Dr. Judy Wood Ph.D, Materials Science, 9/11, & Directed Energy Weapons

[leftysergeant]

A big giveaway as to whacky old Judy's state of mental health is the speed with which she embraced the Hutchison Effect.

Coo-coo,

 

[Myriad]

Thanks

Why, during your response, did you thank me for agreeing with some limited portions of the cited text? After all, you only copied and pasted it into a post. It's not like you wrote it yourself, right?

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?

Because no part of the Twin Towers had zero mass and no real material objects have zero mass. The passage describes a moving colliding object of zero mass, so I had to refer to something that at least sounds like it fits that description.

Is the error one of signficance or not, Myriad. What is your claim concerning the claimed error?

Each error cited makes the stated conclusions invalid.

Sorry, I thought that went without saying in a discussion of principles and phenomena of basic physics.

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.

Erroneous physics are not an advantage to anyone for any honest purpose.

(Well, Columbus might be an exception; he got the size of the earth wrong so he thought he could reach China by sailing west. Fortunately for him there was another continent for him to run into before he and his crews starved to death. So maybe Judy Wood will also get very lucky and make some great discovery due to getting 8th grade physics equations wrong. After all, that Columbus thing worked out great for everyone concerned, right?)

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.

You are welcome to ignore the errors. That just means they will remain, and the argument will continue to be demonstrably invalid. I don't care, if you don't.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jammonius]

Why, during your response, did you thank me for agreeing with some limited portions of the cited text? After all, you only copied and pasted it into a post. It's not like you wrote it yourself, right?

I thanked you because few posters appear to be able to bring themselves to say they agree with anything Dr. Wood has determined; you know, consistent with being at the first stage in the process of recognition of truth. So, for you to come along and not be fully at that stage was worth a 'thanks' in my view. And, yes, alls I did was copy/paste it.

Because no part of the Twin Towers had zero mass and no real material objects have zero mass. The passage describes a moving colliding object of zero mass, so I had to refer to something that at least sounds like it fits that description.

You know, Myriad, it occurs to me to point out that the disciplines of math and of physics have not acquitted themselves very well in connection with 9/11.

In truth, those disciplines should be outraged by the nature of the official explanation of the events and most especially by the obviously fraudulent investigatory outcomes, but, by and large the disciplines remain silent and cowed and unconcerned by what has transpired.

This is not a proud era for math and for physics, Myriad, and I wonder if, at some level or another, you recognize that those disciplines have failed us. You do not need to respond to this, but there it is, Myriad. Think about it. Don't respond, necessarily, just think it through.

Each error cited makes the stated conclusions invalid.

Some people look for ways to claim that Dr. Wood has made an error so that the claim of invalidity can attach and/or be proclaimed. That is sad, really.

Sorry, I thought that went without saying in a discussion of principles and phenomena of basic physics.

Phenomena and basic physics should have gone a long way towards unraveling the common storyline of 9/11. Maybe the disciplines will recover from their stupor at some point. Here's hoping and here's hoping that you, yourself, experience that recovery of lost stature of the disciplines.

Tell me, Myriad, can you think of other examples of the effects, say, of 'group think' and/or of 'plitical correctness' and/or of 'dogma' upon science, especially in math and physics? There really are many of them, aren't there, where considerations of a political nature, or economic nature served to override the truthfulness of a given set of circumstances and where science was misused to help perpetrate a fraud.

Basically, Myriad, so it is with 9/11, could more but realize it.

Erroneous physics are not an advantage to anyone for any honest purpose.

For goodness sake, Myriad. It is really to be hoped that you will find a way to apply the foregoing to the common storyline of 9/11 at some point or another. When and if you ever do, I should like to hope that you will find a way to let me know when that day of awakening comes for you. I really do.

(Well, Columbus might be an exception; he got the size of the earth wrong so he thought he could reach China by sailing west. Fortunately for him there was another continent for him to run into before he and his crews starved to death. So maybe Judy Wood will also get very lucky and make some great discovery due to getting 8th grade physics equations wrong. After all, that Columbus thing worked out great for everyone concerned, right?)

I think your analogy is sadly misguided, Myriad.

You are welcome to ignore the errors. That just means they will remain, and the argument will continue to be demonstrably invalid. I don't care, if you don't.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Your above quote is one of the more intriguing declarations that 'you are right and I am wrong' that I have encountered of late.

Let's let the information stand or fall on its own. Or, better still, and for purposes of information, it might someday occur to some to post up what they think would be better approaches to providing a proper explanation in a collaborative fashion, rather than continuation of the 'gotcha' mentality.

But, hey, some post to say gotcha; others post to advance the state of information concerning the destruction caused, but never adequately explained, on 9/11, without regard to who might be 'right' and who might be 'wrong' about some detail or another.

Put plaintly, Myriad, your posting style did not add much to the overall knowledge base as all you sought to do was make proclamations about being right and Wood being wrong. That is fine as far as it goes, one supposes, but it doesn't go very far at all.

Respectfully,
jammonius

 

[GlennB]

Is the error one of signficance or not, Myriad. What is your claim concerning the claimed error?

Kinetic energy = ¹/₂mv²
You gave, however, ¹/₂mv

Is this significant? It's not only significant it's fundamental. Try out some calculations using random values for v and you'll see the point. Go on ... actually try it.

eta: removed comments here. They have been well made above by others.

 

[GlennB]

I presume all the Stundies from this recent exchange have been snapped up?

 

[CompusMentus]

.....maybe Judy Wood will also get very lucky and make some great discovery due to getting 8th grade physics equations wrong.

Judy and her "physics" went north a long time ago. She hit the Pole and has been walking around in circles ever since.


Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

Hi Jammonius,
The physics excerpt you posted contains physics errors and numerous unjustified and invalid assumptions.

Not only that, a lot of it seems to have to have been plagarised from HERE.


You would think that Dr. Judy, what with all her much self-trumpeted qualifications and all, could have managed those calculations without the help of a Wiki page huh?

Ho *********** Hum :=]

Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

Is this significant? It's not only significant it's fundamental. Try out some calculations.....

Here's something to think about, let's use Judy's version of the equation (E_k=1/2mv) when considering a collision between a 1 tonne (1 x 10³kg) car travelling at about 50 kph (1.5 x 10¹ms^-1) and a pedestrian.

One must wonder by what factor urban speed limits could be safely raised to worldwide if Dotty Judy's calculations were correct?

:=]

Compus

 

[Mashuna]

You know, Myriad, it occurs to me to point out that the disciplines of math and of physics have not acquitted themselves very well in connection with 9/11.

In truth, those disciplines should be outraged by the nature of the official explanation of the events and most especially by the obviously fraudulent investigatory outcomes, but, by and large the disciplines remain silent and cowed and unconcerned by what has transpired.

This is not a proud era for math and for physics, Myriad, and I wonder if, at some level or another, you recognize that those disciplines have failed us. You do not need to respond to this, but there it is, Myriad. Think about it. Don't respond, necessarily, just think it through.

Fantastic. An absolutely elementary and key error is pointed out to you, and you decide that this is a failing of physics. We're not talking about controvosy over how to interpret complex climate information, but a basic formula.

I've heard of drowning men clutching at straws, but this is the first time I've seen a drowning man grabbing for his concrete boots.

 

[leftysergeant]

Here's something to think about, let's use Judy's version of the equation (E_k=1/2mv) when considering a collision between a 1 tonne (1 x 10³kg) car travelling at about 50 kph (1.5 x 10¹ms^-1) and a pedestrian.

I hope you realize that all this number-crunching is totally opaque to a large segment of the population.

And it all seems kind of pointless to crunch some of them.

The only calcualtions that I can see being critical to understanding the collapse is the bearing weight of the floor slabs and the weight of slabs with their burdens of desks, chairs, file cabinets, people and whatever which fell onto the floors below the failure point.

Let A be the weight at which a floor slab will no longer remain in its outside bracket.

Let B be the weight of a floor slab with its burden.

Let X be the number of floor slabs which come to rest of floor slabs below them.

If BX equals or excedes A, collapse of the entire building is inevitible.

Does anything in whacky old Judy's numbers prove that BX never exceded A?

If not, she's full of beans.

 

[CompusMentus]

I hope you realize that all this number-crunching is totally opaque to a large segment of the population.

I know that Lefty I was just poking a bit of fun.

:=]

Compus

 

[Oystein]

Kinetic energy = ¹/₂mv²
You gave, however, ¹/₂mv

Is this significant? It's not only significant it's fundamental. Try out some calculations using random values for v and you'll see the point. Go on ... actually try it.

eta: removed comments here. They have been well made above by others.

jammonius copied and pasted the formulas from
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html#energy
(scroll down to Appendix)

There you will see that the superscripts (powers) are in the right place on Judy's page, however dropped to normal script in jammo's copy. Thus
(1/2)(m₁ * v²₁)_i + (1/2)(m₂ * v²₂)_i
became
(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i

I'd consider that a mere editing blunder made by someone who simply does not understand a single line of the entire text he copied. The more important points are the gross mistakes and bizarre assumptions made in Judy's original document.

 

[leftysergeant]

The more important points are the gross mistakes and bizarre assumptions made in Judy's original document.

Like hewr idle speculation that a large part of the mass of the towers disappeared into the "snowball" of dust plumes?

 

[CompusMentus]

I'd consider that a mere editing blunder made by someone who simply does not understand a single line of the entire text he copied.

That much (the ignorance of physics) is obvious. Then compounded by jams failure to go back, double-check the blunder and correct it. The icing on the cake? His hilarious (non) rebuttal of Myriad's responses.

ETA Reading that, I was wrong in what I wrote above:-

Here's something to think about, let's use Judy's jammonius' version of the equation (E_k=1/2mv) when considering a collision between a 1 tonne (1 x 10³kg) car travelling at about 50 kph (1.5 x 10¹ms^-1) and a pedestrian.

One must wonder by what factor urban speed limits could be safely raised to worldwide if Dotty Judy's jammonius' calculations were correct?
:=]

I stand corrected :=]

Compus

 

[jammonius]

What a glorious 'gotcha party' these posters have had

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

The contentions put forward by Dr. Judy Wood under the title Billiard Ball Example (BBE), from which I posted an excerpt, remains true, correct and valid. The gotcha game that has been played out over the last couple of pages was just that -- a gotcha game.

It can fairly be said that some posters, after trying in vain to create a gotcha game from the '20 questions' approach, without success, finally found a gotcha approach they could use based on my posting of the excerpt from the BBE.

Basically, for those who would like to see the signficance of the BBE in its proper context go here:

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

There, you will see that the equations that posters around here sought to attack are not set out as mere abstractions. Rather, and more importantly, the equations are set in the context of the visual record of the destruction of the WTC complex.

Those who take the time to actually review the BBE page will, indeed, gain in their understanding of what destroyed the WTC complex.

Now, let's return to substantive posting, shall we. Let's look at what happened to what little steel was left that was subjected to at least some forensic analysis:

This visual compilation is from the WTC Building Performance Study FEMA 403 Report, Appendix C.

It is useful to here restate the investigation history associated with the FEMA 403 report:

"In the wake of the attack a group of engineers from the the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) volunteered to investigate the structural responses of the WTC buildings to the September 11 attack. Eventually FEMA took over the investigation of the ASCE volunteers, dubbing them the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT).

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D, Senior Vice President of Construction Technologies Laboratory in Skokie, IL, served as principal investigator. Corley was also the principal investigator for FEMA's study of the 1995 Murrah Federal Office Building attack. The BPAT's investigation was funded by $600,000 from FEMA and $500,000 in ASCE in-kind contributions. 1 By december of 2001 $100,000 had been spent on the investigation.

The BPAT lacked subpoena power, hence was unable to obtain access to important documents such as engineering drawings of the buildings. 2

In May of 2002 FEMA released its World Trade Center Building Performance Study. Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm until March of 2005, is has since showed up at . http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm We have reproduced it in full at this permanent mirror.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

While the report was published in May 2002, making it the earliest attempt at an explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex, the investigators who gathered the information were not given anything like full access to GZ and were, instead, prevented from doing a proper forensic evaluation.

An account of the limited access and of the obvious coverup manuvers that were being carried out under SAIC direction and supervision, if, as I have contended, SAIC was in fact in charge of GZ security at the time, can be found at:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html

Excerpt:

"While the steel was being removed from the site of the three largest and most mysterious structural failures in history, even the team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. 1 The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation: 2

The BPAT did not control the steel. "The lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for investigation before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence."
FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements that "frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse."
The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents."
"The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings." Gene Corley complained to the Committee that the Port Authority refused to give his investigators copies of the Towers' blueprints until he signed a wavier that the plans would not be used in a lawsuit against the agency. 3

Bill Manning Condemns the "Half-Baked Farce"

Editor of Fire Engineering Magazine Bill Manning highlighted concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. 4

It is with that frame of reference in mind that the issue that has been bally-hooed for the last day or so should be considered. Posters around here have sought in vain to play 'gotcha' in connection with certain equations put forward by Dr. Wood, with almost none of the 'gotcha players' even considering the work of Dr. Wood at its location concerning the BBE example. Instead, all they did was play gotcha with the excerpt that I provided for reference to the BBE example.

The plain fact of the matter is that Dr. Wood came up with the proof of what destroyed the WTC complex even though, as evidenced by the BPAT team account, everyone was denied access to the site and the purpose of removal to Fresh Kills served to thwart the ability to engage in a full and proper forensic evaulation.

This means that the determination of what destroyed the WTC complex has always been handicapped by limitations that were purposeful, deceptive, manipulative and therefore highly confirmatory of a criminal conspiracy to hide what had been done. It is only the MIC that has the capacity to do that.

SAIC controlled access to GZ.

The effort to thwart investigation worked. No one, other than Dr. Wood, has been able to reliably put the puzzle together. There are a variety of theories that have been put forward based on the deformed steel pictured above. The cd theory, the mini-nuke theory and the thermite theory all rely on the deformed structural steel.

Dr. Wood solved that riddle.

In any event, the deformed steel, the temperature or process needed to do that was not possible in a kerosene fire as kerosene does not burn hot enough to degrade structural steel in the manner seen.

 

[LashL]

A few posts have been infracted and split to Abandon All Hope. Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic and cut out the personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[Oystein]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

The contentions put forward by Dr. Judy Wood under the title Billiard Ball Example (BBE), from which I posted an excerpt, remains true, correct and valid. ...

No.

You'd be steering into a deeply untenable position with this stubborn insistence on declaring a plainly false rendition of simply physics and math "true, correct and valid", if you weren't in a deeply untenable position already.

Namely: This insistence on obvious falsehoods is plain to see by every poster, lurker or even family member. Anybody with at least 11th-grade high school physics to their credit.
It is plain that Dr. Judy Wood does not master basic physics, and it is even plainer that you don't even understand what Dr. Judy Wood is talking about.
Yet you declare yourself "true, correct and valid".
By valid extrapolation, we must assume that every time you state anything at all, the possibility ais very real, that you have not double-checked it for accuracy, and are liable to make false claims and merely declare them "true, correct and valid".
It follows that no poster, lurker or family member will believe anything you say (as if anybody did so far ).

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[GlennB]

jammonius copied and pasted the formulas from
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html#energy
(scroll down to Appendix)

There you will see that the superscripts (powers) are in the right place on Judy's page, however dropped to normal script in jammo's copy. Thus
(1/2)(m₁ * v²₁)_i + (1/2)(m₂ * v²₂)_i
became
(1/2)(m1 * v21)i + (1/2)(m2 * v22)i

I'd consider that a mere editing blunder made by someone who simply does not understand a single line of the entire text he copied. The more important points are the gross mistakes and bizarre assumptions made in Judy's original document.

Ah yes, thanks. That really is one shocker of a 'paper' eh? Long time since anybody quoted the billiard balls nonsense.

 

[leftysergeant]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

The contentions put forward by Dr. Judy Wood under the title Billiard Ball Example (BBE), from which I posted an excerpt, remains true, correct and valid. The gotcha game that has been played out over the last couple of pages was just that -- a gotcha game.

The towers did not fall at free-fall speed. That has been debunked already. the collapses took about 20 seconds each. Throw all the billiard balls you want, they hit nothing.

Now, let's return to substantive posting, shall we. Let's look at what happened to what little steel was left that was subjected to at least some forensic analysis:



[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/fema403appcsteel.jpg?t=1285677108[/qimg]

That was done by a chemical reaction. We discuss that in other places all over this forum. The steel was heated in an acid environment. The curling is a natural result of that.

While the report was published in May 2002, making it the earliest attempt at an explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex, the investigators who gathered the information were not given anything like full access to GZ and were, instead, prevented from doing a proper forensic evaluation.

Stop snivelling. When the paramedics arrive to pick up a still-living shooting victim, the cops can just follow the ambulance to the emergency room. Forensdics be damned, you save lives FIRST, always, without exception.

I am trained as an arson investigator. Until a fire is out, you fight it and preserve evidence if it is not in the way of saving lives and property. The steel at GZ was in the way and anybody just measuring stuff would have been as well. Stop demanding the equivalent of checking the oil change tags on a car that was driven into a school bus by a drunk driver before clearing the street and treating victims.

There was a rescue operation going on at GZ and what you want them to have done was not in the public interest.

It would help a lot if you had some clue what the rest of the world does for a living.

The plain fact of the matter is that Dr. Wood came up with the proof of what destroyed the WTC complex even though, as evidenced by the BPAT team account, everyone was denied access to the site and the purpose of removal to Fresh Kills served to thwart the ability to engage in a full and proper forensic evaulation.

She has presented no such proof. Nobody with any education or experience in relevant fields sees anything like evidence in her blather.

In any event, the deformed steel, the temperature or process needed to do that was not possible in a kerosene fire as kerosene does not burn hot enough to degrade structural steel in the manner seen.

Well, DUH!

It wasn't done in a kerosene fire, and nobody with an IQ over 90 says that it was. It was done in an enclosed Class A fire with all manner of noxious stuff burning around it, including staggering amounts of material that would contribute sulphuric acid or other sulphurous compounds. Pay attention to what the experienced fire fighters have been posting here.

It should have been a clear warning sign that Judy was losing her marbles when she started ranting about the "toasted cars."