WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D

[James H. Fetzer]

Anyone who is willing to believe the intellectual rubbish being shoveled here by this
man deserves what they get. Chuck is as honest as the day is long. Anyone who
studies his work will understand why I regard Jeffrey Orling as a shill and conman.

All you have to do to understand that he cannot possibly be right is take a good look:

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html

How can banana plumes and massive ejecta result from a gravity-driven collapse?
The answer is, "They cannot!" And anyone who tells you different is L-Y-I-N-G!

I have Chuck's graphics and I challenge Skilling to prove that the safety factor of cc501 is more than 1.5. This is a matter of high school math...

The total weight of column 501 from the ground floor to the roof was 1,262,990 pounds
The cross sectional area was 573.5 sq in at floor 1

The capacity for a standard A36 steel would be 20,646,000 pounds

Estimated load on CC501 was 12,000,000 pounds (more precision to follow)

The perimeter core columns supported 43.1% of the OOS floor load
The facade columns supported 56.9% of the OOS loads

If cc501 had a safety factor of 20 and it was from A36 steel then the loads would have it be 1/20 of 20,646,000 pounds (its actual weight) or 1,032,300 pounds. The columns ITSELF weighed 1,262,990 pounds.

Jim you and you friend Chuck are in way over your head when it comes to engineering. You are a parrot repeating things you heard and likely incorrectly and have no comprehension of them whatsoever.

Jim you really need to get a bit more serious and stop presenting yourself as an expert.

[Jeffrey Orling]

You have no idea what you are seeing calling it banana plumes. Fetzer you are an embarrassment to academia. There, I've said it. I am sure Chuck is honest. He' just doesn't understand the structure of the twin towers or the engineering principles. Simple as that. He's not dishonest, he's uninformed, uneducated and ignorant about something and he doesn't realize it either.

He doesn't know what he doesn't know. And perhaps why you and he get along so well... You suffer from the same affliction.

Ignorance is bliss.

[James H. Fetzer]

Look at the photographs! Does anything about them suggest that we are looking at a gravity-driven collapse? This man is the greatest fraud and conman i have encountered in all my 9/11 research! Just consider this:



One of us is deaf, dumb, and blind. Take a good look! Does anyone in the world besides Jeffrey Orling think that this is a gravity-driven collapse? Because one of us is peddling a scam and a hoax--and that one ain't me.

you have no idea what you are seeing calling it banana plumes. Fetzer you are an embarrassment to academia. There, i've said it. I am sure chuck is honest. He' just doesn't understand the structure of the twin towers or the engineering principles. Simple as that. He's not dishonest, he's uninformed, uneducated and ignorant about something and he doesn't realize it either.

He doesn't know what he doesn't know. And perhaps why you and he get along so well... You suffer from the same affliction.

Ignorance is bliss.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jim,
Frankly I am not qualified by experience to describe smoke from collapses or explosions and collapses of DEWs.

The towers came down over a period of perhaps 15 seconds. This means whatever was happening was taking place over time. A progressive collapse takes time. A nuclear explosions take a instant... I don't know how a DEW works and we all know that in a CD charges go off over a few seconds and then the structure collapses and depending on how much of the structure was destroyed by the blasts, and its size will dictate how long it takes to collapse.

CDs rely on gravity after the structure's columns are rendered incapable of supporting the loads they were carrying.

When structures collapse they break apart. Structure with concrete which involved crushing and grinding of the floors (and columns and beams if they are made of concrete). .. and the gypsum wall board turn to dust some of which remains air born as the heavier material falls to earth.

As they say... it takes a long time for the dust to settle and in this case it is literally what we are seeing... the moment after the collapse before the dust has settled. Seeing that in a video will provide a time context and you can see the cloud of dust being blown to the SE by the prevailing wind.

Context supports meaning. Something taken out of context (in this case your image from time) is deceiving. I am not trying to deceive... and you may not be either. But you are BEING deceived and trying to get others to join your ignorance.

I'm not playing. Most others aren't either. Get used to it.

[James H. Fetzer]

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05..._9853.html

Sunday, May 8, 2011

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

Earlier this year, Dr. Judy Wood put out her new book titled Where Did The Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free-Energy Technology on 9/11

Fortunately, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have recently made their position very clear on this matter regarding Directed Energy Weapon theories. A new article written by Jonathan Cole, Richard Gage and Gregg Roberts shows many of the absurdities of Judy Wood's claims. The article is reproduced here, with some extra links I have added:

AE911Truth FAQ #6: What's Your Assessment of the Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) Hypothesis?

Written by Jonathan Cole, P.E., Richard Gage, AIA, and Gregg Roberts

(Editor's Note: We continue to make enhancements to this article as time permits, including supplying additional hyperlinks. The article should be finalized in a few days at the most, but we wanted to get something published sooner rather than later for the benefit of all those who have questions about Judy Wood's new book.)

Some have suggested that much of the structural steel of the World Trade Center skyscrapers was turned to dust, or "dustified" a term used by Judy Wood, the primary proponent of this hypothesis with some type of directed energy weapon (DEW). Some of the observations cited by Wood include the voluminous dust created during the Twin Towers' destruction, the "craters" in WTC 5 and 6, "toasted" cars, and small holes in glass windows.

While Wood and AE911truth agree that the official story of an "inevitable" collapse by gravity alone is impossible because it conflicts with laws of physics, we completely differ on the mechanism of the destruction. Crucially, once there is proof and consensus that the official story violates elementary laws of physics, our major scientific task has been accomplished. The remaining task is the political challenge of mobilizing support for a legitimate investigation.

Of course the science of the collapse of the Towers and Building 7 can be advanced beyond the mere conclusion that the official story must be false. But it is imperative that anyone serious advancing understanding of the mechanisms of collapse hew closely to scientific methodology. This is crucial to earn the 9/11 movement the public respect it deserves, rather than to cast it into the role of perpetrating "junk science."

The scientific method requires us to look at all the available evidence and then assess various explanations for their ability to account for the evidence. At some point, the inferior explanations must be discarded if there is to be continued progress in an investigation, just as in pure science. It is our opinion that the DEW hypothesis is not just weak; it is not supported by the evidence at all. We provide only a general discussion here, referring the reader to references for a thorough understanding.

A Hypothesis in Search of Facts

One of the observations that seems to have motivated Wood to come up with her directed energy weapon hypothesis is that the debris pile at Ground Zero does not seem to be tall enough to contain enough steel to equal what was in the Twin Towers before they came down. She departs from verifiable fact quite early with this claim. FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, performed the first technical review of what brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Even in its report, FEMA acknowledges (inconveniently for the official story, which cannot account for this fine destruction of the Twin Towers) that roughly 90% of the Twin Towers' mass fell outside their footprints. Indeed, the entire plaza was covered with steel pieces and assemblies. Some of the structural steel was thrown as far away as the Winter Gardens.

Given all this, there is no reason to expect a taller debris pile at Ground Zero than the photographs show. Wood's belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spuriously interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.

Read more at http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/05..._9853.html

[Jeffrey Orling]

Both the debris pile size and configuration are explained by physics. There was nothing which required energy weapons to dustify the steel. Most of it was recovered and sold for scrap or saved for memorials.

The collapse of the towers did not defy the laws of physics. The descent of the debris about 60 miles per hour and there is nothing about this speed which defies an physics principles, despite what Cole, Gage or Roberts et al assert. The twin towers, like most high rise buildings are about 96-97% air and 3% solid mass, but volume. There is no reason to expect, as Wood asserts that the debris pile from a collapse should be 30% of the height of the building or in the case of the twin towers, 33 stories high. That is completely unscientific nonsense.

Steel was not "thrown" to the East edge of the Winter Garden glass roof. Facade panels from above the 86th floor fell over and landed on it. Considering these panels were 0ver 1,100 feet in the air, falling over (and away) from the towers and landing 430 feet away is perfectly reasonable and scientific. "Thrown" of course is the code word for being exploded off the towers and there is simply no evidence in any videos of the event which supports such a term or statement or belief.

[Kyle Burnett]

The collapse of the towers did not defy the laws of physics.

Of course not, no physical event can defy the laws of physics. However, attempts to explain physical events can defy the laws of physics, as is the case with the closest thing there is to an official explanation for how the towers came down. One notable example of this is Bazzant's crush-down before crush-up nonsense, which stands in flagrant violation to Newton's third law which notes that "mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts".

The descent of the debris about 60 miles per hour and there is nothing about this speed which defies an physics principles, despite what Cole, Gage or Roberts et al assert.

Could you please quote the assertion you are referring too? I suspect you simply misunderstood what was said.

Steel was not "thrown" to the East edge of the Winter Garden glass roof. Facade panels from above the 86th floor fell over and landed on it.

Some of the facade did fold over as you describe, but steel was also thrown in all directions, as can be seen in the many pictures and videos of the events, this being one notable example:

[Jeffrey Orling]

Attempts to explain the collapse do not defy physics. The forces which brought them down was gravity which acts on all mass on the planet. The PE .. ie the ability to do work with that PE is related to the height the descends from until it encounters resistance.

I've listened personally to Gage several times declaring that the "speed" of collapse was close to free fall and "not possible" without explosives.... I suppose the explosives are driving the mass downward???

Also free fall is not a speed... it is a rate of acceleration. Nothing special about it either... it's just a number. Free falling objects without any additional impulse downward will accelerate at free fall rate less the resistance of air... for example. A freely falling object reaches a VELOCITY or SPEED of about 60+mph in about 3 seconds... after a second a free falling object is moving at a whopping 5 mph...

The videos show nothing explosively ejected aside from aluminum panels which "sprung" off the facade. One cannot read velocity from a still photo. If you drop a pile of sand and gravel it bounces up and way from where it is poured. Why would the debris descending in the towers collapse not be disbursed outward? You don't expect it to neatly stack up in a 208' square?

The contents were mostly crushed in the collapsed... some disbursed in the air ... the steel came straight down or tipped over... all of it... with the exception of some beams on the mech floors which might have been sprung away.

All three towers came down by gravity... and all three left similar debris patterns... except that the facade of the twins was structural, panelized and fell away while at WTC 7 the facade collapse in after the descending core and floors dropped first and pulled them down. The floor connection to the facade at the twins were not robust enough to pull the facade in... those connections severed or failed and the facade panels and the core were "left behind" for a period before they buckled and or toppled over.

If you don't know your engineering and physics your observations are ill informed.

[James H. Fetzer]

Jeffrey would have the top 16 floors of the North Tower (representing 1.4% of the mass of the steel) overwhelming the bottom 94 (representing 98.6% of the mass of the steel). This is like having a stack of fifty cent pieces (welded together) topped by a stack of quarters (welded together) and dropping a few dimes on top of them. It was ridiculous then and it is ridiculous now and it will still be ridiculous tomorrow.

Jeffrey, of course, is on assignment, which is why he persists in peddling a theory that is not even consistent with the gross observable evidence. His presence here has grown predictable and tiring--but yet he perseveres, like The Energizer Bunny. Take a look and ask yourself if what you observe in these photos remotely resembles a "collapse":

"New 9/11 Photos Released"
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html

[Andrew Johnson]

It is interesting to see everyone, including Richard Gage, clutching at straws.

Here are 3 clips edited together, revealing the usual inability to address the evidence (an observation fitting right in with this thread).

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202011.mp3


If you want to suffer through the whole thing, here is a link.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/91...202011.mp3

The evidence will win in the end so I think you may as well admit defeat and just accept that.

Good luck - you'll need it!