You could of said "I have no proof and have no idea what I am talking about". That would account to the same without the word salad.
Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons
- Thread starter PookztA
- Start date
You could of said "I have no proof and have no idea what I am talking about". That would account to the same without the word salad.
I don't know what your claim is. If I did I might be able to offer a refutation.
What is your claim?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
DEWS don't do what you think they do.
So Dr Judy Wood is completely unaware that velocities are vectors, and jammonius is so clueless that he failed to notice her mistake.
The second fact comes as no surprise, but Dr Wood was presumably more competent prior to her mental illness.
Pulverization implies a splitting of the initial masses into an extremely large number of separate masses mk, each with its own velocity vk. The correct equation for that situation would be
[latex]
\[ (m_1 v_1)_i + (m_2 v_2)_i = \sum_k (m_k v_k)_f \]
[/latex]
Even with (m1)i = 0 and (v2)i = 0, there are infinitely many solutions to that vector equation. If Dr Wood were correct, and there were no solutions involving nonzero final velocities, then it would be impossible to pulverize a stationary stick of dynamite by setting it off.
There is no mistake. Dr. Wood's calculations are valid, internally consistent and adequate for the nature of the claim being made, in the context of the observed data. That is what Dr. Wood does.
You, on the other hand, fall victim to a mere hypothetical contention, not related, let alone linked, to any aspect of any part of the event of 9/11. Your hypothetical construction is acknowledged by you as follows:
There is no showing of what part of the observed data gives rise to the concern you express. Unless and until you show the observed data that makes the use of your implication important, you have done nothing except articulate a hypothetical generality.
Do please consider modifying your post so that it at least makes some reference to some observed data and say what the observed data consists in and why it gives rise to the implication you mention.
Once again, your post does not do that. As such, it does not refute any claim made by Dr. Wood. Whether your construct is internally correct or not can probably be debated for a good little while. As for me, I don't fully understand what you are getting at and I will not pretend that I do.
I do not know, and leave it to you to indicate whether you made your post so that it would enlighten us; or, whether you did so in order to advance an obscure notion that most do not readily understand.
In any event, would you please explain in greater detail the meaning of the following as it relates to some aspect of the events of 9/11:
[latex]
\[ (m_1 v_1)_i + (m_2 v_2)_i = \sum_k (m_k v_k)_f \]
[/latex]
The issue, as ever in dialogue, is to make your claim and then let others judge for themselves who is right and who is wrong. So many posters around here always seem to dwell on self-congratulatory claims that they, the poster of some claim or another, are right and that I am wrong. I do not care if you think you are right and I am wrong.
Just post as best you can and I will do the same.
Relax
I claim Dr. Judy Wood has proven that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on 9/11 as shown in, among other places:
http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619
*
Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007 [PDF File]
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review [PDF File]
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction [PDF File]
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007 [PDF File]
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007 [PDF File]
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal [PDF File]
That is my claim.
Your post is cryptic, imho. If you know something about DEW that you are withholding and that you could post that would advance the dialogue around here, then consider being a bit more forthcoming and bit less cryptic.
Meanwhile, DEW were a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
Not hardly.
In other words, you agree that no observed data support the idea of pulverization, which was the hypothetical situation Dr Wood was pretending to address when she made the error I identified.
In other words, you agree that you do not understand the pseudoscience you quoted from Dr Wood's web site.
My purpose was to point out that neither you nor Dr Judy Wood understand what she was talking about in the excerpt you quoted.
I'd be happy to explain that equation in greater detail to anyone who genuinely wishes to understand conservation of momentum.
To explain that equation to you, however, I must explain in less detail, not more. Reducing that equation to the level of your argument, it says both you and Dr Wood are wrong.
Last edited:
Did everyone in the WTC complex decide to microwave popcorn at the same time?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
hahaha!! Gotcha!
hahaha!! Gotcha!
May I? That one is easy:
Directed Energy Weapons are, as the name implies, directed. The direction can be, as directions come, up or down (vertical), left, right, forward or back (horizontal) or contain components of these.
hahaha!! What a moronic statement!!
Yeah. So got any starting hypothesis where DEW could or could not be located to bring about the "lethality effects" you saw on 9/11?
None?
Ok, I thought so.
...because jammonious knows nothing about DEW
hahaha!! Gotcha!
No. I am, too. Several of us are.
Sadly, you are not.
Please start focussing on DEW!
Do it at all!
Thanks. I looked through all those links and there is no evidence in there, simply unsupported assertion by Wood about how NIST should have considered DEW but didn't, plus letters etc passed back+forth.
Please provide some evidence that might support the use of DEW at WTC. Then I will consider a response. Without evidence from your side there is nothing to counter.
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,863
You're still stuck with the fact that everything the crazy old bat points to as evidence occurs to some degree every time a building collapses or a car catches fire. "Weak" does not begin to describe how bad her evidence is.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Holy crap! Holy holy crap! Dang what a heap of FAIL!!!
Where to start...
Where does that assumption "If (m1)i = 0" come from? You talk about a collision of two bodies, one of which has no mass? What body would that be?
Moronic assumption -> Invalid conclusion
FAIL.
Okaaaay ... so (m1)i is not = 0, and (v2)f is also not = 0. Phew.
And who cares? Which two bodies have the same mass?
FAIL.
Pay attention: If the bodys stick together after collision, it is an inelastic collision.
Indeed, if you do elastic collision, kinetic energy is conserved, and the terms for other kinds of energy are 0.
If they are nor 0, then it is not an elastic collision.
Your formula thus does not describe elastic collision.
FAIL.
This equation does not follow mathematically from the previous equation.
FAIL.
And the conclusion follows from neither, as momentum is not even looked into here.
FAIL.
Why?
Wrong.
FAIL.
This apparently is supposed to follow from the previous equation. But since the previous equation was already wrong, and no motivation is given to change the "=" to a "<", this is now complete nonsense.
FAIL.
Since all earlier steps were already nonsense, this conclusion is nonsense too.
FAIL.
That assumption is far from reality.
FAIL.
It wasn't the 109th floor that failed. Failure occurred 15 and 30 floors lower than that.
FAIL.
We never assume miracles to happen at JREF.
FAIL.
This, if you further assume that Block A and Block B have the same mass. It seems we are supposed to imagine individual floors hovering in space with no connection among themselves. A ridiculous assumption on its face.
FAIL.
This is a bizarre picture. But I follow you still.
What you forget is: Block A, after having momentarily been stopped, is unsupported by Block B, and will immediately start falling, and thus acquire more momentum (where does the momentum come from, you might ask? Well, from the corresponding body that Blcok A interacts with: Planet earth.)
So A is already moving down again by the time B is stopped by C. B will start falling instantly again, too, but A already has velocity then, and will eventually reach B and collide again with B. B in turn will reach C again and transfer some of its new momentum, plus the momentum it got from A, to C.
Etc. etc. etc.
All this is of course total crap, since the 110 floors are not hovering independently, and do not collide elastically.
FAIL.
That is wrong. Every piece of mass that falls is given momentum by gravity - that is, by planet earth. The planet acquires the opposite momentum, but because its mass so much larger, the increase of its velocity can't be measured (too small).
FAIL.
This observation is not even in opposition to the scenario played out above
FAIL.
But there WAS a block of material. Clean-up workers later described how many former floors were compressed into a few feet of alternating layers of steel decks and concrete slabs.
FAIL.
Hi Jammonius,
The physics excerpt you posted contains physics errors and numerous unjustified and invalid assumptions.
That much is valid so far.
It can be used that way only under some circumstances. Specifically, it must be known or assumed exactly how elastic the collision is; or, the final masses and velocities of all the bodies except one must already be known.
The last sentence states that, if we assume the mass of the initially moving colliding object is zero before the collision ((m1)i = 0), the initially stationary object will not be moving after the collision. For what it's worth, this is true. A ghost (assuming ghosts have zero mass) colliding with a pumpkin will not cause the pumpkin to move.
But no real moving object (not even a photon) has zero mass. The moving upper block of the WTC certainly did not have zero mass.
If pulverization here is referring to phenomena of the collapse of WTC structures on 9/11, this does not follow from the previous argument, which applies only to the collision of an object of zero mass.
That part is essentially correct, describing the characteristics of an entirely inelastic collision.
That is true only for a perfectly elastic collision, in which no energy is converted into other forms. Note that this means that if any any permanent crushing or breaking of the colliding bodies occur, the collision cannot be perfectly elastic and kinetic energy will not be conserved.
These equations and the ones that follow for kinetic energy are all wrong. Kinetic energy is (1/2)(m * v^2), not (1/2)(m * v).
Even if that error were corrected:
Kinetic energy is not being conserved if it is also being converted into other forms, as it is in an inelastic collision in which pulverization occurs. However, we can accept this equation as describing the overall conservation of energy (rather than "conservation of kinetic energy" which does not apply) in the collision.
(Still the wrong equation for kinetic energy.)
But also: momentum is always conserved in any collision, even if some or all of the kinetic energy is converted into other forms such as heat or work done in crushing. So if the momentum of the initially moving body changes in a collision, momentum is always transfered. If the initially moving body comes to a stop, then all its momentum must have been transfered.
What this means is that the scenario the equation describes, in which the pulverization and column breaking exactly absorbs all of the kinetic energy, is not possible. However, we can accept it as an approximation of an outcome that is physically possible, which is an inelastic collision in which the velocity of m2 after the collision is negligibly small. In that case, what happens in the collision is that m1 comes momentarily to rest, and m2 is very much larger than m1, which is moved only a miniscule amount as a result.
This can apply to the WTC towers because at the time of the collision under discussion, the bottom block is still rigidly attached to the earth. So the stationary object in the collision is not the bottom block with mass m2, it's the bottom block + the earth with mass m2 + m(earth) which is very many orders of magnitude greater than m1.
However, even that outcome does not arrest the collapse at that point, because another floor's supports have now failed (which is what converted (Fail Floor Supports) amount of the kinetic energy). So m1 is not supported and will not stay at rest; it will begin falling again.
(Equation is still wrong for kinetic energy.)
But also: this is an unjustified assumption. No actual quantities for m1i, v21i, (Pulverize), or (Fail Floor Supports) have been presented. (Under the reasonable assumption that v22i = 0, we can ignore m2i.) So the "<" equation is a claim with no evidence.
No rationale is given to assume or otherwise believe that the kinetic energy of the moving upper block exceeds the (Fail Floor Supports) and (Pulverize) values.
(Still the wrong equation for kinetic energy.)
But also: no, we do not have to assume that. We can alternatively assume that the earlier assumption made without evidence or justification, that the energy of pulverization and failing floor supports exceeds the kinetic energy of the falling mass, is false.
There is no reason to expect Block-A to stop moving even under the silly assumption of an elastic collision, which we know is impossible because crushing is occurring.
The final velocity of a moving mass m1, colliding elastically at velocity v1 into a stationary mass m2, is (m1 - m2)/(m1 + m2) * v1. That means it's only zero if the two masses are equal.
This is irrelevant, as it depends on two demonstrably false assumptions: that the collision is elastic, and that the masses are equal.
In conclusion, I suggest you inform Judy Wood of these physics errors, so that they can be corrected and the argument -- if any argument remains to be made after the corrections -- can be restated in a more valid way.
Respectfully,
Myriad
The physics excerpt you posted contains physics errors and numerous unjustified and invalid assumptions.
That much is valid so far.
It can be used that way only under some circumstances. Specifically, it must be known or assumed exactly how elastic the collision is; or, the final masses and velocities of all the bodies except one must already be known.
The last sentence states that, if we assume the mass of the initially moving colliding object is zero before the collision ((m1)i = 0), the initially stationary object will not be moving after the collision. For what it's worth, this is true. A ghost (assuming ghosts have zero mass) colliding with a pumpkin will not cause the pumpkin to move.
But no real moving object (not even a photon) has zero mass. The moving upper block of the WTC certainly did not have zero mass.
If pulverization here is referring to phenomena of the collapse of WTC structures on 9/11, this does not follow from the previous argument, which applies only to the collision of an object of zero mass.
That part is essentially correct, describing the characteristics of an entirely inelastic collision.
That is true only for a perfectly elastic collision, in which no energy is converted into other forms. Note that this means that if any any permanent crushing or breaking of the colliding bodies occur, the collision cannot be perfectly elastic and kinetic energy will not be conserved.
These equations and the ones that follow for kinetic energy are all wrong. Kinetic energy is (1/2)(m * v^2), not (1/2)(m * v).
Even if that error were corrected:
Kinetic energy is not being conserved if it is also being converted into other forms, as it is in an inelastic collision in which pulverization occurs. However, we can accept this equation as describing the overall conservation of energy (rather than "conservation of kinetic energy" which does not apply) in the collision.
(Still the wrong equation for kinetic energy.)
But also: momentum is always conserved in any collision, even if some or all of the kinetic energy is converted into other forms such as heat or work done in crushing. So if the momentum of the initially moving body changes in a collision, momentum is always transfered. If the initially moving body comes to a stop, then all its momentum must have been transfered.
What this means is that the scenario the equation describes, in which the pulverization and column breaking exactly absorbs all of the kinetic energy, is not possible. However, we can accept it as an approximation of an outcome that is physically possible, which is an inelastic collision in which the velocity of m2 after the collision is negligibly small. In that case, what happens in the collision is that m1 comes momentarily to rest, and m2 is very much larger than m1, which is moved only a miniscule amount as a result.
This can apply to the WTC towers because at the time of the collision under discussion, the bottom block is still rigidly attached to the earth. So the stationary object in the collision is not the bottom block with mass m2, it's the bottom block + the earth with mass m2 + m(earth) which is very many orders of magnitude greater than m1.
However, even that outcome does not arrest the collapse at that point, because another floor's supports have now failed (which is what converted (Fail Floor Supports) amount of the kinetic energy). So m1 is not supported and will not stay at rest; it will begin falling again.
(Equation is still wrong for kinetic energy.)
But also: this is an unjustified assumption. No actual quantities for m1i, v21i, (Pulverize), or (Fail Floor Supports) have been presented. (Under the reasonable assumption that v22i = 0, we can ignore m2i.) So the "<" equation is a claim with no evidence.
No rationale is given to assume or otherwise believe that the kinetic energy of the moving upper block exceeds the (Fail Floor Supports) and (Pulverize) values.
(Still the wrong equation for kinetic energy.)
But also: no, we do not have to assume that. We can alternatively assume that the earlier assumption made without evidence or justification, that the energy of pulverization and failing floor supports exceeds the kinetic energy of the falling mass, is false.
There is no reason to expect Block-A to stop moving even under the silly assumption of an elastic collision, which we know is impossible because crushing is occurring.
The final velocity of a moving mass m1, colliding elastically at velocity v1 into a stationary mass m2, is (m1 - m2)/(m1 + m2) * v1. That means it's only zero if the two masses are equal.
This is irrelevant, as it depends on two demonstrably false assumptions: that the collision is elastic, and that the masses are equal.
In conclusion, I suggest you inform Judy Wood of these physics errors, so that they can be corrected and the argument -- if any argument remains to be made after the corrections -- can be restated in a more valid way.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
These calculations are so wrong, the assumptions so asinine, the conclusions so logically disconnected...
If I gave what you posted earlier to a class of 11th grade physics students, I would fail every kid that does not spot at least 8 gross mistakes.
This, coming from a former professor of mechanical engineering, is absolutely incredible.
If this was really written by Dr. Judy Wood, she is in URGENT need of medical attention! She must be very seriously ill, and you, as her lawyer, should immediately cease to exploit her delusions on 9/11 for what i presume must be financial gains. This sort of professional misconduct could cost you your bar status!
If you have any friendly feelings for Judy, please stop whatever you are doing now, and take her to a doctor!
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No references needed. I assume anybody participating here has finished high school and done the required high school physics curricula. You would not ask me to cite references if I claimed that water froze at 32°F or that Shakespear was an English playwright.
It is straight from basic education.
Last edited:
The quoted claim is par for the course in connection with 9/11-related calculations. That has certainly been borne out time and time again with respect to the NIST and FEMA attempts to explain what happened.
Indeed, there has not ever been a valid determination of what destroyed the WTC complex, posted to a governmental website, other than that posted by Dr. Judy Wood.
Now with that frame of reference in mind, let us turn to your claim, Myriad.
Thanks
There does not appear to be any attempt to relate the stated claim to observed data associated with the destructive interval at the WTC complex on 9/11.
Why do you use 'ghosts' as your comparative frame of reference when the issue is that of the near instantaneous destruction of the Twin Towers -- as was observed? I think it is error to use examples outside the context of the one under consideration and, goodness knows, in need of analysis in the absence of any publicly funded answers to what destroyed the WTC complex.
Too bad there is no publicly funded assessment of the issue.
I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with, Myriad. Can you elaborate?
Thanks
Thanks, in part, again.
Is the error one of signficance or not, Myriad. What is your claim concerning the claimed error?
Thanks
Is there some part of any publicly funded determination of what destroyed the WTC that supports the above claim, if so, will you consider a citation or reference?
Of what signficance is this claim?
Once again, Myriad, is there an observed data point you can refer us to. If so, kindly do so.
No, Myriad. You do not provide any reference point to observed data for the proposition that crushing is occurring. Pulverization is occurring, not from crushing, but from the force of DEW.
That is the whole point, Myriad.
OK, but, yet again, there is no reference to observed data.
This is irrelevant, as it depends on two demonstrably false assumptions: that the collision is elastic, and that the masses are equal. [/QUOTE]
Far from being irrelvant, Myriad, therein lies the key advantage that Dr. Wood has over debunkers and naysayers; namely, she has relied on the observed phenomena to a far greater extent than has anyone else. You, on the other hand, like many others, do not place proper emphasis upon what was observed. Far from being irrelevant, the observed data are the keys to understanding what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.
I reject your assertion that errors have been committed; or, if they have, that they are of any signficance. More may follow later; we'll see.
Respectfully
jammonius
You remain desparte to say Dr. Wood is wrong and you are right. The over-the-top desparation you display says nothing whatever about Dr. Wood and only imparts information about you, Oystein.
After all these posts and all these threads, you have yet to shed any light at all on what happened at the WTC complex on 9/11. You remain a fixated naysayer, bound and determined to support the common storyline in any underhanded, snide, ridicule-laden way you can.
I would say, 'do better' but it is becoming evident that you simply
cannot
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Where is there any reference to observed data in Judy Woods calculations??
Holykackeschmoly! Good FSM almighty!
jammonius, you have not th slightest idea what Myriad is talking about, right? All that physics stuff is waaaaaaaaaaaaay over your head, right? You were pretty bad in high school physics, right? And glad that you never had to bother again with any of that science and math stuff, right? And it has been a veeeeeeery long time, right?
Because your comments and questions are so utterly nonsensical, have so little connection to Myriads arguments....
jammonius, during the last months, you have said a lot of stupid and deluded things, But as long as you could play on your own turf of word salads and merely verbal sophistry, you were able to at least pretend a cloak of intelligence.
In the last posts, and especially in your reply to Myriad, you have written some of the stupidest an indeed embarrassing words I have read on this board so far.
I have laughed hard at first.
But I start to feel bad for you. It is not right to laugh at stupid people.
Where is there any reference to observed data in Judy Woods calculations??
And your evidence for that would be what, jammomius?
Where is there any reference to observed data in Judy Woods calculations??
No.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
You say this, because you evidently have forgotten everything you might ever have learned about physics, and probably most of your high school math, and are thus entirely unable to understand any argument made in that arena.
You quoted Dr. Judy Wood, but you don't even start to understand what she is talking about, and what she is not talking about.
The mathematical equations are alien gibberish to you.
If someone gave you a chinese text to proofread, I am sure you would fare no worse than you do reading Dr. Woods, Myriad's or my physics arguments. That is: You could not say at all if anything was right or wrong. Or even if that is chinese / physics.
So you may be excused for not noticing that Dr. Wood has lost it. Her mind. Her ability to perform even in her own area of expertise.
She needs help, and she needs it urgently.
I see that you are not the right person to help her, since you don't even notice the severe problems that woman has.
Edited by LashL:
Edited for civility.
Last edited by a moderator: