Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11

Started by monkey424, Fri 10/04/2015 10:25:40

Previous topic - Next topic

Crimson Wizard

#220
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 by NickyNyce shows how it looked for WTC:



There is a gradually increasing then gradually decreasing strength of impact.

NickyNyce

#221
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.

RickJ

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                   
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.



Snarky

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.

RickJ

@Snarky:  Yes, of course, the dynamics and affects of the impact are not addressed.  But in this thread 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. 


monkey424

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.



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..
    

RickJ

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)



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. 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.

Radiant

For the people still reading this thread after 2.5 months, check out more conspiracy theories in this list and that one. 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....

NickyNyce

#228
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

Mandle

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... ;)

NickyNyce

#230
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.

Mandle

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...

RickJ

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.  ;)

monkey424

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.



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).



As RickJ pointed out:

From the Hoffman article: "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?







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

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?
    

Radiant

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:

Snarky

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.

NickyNyce

#236
Here is a clear picture of the car on the FDR.


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.

monkey424

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?







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).

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).

---

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.
    

NickyNyce

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.

RickJ

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.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk