. Wood have knowledge of how demolitions actually work and what they should look like. You're basically saying "Science says X but my gut feeling says Y, and I demand that everybody acknowledge Y in order to participate". Clearly, a scientific discussion doesn't work that way; science is funny like that :)

Man, you're really starting to sound like a cultist, monkey.

OK, Judy Wood is the only one who knows everything. Judy Wood has been persecuted for her preaching. Judy Wood is the way, the truth, and the light. Only through the holy teachings of Judy Wood shall you find enlightenment. Thou shalt not question Judy Wood, or profane against her dignity.

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20
- someone who does not ignore Newton's Third Law in their analysis.

No one is. If you're talking about the plane impacts, then yes of course any force acting on the building was also acting on the plane... as shown by the fact that the planes were fucking wrecked, torn apart, disintegrated!

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20
Do you also acknowledge:
- the buildings fell too quickly

No. And I seem to recall that people have posted evidence and references showing this to be false several times earlier in the thread, which you have yet to acknowledge.

Quote- a larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)

No.
Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the amount of rubble was about as much as expected. For a more precise analysis you'd need good data and models, which I haven't seen Dr. Wood or her acolytes produce.

Quote- a larger seismic signal should have been recorded

No.
Dr. Wood's "I think it should have been larger" say-so is worthless.

You talk about evidence-based explanations, but the three things you (now) claim are the fundamental pillars of your argument aren't even close to being proven, and seem to be based more on intuition and speculation (and outright error) than on any evidence or rigorous analysis.

We can take these three claims as a starting point if you want: OK, prove them!

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 29/05/2015 13:23:16

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20
Do you also acknowledge:
- the buildings fell too quickly

No. And I seem to recall that people have posted evidence and references showing this to be false several times earlier in the thread, which you have yet to acknowledge.

Indeed. To quote Cracked (http://www.cracked.com/article_20466_5-conspiracy-theories-that-are-shockingly-easy-to-debunk.html) on it,

"When somebody tells you that the towers fell at "free-fall speed," they're more or less pulling that out of their ass. Or at least, they're referencing some other conspiracy theorists who pulled it out of their ass. They're not referencing any kind of scientific theory or measurement; they're just timing the fall as they watch YouTube videos and declaring that it looks different from how it plays out in their imagination. In other words, they don't actually know what they mean by "free fall" except that the buildings seem to be falling more quickly than they'd expect from the almost certainly zero controlled demolitions they've seen before."

"Most of the video of the actual collapse is filmed in Cloverfield-style shaky-cam, but if you watch any of the still-camera footage, you can debunk the free-fall claim simply from the fact that there's debris coming off the tower that's falling faster than the tower is. We've known that objects free fall at the same speed ever since Galileo dropped some balls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa, so that more or less puts the kibosh on the whole free-fall business."

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20A large number of professionals are supportive of the alternative theories primarily advocated by the organisations collectively known as the “truth movement”. This means a large number of civil engineers and the like at least believe the official story is bullshit. There are likely more people that have not yet subscribed to one of these organisations or spoken out. Furthermore, a recent poll indicates that almost 50% of people in New York believe 9/11 didn't happen the way we were told.

About 45% of Americans, among them people with Ph.D.s in biology, think that the earth is only several thousand years old, and that dinosaurs lived together with early humans. I guess we can throw out our evolution text books now, right?

QuoteDr Wood [...] ambush interview

Regardless of how the interview was conducted or whether Jenkins was "ambushing" her, she was unable to get out a single compelling point in favor of her hypothesis.

Quote“experts” [...]
- someone who does not ignore Newton's Third Law in their analysis.

In that case, I guess everybody who has a better grasp of physics than you counts as an expert. That's going to be a long list.

QuoteUsing your values I get:

Impact force = 26,334 MN (I suspect you've made an error with units).

Apparently fat fingered my calculator.  You got the correct number

QuoteI'm not sure about the impact area you've used (which is about 2 m sq). The diagram shown on the Wikipedia page suggests 7.7 m x 9.3 m dimensions for the fuselage cross section. Based on the 3.4 feet (~1 m) steel column spacing, the fuselage cross section area should come in contact with about 40% of steel. So an impact area would be in the order of 7.7 m x 9.3 m x 0.4 = 28 m sq.

The crossection consists of 1/4" thick cylinder and three 4" aluminum slabs to which everything else is attached. One slab runs the length of the fuselage.  The other two run the length of each wing and are tapered at the wing tips.  The interior of the cylinder is composed of air which is not included in the area. The area of the cylinder's edge is about 200sqin but wasn't included as it is an order of magnitude smaller than the area of the slabs.  The only area considered in my calculation are the 4" slabs, which I stand by except that I suppose the cylinder's edge area should be included, eventhough it's not signigificant.     

QuoteSo impact pressure should be ~ 1000 MPa.

You need to consider the strength values of steel, not the modulus. The ultimate tensile strength of steel is about 500 MPa, and the ultimate shear strength is about 75% of this.

So the ratio of applied pressure to strength is about 2.

I believe the ratio is at least 2 orders of magnitude higher than that.  Even so, using your number the steel tubes would fail, they would shear off as is in the video(s).

QuoteConsidering Newton's Third Law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction) the impact pressure would also apply to the plane. The ultimate tensile strength of aluminium is 300 MPa, which gives us a ratio of applied pressure to strength of about 3.

It doesn't matter what delivers the force.  It could even be done with water (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1YjqouRDVo).

Btw, here is a handy stress calculator:
http://www.amesweb.info/StructuralAnalysisBeams/Stresses_Steel_Hollow_Structural_Sections.aspx

I can see the truth now, monkey424.  Thank you.

RickJ beat me to a rebuttal, thereby sparing me an aneurysm.  Thanks for that.

A small part of me enjoys the conspiracy theorists because it gets people practicing bar-napkin physics problems to prove or disprove a point.  If a hypothetical high-school student gets accepted into MIT in order to prove that the WTC was a target of a directed energy weapon, the debate is worth it.

Quote"A building is a big thing. A plane is a small thing. A small thing cannot destroy a big thing. Poof! QED."

This pretty much sums it up actually. Does it need to be any more complicated?

Unless I missed some sarcasm, yes, it does need to be more complicated.  The small thing happened to also bring with it a lot of heat and happened to damage structurally significant portions of the big thing.

I was away for couple of weeks, so could not reply earlier. Not that I want to continue this discussion much though... besides RickJ has taken on the plane's hit topic I touched. I am not an expert in this area, it's just that I studied mechanics and properties of material for some time before I switch to software development, so I remember basic concepts.

Anyway, I want just put a note here.

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 18/05/2015 12:06:05

Crimson Wizard

The quote I was referring to was on page 10 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110093.PDF).

Michael Ober said:

I don't remember the sound of the building hitting the ground. Somebody told me that it was measured on the Richter scale, I don't know how true that is. If the building is hitting the ground that hard, how do I not remember the sound of it?

monkey424, you seem to completely miss the point of what I said regarding this quote (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636512933#msg636512933). How else would I explain your answer?
I will repeat myself. This phrase is taken out of context. Here's the full text of what the guy sais with me emphasizing important parts:

Quote
Then I just, I don't even know… time was just a blur, I don't remember what time it was. There was a
rumor about a gas leak going on down there, and about 2 minutes after this rumor of the
gas leak, Chief Kowalcyk calls me on the radio and says we're going back down there. I
remember getting down there, that's about it. I don't remember exactly what we did once
we got down there. It was weird, it was probably the most devastating thing I've ever
seen in my life, and so much of it I can't remember. I don't remember where I parked the
car, you know, I don't remember the people that I saw. I saw so many people, and it's
like, a lot of them I know by face, and I will never forget faces. But I don't know names.
Both people that I work with, and both victims that I saw parts from were like, someone's
face that I saw them jump, and they landed 5 feet from me. I don't remember the sound
of the building hitting the ground. Somebody told me that it was measured on the Richter
scale, I don't know how true that is. If the building is hitting the ground that hard, how
do I not remember the sound of it?

You see, Michael Ober expresses how devastating the experience was for him, this is all about his emotions and the psychological impact he had. He does not claim there was no sound of building falling whatsoever, he tells that he lost memories of many things, including things that could be considered memorable.


BTW this evidence is a good example of how phrases out of context could be used to support someone's theory. I had a good experience with them when I had a very long discussion regarding particular history hoax theory back in early 2000-ies. It's so cute to remember how naive I was back when I was a teenager; I could not believe someone would lie in a book (lol). So I became a paticular hoax theory believer, until I read a critical articles on it. Then I continued to check the claims on my own by comparing text quoted in the theory book with original text. I found dozens of text taken out of context, including even misquoted text (with words and syntax signs literally ripped out from the middle of the phrase)...
This all is based on people's natural trust of quotes. Most would think: if there's an actual quote, then the claim should be true. Not many would go and read through the original text to see if the quote actually supports the claim?

I thought blurred time and confusion were side-effects of the death ray. . .

Please make an effort to look at the information I direct you to (or source the information independently) before adding to the discussion. If you are wondering where Dr Judy Wood's calculations are, then why not check her website:

http://www.drjudywood.com/

Don't be lazy. Do some research!

I will not aim to insult anyone here and I'd appreciate that attitude to be reciprocated. I appreciate good humour but not cutting sarcasm.

Some people are making an effort which I will acknowledge.

-----------------------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

My mistake. I wasn't sure that you'd read the right part of the dialog. I see your point now.

I accept what you're saying, i.e. Michael Ober not remembering the sound of the building hitting the ground due to being in a state of shock / confusion. It is not a particularly strong argument on its own, but in the context of more concrete evidence (e.g. seismic data) this little piece of information plays more of a supporting roll.

-----------------------------------------------------

RickJ

It's great you're making the effort to provide some calculations. I encourage more of this.

My argument is not so much about the difference in strength between steel and aluminium but rather that that the analysis should also apply to the plane, i.e. an equal and opposite force will apply, so we should expect some damage to the plane the moment it comes in contact with the building (which we don't see). I'm not arguing that a plane can't penetrate a building; it probably can if going fast enough, but it would need to go much faster than what it did. From what I understand, it would need to travel at a speed comparable to the speed of sound through the material being penetrated. There's a YouTube video that shows a ping pong ball penetrating a paddle, leaving a round hole, and a user posts a comment explaining how this works. It's to do with the speed of sound. It's a great explanation so I've extracted the information here:

Spoiler

Supersonic Ping Pong Ball Going Through Paddle

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wc-zmb3jAgo

Here's a video of a ping pong paddle being hit by a ball, flying at supersonic speeds, filmed at 30,000fps. You can watch the ball punch a hole through it, Wile E. Coyote style - which might surprise you if you think about it, since if you throw a rock at a window, the window shatters, it doesn't punch a hole. What's the difference?

The magic is in the speed of sound.

The question that first inspired me to look at this was one which Bob Laughlin (a mad scientist whom I used to TA for, and who later won the Nobel Prize) once set as an exam question: to design our new strategic missile defense system, Brilliant Pot Roast. It worked by putting lumps of pot roast with rocket engines in orbit, and firing them at ICBM's; students had to calculate pretty much everything required for this, including answering the key physical question of what happens when a pot roast strikes a nuclear missile.

It turns out that the most important factor in this is actually not about the structural integrity of the materials, since at high enough impact speed nearly anything will break. The most important factor turns out to be the speed of sound in the objects which are colliding, and how this compares to the speed of impact.

To see why this is, imagine throwing a baseball at a sheet of metal. When the baseball hits the metal, it will start to transfer its energy into the metal, and this energy might cause the metal to shake, bend, tear, or shatter, depending on just how much energy the ball had.

Now, let's consider how the energy gets from the ball into the metal. Start by thinking about ordinary baseball speeds. When the ball first touches the metal, it's going to literally push the metal some. The metal will then try to bounce back (because metal has a tensile strength and tries to keep its shape; which is to say, metal is a solid, and not a liquid or a gas) and you'll see a wave of motion go out from the impact point.

This makes sense: energy from the ball's impact will be radiated out through the metal in the form of a big vibration of the metal, which travels out in a wave, just like it would if you dropped a rock into a pond. (There, the restoration force comes from gravity rather than the tensile strength of water) But there's a name for a vibration wave travelling through a material: sound. Waves flowing through the material will therefore (by definition) travel at the speed of sound in that material, which can be computed from the physical properties of that material or simply looked up. (If you're interested, the formula for a solid is v = √K/ρ, where K is the bulk modulus of the material -- a measure of its stiffness -- and ρ is its density) Some typical values are:

The speed of sound in dry air at sea level: 330 meters per second.
The speed of sound in Uranium: 3,100 meters per second. (Very dense)
The speed of sound in ice: 3,100 meters per second. (Less dense than Uranium, but low strength)
The speed of sound in glass: 3,960 meters per second.
The speed of sound in steel: 6,100 meters per second. (Much higher tensile strength than glass)
The speed of sound in aluminum: 6,420 meters per second. (About the same tensile strength as steel, but less dense)

So if we imagine our baseball striking the metal, the ball will transfer its energy to the "primary impact area" -- that is, the area under the ball -- by directly pushing on the metal, and then that energy will flow out to the rest of the metal. Since the ball is travelling much slower than sound, what's really going to happen is that the ball starts to touch the metal, and sound waves start to travel out instantly; by the time all of the ball's energy has been transferred to the metal sheet, the energy will already have been carried far and wide by the sound waves. This means that the ball's energy will be spread widely across the whole metal sheet.

The exact consequences will then depend on things like the tensile strength of the metal, how brittle it is, and so on. For example, if the metal is brittle for some reason (perhaps it was improperly forged), or if it was a sheet of glass instead of metal, then cracks will start to appear in it. These cracks will spread out at the speed of sound, and by the time the ball has finished striking the glass, all of the glass will be cracked. The window will shatter into many pieces. If, on the other hand, the material is sturdy enough to withstand the impact, say a sheet of decent aluminum, then the vibration will go through all of the metal (making a loud "thump"), and if there's bending of the metal, it will bend the metal all over the place, into a big dome.

(And what happens to the baseball? The exact reverse! The baseball hits the metal, but the metal hits the baseball, too, so vibrations travel through it at the speed of sound in baseballs)

Now let's imagine what happens if it's a supersonic impact -- that is, if the impact speed is higher than the speed of sound in the target material. This time, the baseball will start to transfer its energy into the primary impact area, and it will keep doing so faster than energy can escape from there. This doesn't just mean that all the energy will be deposited into a small area: this also means that, if the material is going to be able to stop the baseball, it has to do so using only the strength of the material under the baseball, since the rest of the material "hasn't yet gotten the news" that the baseball has hit it; it's still at rest.

This means that if the energy transferred by the baseball is greater than the structural strength of the metal directly under it, the metal won't be able to stop it, and the baseball will keep going, and in fact the baseball will be gone before the message reaches beyond the primary impact area. That means that the baseball will basically leave a baseball-shaped hole in the metal, with only some minor tearing and unevenness around the edges. (That small area which did get the message from the very last bits of the baseball, just as it passed)

At this point, it turns out that the faster the ball went, the cleaner the hole will be. If it's fast enough, it will simply punch out the hole and disconnect it before almost any of the sound waves from the impact can get beyond the hole; that means that very little energy will reach the rest of the metal at all. On the other hand, if it isn't that much faster than sound, then the energy from the outer bits of the baseball might have gotten past the rim of the hole before the hole got fully punched, and that energy will escape into the rest of the metal and damage it.

So now, let's test the hypothesis: in the experiment below, a ping-pong ball is fired supersonically at a paddle. We would therefore predict a few things.

(1) The ball will punch a ball-shaped hole in the paddle.

(2) Because the ball isn't going that much faster than sound, some energy will escape, and push the paddle in the direction that the ball was moving. If the paddle is trying to be anchored in place by its handle, then that handle is going to be having a bad day.

(3) We can also look at the reverse problem: what happens to the ping-pong ball? Energy is transferred into it from the paddle, which should cause vibrations, and ping-pong balls, not being very robust, are likely to break. (In particular, if you imagine a giant wave flowing over the surface of the ball, the surface will tear) However, by the time the vibrations hit the ball, it will already have punched a hole through the paddle. So we expect the ball to be ripped to shreds, but this ripping will happen after the hole is punched.

I leave the video as an illustration that the laws of physics do, indeed, work.

(Oh, and what about Brilliant Pot Roast? Well, it depends on what the pot roast hits. A pot roast in space is basically ice, so its speed of sound is roughly 3,100m/s. If it hits the aluminum of the missile, that has a speed of sound of 6,100m/s; if it hits the actual core, that has a much lower speed of sound, 3,100m/s. The impact velocities could range widely, but they'll be on the scale of orbital velocities around the Earth. Apogee for a Minuteman III ICBM is 1,600km, travelling at roughly 6,600m/s. Orbital speed for a pot roast orbiting at that altitude is about 16,000m/s, which means that even if the pot roast hits the missile at a maximally unfortunate angle -- coming up on it from behind -- the relative speed at impact will be over 9,000m/s, well over the speed of sound in all of the materials concerned. This means that the pot roast will punch a fairly clean hole through the missile. At its minimum impact speed, that hole may be less clean, whereas at maximum speed (26,600m/s) it's going to be quite clean indeed. This may cause problems for the missile as it reenters the atmosphere, since it has an unexpected pot roast-sized hole in it, but it won't destroy the missile outright. The pot roast will therefore need to decelerate prior to impact, or alternately carry explosives with it.)

[close]

-----------------------------------------------------

DEBUNK THIS, BITCH!

(No offence intended. Just impersonating Jesse Pinkman from Breaking Bad).

Here are my three main points again.

1. The buildings fell too quickly
2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)
3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

I'm trying to direct people to those points because they are the more robust pieces of evidence. You can of course talk about anything you like, but these are the tough ones.

Dr Judy Wood's website contains all the information and workings you need to know to support these three points. I will summarise the info here.

----------

1. The buildings fell too quickly

The 9/11 Commission Report says the buildings fell in about 10 seconds.

NIST estimated about 10 seconds for the first exterior panels to hit the ground (perhaps implying the collapse extended beyond this time) and seismic data indicates the duration of stuff hitting the ground to be about 10 seconds for each tower. Say for argument sake that the collapse time was 10 + 10 = 20 seconds.

WTC1 was about 417 m tall. The time for an object in free fall to hit the ground from this height (ignoring air resistance) is about 10 seconds.

Assuming a floor by floor progressive collapse, for 110 floors, and taking Newton's Third Law into account (i.e. structural resistance at each floor halting the progression), the collapse would take about 100 seconds.

See this webpage for detailed calculations.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

----------

2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)

Consider these two photographs, likely taken on 9/11/01.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/9743/fjq3ux7rzee6fayzg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3c1d/8zaxyb3b791j921zg.jpg)

The photographs show an ambulance parked near the towers (about 10 m from WTC1 (http://pesn.com/2012/12/09/9602240_Ambulance-Survived_WTC1_911--Best-Evidence_Dustification_Free-Energy-Demo/)) and the 'sphere' sculpture. The pictures show much of the ground is stable with debris that didn't penetrate the ground into the lower levels. We can see the building cladding and the tall arch design at their base that did not disappear below ground. Neither did stairwell B in WTC1 disappear below ground where 16 people survived.

The pictures also show, intuitively I believe, a lack of debris. But what should the debris pile have looked like? We can approach this problem mathematically.

Our friend Dr Greg Jenkins estimated the radius of the debris field to be about 2.5 times that of the building footprint based on aerial photographs. The radius of the debris field is therefore about 80 m.

Details for one of the WTC buildings Height: 417 m Footprint: 63 m x 63 m Concrete: 212,500 cubic yards = 162,468 cubic meters Steel: 100,000 Ton / (8 Ton per cubic m) = 12,500 cubic meters Total volume of building: 1,655,073 cubic meters Total volume of concrete and steel: 174,968 cubic meters Approx. volume of disturbed material in a pile: 262,452 cubic meters * * Bulking factor (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/soil-rock-bulking-factor-d_1557.html) of 1.5 used to incorporate voids.

Using a basic cone shape to model the debris pile, we can calculate its height using Jenkin's radius and the calculated volume. I've superimposed this onto the building at its base.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/7600/zoeiuwh1n19v3fhzg.jpg)

This simple model should give us a fair idea of what the debris pile should have looked like.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b526/5clyd422ckm9by1zg.jpg)

Although there are indications that the sub levels below the towers did not collapse (e.g. arch cladding standing; stairwell B survived) we could nevertheless incorporate the basement volume into the model. Taking into account this additional accommodating volume (63 m x 63 m x 15 m) just above the subway tunnels that didn't suffer any damage, the new height is calculated to be 30 m.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3759/njcjgbjaxkcjng7zg.jpg)

This does not reconcile with what we see in the photographs.

----------

3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

Dr Wood compares the WTC seismic data to that of the Kingdome Stadium in Seattle.

Kingdome details

Founded on: soil
Mass of structure: 130,000 tons
Seismic Richter value: 2.3

WTC2 details

Founded on: bedrock
Mass of building: 500,000 tons
Seismic Richter value: 2.1

A hard rigid substance like rock is a better conductor of ground vibrations as opposed to soil. If the Kingdome was founded on rock, you'd expect a greater Richter value since there would be less of a dampening effect.

Given WTC2 is about 4 times more massive with 30 times more potential energy and with foundations anchored in rock, you would definitely expect the seismic recording to be higher.

See this webpage for more information.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam2.html

LOL.

Again, Monkey, you don't get to demand that people address your specific points when you've been systematically ignoring their points.

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 05/06/2015 15:20:31
Assuming a floor by floor progressive collapse, for 110 floors, and taking Newton's Third Law into account (i.e. structural resistance at each floor halting the progression), the collapse would take about 100 seconds.

So wait what????

You actually expected to see the catastrophic collapse of a building that had the massive weight of the top portion of it driving it downwards take 100 seconds to elapse???

What would that actually look like in real life?

The massive top portion that fell on the lower levels would just fall and sit for the exact ammount of time required for it to break that next particular structural integrity and then proceed down to the next level and then sit there for the amount of time needed by the stress calculations until it fell to the next level down?

So it would descend through a series of stops and starts?

Unfortunately mate, in the real world, catastrophic events involving a lot of tonnage and a lot of gravity force acceleration do not work level by level in ways that our calculations can even begin to remotely predict...

Even the best science can still only make ball-park predictions on these kind of massive real-world simulations, and even that is based mostly on the very few real world test runs they have been able to study...And don't say that controlled demolitions of buildings even apply here because those guys go in and cut part-way through load-supporting girders and beams to aid in the demolition and make it as "soft" as possible so all of that data it just out the window in real world cases...

You have not even attempted to answer the question of the debris pushed outwards during the collapse falling much faster than the actual collapse of the central structure...In fact, the fact that debris was even pushed outwards implies that normal floor-by-floor physics was involved in the collapse in that each floor could not fully absorb the impact of the fall and applied Newton's Third Law to the falling debris and had to push the debris sideways instead of instantly downwards as in the case of "dustification"...

So how did all that lateral debris fall much faster than the actual building that was collapsing floor by floor?

Did Galileo not take into account the impact of an airplane into the Leaning Tower Of Pisa?

EDIT: I can even explain Dr. Woods' "dustification": Couldn't it be possible that a lot of concrete structures being driven at massive velocity into each other during the collapse could result in them impacting on each other and this causing a massive "snowball" effect in which the powderised/pulverized concrete exploded outwards in its "dustified" state? This would also account for the lack of concrete material that one would expect to see piled up around the site at Ground Zero. It would also account for the "snowball" picture. It would also explain the amount of "dust" that floated around Manhatten that day or was pulled up into the atmosphere via the impact of the collapse...

In fact: Doesn't the whole concept that concrete impacting down upon concrete and crushing itself into the lightweight powder of "dustification" during the collapse kind of destroy the need for any kind of "power beam" weapon completely?

Then all you are left with it the relatively slim steel structure of the building to account for the debris at Ground Zero...

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 05/06/2015 15:20:31
1. The buildings fell too quickly

The 9/11 Commission Report says the buildings fell in about 10 seconds.

NIST estimated about 10 seconds for the first exterior panels to hit the ground (perhaps implying the collapse extended beyond this time) and seismic data indicates the duration of stuff hitting the ground to be about 10 seconds for each tower. Say for argument sake that the collapse time was 10 + 10 = 20 seconds.

WTC1 was about 417 m tall. The time for an object in free fall to hit the ground from this height (ignoring air resistance) is about 10 seconds.

Assuming a floor by floor progressive collapse, for 110 floors, and taking Newton's Third Law into account (i.e. structural resistance at each floor halting the progression), the collapse would take about 100 seconds.

See this webpage for detailed calculations.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

This one at least is easy to refute. Her billiard ball model is fundamentally flawed, as can be seen at a glance by the fact that it is linear (or approaches it): it predicts that time of collapse will increase linearly with height of the building. Since the resistance of each floor is presumably roughly constant* while the momentum of the crashing floors from above is growing all the time (increasing mass, and â€" as it turns out, speed), the collapse will necessarily have been accelerating, giving a parabolic curve. In terms of her model, the mistake is to assume that each billiard ball is just "dropped" from its height when passed by that above, when in fact it is knocked downwards with force. (Actually, there are a number of other things wrong with it as well.) Her response in the appendix is nonsense: she says she's assuming elastic collisions, but then says "If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving." That's the complete opposite of an elastic collision! I mean, you're the one who keeps talking about Newton's third law, but here we have Dr. Wood fail to properly deal with momentum.

She's also assuming that the collapse started from the top floor, which is not what happened, and transparently absurd. (Yes, of course the whole building couldn't have been brought down just from the top floor falling down! It's the fact that each building failed much further down that led to the catastrophic collapse of the entire structure.)

Without necessarily endorsing every detail of the model (or its results), this at least shows a reasonable collapse profile: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
The time it would actually have taken depends mainly on the resistance of the floors (and how much energy would be dissipated in other ways). You can see here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x132697#132718) that a slightly more reasonable model (by a Woods sympathizer) gives e.g. 30 seconds for the collapse, while a more realistic one (post 12, by AlienSpaceBat) gives between 15-21 seconds depending on assumptions. (Sorry for the quality of these pages, but apparently no respectable scientists have taken Wood seriously enough to bother to debunk.)

It would take a more detailed model to really predict the collapse time properly (and we'd no doubt be left with uncertainty, as Mandle says), but back-of-the-envelope calculations such as these show that observed time is within the ball park of what perfectly normal physics suggest.

* In fact, lower floors may have been somewhat sturdier because they had to carry the weight of the whole building, but this is a minor detail.

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 05/06/2015 15:20:31
3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

Dr Wood compares the WTC seismic data to that of the Kingdome Stadium in Seattle.

Kingdome details

Founded on: soil
Mass of structure: 130,000 tons
Seismic Richter value: 2.3

WTC2 details

Founded on: bedrock
Mass of building: 500,000 tons
Seismic Richter value: 2.1

A hard rigid substance like rock is a better conductor of ground vibrations as opposed to soil. If the Kingdome was founded on rock, you'd expect a greater Richter value since there would be less of a dampening effect.

Given WTC2 is about 4 times more massive with 30 times more potential energy and with foundations anchored in rock, you would definitely expect the seismic recording to be higher.

See this webpage for more information.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam2.html

I think this one is easy to dismiss as well. 

Now I am not, admittedly, an expert in such matters but I think this make sense:

The Kingdome was much less massive (in total) but had a much larger footprint than either of the towers.  The Kingdome's footprint (just the building) was roughly 9 acres [ source (http://your.kingcounty.gov/stadium/) ] and the footprint of each twin tower was roughly 1 acre (64x64m or ~210') [ source (http://architecture.about.com/od/worldtradecenter/ss/worldtrade_2.htm) ].  Now, again, I'm not expert but it seems common sense to me that the greater the area impacted the larger the seismic reading would be.  Since the Kingdome's footprint was roughly 9 times the size of each tower's it seems obvious to me it would shake the ground a lot more.

Also; I'm not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination but I believe the seismic readings are based on movement/vibration of the ground (not how loud it is)... it would seem to my uneducated mind that bedrock (under the towers), being far more "stable" than soft ground (under the kingdome) would move less than soft ground and a lower seismic reading would seem accurate to me anyway.  Again, not a geologist so maybe it's possible it's the exact opposite?  Anybody know this?

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 05/06/2015 18:20:42
The Kingdome was much less massive (in total) but had a much larger footprint than either of the towers.  The Kingdome's footprint (just the building) was roughly 9 acres [ source (http://your.kingcounty.gov/stadium/) ] and the footprint of each twin tower was roughly 1 acre (64x64m or ~210') [ source (http://architecture.about.com/od/worldtradecenter/ss/worldtrade_2.htm) ].  Now, again, I'm not expert but it seems common sense to me that the greater the area impacted the larger the seismic reading would be.

My remaining memories of physics tell me opposite :).
The less is the area, the higher is mass per area value, and the stronger is impact.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Fri 05/06/2015 18:20:42I believe the seismic readings are based on movement/vibration of the ground (not how loud it is)... it would seem to my uneducated mind that bedrock (under the towers), being far more "stable" than soft ground (under the kingdome) would move less than soft ground and a lower seismic reading would seem accurate to me anyway.

IIRC the waves are always stronger in hard and dense material, than in soft or sparse material.


What I wonder, though, what was the distance between the crash sites and registereing devices. That would be interesting to compare.
E: OTOH the values they are giving in the article could be not the actual values they registered, but calculated value of epicenter? Actually, I am getting curious on how this is defined, I might look it up later.

EDIT: Also, does the Kingdome seismic data include effect from explosives? The Dr.Wood's text references an article from the "Seattle Times", which sounds like a general newspaper (which is strange on its own BTW, why would a scientist use common media materials for this research?). It does not give such details.


EDIT2:
There is another thought I got after thinking about what Darth said on the building areas.
How correct is Dr.Wood's use of seismic values extrapolation in this case?

Think about this: the Kingdome is a very simple structure, basically one-storeyed building (although large one). When exploded, it should have collapse all at once, and all its mass hit the ground, producing energy for seismic wave almost at the same time.

On contrary, the WWC tower is a tall building that collapsed gradually. May we suggest that its mass was producing energy of seismic waves by "parts"?

These are speculations, because I am at the limits of my knowledge here.

Here's an interesting read. Please take the time to read this monkey. I know that it's not something Dr. Judy Wood wrote, so you'll probably just dismiss it, but for the rest of us, I find it very interesting.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

I guess Judy didn't realize that this video would surface. Another picture of hers debunked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcdq1gS2RJA

This is a long video, but it tells the tale of the people that were there. It shows video of giant piles of steel and exactly what the after math was like. Not one person mentions energy beams and silly things that Judy mentions. I would much rather believe these guys than the book that Judy is selling. The first half shows the piles and piles of steel that was supposed to be turned to dust.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8POCF37G2hE#

Quote from: NickyNyce on Fri 05/06/2015 21:10:30
Here's an interesting read. Please take the time to read this monkey. I know that it's not something Dr. Judy Wood wrote, so you'll probably just dismiss it, but for the rest of us, I find it very interesting.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Indeed. Monkey, please make an effort to look at the information you are directed to, before adding to the discussion. Don't be lazy. Do some research!

QuoteI'm not arguing that a plane can't penetrate a building

Well, until now you have been insiting just that ... that it is physically impossible  (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636514361#msg636514361)for a plane to penetrate a building.  As I understand it, this whole energy weapon idea rests upon this assumption.

Also there doesn't appear to be calcyulations of this sort on Judy Wood's site.  Perhaps you could be more specific and direct me to what you ar referring.

[edit]added link physically impossible  (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636514361#msg636514361) to post containing this:

Quote from: monkey424 on Fri 29/05/2015 09:24:20
...
BitPriest
...
I don't doubt the towers were hit by what appeared to be planes. My argument is that many have missed the subtlety of the impact. When looked at critically one should realise that what we saw was physically impossible. Some people may argue that a bullet can penetrate a given material and therefore a plane can penetrating a building. However bullets are designed to do that - they are designed as a weapon. Passenger airliners are not designed as a weapon. Planes have fragile wings and a tail that you would expect to break on impact. Planes are designed with a much lower factor of safety (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/factors-safety-fos-d_1624.html) than buildings, i.e. permanent structures like buildings are effectively over-designed typically by a factor of 3, whereas planes are just designed to stay up in the air with relatively little over-design or extra weight. Aluminium is weaker than steel by a ratio of about 3 to 5. To create a plane shaped hole in the building the plane would need to be travelling much faster at a speed comparable to that of the speed of sound in steel (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-solids-d_713.html) (provided the plane does not tear apart while travelling at such speed).
...

Radiant

I said you can talk about anything you like, but I'd prefer to focus on these three points for now. I'll also look at what others post and respond like I always try to do. I don't know why you're suggesting I systematically ignore other peoples' posts. Give me a break mate.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Mandle

The billiard ball example is not meant to predict what would actually happen. Dr Wood says in reality there would not be enough energy to both pulverize material AND initiate the next collapse in sequence. Her example is akin to the Myth Busters forcing something to fail (i.e. blowing it up) when it cannot be done by conventional means. Please read the detail on Wood's website. One diagram shows that in order for the collapse to complete in 10 seconds, floors would need to start moving before the ones above had actually reached them.

"So how did all that lateral debris fall much faster than the actual building that was collapsing floor by floor?"

I'm not really following what you're trying to say here. That 'lateral debris' falls faster because it's in free fall, i.e. no resistance. Are you suggesting this proves the progressive collapse model is valid?

Your suggestion that concrete smashing against concrete would produce vast amounts of dust is incorrect. Look at collapsed buildings after an earthquake to see what a debris pile should look like.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Snarky

Again, the billiard ball example is not meant to model reality. It is forcing a solution by ignoring the reality that more energy would actually be required to both pulverize material AND initiate the next collapse in sequence.

You've found the momentum info in the appendices. That's good. Dr Wood looks at two cases: inelastic and elastic collisions. The latter is like a tennis ball bouncing off the ground, or two billiard balls colliding. Wood says: "If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving." This describes an elastic collision. To use billiard balls: ball A transfers momentum to ball B, causing ball A to stop moving in that direction.

Mandle had already posted that article that references analysis by Dr Frank Greening. And I have already pointed out, Greening is ignoring Newton's third law (see HERE (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf)). So by my definition, he is full of shit.

-----------------------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

The first link you provided says nothing about Dr Woods work. I'm not sure what the second video is meant to show or prove. And the third video I'll watch a bit later but I dare say it will omit much of the evidence I'm trying to get you guys to focus on.

Btw, you didn't respond to my earlier post. I'm interest to know what you can tell me as a local of NY. What has been happening at the site over the years? I'm interested to know what buildings were completely dismantled and rebuilt, such as Bankers Trust. Why did it need to be dismantled?

-----------------------------------------------------------

RickJ

I stand corrected. I said WHAT WE SAW was physically impossible, not that a plane can't go through a building. I don't wish to repeat myself so read what I wrote again carefully.

FYI - Judy Wood does not focus on the planes. Others do. All she says about the planes is that real planes couldn't take down the WTC buildings, and neither could fake ones.

-----------------------------------------------------------

SEISMIC DATA

Darth: Thanks for thinking about the seismic data.

CW: Thanks for correctly explaining the concepts. I hadn't thought about the area (pressure = force / area, so the smaller the area the larger the pressure), although in this case I believe it's the impulse energy from multiple impacts to the ground that's more relevant. The seismic data is interpreted by the guys at the seismic recording stations, and the distance from the event epicentre to the stations is accounted for in the Richter Magnitude calculations.

-----------------------------------------------------------

AMBULANCE

I understand that the ambulance was about 10 m away from WTC 1 (source (http://pesn.com/2012/12/09/9602240_Ambulance-Survived_WTC1_911--Best-Evidence_Dustification_Free-Energy-Demo/)) but wasn't totally convinced. So I attempted to find its location based on some features in the photograph. By matching up several reference points, it does indeed look like the ambulance was within about 10 m from WTC 1.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3dd9/81henoebevm1ov6zg.jpg)   (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/50bb/zrzp8ndxlzbkl5azg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/63ab/1o7vsp28rmpu242zg.jpg)   (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/2f9a/m8pj9scggol17g3zg.jpg)

The other photograph of this scene was extracted from a video to create a panoramic view. The video appears to be looking down on the people and shows part of a building on the right, so I guessed it was taken from the Merrill Lynch Building across West Street. The images show WTC 7 still standing, so the picture was taken on 9/11.

Where is the nominal 15 m tall stack of debris that should be on top of that ambulance?

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 07/06/2015 10:10:19
I said you can talk about anything you like, but I'd prefer to focus on these three points for now.

Yes, we get that. The point is that you if you purport to be interested in the science behind this, you can't just avoid discussing anything that contradicts your pet theory. Science doesn't work that way.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 07/06/2015 10:10:19
Snarky

Again, the billiard ball example is not meant to model reality. It is forcing a solution by ignoring the reality that more energy would actually be required to both pulverize material AND initiate the next collapse in sequence.

But it is meant to represent a hypothetical "ideal" (meaning maximum theoretical speed of collapse) model, yet it is nothing of the sort. If anything, what it represents is a scenario where:

-The top floor falls down on the second-top floor
-The impact is just enough to cause the support of that floor to crumble, causing it to fall from a stand-still, but does not transmit to it any additional downward impulse
-At this point, the top floor has no further interaction with the building: it either disappears (is, perhaps, pulverized?), or if it continues falling (on the graph it appears to do so, unaffected by having hit the floor below) it does so around the rest of the building
-The second-top floor now falls onto the floor below, repeating the process

It is clear that all the assumptions in this model are wrong, and tend to give a slower-than-realistic speed of collapse.

QuoteYou've found the momentum info in the appendices. That's good. Dr Wood looks at two cases: inelastic and elastic collisions. The latter is like a tennis ball bouncing off the ground, or two billiard balls colliding. Wood says: "If all of the momentum is transferred from Block-A to Block-B, the next floor, Block-A will stop moving momentarily, even if there is no resistance for the next block to start moving." This describes an elastic collision. To use billiard balls: ball A transfers momentum to ball B, causing ball A to stop moving in that direction.

Yes, sorry, I got confused by the inconsistencies and mistakes in her discussion, which made me flip the inelastic/elastic definitions. The problem is that she only discusses an elastic collision model: the first billiard ball model is fundamentally wrong, but if anything it more closely resembles an elastic model. The second is wrong because while it accepts that momentum is transferred from "Block A" to "Block B", it forgets that Block B will then continue to accelerate under gravity before it hits Block C, so momentum is increasing between each impact.

In a correct version of the elastic billiard ball model, all the momentum of the floor from above is transferred to the floor below, so it essentially continues the "free fall" of that floor (since we're assuming no energy is lost in breaking the floors), while the floor above "bounces" (stops momentarily before resuming free fall from a stationary position). The result is something like this:

[imgzoom]http://i.imgur.com/MiyhvHd.png[/imgzoom]

Notice that the big difference from Dr. Wood's (incorrect) model is that the collapse of each floor level below is initiated as soon as the first parabola intersects: this is necessary in an ideal elastic model, since the momentum is simply transferred between equal masses, constantly accelerating under gravity, so the "front" of the collapse follows a free-fall path.

In fact, this is a consequence of Newtons's third law that you are so keen on.

And yes, obviously this is an idealization, with no actual slowdown from the crushing of the building structure, but the result is quite strikingly different from Dr Wood's 100 second estimate, isn't it?

In any case, I think a perfectly inelastic model (as in the second link I posted) is more appropriate in this case.

QuoteMandle had already posted that article that references analysis by Dr Frank Greening. And I have already pointed out, Greening is ignoring Newton's third law (see HERE (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/FGvsNewton.pdf)). So by my definition, he is full of shit.

Like I said, I don't endorse the model, since I haven't examined it in detail. But it shows a far more reasonable collapse profile than Dr. Wood's. I also don't feel like going down the rabbit hole of trying to figure out what Dr. Greening meant by his comments (I assume he wasn't trying to say that Newton's third law is somehow suspended in a collapsing building, just that you can't apply it in the way they had).

The first link I provided is not something that Judy wrote, and I see now that if Judy didn't say or write it, you won't take it seriously. Judy is right and the rest of the world is wrong.

The second link shows that Judy is using pictures in her book and trying to make people think that only a death ray could cause the damage. So you should take this into consideration. Its written in her own words. But now the video is out, and Judy should feel very silly that falling debris was the reason why the fire truck looks like that..not a death ray.

I don't live in the city, I live near it and could see the towers from where I live. I have not gone to ground zero so I can't give you any info about those buildings.


Here is some more video. Judy claims that the underground mall and parking garage were unscathed. This is not true.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PCndKGqkqKc

This is what falling pennies did to the surrounding buildings.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SwKx_NtgoIs

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QWEiEB69-E0

How the towers were built in the link below possibly played a big part in how they collapsed. Maybe there was a flaw in the way they were built. I don't know exactly why these towers collapsed as they did, but I just don't see anything that says death ray from what I have seen.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mcaz6N75mjM

Snarky

Billiard ball example

The billiard ball example is simply using billiard balls as timing devices, each starting at rest and then accelerating at free fall when triggered, like a relay race. Billiard balls are not interacting in this example; they are just timing devices. It is interesting to note that one billiard ball dropped from the top of the building takes about 10 seconds to hit the ground at free fall. Additional billiard balls are introduced to incorporate a resistance or hauling effect in the progression. Different arrangements of billiard balls are used to show different scenarios. The example serves to illustrate that the overall collapse (assuming it is possible) should have taken longer than 10 seconds. The example should not be confused with attempting to calculate an actual collapse time.

Elastic collisions

The graph you have produced illustrates perfect elastic collisions and looks correct to me.

What does Judy Wood say here?

QuoteIf Block-A stops moving, after triggering the next sequence, the mass of Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum to the next "pancaking" between Block-B and Block-C.  In other words, the momentum will not be increased as the "collapse" progresses.

I can see how Dr Wood's notes are confusing. Some more diagrams would have been helpful! She seems to be contradicting herself here. In the context of elastic collisions, Block-A transfers momentum to Block-B. Isn't this "transfer" synonymous with "triggering the next sequence"? What does she mean Block-A will not arrive in time to transfer momentum - hasn't that already happened? It's not very clear, but I think she means that momentum will not increase in the sense that it won't increase beyond free fall speed. That's the only interpretation I can think of. Your explanation and graph makes more sense to me.

Inelastic collisions

Inelastic collisions are probably a more realistic model. Judy Wood explains this type of collision with the equation demonstrating that when two bodies of equal mass impact and "stick" together they will continue to travel at half their original speed, i.e. conservation of momentum. That link you provided (HERE (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x132697#132809)) includes the correct governing equations to model the collapse, which when plotted look like this.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ad2a/f0ek9p1f3eh9m2czg.jpg)

So using this model of collapse, the overall collapse time should be somewhere between 10 and 100 seconds.

Reality check

Judy Wood does not claim that the collapse should have taken 100 seconds. Rather, she argues that the progressive collapse or "pancake" model is fundamentally wrong.

QuoteAccording to the pancake theory, one floor fails and falls onto the floor below, causing it to fail and fall on the floor below that one, and so forth. The "pancake theory" implies that this continues all the way to the ground floor. In the case of both WTC towers, we didn't see the floors piled up when the event was all over, but rather a pulverization of the floors throughout the event. So, clearly we cannot assume that the floors stacked up like pancakes.  Looking at the data, we take the conservative approach that a falling floor initiates the fall of the one below, while itself becoming pulverized.  In other words, when one floor impacts another, the small amount of kinetic energy from the falling floor is consumed (a) by pulverizing the floor and (b) by breaking free the next floor.  In reality, there isn't enough kinetic energy to do either.*

*

Spoiler

Wood references:

Trumpman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

Hoffman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG2nWlQM80

Note: If you don't like Wood's presentation style, you may prefer Hoffman.

[close]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

The first link you posted on 5 June entitled "Debunking the 9/11 Myths" does not have anything to do with Judy Wood's work. I can't see the relevance of this article. I see it as a bunch of claims that are arguably 'easy targets' and attempts to debunk them. It does not attempt to address these points:

1. The buildings fell too quickly
2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)
3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

I want to focus on the above three points because:
A) they are relevant to this thread about Judy Wood and what she talks about
B) they are not 'easy targets' to debunk as some would imagine

I have watched your videos and noted the following:

Video 1 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8POCF37G2hE#)
9/11: Ground Zero's Responders (2012)
- dust
- paper
- ground rumbling prior to collapse
- building 7 quiet when it came down
- spontaneous fires
- boots 'melting' and "needed replacing every two days"

Video 2 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PCndKGqkqKc)
WTC Underground Images @ 100ft
- voids / space below ground big enough for people to enter implies it did not all cave in
- "the deeper they went, the more preserved everything was"
- 100 feet down* the floors were virtually untouched
- a lot of the cars were in pristine condition and were driven out
- remains of many victims not found

* Note the WTC basement extended to bedrock that is 70 feet below ground (http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html), not 100 feet..

Debris obviously penetrated in some areas and Judy Wood is not denying this.

These videos paint a clearer picture of what happened at Ground Zero.

9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 1 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnnXTrw88P4)
9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 2 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyQk941tXQ)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEBRIS PILE

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3759/njcjgbjaxkcjng7zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3dd9/81henoebevm1ov6zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/50bb/zrzp8ndxlzbkl5azg.jpg)

1. The buildings fell too quickly

QuoteInelastic collisions are probably a more realistic model. Judy Wood explains this type of collision with the equation demonstrating that when two bodies of equal mass impact and “stick” together they will continue to travel at half their original speed, i.e. conservation of momentum. That link you provided (HERE) includes the correct governing equations to model the collapse, which when plotted look like this.

This assumes both objects are of equal masses and ignores gravatitional acceleration.  Obviously a progressively increassing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.  The velocity of the upper mass accelerates between floor collisions at 32 ft/s/s.

QuoteJudy Wood does not claim that the collapse should have taken 100 seconds. Rather, she argues that the progressive collapse or “pancake” model is fundamentally wrong.

Now I'm confussed because before, in this post you said "SOME of [Judy Wood's] the evidence is: ... 1. The towers fell at free fall speed." (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636511010#msg636511010).

Here is a demolition expert with first hand knowledge of 911/WTC collapse who disagrees.  He explains the difference between a controlled demolition and the progressive collapse of the towers.  In doing so he clearly points out where and when the failure of the structual elements occur. 
http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)
Just from this photo it can be clearly seen that dust and debris are distributed over a much larger area than you are assuming.  Also, the article I linked above explains how the outer structual elements are thrown away from the buildings as they collapsed.
(http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg)

3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded
Again in the linked article, The author and his colleagues at Protec, an authority on explosive demolition of structures, disagree (see assertion #4). 
They say that the seismic data is consistent with a building collapse and that a stronger signal would have been expected if explosives were used.  The signal was weaker because no explosives were used.

Quote from: RickJ on Sat 13/06/2015 22:18:04
Again in the linked article, The author and his colleagues at Protec, an authority on explosive demolition of structures, disagree (see assertion #4). 
They say that the seismic data is consistent with a building collapse and that a stronger signal would have been expected if explosives were used.  The signal was weaker because no explosives were used.

BTW, this is something I tried to point out in the post above: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636514951#msg636514951
:wink:

You totally dismissed the 2nd video I posted on June 5th. Why?..because it shows that Judy is wrong. She put that picture in her book and said herself...what could make a fire truck wilt like this?...REALITY JUDY, here's the video to prove it! Good job of completely avoiding this.

As for the ambulance. Are you saying that it's impossible that debris didn't hit it?

Your first video that you posted says that the towers were an egg crate construction that is about 95 percent of air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high. You and Judy can't understand why there was so much dust, but your video mentions that there was 5 million sq ft of gypsum, 6 acres of marble and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. Why would it be surprising to see dust?

200,000 tons of steel came crashing down, crushing each floor. I'm not surprised that there weren't any computers or copy machines. They were crushed into tiny little pieces, why is that hard to believe?

No building in the world that was built like the trade center towers ever had planes crashed into it and caught fire and collapsed before. There is no comparison to make here, but Judy apparently knows exactly what it should look like, including that people falling from the windows should be praying and holding pictures and giving a piece sign while falling. Some of the things that she has said is so outrageous that you can't help but do the Judy giggle...(laugh)

Judy is taking advantage of an extraordinary occurrence that is not easily explainable and is making money off of it.

RickJ

1. The buildings fell too quickly

QuoteObviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

This is incorrect. Conservation of momentum says that as two masses impact and combine (inelastic collision), then the resulting velocity decreases. This means the collapse could not have been faster than free fall speed. My argument is that resistance in the progression (assuming there's enough energy to keep it going) should slow things down and produce an overall collapse time somewhere between 10 and 100 seconds depending on how much energy is lost along the way.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ad2a/f0ek9p1f3eh9m2czg.jpg)

The towers did indeed fall near free fall speed. Does this make sense?

The demolition expert you mention, Brent Blanchard, focusses on the implausibility of a controlled demolition by conventional means (e.g. dynamite). This is fine, but he instead supports the progressive gravity-driven collapse model and does not question the implausibility of this. In reality, under the gravity-driven "pancake" model, there wouldn't be enough energy to pulverise floors and also keep the collapse going. *

*

Spoiler

Wood references:

Trumpman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

Hoffman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG2nWlQM80

[close]

---

2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)

(http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg)

This picture shows a lot of dust. If debris is present, it is obscured by dust. Look at images in the aftermath that show conditions unobscured by dust to see what the debris radius is. I just used the debris radius quoted by Greg Jenkins (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf). You can use a larger radius if you like but ultimately I'd still expect to see that ambulance buried by rubble. Why not try doing come calculations? See what you get.

---

3. A larger seismic signal should have been recorded

"[The article says] the seismic data is consistent with a building collapse and that a stronger signal would have been expected if explosives were used.  The signal was weaker because no explosives were used."

I agree explosives weren't used and the seismic data may be consistent with a building collapse, but is it consistent with a 110 story building founded on bedrock?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

You made some good points earlier which deserve a response.

"Does the Kingdome seismic data include effect from explosives?"

I don't know. Here is a video (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkr0A9633Q) showing the demolition of the Seattle Kingdome stadium. I'd imagine the initial explosives stage would be treated separately from the final collapse stage and the calculated Richter value would apply to the latter (although I can still hear explosives while it is collapsing).

Assuming the Seattle Kingdome collapsed "all at once", and the WTC tower collapsed "in parts", shouldn't this be reflected in the seismic signal?

I'd argue this would contradict the official "pancake" theory of collapse. If you accept pancaking of floors, then we should see jack-hammering type impulses all the way down, increasing in magnitude as the mass accumulated, with the biggest "all at once" impulse at the end.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

Firetruck

Regarding your video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rcdq1gS2RJA&app=desktop).

I'm not convinced this video proves anything. What caused the wilting? Does falling debris cause a truck to wilt? Fire might be a more likely culprit; after all, we've seen evidence of vehicles on fire elsewhere.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/cdaa/w24b829r934u5cbzg.jpg)

Curiously, it seems this same fire truck is now in the 9/11 memorial museum. Can you explain ALL the damage? Fire might explain wilting, but what about the corrosion?

Also, don't forget witness testimony of fire trucks exploding! (Lieutenant Rene Davila, p. 27/28 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110075.PDF))

---

Lack of debris and dust

The buildings may be 95% air, but the twin towers together comprised about 1 million tonnes of steel and concrete. Here's the data again:

Details for one of the WTC buildings Height: 417 m Footprint: 63 m x 63 m Concrete: 212,500 cubic yards = 162,468 cubic meters Steel: 100,000 Ton / (8 Ton per cubic m) = 12,500 cubic meters Total volume of building: 1,655,073 cubic meters Total volume of concrete and steel: 174,968 cubic meters Approx. volume of disturbed material in a pile: 262,452 cubic meters * * Bulking factor (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/soil-rock-bulking-factor-d_1557.html) of 1.5 used to incorporate voids.

Why not try doing some calculations? How high should the debris pile be? Given the ambulance was only parked 10 m away from the building, how likely is it that it survived let alone is visible at all?

I accept things can be smashed into pieces. But I'd expect the pieces to range in size: from tiny to medium and large. I'd expect some pieces to be large enough to be recognisable. The witness testimony however indicates an overwhelming lack of recognisable objects.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 13/06/2015 15:25:34
Snarky

Billiard ball example

The billiard ball example is simply using billiard balls as timing devices, each starting at rest and then accelerating at free fall when triggered, like a relay race. Billiard balls are not interacting in this example; they are just timing devices. It is interesting to note that one billiard ball dropped from the top of the building takes about 10 seconds to hit the ground at free fall. Additional billiard balls are introduced to incorporate a resistance or hauling effect in the progression. Different arrangements of billiard balls are used to show different scenarios. The example serves to illustrate that the overall collapse (assuming it is possible) should have taken longer than 10 seconds. The example should not be confused with attempting to calculate an actual collapse time.

But if the billiard ball examples are to have any bearing on the argument at all, they must bear some relationship to the models in question. Wood's billiard ball examples don't. The "Case 2" model is said to be a way to estimate how long the collapse would (at least) take in the "pancake model" ("So, even though the mechanism to trigger the "pancaking" of each floor seems to elude us,  let's consider the time we would expect for such a collapse. To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence by simply passing it in space.") The key element of the pancake model is that when floors from above crash into the lower ones, they'll push them down (so the lower floors won't just start free-falling from a rest state), but the Case 2 billiard ball simulation doesn't account for this, yet claims that "Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be."

It's not. It's a bizarre distraction (the model itself makes no sense) that fails to provide any information about the pancake scenario. Claiming that it does by itself demonstrates such incompetence that it's enough to discredit her completely: none of her models or calculations can be taken seriously.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 21/06/2015 11:42:08
RickJ

1. The buildings fell too quickly

QuoteObviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

This is incorrect. Conservation of momentum says that as two masses impact and combine (inelastic collision), then the resulting velocity decreases. This means the collapse could not have been faster than free fall speed.

Uh, none of that contradicts what CW said. And of course the collapse could not have been faster than free-fall speed. That's why people keep returning to the videos where it's clear that it's not, because the debris is falling much quicker than the collapse.

QuoteMy argument is that resistance in the progression (assuming there's enough energy to keep it going) should slow things down and produce an overall collapse time somewhere between 10 and 100 seconds depending on how much energy is lost along the way.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ad2a/f0ek9p1f3eh9m2czg.jpg)

Fine. Of course,"between 10 and 100 seconds" is such a broad range as to be nearly meaningless. It clearly covers the actual collapse time of the buildings, in any case.

QuoteThe towers did indeed fall near free fall speed. Does this make sense?

The best estimates for the time the collapse took seem to be somewhere between 15 and slightly above 20 seconds (it's hard to tell exactly because it was obscured by dust clouds), while free-fall is less than 10 seconds. That strikes me as significantly slower than free-fall speed.

In other words, your claim #1 has not been established.

QuoteThe demolition expert you mention, Brent Blanchard, focusses on the implausibility of a controlled demolition by conventional means (e.g. dynamite). This is fine, but he instead supports the progressive gravity-driven collapse model and does not question the implausibility of this. In reality, under the gravity-driven "pancake" model, there wouldn't be enough energy to pulverise floors and also keep the collapse going. *

*

Spoiler

Wood references:

Trumpman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

Hoffman
Paper: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/index.html
YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKG2nWlQM80

[close]

Well, now we're into more of the crux of the matter, but also beyond what simple high school physics can easily answer. Still, I don't know about "pulverize", but it seems highly implausible to me that the force of the top 10-20 floors falling down one floor would not be enough to cause the next floor down (and related building structure) to collapse. By your own numbers, that would be more than 10,000 tons just of steel, falling almost 4 meters. I don't think any building is designed to withstand that. And if it did collapse, then all of that falling another floor down should also cause the next floor to collapse, and so on. (Some of the mass is lost as dust and debris falling off the side, but more is almost certainly picked up from the progressively collapsing floors.)

(Oh, and as for the "pulverizing," keep in mind that the smashing up of the floors did not all happen in one go. For floors below the initial structural failure, you had: 1. being struck by the building from above, leading to collapse; 2. after collapsing, striking the floor(s) below during the rest of the building collapse; 3. striking the ground; 4. being struck again from above by the rest of the building collapsing on top.)

And honestly, that's as far as I'm willing to delve into this rabbit hole. The bits of the argument I've bothered to look into collapse like... a house of cards, let's say, and that gives me no confidence in the other claims.

So quickly about the other points:

1. The amount of debris: Your calculations could be wrong (is 1.5 a reasonable bulking factor? unknown), the photos could be misleading (from certain other angles the pile looks much higher), and/or it may have fallen elsewhere (i.e. more towards the other side of the building).
2. The seismic record: Basically, I think you need to be a trained seismologist with knowledge of the local conditions to properly interpret this data. AFAICT, no person fitting that description has come forward saying there's anything fishy about it.

I'm done.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 21/06/2015 11:42:08
"Does the Kingdome seismic data include effect from explosives?"

I don't know.

Well, this is where we might stop until further details are discovered, because the article in question compares two pieces of data without making it clear what that data describes.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 21/06/2015 11:42:08
Assuming the Seattle Kingdome collapsed "all at once", and the WTC tower collapsed "in parts", shouldn't this be reflected in the seismic signal?

I'd argue this would contradict the official "pancake" theory of collapse. If you accept pancaking of floors, then we should see jack-hammering type impulses all the way down, increasing in magnitude as the mass accumulated, with the biggest "all at once" impulse at the end.

Perhaps I did not explain my thoughts clear enough. What you say about "pancake" theory is what I had in mind.
What I mean is that the "biggest "all at once" impulse" (as well as other impulses) might still be less strong, because the falling distance will be minimal (one to few storeys?). While the Dome had a bigger empty space beneath itself.
These are indeed my speculations.
One of the links given above (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/) by NickyNyce shows how it looked for WTC:

(http://pop.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/06/54cfc902674b8_-_911-seismograph-2.jpg)

There is a gradually increasing then gradually decreasing strength of impact.

I just debunked the picture on her site and now you want me to explain every dent on the vehicle and why there is corrosion.. *head shaking*. You're joking, right?

The article I read about the Lt. saying that the fire truck blew up says nothing about why. But we do know he didn't see what happened before it blew up, or went 'boom' like he said. The tower already collapsed, and surely could have caused major damage to it. This happened after the tower collapsed, not during or before. 

Can you tell me why the US never dug a hole in Iraq and planted some WMD in there? Why would they let themselves look bad and say that they made a mistake, and that Iraq didn't have WMD? They just pulled off the greatest illusion in the universe in NY, but stopped short of digging a hole in the desert to cover up that they said Iraq had WMD? Where is the amazing cover up? Just something to think about.

All of this is a dead end, and nothing will ever change your mind, or mine. so at this point, let's just agree to disagree. I give you an "A" for effort monkey, but I have not seen one thing that says Judy is correct.

Quote
RickJ

1. The buildings fell too quickly

QuoteObviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

This is incorrect. Conservation of momentum says that as two masses impact and combine (inelastic collision), then the resulting velocity decreases. This means the collapse could not have been faster than free fall speed. My argument is that resistance in the progression (assuming there's enough energy to keep it going) should slow things down and produce an overall collapse time somewhere between 10 and 100 seconds depending on how much energy is lost along the way.

Lesson on Conservation of Momentum
Mt - mass of the top 10-20 floors above the point of the plane's impact.
Mf - mass of one floor
Pn - Momentum at each floor impact (i.e. P1 is the first impact)

Assuming all floors have the approximately the same mass we can see that ...
Mt = 10*Mf or Mt = 20*Mf.

If the distance between floors is 4m between floors then at the
first impact we have

V1 = 8.85 m/s (http://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed)                   
P1 = V1*Mt = V1 * (Mf * 10)

If momentum is conserved then the momentum after the collision must be the same.

Pafter = Va * Ma = P1
Ma = Mt+Mf = (Mf*10) + Mf = Mf*11
Va = P1/Ma = V1 * (Mf*10)/(Mf*11) = V1*(10/11) = 8.85*10/11 = 8.045 m/s

The top plus the new floor then continue accelerating under gravity from
an initial velocity of 8.045 m/s. The velocity at the next impact (abou 12 m/s) is reduced
by a factor of 11/12th. The combined masses again continue to accelerate under gravity
starting at this new initial velocity.

As can easily be seen as the collapse progresses the reduction in velocity due to conservation
of momentum becomes less and less of a factor.  In fact it's not much of a factor to begin with
due to the mass of the upper floors.  Conservation of momentum can't used to justify a 100s
(10x free fall time) collapse time as it's effect much smaller and could even be characterized
as negligible.

Yes, though of course in practice not all of the momentum is conserved within the collapsing building itself. At the impact with each floor, some of the energy is used to tear apart the structure (and in terms of momentum, it is transmitted down through the building and eventually into the ground). It is this factor (how much of the collapsing weight is absorbed by each floor before it fails) that will really determine the speed of collapse in a "pancake" scenario.

@Snarky:  Yes, of course, the dynamics and affects of the impact are not addressed.  But in this thread (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.msg636515499#msg636515499) Monkey says "Inelastic collisions are probably a more realistic model. Judy Wood explains this type of collision with the equation demonstrating that when two bodies of equal mass impact and “stick” together they will continue to travel at half their original speed, i.e. conservation of momentum.".  I wanted to point out that the assumption that the colliding bodies are of equal mass is invalid and that any conclusions based on this assumption are equally invalid. 

RickJ

QuoteObviously a progressively increasing number of floors have more mass than an single floor.  So as the collapse proceeds, the falling mass's velocity loss is proportionally smaller and smaller.

Yes, sorry. That does make sense. D'oh! I'm not sure why I read that wrong. You are right - the change in velocity gets smaller and smaller until a sort of terminal velocity is reached. I knew that because that's what I saw in the data when I produced those lovely graphs. Here they are again.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ad2a/f0ek9p1f3eh9m2czg.jpg)

Judy Wood just uses two equal masses as a demonstration of the principle. But you are right - if there is a larger mass to begin with, then the velocity loss is proportionally smaller.

----------------------------------------------

I'll respond to the other posts in due course.

Watch this space..

Quote from: Hoffman http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

Quote from: monkey424The demolition expert you mention, Brent Blanchard, focusses on the implausibility of a controlled demolition by conventional means (e.g. dynamite). This is fine, but he instead supports the progressive gravity-driven collapse model and does not question the implausibility of this. In reality, under the gravity-driven "pancake" model, there wouldn't be enough energy to pulverise floors and also keep the collapse going.

This is based on the false assumption that all the concrete in the floor needs to be pulverised before failure of the floor's vertical support fails.  The floor is supported by flimsy trusses which are bolted to the steel tubing on the outside and to the concrete core on the inside.  Obviouly the only energy required to cause the floor to collpse is that which is expended in shearing the bolts, which is relatively miniscule.

Further it doesn't matter if all the concrete is pulverized or not.  If the impact force, which is proportional to momentum divided by the stopping distance (i.e. how much deformation before failure of the bolts), is greater than the force required to sheer the bolts, they will fail and the floor will collapse.

Energy Weapons
Also according to Hoffman 135,000 KWH is needed to pulverize the concrete as observed.  An energy weapon would also have to deliver the same amount of energy (after all energy is energy).  So now you have to answer where was the energy weapon and from where did it get the power?  It certainly wasn'y on a plane or space craft.  In the interview NickyNyce posted Judy Wood disn't want to talk about this at all for obvious reasons.
   
Debris Pile
[quote

Quote from: monkey424 on Sun 21/06/2015 11:42:08
2. A larger debris pile should have resulted (not predominantly dust size)

(http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg)

This picture shows a lot of dust. If debris is present, it is obscured by dust. Look at images in the aftermath that show conditions unobscured by dust to see what the debris radius is. I just used the debris radius quoted by Greg Jenkins (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf). You can use a larger radius if you like but ultimately I'd still expect to see that ambulance buried by rubble. Why not try doing come calculations? See what you get.

Again in the Hoffman article you cite he says "It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder."  The picture shows the results of the pulverization of the concrete in the floors and core that Hoffman claims.  Take a look at the photo again, it's not smoke but rather dense and thick dust and it's distributed in a much larger radius that you are willing to consider.

For the people still reading this thread after 2.5 months, check out more conspiracy theories in this list (http://cheezburger.com/534021/10-conspiracy-theorists-on-a-mission-to-make-the-world-a-dumber-place) and that one (http://cheezburger.com/535301/gullible-people-believing-the-onion-is-real-makes-for-perfect-internet). One of them is from actual conspiracy theorists, the other is parody; but thanks to Poe's Law it's hard to tell which is which. Both are, of course, extremely silly. Three guesses as to whether the topic of this thread is listed....

More Judy Wood debunking. This car did not burn for long, but looks very similar to what Judy says should not be able to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58&list=PLEuHyp3r0pbD8wjIbujedrqbDWON-L_bk

Another interesting video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFAfVy7tJUA

More debunking on the plane in Pennsylvania.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkivdEGph9A

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 22/06/2015 23:52:11
More Judy Wood debunking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHoIyk5Df58&list=PLEuHyp3r0pbD8wjIbujedrqbDWON-L_bk

I'm not sure what this video proves about Dr. Wood. Are you saying she used the images from this video and claimed they were from 9/11? I notice the video is posted in a section called "debunking Judy Wood" but couldn't find anything about Wood in the video or comments.

The second link you posted is quite immediately damning. If she can just use any image and say it's showing something that it is not, then that really calls the validity of every image into question (and I hear there are a LOT of images in her picture-book). If a government report was found to contain dodgy material like this the conspiracy theorists would be having a field day with it. Why does Dr. Woods get a free pass?

Equally damning is the fact that Dr. Woods herself is filing copyright charges against the poster of the video to have it yanked from YouTube for showing an image of her book. Yeah....I'm sure she is really worried about "copyright" issues and not just exploiting this law to remove videos that show her "findings" in a less-than-pristine light... ;)

I'm just posting stuff for people to make their own assumptions, I didn't name the links. That first video shows that just because a car catches fire, doesn't mean there has to be burn marks on it, which there isn't. She also doesn't understand that glass melts. What scientist doesn't know that glass melts?

Here's the part on the toasted cars that she talks about. The guy mentions that they moved those cars there, but she's still laughing saying 'how did they get like that'?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLxdHlkzfpY

This is not a car from 911. It shows that Judy has no clue how cars can burn.
(http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee455/nickynyce/7848ffe2c7fd6480a780bc4a19f30b6b_zpswuc22z2c.jpg)

Oops...You edited your post while I was replying...But I understand now that the video is being used as an example of what really happens to a burning car looking pretty much like what Dr. Woods claims cannot possibly happen to a burning car. Or something like that...

Quote... For the people still reading this thread after 2.5 months,

Yeah, somebody has to start a new and equally entertaining thread about something else.  ;)

Snarky

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 21/06/2015 13:31:49The key element of the pancake model is that when floors from above crash into the lower ones, they'll push them down (so the lower floors won't just start free-falling from a rest state).

Depends on how much energy is consumed at each step. If nearly all energy is lost with just enough to trigger the next floor, then the next floor would start from rest. We can do this for every floor, or every 10 floors (thus different arrangements of billiard balls) which is synonymous with modelling the different scenarios of energy losses. To reiterate, the different arrangements of billiard balls is synonymous with the different coloured lines on my beautiful graph. The billiard ball example is just another way to express the idea. I agree it might be a bit clumsy. Judy should have used my beautiful graph instead.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ad2a/f0ek9p1f3eh9m2czg.jpg)

The 9/11 commission report itself said the collapse took 10 seconds. Any other value in the vicinity of 10 seconds is at the lower end of the range of values. If you argue 100 seconds is a ridiculous time, then wouldn't it be fair to say 10 seconds is equally ridiculous? Nevertheless, this is what we see.

------------------------------------------

Pulverisation

I accept the mechanisms of pulverisation Snarky mentions. But this is all kinetic energy collisions. Pulverisation is defined here as breaking down a material into to finer particles by kinetic energy, e.g. hitting a rock against another rock. With the random nature of the collapse, you'd expect to see random size pieces of concrete and stuff. But what we found was predominantly dust size particles (i.e. silt and clay size particles).

(http://techalive.mtu.edu/meec/module06/images/soil_000.JPG)

As RickJ pointed out:

From the Hoffman article (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html): "It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder."

In a normal collapse, building debris should not consist of predominantly dust size. Normal building debris should also contain recognisable office things.

------------------------------------------

Dustification

RickJ pointed out that the collapse resulted in "not smoke but rather dense and thick dust".

I would have to agree.

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

Here is a sound byte cropped from another source I posted earlier. It is a recording of someone inside the building as it was turning to dust. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording.

------------------------------------------

Debris Pile

Given the buildings turned mostly to dust as RickJ has discovered, it's no wonder there is a lack of debris (comprising larger size pieces) here. Never mind the dust radius, what about just normal everyday debris! Where is it?! No seriously, where is it? Can someone do some calculations please?

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3759/njcjgbjaxkcjng7zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3dd9/81henoebevm1ov6zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/50bb/zrzp8ndxlzbkl5azg.jpg)

------------------------------------------

Crimson Wizard

You make some very good points and have me scratching my head. And now I've got a headache! Well done sir. Indeed we could be comparing apples and oranges here. I agree this line of inquiry is inconclusive until we at least have a better understanding of the data.

------------------------------------------

NickyNyce

Your debunking videos also have me scratching my head but not in the same feel-good way that Crimson Wizard's arguments did. I can't figure out what the videos are meant to prove. The second video shows two images of the same car parked on Church Street. The tree and fencing are visible in both photos. Then we see an image of Church Street at a later date with hoarding up around the site, a clean street and nearby pedestrians. And the car is gone too of course. What we don't see is that same car on FDR Drive.

You're claiming to debunk the vehicles issue but not addressing the hard facts. A fucking fire truck blew up and was witnessed blowing up! Why indeed?

Quote from: RickJ on Tue 23/06/2015 00:44:25

Quote... For the people still reading this thread after 2.5 months,

Yeah, somebody has to start a new and equally entertaining thread about something else.  ;)

I know, we should find another equally ridiculous proposition. Maybe something about green-eyed aliens, or the Flat Earth theory. :grin:

Quote from: monkey424 on Tue 23/06/2015 11:17:07
Snarky

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 21/06/2015 13:31:49The key element of the pancake model is that when floors from above crash into the lower ones, they'll push them down (so the lower floors won't just start free-falling from a rest state).

Depends on how much energy is consumed at each step. If nearly all energy is lost with just enough to trigger the next floor, then the next floor would start from rest.

But then we're modeling the upper bound of the collapse time, not the lower bound, FFS! If we were trying to prove it couldn't take longer than a certain time, fine. But Wood specifically presents this as a model that makes only generous assumptions towards the "pancake" scenario, so that if this model fails, the pancake scenario must be wrong. Its utter unsuitability for this purpose, and the inconsistency between what she claims and how the model is designed, is what discredits her.

QuoteWe can do this for every floor, or every 10 floors (thus different arrangements of billiard balls) which is synonymous with modelling the different scenarios of energy losses.

It's not, actually. Starting over from rest every 10 floors is not the same as losing 10% of the energy each floor.

Also, I believe the energy loss is more likely to be a constant term (or close to it), not proportional to the total kinetic energy. This would tend to make it increasingly insignificant as the collapse progressed and sped up.

QuoteThe 9/11 commission report itself said the collapse took 10 seconds. Any other value in the vicinity of 10 seconds is at the lower end of the range of values. If you argue 100 seconds is a ridiculous time, then wouldn't it be fair to say 10 seconds is equally ridiculous? Nevertheless, this is what we see.

In context, the 9/11 commission's report was only giving a rough estimate, and should not be taken as an authoritative figure. I also find it hilarious that you would dismiss the whole official story, yet latch on to a single off-hand mention of this round-number estimate from the official report, just because it supports your pet theory.

No part of the 10-100 second range of collapse is a priori ridiculous. I believe that under suitable conditions, the collapse of a building as tall as the twin towers could take as little or as long as that. But I also think that in this particular case it's very implausible that tearing down one floor would consume nearly all the kinetic energy of the top 10-20 floors falling onto it (or indeed more than a very small part of it), so I would lean more towards the lower end of the scale.

I really have had it with this discussion, and won't be responding further.

Here is a clear picture of the car on the FDR.
(http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee455/nickynyce/fdr205_zpshqn5bjm6.jpg)

So here is the proof that she is making stuff up. Case closed, good night.

Oh, and just because a fire truck blew up after a 110 story building fell on it is not hard fact that a giant laser beam is to blame. The whole toasted car theory on the FDR is thrown right out the window, and what a shame, because it's the part you loved the most about the theory.

NickyNyce

It's just come to my attention that police car 2723 was indeed on FDR Drive.

Well, shucks. It must have been towed from Church Street.

Judy Wood has been debunked!

Unless... No! Hang on a second. Is this really the same car?

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b678/vslgkwdidjlbsh0zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3138/7k6lsknqhc76j37zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b7b5/8iyfb7pwahor4iuzg.jpg)

It may have had the Photoshop Phrenzy treatment. Spot the difference? I've highlighted discrepancies in green. Note Crazy Asian Dude added for comic effect.

---

Witnesses

Don't forget witness testimony to stuff blowing up this side of town (EMT Alan Cooke (http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NYT9-11AccountsAnalysis/txt/9110040.txt)).

So yeah, cars were blowing up / spontaneously combusting here.

Why?

What about the car park also some distance from the site? These cars definitely weren't towed because we have before and after shots of the cars parked there.

"The parked cars that had been parked there were all on fire and which wasn't on fire was exploding" (Paramedic Gary Smiley, p.12 (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110039.PDF)).

---

Dustification

Did anyone want to comment on this recording?

http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

It is a recording of someone inside the building as it was turning to dust. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording. The person believes there is fire in the building because she feels hot but can't see anything in front of her due to smoke. But is it smoke? Listen to commentary after the recording too. It should be obvious that the the building was indeed turning to dust well before the collapse. This would explain the other evidence, such as 'free fall' collapse time and lack of debris.

Sorry monkey, but I'm also done with this topic. There's no point in going any further. I know what happened that day, and it had nothing to do with what Judy is selling.

NickyNyce
I think all three pictures are of the same car because of the number 2723 painted on the side and trunk. I suppose the crazy Asian dude could have also been vandalizing police cars with his lucky number.

Dustification
The lady in the building says it's smoke.  She did't have difficulty breathing and wasn't coughing so I'll take her word for it.

Hoffman

QuoteFrom the Hoffman article: "It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder."

I don't know if it's true or not.  But if we take Hoffman's word for it then the missing debris is floating in the air.  He also notes that lightweight concrete was used in the floors which were designed to hold people and office furniture.   Lightweight concrete is less strong than standard and other mixes of concrete. 

Quote from: http://www.ebay.com/gds/How-to-Make-Lightweight-Concrete-and-Cement-Formulas-/10000000177724852/g.html
Keep in mind that the more lightweight aggregate you use in your mix… the weaker the stone will be.

Collapse

QuoteIn a normal collapse, building debris should not consist of predominantly dust size. Normal building debris should also contain recognisable office things.

There is no such thing as a normal collapse.  Buildings do not normally collapse and are not designed to do so.  If a building does collapse it is an abnormal event.

Now if you are using the term Normal in a mathematical sense then you would have to have a number of samples on which statistical operations are performed and indeed one could come up with a "normal collapse scenario".  However, for a valid analysis all the samples would have to have the same characteristics to begin with (i.e. you can't compare apples and bananas). 

Here are the characteristics of the WTC collapse.

1. WTC towers were of a unique design.  Significant % less steel used, lightweight concrete (i.e. air bubbles or other low density filler), etc.   
2. Structural failure was initiated  15 floors from the top
3. 90,000 gallons of jet fuel were dispersed and ignited at the initial point of failure

Now, how many other buildings of a similar design have collapsed under similar circumstances?  How many samples have you used to make your normalization?  I'll wager 0.

Quote from: monkey424 on Thu 25/06/2015 12:56:37
NickyNyce

It's just come to my attention that police car 2723 was indeed on FDR Drive.

Well, shucks. It must have been towed from Church Street.

Judy Wood has been debunked!

Unless... No! Hang on a second. Is this really the same car?

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b678/vslgkwdidjlbsh0zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3138/7k6lsknqhc76j37zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/b7b5/8iyfb7pwahor4iuzg.jpg)

It may have had the Photoshop Phrenzy treatment. Spot the difference? I've highlighted discrepancies in green.

The differences can all be explained by the hauling of the car from Church Street to FDR...I would imagine that the tow-truck drivers were not that careful with the vehicles in both how they hooked the cars up to their trucks and how delicately they hauled them, seeing as they were total write-offs anyway and that had a LOT of work to get through.

The extra indentation in the front wheel-well is probably where they ran the cable through to lift the front of the car while they towed it which caused the cable to bite into the metal.

The door most likely came open during the process and hit something along the way, or a thousand other possible reasons...

The side mirror just simple fell or was knocked off...

Are you serious when you suggest that it's not the same car?

I could just select all of your selected areas, click "Invert Selection" in GIMP and colour in the entire rest of the car to show everything that IS exactly the same in both photos...

Look at the burn pattern on the rear door and around the rear fender area: IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME!!!

Seriously man: It's the same car. How can you not see that?

monkey424 pls. Not the same car...? You have officially crossed into reality denial now, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, you name it.
Your argument has just lost the last shred of credibility.

All these silly things him and Judy are saying have reasonable explanations. But that's what conspiracy theorists do, they try to look for something tough to answer and then try to sell you a book.

Judy and her book are officially debunked, and by a bunch of AGS game makers.

The car park...Surely whoever was controlling the death ray must have sneezed while destroying the twin towers. This makes perfect sense because it was allergy season. Death ray...lmao. You're forgetting one thing monkey. Your death ray doesn't light cars on fire, and it isnt a paint stripping machine, it turns things to dust remember...please make up your mind. How many settings does thing have?

The cars that were moved to the FDR, and probably including the police car, were brought there by bulldozer, payloader,forklift and all kinds of heavy machinery seen in my videos. There were no careful handling of these vehicles. They were piled on top of each other near the towers. *yawn*

Here's another good link that explains the toasted cars all around the towers for anyone that still believes the death star is real.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911disinfo/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/

Quote from: NickyNyce on Thu 25/06/2015 17:26:31
The car park...Surely whoever was controlling the death ray must have sneezed while destroying the twin towers. This makes perfect sense because it was allergy season. Death ray...lmao. You're forgetting one thing monkey. Your death ray doesn't light cars on fire, and it isnt a paint stripping machine, it turns things to dust remember...please make up your mind. How many settings does thing have?

Don't forget it can also melt steel while keeping organic material nice and cool, and light fires that give off light but no heat! And it affects things across town while conveniently not affecting other things! It's a wild uncontrollable laser with random FX!!!

Seriously, this turgid procession through the ashes of a tragedy is embarrassing. Nothing Judy Wood has said has any basis in any science possible, and her unyielding obsession with tedious minutae without a glimmer of hope that she would actually produce any interesting science about how such a death ray was possible is excrutiating. Any evidence at all, any odd thing, is proof of this laser that doesn't exist. Even when it's been explained ad nauseum as nothing paranatural. But still it goes on, and on, and on, and on, and it's so intensely boring because I know that nobody is going to get to anything interesting about a potential laser superweapon. The laser superweapon could be the hand of friggen Yahweh for all it matters. All that matters is that you quibble over dust and paint flecks until everyone else gives up and goes home, and you get to feel super smart because nobody will argue it with you, because there's nothing to argue that you can't just say "Well, it's part of the coverup" to!

I hate that. It's so dull and there was a real opportunity to discuss actual lasers but instead we have this catch all vague superweapon that does whatever Judy Wood says it does and constant insistence that she's right because if she wasn't right people wouldn't be trying to refute her. This is so utterly boring and aggrevating to read. I can't stand it, and it doesn't even friggen matter. Okay, so what if it was a laser superweapon or some rubbish. What then? It can't go anywhere because if you try to follow the lines of logic it attempts to have, nothing corroborates it. Nobody but Judy Wood thinks it's an energy weapon. Nobody takes that seriously. The government would be using it three times a day on some poor blighted middle eastern village if they had it. They would test it there as well.

All of this is just such utterly pointless blather.

I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I find it fascinating that people would rather believe in the existence of death rays than in terrorism.

I haven't weighed in on this one yet as it is way to political for me. But, I have to ask, isn't the commonly accepted conspiracy theory (I'm from Canada bear in mind) that the U.S. Gov't merely allowed the tragety to happen in order to get a good ol' war started? In the end though I can't help but think how terribly disrespectful it is to anyone personally affected by 9/11 to insist on sci-fi super weapons as the cause of a loved ones death (not to mention that they were holographs in a holographic airplane  (wrong))

Car 2723

I don't think it's the same car fellas. Just look at the driver's side door. There is a clearly defined line across the door in the Church Street photo that is not present in the other photo. I'm just noticing the differences. I can't say for sure of course, but I'm seeing more differences than similarities. The "2723" and "wax spot" would be pretty easy to photoshop in my opinion. This smells like disinformation to me. Do you have any other "proof" that this car was towed? What about the other cars? Did you consider the witness account of stuff blowing up this side of town (EMT Alan Cooke (http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/NYT9-11AccountsAnalysis/txt/9110040.txt))? There seems to be more information available indicating that extraordinary things did happen on FDR Drive and elsewhere than to the contrary.

---

Khris

I believe you're a smart guy. Please do something useful and calculate how much debris we should realistically see at Ground Zero. Here's the relevant info again (you can play around with the variables if you like):

Details for one of the WTC buildings Height: 417 m Footprint: 63 m x 63 m Concrete: 212,500 cubic yards = 162,468 cubic meters Steel: 100,000 Ton / (8 Ton per cubic m) = 12,500 cubic meters Total volume of building: 1,655,073 cubic meters Total volume of concrete and steel: 174,968 cubic meters Approx. volume of disturbed material in a pile: 262,452 cubic meters * * Bulking factor (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/soil-rock-bulking-factor-d_1557.html) of 1.5 used to incorporate voids.

More info:

R = 2.5 x building footprint (approximate, G.Jenkins (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf))

Basement vol. that might have collapsed = 63 m x 63 m x 15 m, just above the subway tunnels.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/7600/zoeiuwh1n19v3fhzg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3759/njcjgbjaxkcjng7zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3dd9/81henoebevm1ov6zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/50bb/zrzp8ndxlzbkl5azg.jpg)

---

Dustification

No one has commented on this recording yet.

Sample of recording with commentary at end:
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/pj1t66319f8w7vd/dustification.mp3

Full recording on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBjsKDagqk

The woman is Melissa Doi. She made a call to 911 emergency response. The recording is hard to listen to, so discretion is advised. It might be hard for some people to disconnect emotionally but it is somewhat necessary to do this to actually analyse the subtle evidence in the recording.

Some interesting things to note from the recording:

• Over and over again Melissa Doi emphasises how hot it is.
• She emphasises that there is such a degree of "smoke" that she can barely see.
• In spite of stating there is extreme heat, she cannot see any fire.
• She complains she is having trouble breathing, but can still talk and does not cough once.
• Although she emphasises how hot it is, Melissa Doi's speech is rapid and emotional, not lethargic. Someone who is physically hot (e.g. sauna, hot tub) is lethargic, not panicked.

---

Cover-up and Censorship

You cannot deny the extraordinary evidence Judy Wood has compiled. Never mind the extraordinary explanation; for now, just turn off your debunking brain for a moment and allow the evidence to sink in. The fact that the extraordinary evidence has only just recently been brought to our attention (via me, via a random YouTube video discovered by me in January this year) strongly implies a deliberate suppression or cover-up of that information. Bear in mind Judy Wood took this evidence to court in 2007 - eight years ago!

---

Consider this: Medical student Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, a donating member of the AE911Truth organization, had his online profile deleted immediately following a well-intended email to the founder Richard Gage regarding Dr Judy Wood's work.

Rodriguez confronted Gage at an AE911Truth Event in April 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBP9mNqdLqM

Rodriguez also set up a Wikipedia page in April 2010 describing the research and court case of Dr Judy Wood but it was deleted as documented in this article:
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=283&Itemid=60

Deleted Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Judy_Wood

Please people, think about this. If you're still inclined to think car 2723 was towed, think about it in the context of this blatant agenda of censorship.

Finally, Rodriguez has this to say on his YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/pookzta):

9/11 is irrefutable proof that affordable forms of energy technology, such as those discovered and inspired by the great Nikola Tesla, do indeed exist and could be providing our entire planet with clean, sustainable, limitless energy, right now. 9/11 is irrefutable proof that countless lives and resources have been wasted on wars of death and destruction, all as a result of an extremely inaccurate, unscientific story, when these precious lives and resources could instead be used to improve our beautiful country and planet. Most importantly, 9/11 is irrefutable proof that each and every one of us is capable of slicing through the dishonesty and corruption by thinking critically and studying the available facts for ourselves.

Quote from: MiteWiseacreLives! on Fri 26/06/2015 02:11:30
I haven't weighed in on this one yet as it is way to political for me. But, I have to ask, isn't the commonly accepted conspiracy theory (I'm from Canada bear in mind) that the U.S. Gov't merely allowed the tragety to happen in order to get a good ol' war started?

While I'd hate to call any conspiracy theory "commonly accepted", it is certainly true that the notion that the government is corrupt is substantially more plausible than the wild idea that the government has some kind of laser weapon that breaks the laws of physics and that has never been seen before or since, and that is put down as patently absurd by anyone with actual expertise in physics, architecture, or demolitions.

@monkey424:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg)

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 27/06/2015 12:27:41
Car 2723

I don't think it's the same car fellas. Just look at the driver's side door. There is a clearly defined line across the door in the Church Street photo that is not present in the other photo. I'm just noticing the differences. I can't say for sure of course, but I'm seeing more differences than similarities. The "2723" and "wax spot" would be pretty easy to photoshop in my opinion. This smells like disinformation to me. Do you have any other “proof” that this car was towed?

You're actively trolling us now right? If not, then I'm seriously worried about your mental health...

The "clearly defined line" that "disappears" between photos is because between the time of the two photos the door was damaged and the top of the window frame was crushed down while the car was moved to FDR.

As I said before: The wheel-well damage is most likely from a tow cable having been threaded through there and biting into the car frame during the tow. This is actually pointing more towards a towing having happened than not.

The right-side door mirror: The door is open in the Church Street photo and was likely closed before the towing. I don't know if this caused the mirror to fall down or if it was something else, but:

All of this is pretty light damage to a car that was dragged quickly and roughly to a new location, and quite expected considering the damage it had already sustained.

WHY THE HECK are you even talking about photoshopping having been done to the rest of the car image to explain the similarities when the differences can be so easily explained???

Are you just denying this and scrambling for straws because the entire "burnt cars on FDR" part of the "death-ray" theory getting so completely busted might cause you to start to question the rest of this theory that you seem to be so invested in? Or do you seriously believe what you are posting?!

I said early on that conspiracy theories can be great stories and very entertaining as long as you don't get too emotionally invested in them, in which case they can lead you down a very dark path indeed...

I'm starting to worry a bit about your mental health, Monkey...It might be time to step back and take a good long look at yourself. Maybe talk to some close family members or other people that you trust and who care about you...

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 27/06/2015 12:27:41Khris

I believe you're a smart guy. Please do something useful and calculate how much debris we should realistically see at Ground Zero.

Haha, no, no.
What Mandle said.

It makes me sad to read your posts, because to me it looks like you're suffering from delusions. I can't shake the feeling that at some point you'll convince yourself that the AGSers who have opposed you in this thread are actually CIA shills, deployed to crush anybody who is too close to finding out the truth.

Regardless of the details, of all the "evidence" you have dropped multiple times over: take a step back and read up on why smart people believe stupid things.
Millions of people all over the world are invested in ridiculous absurdities (Creationism, Scientology, Mormonism, Abstinence, Alien Abductions, Homeopathy, wood ghosts, Bigfoot, etc. etc.), don't be one of them.

Quote from: monkey424 on Sat 27/06/2015 12:27:41
Cover-up and Censorship

You cannot deny the extraordinary evidence Judy Wood has compiled. Never mind the extraordinary explanation; for now, just turn off your debunking brain for a moment and allow the evidence to sink in. The fact that the extraordinary evidence has only just recently been brought to our attention (via me, via a random YouTube video discovered by me in January this year) strongly implies a deliberate suppression or cover-up of that information. Bear in mind Judy Wood took this evidence to court in 2007 - eight years ago!

Yeah, that's good. Let's all just not use our brains and believe her. Sorry, did that, the resulting thing didn't make any sense at all. Any argument that starts with "Don't think about it too hard" that doesn't end with "because this is just a silly story" is not one I'm apt to have any faith in.

This is so patently ridiculous. Also, her Wikipedia page was taken down because she isn't notable. People's Wikipedia pages get taken down all the time!!!! That's not proof of a giant conspiracy of silence!!!!!!

You're talking about her right now in the open!!!!!! She has her own website!!!!!!!!!!! She is not being censored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because nobody believes her outlandish claims and nobody wants to humour her and give her space on their websites, doesn't mean a spooky government is covering up the facts, it means she's a conspiracy theorist with nothing relevant to say about anything!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sick and tired of people thinking they're being censored when in reality they never shut up and want to push their wild conspiracies to every corner of the earth!!!!!! People not taking you seriously is not a coverup! People not taking you seriously is not censorship! How many times does that have to be explained before it gets through people's heads??!?!!?!!

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 26/06/2015 00:55:13
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I find it fascinating that people would rather believe in the existence of death rays than in terrorism.

This says it all doesn't it!

(http://www.boltactiongame.com/Moolah.png)

I believe in the existence of people profiting off of conspiracy theories.

• Over and over again Melissa Doi emphasises how hot it is.

(Yes, it was hot because there was a lot of fire)

• She emphasises that there is such a degree of “smoke” that she can barely see.

(Yes, a lot of fire causes a lot of smoke)

• In spite of stating there is extreme heat, she cannot see any fire.

(Yes, you just stated that she can barely see)

• She complains she is having trouble breathing, but can still talk and does not cough once.

(Yes, the reason she was probably still conscious in a smoke-filled environment is that she got down prone on the floor where the smoke is thin. This does not help however with the oxygen that is being eaten up by the fire)

• Although she emphasises how hot it is, Melissa Doi's speech is rapid and emotional, not lethargic. Someone who is physically hot (e.g. sauna, hot tub) is lethargic, not panicked.

(Yes, if someone is in a building that is on fire, fearing for their life, and pumped full of adrenaline they will sound lethargic due to the heat. This is why firefighters almost never hear people screaming for someone to come rescue them when they enter burning buildings and why they are trained instead to ignore such cries because those people are obviously not in a hot section of the building and are in no danger whatsoever...BTW SARCASM)

Now please stop using the last words of this poor woman towards Judy Woods' ends. I'm sure the lady herself would not appreciate it if she were still alive, nor would her family who still are...

It's very simple. If everybody disagrees with you, does that mean that (1) it's a conspiracy, or (2) you're wrong?

Thanks Mandle et al for your concerns about my mental health. This debate is doing my head in, but otherwise I think I'm okay - no more insane than usual.

Note - there's a bit to read below. Please read carefully and don't rush to respond. Let it sink in.

Turn off your debunking brain

I think it is clear what I mean by this. Obviously don't turn off your brain completely, just the part of it that is prone to dismiss the facts we see in front of us. In other words, don't be in denial. At this stage I'm not asking you to completely commit to the idea of a directed energy weapon (after all, after 2.5 months of debating we're apparently still not at that level yet). What I am asking you to do is at least acknowledge the evidence. Approach it in an unbiased fashion. Do not react to it as if it is easily explained. The evidence is not just “a car was destroyed” - it is more subtle than that. For example, corrosion or accelerated rusting appears on many of those cars than can't be explained by a conventional explanation. Do not dismiss the many witnesses who say they saw these vehicles spontaneously combust and explode. This is not a natural thing to happen. Proximity to the WTC buildings should not justify this phenomena, so even in the event that cars were towed to FDR Drive, you still need to explain what happened to them.

Btw - I never said I was completely sure car 2723 wasn't towed â€" I was just suspicious.

I've endeavoured to point you in the right direction, but ultimately you need to make the journey of discovery for yourself. That sounds clichéd, I know, but how else can I word this? I can't continue to spoon feed you this information. It is very draining for me mentally. It will be hard for you to break away from the mob mentality of this forum thread, turn off your debunking brain and think independently, but it is crucial for you to do this.

If you can look at pieces of the evidence and say “I don't know - I can't explain this" then at least that is a better and more honest response. Be honest with yourself and resist the mob mentality. You might be unpopular, or labelled insane, or called everything under the sun, but who cares? At least you are questioning things that don't make sense. It's better than being ignorant.

Mellissa Doi

I want to illustrate one of my points above of mob mentality by using Mandle's response to Melissa Doi's recording as an example. I appreciate Mandle's efforts to address the information I present, but he's got his debunking brain switch on rather than his logical brain. Either he has issues with problem solving skills or he is just following the mob mentality, or both. Surely I'm not the only one who can see the flaws in his arguments. If he himself can't see the problem with what he's saying, then can someone else other than me speak up? Do you have the courage to break away from the mob and step outside your comfort zone? I don't want to let this ignorance slip through and not get picked up. Here's the scenario again:

Imagine you're in a room filled with smoke and you're literally in the thick of it and can barely see because the air is thick with smoke. You are complaining of breathing difficulties. Do you seriously think you wouldn't cough just once? If you are complaining of how unbearably hot it is, do you seriously think your brain is going to be functioning properly? Does adrenaline really help in these situations? Would you even be conscious? If you don't know the answer to these questions, it's okay to say “I don't know” rather than to promote ignorance.

This woman is now dead. We are listening to her last dying words, and it is heartbreaking. Believe me, I am brought to tears when I hear stuff like this. No one wants to listen to this, but to turn away is to ignore her and her story.

Melissa Doi believed the room was full of smoke but she didn't know any better â€" she was just describing the situation as best she could. She may have mistaken the fumes for smoke, but there were others in the building moments before it collapsed (who luckily escaped) who knew it wasn't smoke and explicitly say this. I can point you in the direction of this evidence too if you are interested. In fact there's a whole lot more evidence that hasn't been discussed or even mentioned yet in this thread that I'd love to talk about. But there's hardly any point talking about it if you aren't prepared to turn off your debunking brain and listen.

Why isn't Judy Wood dead yet?

Try Googling "Judy Wood". What do you see?

Her obituary seems to be a hot topic. But why indeed isn't she dead yet? Simple. Because she's INSANE! Completely MENTAL! Space beams! Death rays! Nutty physics!

Now try Googling names of some of the "truth movement" key players, like Steven E Jones. Apparently no one is concerned about endangerment of his life.

It seems you don't need to kill someone off to run a cover-up. Just marginalise them. Even if Wood did get bumped off, that wouldn't deter others from picking up where she left off. It would probably only strengthen the cause.

Judy is quite brave to do what she's done. She says in an interview that she felt in a position better than most to pursue this, not having family herself.

Her colleague Andrew Johnson does have a family. His e-book 9/11 Finding the Truth (http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf) which documents Judy Wood's dealings with the "truth movement" is free to download. The fact that it's free I believe debunks the idea that people are just out there to make a profit from tragedy. What a childish idea.

Another colleague of Judy Wood sadly was murdered in 2006. His name was Michael Zebuhr (http://iamthewitness.com/MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html).

Judy is not brave, she is a Leech that is making money off of 911 by people that want to use their imagination instead of common sense.

All of your arguments are what if this or what if that. You said that all the tapes and recordings that were made on that day are fake, but this one is real. Please make up your mind. There are many reasonable explanations for things that happen, but you choose to believe the most outlandish ones.

The FDR and car park is debunked. That was one of your big arguments. But you just carry on unscathed and look for something else to jump on. You should take a step back and turn off your death ray brain for a minute. The reason why nobody believes this is because there is no evidence that proves this. You are asking us to stop thinking rational and think crazy. I'm sorry monkey, but we think what we see and believe. This is not what we want to believe, but what common sense tells us and what the evidence shows.

Your death ray turns things to dust, it doesn't make things blow up, strip paint, make holes in windows. Think about the things you are saying. You only want to believe what you want to believe. You have to take everything into account and use rational common sense. If you did that, you should come to the same conclusion as everyone else. I respect your opinion, and these arguments do get heated, but you have to go back and read what you have written. You are dismissing evidence. Ok so the FDR is debunked, let's move on to what else is tough to answer. There are 200 phone calls that say that Judy is nuts, but Melissa's phone call...she didn't cough...means there is a death ray? Really?

As you can see, all these things you mention are just silly. You are the one that is not thinking clearly. You said there were no planes, holograms, cover ups, space beams, conspiracies,  fake airports, phone calls, families, actors...someone didn't cough...*head slap*.. take a deep breath and tell yourself....really?

The ash cloud made its way to the car park. That's why some cars caught fire. There is proof that some parts of that dust cloud were extremely hot and burned numerous people. FACT...look it up. There was also small burning hot pieces of metal droplets in the cloud that caused cars to catch fire. There is proof of that in some of the videos too. These cars caught fire after the cloud covered them, not before. So doesn't it make sense that the cloud had something to do with it and not a space energy weapon? This is where common sense usually kicks in.

(http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee455/nickynyce/Mobile%20Uploads/parkinglotembassysuites6_zpsbs2rnoqz.jpg)

(http://i1228.photobucket.com/albums/ee455/nickynyce/Mobile%20Uploads/parkinglotembassysuites_zpseafedutf.jpg)


Scroll down towards the bottom of this link and you will see the cars that were burned in the underground parking garage. How is this possible? How did the death ray destroy these cars but not the ceiling above?

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911disinfo/debunking-dr-judy-wood/disinfo-toasted-cars/

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 29/06/2015 13:55:06
Another colleague of Judy Wood sadly was murdered in 2006. His name was Michael Zebuhr (http://iamthewitness.com/MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html)

I know it is more mysterious to just say he was murdered and leave out details, but a teenager panicked during a robbery attempt and shot him, and the shooter was later given 30 years in jail for it.

Quote from: kconan on Mon 29/06/2015 15:24:10

Quote from: monkey424 on Mon 29/06/2015 13:55:06
Another colleague of Judy Wood sadly was murdered in 2006. His name was Michael Zebuhr (http://iamthewitness.com/MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html)

I know it is more mysterious to just say he was murdered and leave out details, but a teenager panicked during a robbery attempt and shot him, and the shooter was later given 30 years in jail for it.

I am sorry, this may be completely unrelated, but I actually tried to read the referenced article out of curiosity and was utterly amazed.

Just a single quote:

Quote from: http://iamthewitness.com/MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html
We don't have enough information to figure out what is happening, but there is a lot of evidence that Professor Wood, Morgan Reynolds, and most of the other primary members in the Scholars For 9/11 Truth are working with the Zionist criminal network.

They are promoting the deceptive Loose Change and 911 Eyewitness videos, trying to discredit Professor Jones, and shifting people away from the possibility that Zionists are involved in the world's corruption.

Now we have several 9/11 theorist groups, who fight each other and blame each other in connections with Zionist world government.

Quote from: kconan on Mon 29/06/2015 15:24:10
I know it is more mysterious to just say he was murdered and leave out details, but a teenager panicked during a robbery attempt and shot him

...with a Death Ray?

Crimson Wizard

The content in that link is just an example of the type of bullshit you find on the Internet that tries to muddy the waters. I do not care for the information in that article - I just picked it at random. Here's another link on Michael Zebuhr (https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=371898179550370&id=192679697431397) that doesn't go off on a tangent.

NickyNyce

Do you have any idea how ignorant and hypocritical you sound? Please read what I said in my last post again carefully. Then read it again. Then think about it. Then if you can tone down the mob mentality hysterics please respond in a more intellectual manner.

Okay, okay, so I'll turn my ""debunking brain"" off.

Please list all the effects of the death ray, so we can get the death ray's capabilities out on the table here. I'm hearing dustification, weird heatless fires, paint peeling and also rusting, but all of these are different phenomena.

So once and for all: What does the death ray do, exactly? How does it work?

Forgive me monkey. My main focus is on Judy and not her followers. Your previous post didn't come off so clean either.

You are not looking at ALL of the evidence. The stuff that Judy claimed is 100% evidence is being picked apart and debunked. The fact that Judy led all of you down this path of lies should tell you something. As you can see, not everything she says is true, and she is fluffing her so called evidence. All of the witnesses that discredit Judy are not getting paid, but Judy is charging people to tell her story. All of the conspiracy theorists are selling something. The true witnesses to 911 are not asking for money. This should also tell you something.

The fact that Judy has been caught pushing so called evidence that can't be proven and has been debunked, should make you feel a bit differently about her. Apparently not. I guess even people that are selling so called evidence make mistakes.

I Apologize again if I came off wrong. I'm not trying to put you down, but I am trying to make you realize that the book you purchased is not the golden bible of 911. I think everyone here has done a great job of showing you that everything she says has holes in it.

Nothing that anyone here says or proves will ever change your mind, so all of this is pointless. I think you can agree. It was fun while it lasted. You are very dedicated to this and I respect that. I wish you luck with hunting down this death ray that nobody has ever seen. But be careful, because if you do get too close to the truth, I'm afraid that something might happen to you. It's much safer to be on our side of the mob.

From the article Nicky linked:

Quote
“What happened to the Firetrucks Engine?”

IMAGE HERE:

Spoiler

(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/firetruckwtc.jpg)

[close]

If Judy did some research on fire trucks she would know that the engine is not under the driver seat but under the middle cab. So, it's not missing. It's right here.
http://www.westshorefire.com/images/equipment_repair/firetrucks_up600.jpg
http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/imgs/media.images/11664/art2026381.widea.jpg

Dr. Wood claims that the fire-truck's engine was mysteriously vapourized, when in fact the fire-truck's engine is located in a different area of the truck. How could she NOT check this simple fact before making such a huge claim???

Another clear example of Dr.Wood just either making stuff up or not researching her claims to even the level of an elementary-school homework assignment. Either way: This is NOT the scientific method in any way, shape, or form.

How can anyone be expected to believe a single thing she says when so much of it can be disproved with 5 minutes of research by your average non-scientist?

And yes Monkey, I know you are going to say that it's the parts of her theory that are right that matter, not the parts she got wrong. What I'm asking is how to distinguish between the right and the wrong, when so much is just wrong and fatally flawed at the most basic level?

After finding this fire-truck example I now think that Dr. Wood honestly doesn't care how easy her claims are to debunk. She knows that as long as she keeps piling them up her believers will keep eating them up. This is closer to what politicians, extremist groups, and cult-leaders do to sway their flocks than what a scientist does. They know that they have gained a secure foothold to the point where the evidence becomes incidental to what they just say out of their mouths.

But...critical thinking!

For example: I'm going to tell you three "facts":

(A) The sky is purple
(B) Gravity makes things fall up
(C) Abraham Lincoln was born in Wisconsin

Two of these "facts" are easily debunked. One of them is plausible. But doesn't the fact that two are blantant falsehoods sway you to seriously doubt the third? Then, when you look more closely at the third and research it on your own (without listening to any input from me) you discover quickly that it is also not true...

Critical thinking!!!

http://www.theonion.com/article/san-francisco-historians-condemn-1906-earthquake-d-2674

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 02/07/2015 08:28:48
http://www.theonion.com/article/san-francisco-historians-condemn-1906-earthquake-d-2674

I call Poe's Law on this thread :grin:

As you may know, I started an infamous thread on the forums last year which centered on the research of Dr Judy Wood in relation to the events of 9/11. I also highlighted the work of UK researcher Andrew Johnson who, working closely with Dr Wood, actively documented and analysed encounters with fellow "researchers" to reveal an obvious cover-up attempt. Some good audio files on the subject are listed below. They are available to download and/or listen to at your convenience.

01 - Dr Judy Wood with Regina Meredith on CMN - Where Did the Towers Go.mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/e9l74byt7w1v2u2/01_-_Dr_Judy_Wood_with_Regina_Meredith_on_CMN_-_Where_Did_the_Towers_Go.mp3)
02 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (1 of 2).mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/q9dk2r9awwjalvd/02_-_Ambrose_Lane_with_Dr_Wood_Andrew_Johnson_-_The_Hutchison_Effect_-_Jan_2008_%281_of_2%29.mp3)
03 - Ambrose Lane with Dr Wood _ Andrew Johnson - The Hutchison Effect - Jan 2008 (2 of 2).mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/2vjoh6om0zmreu5/03_-_Ambrose_Lane_with_Dr_Wood_Andrew_Johnson_-_The_Hutchison_Effect_-_Jan_2008_%282_of_2%29.mp3)
04 - Presentation by attorney Jerry Leaphart - NIST, Data Quality Act - Aug 2007.mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/kcc7qmoh3vv5z4d/04_-_Presentation_by_attorney_Jerry_Leaphart_-_NIST%2C_Data_Quality_Act_-_Aug_2007.mp3)
05 - Dr Judy Wood _ Andrew Johnson - Cold Fusion and Information Management - Feb 2014.mp3 (http://www.mediafire.com/listen/86czv2lbd8a88e2/05_-_Dr._Judy_Wood_Andrew_Johnson_-_Cold_Fusion_and_Information_Management_-_Feb_2014.mp3)

Brief Bios

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/182b/12h8v8kg3a3h0sxzg.jpg)	(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/bef4/t4h1ok8y9gtatrgzg.jpg)	Dr Judy Wood earned a Ph.D. Degree from Virginia Tech and is a former professor of mechanical engineering. She has research expertise in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, deformation analysis, materials characterization and materials engineering science. Her research has involved testing materials, including complex-material systems, in the area of photomechanics, or the use of optical and image-analysis methods to determine physical properties of materials and measure how materials respond to forces placed on them. Her area of expertise involves interferometry in forensic science. She taught graduate and undergraduate engineering classes and has authored or co-authored over 60 peer-reviewed papers and journal publications in her areas of expertise.
(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/3fe3/u2aofdaf91igz5izg.jpg)	(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/85c8/46rdjp870t84pfpzg.jpg)	Andrew Johnson earned a degree in Computer Science (with a minor module of Physics) from Lancaster University in 1986. He has worked as a software engineer and a lecturer and is currently a part time tutor for the Open University. He began actively campaigning about 9/11 in 2004.

As tedious as it may be for some, I want to revisit this topic. But before I launch into this thread please note that I don't intend for the subsequent discussions to be solely about 9/11. However I want to first establish some background / context for the following reasons:

a) Past contributors will hopefully approach the material with a fresh mind and eyes.
b) People new to this information will hopefully find the following post comprehensive and insightful.

Below is a list of some of the key evidence of 9/11. I've tried to be thorough and introduce some new information that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread, but as you can appreciate the list and level of detail is by no means exhaustive. A 500 page book called Where Did the Towers Go has been written on the subject for those who want more detail. Nevertheless there is quite a bit to read here so please bear with me. I've added some pictures too so hopefully it helps to paint the scene.


Key Evidence

1. There was a lack of any appreciable debris pile and seismic signal. Photographs such as the ambulance parked in front of WTC1 and even the well-known flag photo (from a different viewpoint) clearly show a lack of material.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/60f4/9dd8ontb2jyhs4nzg.jpg)    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e533/143a25dtof356g4zg.jpg)

Regarding the seismic signal, one thing that perhaps got overlooked in the previous thread was the fact that the signal didn't travel through the earth (rock) on which the buildings were founded. To be technical, no primary and secondary ("P" and "S") waves were recorded; rather only a "surface wave" was present, which is like how a mattress responds when you remove a weight from its surface. Prominent people in the "truth movement" like architect Richard Gage of AE911Truth don't want to talk about the seismic data. Richard Gage instead wants to promote the theory that thermite was somehow involved in the towers' destruction.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e77c/fcnq3gvqo69n4f3zg.jpg)


2. Pieces of falling debris literally disintegrated into dust before our very eyes. The remaining core columns also turned to dust just a few seconds after the main part of the building had disappeared into dust.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZMjVXtNUec[/embed]    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a21e/s97zf3ke9y48m4zzg.jpg)


3. It was not just two (or three) buildings destroyed that day, but several. In fact, virtually all buildings with a WTC prefix were totally or nearly-totally destroyed. Almost all of WTC3 and WTC4 disappeared completely, again without any appreciable debris pile. Curious vertical holes appeared in WTC5 and WTC6, where the latter appeared to be "cored out" in the middle with its edges remaining. Shockingly, firefighters present at ground level in WTC6, specifically those standing directly in that void, went missing - gone without a trace - while others standing just outside of this affected zone survived.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6608/bctwc6ubbvnp71dzg.jpg)    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/a929/7yb200s7vy58byjzg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/116b/snxw077jhtl67lazg.jpg)


4. People disappeared virtually without a trace. The total number of bodies identified by DNA analysis was about equal to the number of people who left the building ("jumpers") plus those in the building in the lower levels. All others just disappeared. This was even evident in a BBC documentary broadcast on the recent anniversary of 9/11 where the recovery efforts were eventually reduced to scavenging for mere bone fragments.


5. "Toasted cars". About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The "fires" seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a "toasting". Furthermore, vehicles that weren't toasted were typically flipped upside-down.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e6c6/qcsq8o37tg8q6lkzg.jpg)


6. Hurricane Erin. The category 3 hurricane was closest to NYC on the day and then moved away as if being controlled. The fact that it received virtually no media attention is suspicious (it wasn't mentioned or even inserted on the weather map on the evening news). Hurricanes produce a static field, like a Tesla coil, and this directly links to the Hutchison Effect phenomenon which utilises the same sort of technology on a small scale.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ea02/2xjh2zdxu2gckxezg.jpg)

The Hutchison Effect is a range of anomalous effects to materials (typically metal) including bending, twisting, peeling, instant rusting, levitation, fusion of dissimilar materials and spontaneous fires. All of these effects were seen on 9/11, so the destructive mechanism appears to share similarities with the Hutchison Effect. John Hutchison, the Canadian experimenter after which the phenomenon is named, was attempting to reproduce the work of Nikola Tesla. He creates a static field with a Tesla coil or Van de Graaff generator and using other equipment such as radar introduces different EM waves that interfere to cause an effect. There is a bit of trial and error to this and at first it was just accidentally discovered. He continued to experiment throughout the 1980's and although initially had difficulty replicating an effect can now guarantee one on demand (listen to audio file no. 3 about this). His work attracted attention from military personnel and a report about it was subsequently classified by the Canadian government.

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03UkSRqKs5o[/embed]    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/dc0d/j0a1s9genv74ko7zg.jpg)

It is interesting to note that Hutchison's samples tend to experience an ongoing effect (continued degradation) which was also evident at the 9/11 site that took an unreasonably long time to "clean up" involving dirt brought in, dumped on site and then hauled away. The nearby Bankers Trust building is another example of ongoing effects (it appears to have been "infected") as it was initially repaired but then had to be completely dismantled and rebuilt. A fire broke out during the repairs in 2007. Compare this and other "fires" seen on 9/11 to Hutchison's boat experiment.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/e37e/bdygxjkd5yxzga0zg.jpg)

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/15c1/lkhd9vupw548m30zg.jpg)

Once Judy Wood cottoned on to the presence of the hurricane and its connection with the Hutchison Effect, she had reached a pivotal point in her research, effectively opening Pandora's Box which in turn sent debunking efforts into overdrive. Grand Poobah of the "truth movement" Jim Fetzer, an apparent supporter of Wood initially, suddenly became hostile at this point in time and was at the helm of this new debunking campaign. Fetzer interviewed video specialist Ace Baker about fake videos Baker had made which appeared to mimic some of the effects seen in Hutchison's videos. This appeared to be an attempt to discredit Hutchison's work.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/4c39/4xlr3m4g3mbdubbzg.jpg)    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/be7a/j2q5dq7jtb7fvz1zg.jpg)

It is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms. A weapon was deployed on the day that literally tore the towers apart and left behind an abundance of evidence reminiscent of the Hutchison Effect. The hurricane could be considered to be one component of the weapon, and although we don't know the specifics of the other components we at least know the effects that they caused. The weapon can be classed as directed energy. We should all be familiar with directed energy – a microwave oven is an everyday domestic example. A laser is another example – however lasers produce heat, and the building didn't burn up or melt (i.e. the destructive mechanism wasn't thermal energy), so we can rule this out as the weapon. Terminology such as "space lasers" or "space beams" has been used to describe Dr Wood's research (partly due to earlier research which considered that advanced weapons technology may have been developed in the Strategic Defence Initiative programme). One of the first people to use the deceptive term "space beams" to describe Dr Wood's research was Steven E Jones, another prominent figure in the so-called "truth movement." Jones has connections to Los Alamos National Laboratory and statements and actions by him between 1989 and 1991 had a seriously detrimental effect on the field of "cold fusion" research (listen to audio file no. 5).

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/86f4/4aw45xpcs1akunlzg.jpg)


Legal Aspects

With the help from attorney Jerry Leaphart, Dr Wood presented the evidence in court in attempt to prosecute contractors of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) who were tasked with producing the technical report to explain what happened on 9/11. Two legal avenues were pursued; a Request for Corrections (RFC) under the Data Quality Act, and a subsequent Qui Tam or "whistle-blower" case under the False Claims Act. The basis for this legal action was the fact that NIST did not accurately describe what happened to the towers. The report only dealt with the plane impacts and resulting fires up to the point where it looked like the towers would start to collapse, followed by vague wording along the lines of "everything after that was inevitable" to conclude the report. Again, it is important to understand that the totality and nature of the destruction seen on 9/11 is not consistent with conventional destructive mechanisms, so it is hardly surprising that NIST avoided this aspect completely. Considering that directed energy was actually at play on 9/11, how fascinating it is that the two biggest contractors of NIST actually specialise in the research / development of directed energy weapons and the execution of psychological operations (listen to audio file no. 4 about this).

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/20c8/smxat085a94o353zg.jpg)    (http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6a7f/zsjm83m1uq9q5r8zg.jpg)

The judges of the Qui Tam lawsuit dismissed the case but not legitimately – they effectively "ignored the law" and even stated so in their written decision. If the case had gone ahead, representatives from the two above-mentioned companies, ARA and SAIC, may have been put under oath to disclose more information about the technology that was used on 9/11 – possibly revealing who actually owned it.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/04f1/d6khhcxo063yxx2zg.jpg)

Dr Morgan Reynolds, another researcher represented by Jerry Leaphart and former chief economist of the Bush Administration, also filed a case against NIST contractors which focused on the 9/11 planes. Dr Wood does not comment on the planes issue, other than stating that the totality and nature of destruction of the buildings could not have been caused by planes – whether they are real or fake, have passengers on them or not.


The Debunking Crowd

There were earlier efforts by certain forum members to dismiss and deny the evidence, but to date no one here or in the wider world has actually refuted the evidence. Detractors have only succeeded in misrepresenting the evidence and debunking their own propaganda.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ce83/7x2j1t6tm29w8vkzg.jpg)

One such individual is Myles Power, a science blogger from the UK who was snapped up by Google and trained to become something called an "EDU guru". He makes YouTube videos aiming to debunk "bad-science" which includes a video attempting to debunk Dr Judy Wood's book. Power does not actually refute the evidence contained in the book; instead he largely ignores it, misrepresents information, and resorts to petty ridicule with the impression of sounding intelligent. He also focuses on the chapter in Dr Wood's book which explores the peculiar evidence surrounding the "jumpers". This is a subject that immediately triggers an emotional response, and where it should be approached in a serious and respectful way, Power instead treats it as a joke.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/6f30/ndp7hzer31qv411zg.jpg)

Another character who made his debut early in the debunking scene was Dr Greg Jenkins who conducted a hit-piece in the form of an ambush interview of Dr Wood at a conference she attended. Dr Wood was just an audience member in support of Jim Fetzer and had no idea she would be interviewed, much less filmed. In the video, Jenkins largely ignores or downplays the evidence and insists on focussing on a poor-quality black and white photograph of debris falling from the tower. He tries to dismiss the idea that the debris is predominantly dust, not large steel girders and slabs of concrete. Dr Wood points out the very fine nature of the dust, and Jenkins reacts by adopting a number of blank and confused and sheepish looks, and the discussion essentially goes nowhere.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/09b5/73ddeycy88vz0f6zg.jpg)

People may be familiar with alternative media personality Alex Jones. He is well known for sensationalising conspiracy theories with his special blend of hysteria and salesman like rapid-fire speech. He will cover most conspiracy stuff, but will avoid Dr Wood's work like the plague! He won't acknowledge her work and becomes irritated when anyone tries to bring it up on his radio show. This audio clip is most revealing (here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXYcdAe1Fzk). And this one (here) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP65E3I4fD8).


Free Energy

The full title of Dr Judy Wood's book is "Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy on 9/11." And this is the silver lining – 9/11 was a disclosure of free energy.

For John Hutchison's experiments, he draws a relatively small amount of power to produce substantial effects that would ordinarily require more energy. The Hutchison Effect is therefore, like 9/11, a display of free energy technology.

Free energy tends to gets a bad rap in the mainstream however it is a real phenomenon and has been demonstrated on multiple occasions by independent researchers. It is not considered seriously by mainstream science for various reasons – lobbyist propaganda in part – with the excuse that the phenomenon conflicts with established theory often argued.

A class of free energy experiments relate to low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). Early LENR experiments were carried out by electrochemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons in which they reported anomalous heat (excess heat) produced from their apparatus of a magnitude they attributed to a nuclear process. Their results have been replicated by others including Dr John Bockris, a pioneer of electrochemistry who was initially accused of fraud but later exonerated following three formal investigations. A short video about this (here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN26SszEBZQ). Also, an excellent survey article by Dr Edmund Storms gives references to at least 34 studies with positive results using the method of Pons and Fleishman (here) (http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/library/2001/2001StormsE-ObjectiveAssessment.pdf).

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/fa40/gnx80qnilj7c6svzg.jpg)

Another figure that should be mentioned is Dr Eugene Mallove, who was an activist and leader for promoting awareness and encouraging research into alternative energy. This is a great interview with Mallove (here) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9rG-B84sq0) and the last one he gave before being murdered in 2004.

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/4a19/8vqa1mrqrzf2wqqzg.jpg)

The Hutchison Effect and the technology used on 9/11 appear to share similarities with LENR experiments in regards to the following:

1.  High energy output to input ratio (over unity)
2.  Absence of hazardous ionising radiation
3.  Absence of high heat during changes to materials which look like they've been caused by heat

It should be noted that LENR is not synonymous with "cold fusion" as a nuclear reaction does not necessarily mean fusion has taken place. Note that the human race has not yet mastered the technology to contain hot fusion – something that happens in the sun. The misleading term "cold fusion" was introduced by physicist Steven E Jones who was also involved in early experiments into the phenomenon. This is the same guy that introduced "space beams" to derail Judy Wood's work. Just a coincidence?

(http://www.mediafire.com/convkey/ba1c/j7t2r0yd7tzj5z4zg.jpg)


Occam's Razor

The simplest explanation is often the best. Another way of saying this is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is.

Andrew Johnson expresses this in another way: "Any conclusion can be reached about anything - but the value of that conclusion will be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence ignored".

Here is a short video series made by Adam Dwyer which covers some of the evidence in detail. Adam is an engineer, like myself, and creator of the webpage www.debamboozled.com. I think you'll agree that Adam has certainly captured the epic nature of the Dr Judy Wood saga in true Hollywood blockbuster style!

[embed=425,349]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2mg5ndzVgg&list=PL_cJ8k_C3XEWi9IrA7dKse0vo8SE6J1oJ[/embed]

Oh boy.

Edit:
monkey424, I'm curious: what other "alternative knowledge" do you support?

Edit2:
Also, why doesn't it faze you in the least that you are checking every single box of "hallmarks of a conspiracy theory crackpot"?
Is there a conspiracy theory you don't believe? David Icke?

Edit3:
Also, I have a suggestion: how about we keep discussions of Judy Wood and 9/11 where they belong (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.0) and use this thread to discuss why "alternative knowledge" is wrong instead? Just my 2 cents.

DELETED. On further thought I decided that I won't be replying to this.
I've already tried to explain before, that it is counter-productive when you keep throwing in more and more hard-to-be-checked facts, instead of taking single case and getting to the mutual agreement on that one before moving forward.
Secondly, you keep repeating things that were addressed and proved wrong or dubious before, while claiming that no one did. This is kinda... wrong.

Quote from: Khris on Wed 20/01/2016 12:54:05
Also, I have a suggestion: how about we keep discussions of Judy Wood and 9/11 where they belong (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=51989.0) and use this thread to discuss why "alternative knowledge" is wrong instead? Just my 2 cents.

Threads have been rearranged. If anyone wants to take you up on that, they should go to this thread: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=53132.0

Quote5. "Toasted cars". About 1400 vehicles spontaneously combusted. The "fires" seemed to target the metal on the cars (not typically combustible) while organic materials like paper and trees were spared. But not everything made of metal was affected, such as street signs and traffic lights, and this gives us a hint as to the phenomenon at play here. Things like street signs and traffic lights are connected to the ground, while cars on rubber tyres are insulated from the ground. Also consider that ambulances may have a grounding feature as a safeguard against electrostatic hazards, which might explain why the ambulance pictured above was spared a “toasting”. Furthermore, vehicles that weren't toasted were typically flipped upside-down.

Wait...what?! So the energy beam doesn't affect things that are "grounded"?! You mean like skyscrapers? Isn't this directly self-contradicting?

Isn't the more obvious conclusion as to why cars burned and signs/lights/etc did not burn that cars typically contain gasoline and other flamable materials and signs/lights/etc do not? Also you state that the fires "seemed" to target the metal. Where is this coming from?! I see no evidence of this in any of the photos. In fact I see the complete opposite with the interiors of the car completed gutted by the fires and no flamable materials such as seats still remaining: In other words, exactly what a car which has caught fire and burned normally looks like.

Also, we already know why some cars were "flipped". It's because they were bulldozed out of the way to make access for emergency vehicles to get through.

What happened on 9/11 is obviously very unusual, and the official story is a lie perpetrated on the entire planet.

But it's garbage like this and the "no planes theory" that prevents otherwise intelligent people from taking an objective look at what really happened.

The fact is that the collapse of WTC 7, and to a lesser extent the collapse of the towers, are the single most obvious piece of evidence that the official story of "fire" is absurd. It is also the only thing we can prove for sure with the evidence that wasn't destroyed.

@ "IRREFUTABLE" video:

(http://hellogiggles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/18/Do-not-think-it-means.jpeg)

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Thu 21/01/2016 11:36:03[...]

Your post is actually worse than what monkey424 does.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 21/01/2016 14:07:38
Your post is actually worse than what monkey424 does.

Your statement is dismissive and without qualification. Add a joke and you can be obama's speech writer.

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sun 24/01/2016 13:27:55Your statement is dismissive and without qualification.

You do realize that the above exactly describes your own post, right...?

I wonder why people fixate on 9/11 and mind controlling flourides in the water for reasons why the government is being bad to them.

Like, there are plenty of things that are wrong that you could be thinking about that don't involve expensive impossible death rays. Like, lack of proper water sanitation leading to dangerously high levels of lead in the water in Michigan. That kind of thing is real, you can see it, it's provable, and the reason is pretty clear: Negligence and trying to steal resources away from poor people (they didn't put proper water purification in to save $1200 a year, from what I've heard)

But no, we gotta have people trying to work out exactly what massive death ray the government used on a wealthy american business center. It was a tragedy, but the government doesn't stand to gain anything from doing it. Like, if they wanted to test out a death ray, they have places they can do that that wouldn't make Americans hate them. I mean, my god, motive is kind of important.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 24/01/2016 20:20:27
You do realize that the above exactly describes your own post, right...?

Being a little liberal with the word "exactly"?

These things we know: No skyscraper has ever experienced complete collapse due to fire of any size or duration, unless you count 3 buildings in new york. At worst they will burn like giant torches (http://www.staylegal.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Garley-Building-Fire.png) for hours (http://www.staylegal.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Unnamed-high-rise-apartment-block-Fire.png) and stand as skeletons afterwards (http://www.highrisefirefighting.co.uk/images/madrid1.jpg). WTC 7 did not burn like a giant torch for hours, and not only experienced complete collapse, it collapsed symmetrically into it's own core. You can bring a building down with explosives (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc), but a complete and symmetrical collapse is only possible through a successful controlled demolition. That's what the "controlled" means. It means that every load bearing column (of which there are many) has to be severed with the correct timing to allow the building to collapse in on itself with no resistance from said columns. This is impossible with an uncoordinated fire, unless you want to get liberal with the word "fire" to include explosions or focused steel-cutting incendiaries, and additionally get liberal with the word "uncoordinated" so that it means "finely coordinated".

Yes, debris from the neighbouring demolitions did strike and damage WTC7, but from images available to us it's clearly superficial, and clearly did not do enough structural damage to affect the direction of the building's collapse. Even if the debris had taken out 60% of that level of the building, it would have collapsed to the side of the damage, with the upper part of the building remaining largely intact, like a failed controlled demolition. And yes, fire will cause steel beams to sag, after hours of focused heat, and still not enough to cause them to tear apart or magically jump from their surrounding structure, as NIST wishes to suggest.

NIST found no evidence of explosives. NIST admits they did not test for explosives, even though these three buildings were supposedly the only to ever experience complete collapse due to fire. The metal from these buildings were promptly sold as scrap and melted down, making future testing impossible. Look it up. NIST removed the critical component of shear studs from their later reports to make their magical synchronised jumping beams seem more plausible, though these were present on the plans, and the building, and previous NIST reports as a fly in their bull shit.

How do you keep it quiet? You simply don't report on it. You present it as cut and dry, case closed, with your government report that didn't even touch WTC7, and your government agency that to this day won't release their computer model which they generated and used as proof in a dark room somewhere. Anyone who comes forward is dismissed as a crank, because we all know the facts of this thing we dare not look at, right?

Quote from: Scavenger on Sun 24/01/2016 21:08:32
I mean, my god, motive is kind of important.

Yeah, it's not like the US was able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan again because of 9/11 and some equally fake "yellow cake" which was trumpeted far and wide by the media. It's not like military spending skyrocketed after 9/11, growing the industry by trillions each year. It's not like 9/11 has been used to invoke a permanent state of emergency in the us, and to revoke habeus corpus, directly opposing the US constitution.

Are you serious?

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sun 24/01/2016 23:47:44
Yeah, it's not like the US was able to invade Iraq and Afghanistan again because of 9/11 and some equally fake "yellow cake" which was trumpeted far and wide by the media. It's not like military spending skyrocketed after 9/11, growing the industry by trillions each year. It's not like 9/11 has been used to invoke a permanent state of emergency in the us, and to revoke habeus corpus, directly opposing the US constitution.

Are you serious?

Yeah, I'm serious.

The government didn't need to orchestrate their own tragedy, they only needed to capitalize on one. Seizing on an opportunity doesn't necessarily mean that they created that opportunity*. You want to believe that someone is to blame, I know, it was a huge tragedy, but there's nothing to be gained from trying to grasp at straws. All the 9/11 truther shit I've ever read showed a huge lack of understanding of basic physics, metallurgy, chemistry, and history. I won't try to debunk that side of it, because it's already been done.

But seriously, the amount of people involved in an operation this big would be staggering, and the government would never be able to keep it quiet. Conspiracy theories rely on the enemy being simultaneously The Smartest, Most Flawless Beings Who Can Hide Everything From Everyone, and also stupid enough to do these elaborate plans that the average Truther can see through because they're so smart.

Nope, if history has taught us anything, it's that shit be messing up all over the place, and then people try to take advantage of it.

I mean, what's more likely:
- The Government/Illuminati/Federal Reserve/Rothschilds/Jews/Aliens are these superbeings who come up with a plan to demolish the WTC buildings using Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/Synchronised Explosives/The Hand of God while covering it up with Advanced Holograms of a Plane/A Real Plane but Empty/Also a Plane But Just Obvious Misdirection, thus ensuring that people will be skeptical of a plane's ability to take out the World Trade Center, and forgetting that if they pretended the Terrorists had Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/The Ability to Plant Explosives/The Hand of God they could more easily strike fear into the hearts of Americans.

- A Plane crashed into the World Trade Center and the architects/engineers made a mistake, and didn't expect a massive aeroplane to actually hit it. You know, like architects can do, being human and not having their math right.



*Well, except by decades of imperialist action stirring tensions in the middle east. You could say that America created that.

Everything I witnessed that day makes way more sense than any conspiracy theory. IMO, the buildings collapsed not just due to fire, "but also due to the passenger jet that was full of fuel and going 500 mph that crashed into it". This was a clear act of terrorism.

I also believe they collapsed due to poor construction, or should I say "super light weight construction that couldn't handle getting hit by a plane". The buildings collapsed at the points of impact, and they didn't collapse straight downwards at first. The first building tilted inwards and started to turn on its side. The second did just about the same thing. Both of these buildings also collapsed in the exact same way, which makes it seem even more obvious that they both had the same flaw, or weakness.

just my little opinion...again. All of this seems so much more reasonable than the 10,000 page book of how the Government pulled it off. The most incredible hoax the world has ever seen.....step right up ladies and gentlemen.

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sun 24/01/2016 23:47:44A building with a unique structure didn't behave like other buildings!

The all-powerful, hyper-intelligent government wanted to fake a terrorist attack, obviously used controlled demolitions but told everybody it was from planes, because people don't know the difference anyway (unless they have a youtube channel). Then they released reports that are totally suspicious and therefore obviously fake!

They did this because they needed a reason to go to war with Iraq. And while they can easily pull of a huge conspiracy with more than 10'000 insiders, right in the middle of New York, they couldn't fake their own Army finding WMDs somewhere in the desert, thousands of miles away!

That is a very solid case you make, and I was just converted. I'm now a truther and pledge to henceforth ignore how compression algorithms work whenever I look at scanned birth certificates.

Quote from: Scavenger on Mon 25/01/2016 01:01:36
- The Government/Illuminati/Federal Reserve/Rothschilds/Jews/Aliens are these superbeings who come up with a plan to demolish the WTC buildings using Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/Synchronised Explosives/The Hand of God while covering it up with Advanced Holograms of a Plane/A Real Plane but Empty/Also a Plane But Just Obvious Misdirection, thus ensuring that people will be skeptical of a plane's ability to take out the World Trade Center, and forgetting that if they pretended the Terrorists had Death Rays/Disintegration Beams/The Ability to Plant Explosives/The Hand of God they could more easily strike fear into the hearts of Americans.

And that, is why you fail. You lump all conspiracy theories together, even the junk like Dr Judy meant to confuse, and decide that if some are clearly false, all of them must be.

These things (that I have stated) have not been debunked. Debunking sites debunk theories that have no relation to what actually happened, which is called a straw man argument. Or they prove scientifically that fire can cause steel beams to sag and then consider this proof of fire being able to cause a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed (controlled demolition), but only implicitly. How many skyscrapers have experienced complete collapse due to fire, ever? Three! And they all have WTC in their name. Look it up.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Mon 25/01/2016 02:34:58
Everything I witnessed that day makes way more sense than any conspiracy theory. IMO, the buildings collapsed not just due to fire, "but also due to the passenger jet that was full of fuel and going 500 mph that crashed into it". This was a clear act of terrorism.

I also believe they collapsed due to poor construction, or should I say "super light weight construction that couldn't handle getting hit by a plane". The buildings collapsed at the points of impact, and they didn't collapse straight downwards at first. The first building tilted inwards and started to turn on its side. The second did just about the same thing. Both of these buildings also collapsed in the exact same way, which makes it seem even more obvious that they both had the same flaw, or weakness.

just my little opinion...again. All of this seems so much more reasonable than the 10,000 page book of how the Government pulled it off. The most incredible hoax the world has ever seen.....step right up ladies and gentlemen.

And thank you both for making my point about an effective cover-up. You clearly have no idea about WTC7, because you keep talking about planes. Why don't you know about WTC7? The media didn't cover it. Because it's a smoking gun.

While we're on the subject, both of the twin towers were designed to withstand jet plane impacts. Look it up.

10,000 page book? That must sound really scary. It's a controlled demolition, that's all. They happen all the time.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 25/01/2016 03:27:16
That is a very solid case you make, and I was just converted. I'm now a truther and pledge to henceforth ignore how compression algorithms work whenever I look at scanned birth certificates.

Birth certificates? Holograms? Where do you get this stuff? It's no wonder people are having trouble with this.

Where did the need for 10,000 (there's that scary number again) insiders come from? To get the military to stand down? They were running the biggest collection of drills the world has ever seen. So many, they literally couldn't tell the truth from a drill when the call came. Look it up. These drills actually always happen on the same day of a terrorist attack, like the subway bombings in the UK following 9/11 (7/7 etc) or the recent shootings in Paris and such. But that's just more circumstantial coincidences, that happen every single time. You can look that up too, but you won't.

I think that when most people realise that the government is definitely involved in both the attack and the cover-up, they can't accept it. It's the government, the good guys. A government working for its own interests rather than the people can't exist, right? Just a few bad apples.

I'm not here to sermonise you with my beliefs, and I feel that I have made the absolutely observable and provable facts of the matter relatively clear. That was certainly a controlled demolition, the symmetry is what is always sought in a controlled demolition. That is not possible, by definition, with an uncoordinated fire. There are thousands of engineers and architects that have put their credentials behind these plainly observable facts and demanded an re-investigation (which will never happen of course), called AE911. Don't look that up. I'll let you know when the number of PhDs reaches 10,000.

Look, you are not smarter than us. It's always the same with you conspiracy types: you cannot accept that we simply look at the same phenomenon but come to a different conclusion. Therefore you need to invent some other reason. It's not that I can't accept that the government is bad. It's that the arguments you have listed are not convincing to me. (Plus, that government was bad. They are basically war criminals. Yet I don't think they planned 9/11, because the evidence points to 19 terrorists.)
The same "arguments" that you find extremely compelling exist for lots of other conspiracies, and there is a reasonable answer to everything you have mentioned.

For instance you claim that a) just fire cannot have caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and that b) they fell in freefall speed.
a) is just an assertion, based on willful ignorance of how the construction of the towers was unique
b) is addressed here: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm (please show how this is a straw man... (roll))

The fact that you keep bringing up how other buildings did not collapse from fires, ignoring that those buildings had a tight mesh of beams and not what's basically a metal sausage casing attached to a metal pole shows that your arguments do not have the level of sophistication you might think they have.
Plus, your posts contain other red flags, for instance the tired old "the media didn't cover X". When a CT makes this claim, it's pretty much a surefire bet that the media actually covered X extensively.

You are not smarter than us; we are not the "sheeple" you wish us to be. I'm actually very interested in conspiracy theories in general, and the typical mistakes CTs make. To me you're just one of an army of crackpots who have not bothered to do basic research into why people fall for conspiracy theories.

Why can't you all see the [obvious] truth?

There is, clearly, a nefarious group of individuals known as IDeA (Internet Defense Advocates).

These men and women are called upon when a conspiracy theorist's internet discussion isn't going well (like, for instance, when a discussion has over 15 pages of, basically, nobody agreeing with the conspiracy and offering facts to completely destroy the argument in the first place).  They enter the discussion and attempt to back up the original argument's points.  Their tactics range from subtle (seemingly calling out the original concept as silly, but saying the over-all "facts" are still part of the conspiracy) to downright blatant (attempting to belittle those who disagree).  Sometimes they like to mix a little of each.

They are expensive, but well worth the cost.

Yeah! Conspiracies make me so angry! Killuminati! Fight the power, monkey424.

P.S. Darth, when's the next lodge meeting?

Quote from: Gurok on Mon 25/01/2016 14:26:28P.S. Darth, when's the next lodge meeting?

I may (or may not) have any (or a) idea what you are (or are not (or might not be)) talking about.

Bridges are made to withstand cars driving on them. Look it up. So I'm guessing every time a bridge collapses, this means the government did it?

Planes are the safest way to travel. Look it up. So every time one does crash, it must be due to the government?

The Titanic was the greatest ship in the world that could never sink. Look it up. Yep, had to be the government that planted explosives. So by you saying that the towers were built to withstand getting hit by a plane, or could never collapse due to fire, means absolutely nothing.

Just because the towers were supposed to be able to withstand an impact, doesn't mean that there is no way in the world it could never happen. Things fail all the time, but it's more fun to say that the government killed thousands of people to go to war. Don't you think that a simple bomb somewhere would be enough to do this?

Hell, if one terrorist does something bad with a single gun, countries go to war now. Why try to pull off the craziest, most unbelievable, most incredible hoax in the world, that smart people like you would never believe, to go to war?

Some people choose to start believing things from the opposite ends of the spectrum. I start off disbelieving, and some start off thinking aliens could be the culprits until proven otherwise.

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sun 24/01/2016 23:47:44
These things we know: No skyscraper has ever experienced complete collapse due to fire of any size or duration, unless you count 3 buildings in new york

Were any of these other skyscrapers hit at max speed with a jetliner still mostly full of aviation fuel?

No? Then why compare them at all?

"any size or duration" just went right out the window...

A normal skyscraper fire fueled by merely the flamable materials present in the building (no matter how long they burn for) can in no way compare to the heat generated by full tanks of aviation fuel acting as the accelerant...

Try adding as much coal as you can to a pot-belly stove and try to melt it for 24 hours: Then pump in some aviation fuel for 30 minutes and let's see how well it holds up...

A quick, incredibly hot fire will melt the hell out of metal structure in 30 minutes...

A slow burning normal fire will do nothing to the structure even if it continues for a week...

Metal reacts to sudden and violent changes of temperature suddenly and violently...

Metal cares nothing about slow fires below its melting point...

Quote from: Khris on Mon 25/01/2016 13:52:21
For instance you claim that a) just fire cannot have caused the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, and that b) they fell in freefall speed.
a) is just an assertion, based on willful ignorance of how the construction of the towers was unique
b) is addressed here: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm (please show how this is a straw man... (roll))

The straw man is "debunking" the fall of 1 & 2 when I (and AE911) am clearly talking about the blatant controlled demolition which was the collapse of WTC 7.

Dunno if y'all noticed, but I've been talking about WTC 7 this whole time. That's 7. 7 does not equal 1, neither does it equal 2. WTC 7 was not struck by an air-plane.

BTW jet fuel is kerosene (http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13042/why-do-jet-engines-use-kerosene-rather-than-gasoline/13048#13048). A jet flame generates a lot more heat than a normal kerosene/jet fuel fire because it is physically accelerated. And if the building does experience a partial collapse, it will never collapse in on itself, which is the path of greatest resistance.

But what would be the point in discussing 1 & 2, when you see WTC 7 implode and your brain says office fire because the government said so? (No it's not office fire because planes and big metal sausage).

Forget it.

I hate to keep this thread going, but I can't resist my curiosity:

So why do you think the government decided to leave a "smoking gun" by blowing up WTC7? As you say, it didn't make much of an impact on the popular imagination (probably mainly because there were no reported casualties, as it had burned for hours and been evacuated when the firefighters noticed signs of its impending collapse â€" which doesn't tend to support the controlled demolition theory), so it can hardly have been useful to achieve the supposed goal of justifying war. What did destroying it contribute to the scheme, and if the cover story was going to be the two planes, why did they throw in something that according to you doesn't fit?

This isn't "NASA faked the moon landing"-crazy. It's "NASA faked the Challenger disaster"-crazy.

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Mon 25/01/2016 18:23:55Dunno if y'all noticed, but I've been talking about WTC 7 this whole time. That's 7. 7 does not equal 1, neither does it equal 2. WTC 7 was not struck by an air-plane.

You have mentioned Buildings 1 and 2 multiple times:

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Sun 24/01/2016 23:47:44No skyscraper has ever experienced complete collapse due to fire of any size or duration, unless you count 3 buildings in new york.

Quote from: Jack Lucy on Mon 25/01/2016 11:15:51Or they prove scientifically that fire can cause steel beams to sag and then consider this proof of fire being able to cause a symmetrical collapse at free fall speed (controlled demolition), but only implicitly. How many skyscrapers have experienced complete collapse due to fire, ever? Three! And they all have WTC in their name. Look it up.

If you must act like a smartass, at least don't be a pathetic liar at the same time.

Actually, do you know what would be amazingly cool?

Monkey424: Make a game based on everything you have researched, with the main character a conspiracy theorist who has stumbled a bit too close to the truth, like Mel Gibson in that movie so redundantly named, all things considered, that I need not name it...

I'm not even being a bit snarky here: With the amount of knowledge you have gathered on this subject you obviously feel very passionate about it could be an incredible game experience for the player, and your passion should see you through to the completion of the project...

Given a well-enough developed project you could even potentially get Judy herself to voice the role of her own character, and/or maybe even support a kickstarter funding for it!

Also, you would be furthering your cause to spread the word of your beliefs in a way more creative and artistically satisfying manner than posting massive info-dumps on online forums...

I'm serious man:

I WOULD TOTALLY PLAY THAT THE SHIT OUT OF THAT GAME!!!

I was going to say something similar Mandle, make a bloody game Monkey! Any game!