Author Topic: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11  (Read 50798 times)

Scavenger

  • Cavefish
  • In Four Glorious Colours!
    • I can help with animation
    • I can help with backgrounds
    • I can help with characters
    • I can help with scripting
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Scavenger worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #180 on: 18 May 2015, 17:08 »
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.

RickJ

  • fix'n one thing and break'n two ...
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • RickJ worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #181 on: 19 May 2015, 01:39 »
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?


Radiant

  • Mittens Knight
  • AGS Baker
  • Return once more to the Two Kingdoms!
    • I can help with publishing
    • I can help with story design
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #182 on: 19 May 2015, 07:57 »
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.

Radiant

  • Mittens Knight
  • AGS Baker
  • Return once more to the Two Kingdoms!
    • I can help with publishing
    • I can help with story design
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #183 on: 19 May 2015, 19:10 »
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/

monkey424

  • I'm a coffee achiever
    • monkey424 worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #184 on: 22 May 2015, 16:06 »
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?
    

Khris

  • partook in silencing a crtitc despite facts
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with translating
    • Khris worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #185 on: 22 May 2015, 18:47 »
Spend 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?
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

Snarky

  • Global Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Mittens Lord
  • Private Insultant
    • Best Innovation Award Winner 2018, for his numerous additions to the AGS open source ecosystem including the new Awards Ceremony client and modules
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #186 on: 22 May 2015, 19:06 »
"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!

Darth Mandarb

  • Evil Sith Lord
  • Mittens Vassal
  • AGS Baker
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • Darth Mandarb worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Darth Mandarb worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #187 on: 22 May 2015, 19:59 »
I 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!

Mandle

  • NO PIXEL LEFT BEHIND!!!
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #188 on: 24 May 2015, 00:57 »
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!!!)

Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #189 on: 24 May 2015, 12:09 »
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? 





« Last Edit: 27 May 2015, 15:15 by TheBitPriest »

monkey424

  • I'm a coffee achiever
    • monkey424 worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #190 on: 29 May 2015, 09:24 »
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 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 (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 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.
    

Mandle

  • NO PIXEL LEFT BEHIND!!!
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Mandle worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #191 on: 29 May 2015, 10:19 »
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.)

Radiant

  • Mittens Knight
  • AGS Baker
  • Return once more to the Two Kingdoms!
    • I can help with publishing
    • I can help with story design
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #192 on: 29 May 2015, 10:30 »
If 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 :)

Snarky

  • Global Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Mittens Lord
  • Private Insultant
    • Best Innovation Award Winner 2018, for his numerous additions to the AGS open source ecosystem including the new Awards Ceremony client and modules
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Snarky worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #193 on: 29 May 2015, 13:23 »
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.

- 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!

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!

Radiant

  • Mittens Knight
  • AGS Baker
  • Return once more to the Two Kingdoms!
    • I can help with publishing
    • I can help with story design
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • Radiant worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #194 on: 29 May 2015, 14:22 »
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 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."

Khris

  • partook in silencing a crtitc despite facts
    • Lifetime Achievement Award Winner
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with translating
    • Khris worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #195 on: 29 May 2015, 21:26 »
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.
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?

Quote
Dr 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.
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

RickJ

  • fix'n one thing and break'n two ...
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • RickJ worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #196 on: 30 May 2015, 03:51 »
Quote
Using 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

Quote
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.
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.     

Quote
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.
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).

Quote
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.
It doesn't matter what delivers the force.  It could even be done with water.

Btw, here is a handy stress calculator:
http://www.amesweb.info/StructuralAnalysisBeams/Stresses_Steel_Hollow_Structural_Sections.aspx

Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #197 on: 30 May 2015, 16:27 »
I can see the truth now, monkey424.  Thank you.




KodiakBehr

  • Cavefish
  • Click click click click click...
    • KodiakBehr worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • KodiakBehr worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #198 on: 30 May 2015, 17:18 »
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.

Re: Dr. Judy Wood ~ Evidence of Breakthrough Energy on 9/11
« Reply #199 on: 31 May 2015, 18:05 »
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.

Crimson Wizard

The quote I was referring to was on page 10.

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. 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?
« Last Edit: 31 May 2015, 18:21 by Crimson Wizard »