Messages

[Snarky]

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?

If 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) includes the correct governing equations to model the collapse, which when plotted look like this.



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.

According 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
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
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, 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
9/11 Debris: Investigation of Ground Zero, Pt. 2

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

DEBRIS PILE

Can anyone tell me what's wrong with this picture?

[Radiant]

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). 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) 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.

   

   

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?

[Crimson Wizard]

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.





The photographs show an ambulance parked near the towers (about 10 m from WTC1) 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 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.



This simple model should give us a fair idea of what the debris pile should have looked like.



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.



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

[Khris]

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.

It certainly does put things into perspective. Just this week my sister is recovering from an operation. Thankfully she did not have anything seriously wrong with her. However, there is a girl only 6 years old that my sister taught who has leukemia. She has been in hospital for some time now and just yesterday I was told they will pull her life support. It is heartbreaking. Imagine being the parents of that little girl.

Sometimes I'm just lost for words.

Take care Anas. Best wishes to you and your family.

[Mandle]

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?

Golly gosh! That was a quick response! 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.

[Crimson Wizard]

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.

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.

[THE PLANES]

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)
- 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.

[Mandle]

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.

   

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.

[Scav]

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

[RickJ]

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 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

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?

Thanks guys!

My plan of encoding my birthdate into my username worked! My birthday is sadly now overshadowed by monkey425 however. She gets all the attention now.

"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.

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?!?

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.

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.

Snarky

Yeah, I think you got me. 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?

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.

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.