WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Printable Version +- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora) +-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html) +--- Thread: WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D (/thread-6169.html) |
WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - James Lewis - 17-05-2011 Oh yes, there is another problem with your theory. It requires the weight to be evenly distributed across the floors. How could this have happened when neither tower had and entire floor burn straight across. Both towers were hot on one side and burned mainly in the localized area where the planes actually hit. And also, if what you're saying was actually the case, why did the South Tower come down first, when the North Tower sustained a far more direct hit and burned for quite a bit longer? Sorry, but that doesn't make a damn lick of sense (sorry, my East Texas upbringing rears its head), not to me, or to anyone else applying simple common sense to the situation. Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Lewis raises another straw man argument. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jeffrey Orling - 18-05-2011 Mr. Lewis, Apparently I am not making myself clear. The collapse I describe is what I term Phase II - post initiation and AFTER the 4 seconds of the collapse of the top 14 floors in tower one, for example. It is a collapse of the (as Fetzer likes to call it) stone cold structure - floors if you will which were at room temperature. The floor collapse as describe by ROOSD does not require ANY HEAT or WEAKENED steel columns... it is simply the over loading by MASS assaulting the floors. I don't have to strike a pane of glass with a uniform impact to shatter the entire glass. The assault of ROOSD was an avalanche of debris from above. Uniform? What do you think the mass distribution would be for each square foot of the material above the 96th floor? If you plotted it.. first you would have to consider 14 floors which each weighed about 120 pounds on each square foot. The would have to guess at the super imposed live load distribution... The window offices would have the big desks eh? But the filing cabinets would be in the darker windowless areas close to the core. But the actual percentage of super imposed live loads to the dead loads of those 14 floors is less than half. Each floor was designed for 58# superimposed live load but the floors are rarely loaded to that amount... floor space is left open to allow people to move about. How much does the contents of your office weigh and how many SQ ft is it and you can see it's probably way less than the 58#/s ft... so the live load is not really going to cause spikes in the load distribution. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jeffrey Orling - 18-05-2011 Mr. Lewis, Why did the south tower come down first? It's damage was lower and more asymmetrical for one thing. Seems as if the structural failure in phase I caused a rapid load redistribution and an asymmetrical one which led to the top not having support on the south side and so it began to drop AND rotate. But we don't know what happened in Phase I and so its speculation to explain why the south tower's top failed in less time than the north tower. Do you think "they" planned it that way? Why? WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - James Lewis - 19-05-2011 Well...maybe I'm just too much of a simple East Texas country boy to be able to use anything than common sense in investigating this thing. The way I see it, the only way that WTC 2 would come down first would be that the detonating charges were set up to go off in that building first. But, that's just simple common sense, which for some reason, doesn't seem to go over very well here. By the way...what theory would you apply to the destruction of WTC 7?? Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Mr. Lewis, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jeffrey Orling - 19-05-2011 Mr. Lewis, All three collapses were gravity driven but NOT gravity started. CDs destroy the columns in the bottom of a structure so the weight (gravity) pulls the mass above down and it crashes and crumbles. I realize many refuse to accept this explanation for this part of the collapses. It appears from the observations of Bldg 7 that the core failed first and not completely but the failure seems to have been perhaps as low as floor 7 or as high as floor 13. The failure progressed westward through the core and the first notice that something was seriously wrong to the naked eye was the collapse of the East Penthouse which literally plunged right down through the entire building... There was movement before the collapse of the East penthouse which can only be detected with computer analysis of the videos. This motion seems to indicate that there WAS load redistribution going on and the structure was torquing and twisting... distorting. We don't know what caused this distortion. It doesn't seem the result of a bomb blast.... but cutting of some columns and main girders... perhaps. When the entire core had dropped it pulled the OOS floors down and then the skin descended like a hollow box and it may have slipped outside the skin beneath it. I haven't studied Bldg 7 much. It doesn't appear to be a ROOSD though. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Kyle Burnett - 20-05-2011 Jack White Wrote:Wood clearly presents theories as theories. Orling presents theories as facts.Again, neither are presenting theories in the scientific sense, just hypotheses. As for Wood, I've yet to see her present anything with clarity, and rather have found she generally resorts to making her arguments by begging the question. However, I've also seen her state her "theories" as if they were facts, for example, in her Request for Correction to NIST, she cites as evidence: Quote:The "holes" that are only adequately explained based on unusual energy effects, consistent with the use of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW).So, where's an example of a directed energy device producing holes like those in WTC 6? Wood, like Orling, has no actual theory, just lame hypotheses which they can't even attempt to put to the test of experimental confirmation. James Lewis Wrote:...did you ever answer Kyle's question about how the towers defied Newton's Third Law?Please note that's not quite what I suggested. The towers, being physical objects, adhered perfectly to the laws of physics, while it's only false explanations of there destruction which doesn't, Bazant's explanation flagrantly violating Newton's third law being one notable example. But no, Jeffery is either unable of comprehending that fact, or simply unwilling to acknowledge as much. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jeffrey Orling - 21-05-2011 There is no violation of any laws of thermodynamics in the phase II of the collapse. And Kyle is correct is that I don't present a theory, but an explanation based in basic engineering concepts supported by the observations. Bazant produced a theoretical calculation which matters not. He didn't bother to describe the observations... didn't even have to refer to them and his diagrams show he did even look at them closely. I am not even sure why Kyle's objection is at this point to the engineering concepts which describe a gravity driven destruction from the plane strike zone down driven by the mass of the floors above the strike. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Ed Jewett - 21-05-2011 I haven't visited (or re-visited) this thread since my PC had a cataclysmic meltdown not unlike some of the buildings in New York City about a decade ago, so forgive me if this has been posted previously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgN080yySe0 I can't help but think that this is remarkably similar to another event that took place in clear daylight in Dallas decades ago. It speaks for itself in so many ways. You can argue the fine points of precisely how what happened happened, but you can't refute the obvious in plain sight, nor can you refute the sheer audacity of the event in modern day concepts, nor can you refute the remarkable depths of the secondary disinformation. The mere fact that there are waves of people attempting to tell us not to look, not to believe, or to look elsewhere and believe something else, also speaks for itself. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jeffrey Orling - 21-05-2011 There was a magic show and lots of deception set forth and a media which has drilled in the false narrative for a decade. But the fact that there was deception and lies doesn't mean we have to through out all critical thinking and assume or propose that everything told is a lie or when the official narrative is silent on some aspect that the officials are covering up something unspeakable. There was no official account of the collapses. There was only an official narrative which is not credible about what CAUSED the towers to collapse. We can agree on that and many other things... but we can't seem to agree on whether the towers collapsed or were exploded to bits. Logically you could have a natural failure with an engineered cause but you can't have an engineered failure from a natural cause. Of course if the buildings were completely destroyed top to bottom by explosives or some strange new device/mechanism it would be a lot more complex, spectacular and damning than kicking off a collapse with a handful of well placed bombs... which I suppose presumably is a smaller conspiracy than envisioned by the truth movement. The recent kill operation of OBL was met with a chorus of MSM cheerleaders. Was that a coordinated conspiracy between Obama and the MSM? Or did they just fall in line because it's good for business? While I find the story full of holes, I don't think the media was conspiring with Obama either. But it does show the pressure to conform and not question and how this builds false consensus and narratives. WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D - Jason Donovan - 21-05-2011 Jeffrey, I've been following your posts in both this and the first "Judy Wood" thread, and I'd like to thank you for your input it has set me straight on quite a few things, and given me the impression that I'm starting to think more clearly about the whole demolition issue. Thank you! I have a few questions I'd like to run past you to see if you might have any comments to make. First, to me the towers seem as if they may have been designed so that this sort of catastrophic collapse might be possible. Or perhaps I just don't know enough about metal frame architecture. When we build a wooden house where I come from, we rest the joists on the bearers for the most part, whereas with the wtc towers the joists were bolted flush to the sides of the bearers around the perimeter of the core, and bolted to brackets welded to the side of the perimeter framework. Could the wtc architects have chosen to opt for a "joist upon bearer" design which would then have made a catastrophic collapse like the one we saw a far less likely proposition? And the other question I have is to do with the core of the towers. I can see how the floors outside the core might be made to collapse catastrophically with no assistance except for the weight of the falling floors above, but I can't so easily see how the core could have been so thoroughly destroyed without the assistance of demolition activity at levels below that of the initial point of failure where the planes hit. I can see how the floors outside the core could collapse to the ground in 10-15 seconds, but I can't quite get my head around the idea that the core could be stripped of its horizontal members in the same short amount of time, with only gravity as the motivator after the initial failure set the collapse in motion. Because, after all, there were lots of heavy metal beams bolted very securely to lots of other heavy metal beams in the core, but none of the joins attaching the core structure to the perimeter structure were anywhere near as strong in comparison. So I guess the question is, are you quite confident that the core could be destroyed by gravity alone, in the observed time, once the collapse had been initiated? Thanks, Jason. |