Where did the towers go?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Back then, there was chaos and fear, and out of that mess, the gathering of evidence was all over the place, unorganized, often amateurish and certainly subjected to vilification and ridicule. One such person who was eminently qualified to discuss the evidence was vilified and her character assassinated like few others. I wonder if she was surprised by the amount of ridicule she had to endure?

At the time she sounded like a lone voice with an extraordinary claim and so the convenient appellation of "nut job" was applied to her, as to so many women they want to silence through the ages. But she is educated and knowledgeable unlike those who want to do nothing but defile and discredit. She discusses evidence and that is interesting to me. I therefore invite a new assessment of her claim with a more open mind and in this spirit of thinking only of the evidence, I invite you to view the following video.

The interview and discussion is rather long, but it is a rather good presentation of the evidence, imo, and I suggest it bears a good listen in the upper corner of your screen, if you so wish, or on your desktop, with an ability to glance at the pics and maps every now and then. The discussion is about the evidence of the towers, and towards the end is about the presentation of her court case to the Supreme Court. She does not come across as a nut job in terms of her knowledge. And she has felt strongly enough about her evidence to present it in court. She is one brave person.

Please adhere to the T&C

By now we are pretty well past wanting to argue who did what to whom and who didn't. The truth is unfolding item by item and little by little, as it must. History will look back on this time with a lot more wisdom that people perceive it now.

So please don't post just in order to flame. This thread is not about the truth movement or its future. I do however welcome your opinions on the video and whether you can get your head around her evidence.

Here it is.





posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


all that text and I still don't know why I should spend an hour and 30 min on that video. Would you mind commenting on what proof was most striking to you? Does she add anything new to the discussion? I'll leave it for others who have the time to watch the video, but at first glance, her argument is that the amount of debris doesn't add up and something about a burnt out bus.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


She certainly has the qualifications to have an educated opinion. She makes a lot of sense, but it's a little too much for most people to warm to.

In some respects it's better left ignored imo, simply because it just brings out the lunatic fringe, who's only agenda is to find something to make a laughing stock out of.

Sorry Judy, but maybe your ideas a little too ahead of their time.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 



At the time she sounded like a lone voice with an extraordinary claim and so the convenient appellation of "nut job" was applied to her


Sorry, but you lost me completely here.

Conspiracy theories were already flying around BEFORE the second plane had hit. I don't know how you could possibly perceive her voice as being "alone" as it was hard to hear the official report due to how much speculation was being thrown around by the MSM.

For the last ten years, any idiot with a theory on "what actually happened" has been given airtime on any number of mainstream news networks as it is a major ratings grabber. Usually these theorists have little or no evidence that could be considered anything beyond circumstantial and I have yet to hear of any that were actually working in the Bush Jr administration at the time.

I am not endorsing the OS by any means, but I've yet to find a conspiracy theory on 9/11 that I would consider plausible.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
I am not endorsing the OS by any means, but I've yet to find a conspiracy theory on 9/11 that I would consider plausible.


Maybe you should stop looking for the conspiracies, and look at the physical facts of the collapses?

Physics cares nothing for conspiracies.

For example, the NIST report claims trusses sagged due to being heated up, and then they pulled in the columns they were attached to. Does anyone really need to explain why that is simply impossible? If anyone does need it explaining then they need to brush up on thermal expansion. Once you understand what happens to steel when it heats up, you will understand why they sag, and hopefully why they wouldn't pull on the columns.

Thermal Expansion

Regardless of that they should never have got that hot to start with. Remember the lady standing in the hole? She would have not been able to have been anywhere near that area if it was hot enough to cause the steel to sag. And then there is the fact the trusses were connected to the floor pans along their length. Look at the details and the OS falls apart, no need to provide any other 'theory' as to what happened, that can always come later.

edit on 1/19/2012 by ANOK because: typo



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Dr. Wood doesn't make any assertions about who did 9/11, their purpose or anything about the airplanes or the pentagon. What she does do is look at the physical evidence and eliminate possibilities. Most of the evidence is hard physical facts although she does veer off in to some perceptual evidence that is open to interpretation as to it's origins. I found her book quite interesting and probably the most in-depth examination of the collapse of the twin towers. She brings out many little known facts (there was a hurricane headed towards Manhattan for the entire week before 9/11 and changing course nearly the same time as the attacks.
You might hear something different for a change. Dr. Wood is fearless for publishing her book and I applaud her for her efforts.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 


This is a good video I watched it last week along with one on Canadian John Hutchison of 'The Hutchison Effect' effect.

Judy is claiming there's not enough debris, the 'collapse' was too fast and the seismic evidence doesn't record the magnitude of what the building falling to the ground should've registered. All these points are laid out casually in the video and all three anomalies can possibly be explained solely by the building turning to dust (see any number of pics and videos) progressively, on the way down.

With the cars and trucks, they are melted weirdly maybe, a lot missing engines, some say the dust must've been hot therefore but the people in it were unharmed by it, yet many cars are melted and missing engines etc.


Cheers



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I watched a great video too.

A video wherein Judy Woods is interviewed by physicist Greg Jenkins from the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies.


Google Video Link


See also:

Introduction To An Interview With Dr. Judy Wood Conducted At The National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on January 10, 2007 Regarding The Use Of Directed Energy Beams In The Demolition Of The World Trade Center Towers.

The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers

Very courageous work by Dr. Jenkins! Really allows one to see if Judy's claims stand up to scientific scrutiny; highly recommended!



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowcrash911
I watched a great video too.

A video wherein Judy Woods is interviewed by physicist Greg Jenkins from the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies.

Very courageous work by Dr. Jenkins! Really allows one to see if Judy's claims stand up to scientific scrutiny; highly recommended!


Is this the surprise interview carried out shortly before midnight after she'd driven 600 miles?
If so it is certainly, as you say, courageous. I'm not sure I'd have the undoubted courage this man shows in asking a woman difficult questions in such circumstances. I'd be more inclined to quietly ask if there was anything she needed and stay carefully out of arms reach while asking that.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Kester because: addition.
edit on 19-1-2012 by Kester because: word substitution



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
For example, the NIST report claims trusses sagged due to being heated up, and then they pulled in the columns they were attached to. Does anyone really need to explain why that is simply impossible? If anyone does need it explaining then they need to brush up on thermal expansion. Once you understand what happens to steel when it heats up, you will understand why they sag, and hopefully why they wouldn't pull on the columns.


Expansion would be offset by sagging under floor loads as the steel was heated. The columns that had been sheared by the aircraft were discontinuous in that span and there was little to prevent the tops from being pulled inward as the floor sagged.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Dr. Wood doesn't make any assertions about who did 9/11, their purpose or anything about the airplanes or the pentagon. What she does do is look at the physical evidence and eliminate possibilities. Most of the evidence is hard physical facts.....


After TEN YEARS this is THE ISSUE regarding all of the so called physicists in this country and that may be more important than who actually did it. If they had come out in 2002 and said airliners couldn't have done it what could the media have said to the contrary? So how can they come out now and say airliners couldn't have done it?

Professional physicists can't be bothered with trying to build a physical model to supposedly do what the north tower did. They can't even ask about the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower.

psik



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by aboutface
 


Judy Wood and the DEW sound really neat for a Hollywood movie. The idea of metal 'dustification' requires a process either unknown to science or one that would not only be obvious but require energy beyond the capabilities of any energy generator in the time required. As the latter is eliminated, the former, an entirely new process, is akin to claiming 'magic' unless it can be demonstrated.
We await Judy's working dustification ray and, until then, must consider gravity to be the final conspirator.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
.....is akin to claiming 'magic' unless it can be demonstrated.


Much as the 'inevitable' process by which the towers became dust and debris can only be viewed as mysterious and unexplained until a model demonstrates the same behaviour. Do you agree with the view popular amongst supporters of the official story that it would be a "waste of time" to investigate this process?



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


This is hilarious
I can understand why someone like Anok thinks "She makes a lot of sense", she is about as confused.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


I hadn't seen that one, and now wish I hadn't. I was frustrated watching it because although they began by differing about terminology (dustification vs evaporation) I was looking forward to the exploration of those differences rather than what seemed to me to be a deliberate semantic disintegration of the interview after that by the interviewer, she rightly to her findings not accepting the word 'collapse' rather than 'disintegration', and he trying to use words that steered against her findings, whether there was debris or not, and what went up vs down depending on their original definition I guess, etc. It did seem to me like it was a semantic dance he was deliberately playing with her. As a viewer, this dance really frustrated me.

People disagree all the time, but add to the above the pics following some body language at the end and I have to conclude that they certainly were put in there to emphasize the appellation of "nut job", in the long run a perfect example of "try to divide one side of the same house against the other." I therefore have to ask what agenda and whose was behind this interview. She even called him up on it.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MeesterB
 


I am not interested in convincing you or anyone to watch it unless you want to see her present her case about the evidence.

Edit to add: Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh. I always want to assume that people who are intelligent will want to investigate things on their own and not be relying on the words of another.

I feel that if I were producing this program, I would present the parts in different order than what was done. The notion of introducing frequencies into a static force field was demonstrated in the video and I am left with awe and trembling at the thought.
edit on 19-1-2012 by aboutface because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Expansion would be offset by sagging under floor loads as the steel was heated.


That is correct, but it's not the answer to how they could pull on the columns.

The whole reason the trusses would sag is because of the expansion, if they sagged it means they couldn't push on the columns out, if they couldn't push the columns out they're not going to pull them in either.


The columns that had been sheared by the aircraft were discontinuous in that span and there was little to prevent the tops from being pulled inward as the floor sagged.


Hmm first you make an assumption you provide no evidence for. Secondly no, the floors sagging can not put a pulling force on the columns, as explained.

All this is simply made up by NIST, there is no science to support the claim. There was not even enough heat from one hour of fire to cause any steel to heat up enough to sag. Another thing you ignore is heat transfer...


Temperatures of objects

It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.

www.doctorfire.com...

Good try, but no soup for you! You really need to check your facts, and stop putting all your faith in lies.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by snowcrash911
 


This is hilarious
I can understand why someone like Anok thinks "She makes a lot of sense", she is about as confused.


You obvioulsy haven't watch the vid have you? Either that or you are simply too ignorant to understand what she says.

She does make a lot of sense, she knows engineering and physics unlike you, it doesn't mean I believe her whole hypothesis about how it happened though.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ANOK
 


You mean to say, she knows truther engineering and truther physics, unlike me. And I am glad I don't. Still I can easily recognize it (as I know some real engineering and real physics, unlike you).

I see that you are still confused about how heated trusses that sag can exert a pull force
.



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kester

Originally posted by pteridine
.....is akin to claiming 'magic' unless it can be demonstrated.


Much as the 'inevitable' process by which the towers became dust and debris can only be viewed as mysterious and unexplained until a model demonstrates the same behaviour. Do you agree with the view popular amongst supporters of the official story that it would be a "waste of time" to investigate this process?


What process? Dustifcation is an imaginary process. It is possible to convert metal to dust by evaporating it and then condensing it. See the papers of Prof. Ken Klabunde. The problem is the energy of evaporating the metal and the problem of what happens after you do evaporate it. Judy is a fine engineer but doesn't have a good grasp of technical reality, much like those who think her theory has merit. Assume that you had a dustification ray and could turn metal to dust without boiling it. The magic ray would use some unknown principal to cause the metal atoms to fly apart and turn to dust. On 'dustification' the surface area of the metal increases by many orders of magnitude. Because we live in an oxidizing atmosphere, all of those tiny particles react with the nearest oxygen atom, forming FeO which gently floats down in a nice dark gray cloud. What we didn't see was any oxidation energy being released. Rather than bore the poets and dreamers with thermodynamics, suffice to say that the amount of metal oxidizing would have produced serious heat. Look up 'pyrophoric metal' or calculate the temperature of the dust assuming a constant Cp of iron, heat of formation of FeO, instantaneous transfer of the heat to the atmosphere, and an adibatic expansion of the atmosphere. Knowing what passes for 'research' in trutherland, I expect you will look it up. After you do that, look up 'thermobaric explosions' and then explain why Judy hasn't considered anything beyond her immediate fantasy, 'dustification' proponents lack any scientific knowledge, and that there is no evidence and no mechanism for any magical dustification device to do things in a cold, quiet manner.
edit on 1/19/2012 by pteridine because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join