Friday, June 30, 2006

It Was the Elves That Done It!

I talked previously about Jim Fetzer's inane comments on the radio, but he was actually the host, the guest he was nominally interviewing was fellow "scholar" Judy Wood, famous for her billiard ball theory. I read this comment that Judy made, on the JREF forum, and I thought the poster was just parodying her, but no, she actually said this. From the 27:15 mark, of the first hour:

Judy: Part of my research work has been to look at engineering in nature. How does nature design structures? And perhaps we can copy those designs and use them in engineering designs. And one thing that struck me about the World Trade Centers is that they are very much like trees. Core, outer core, inner core. A tube within a tube design, and that is what allows a tree to wave in the breeze.

Fetzer: Marvelous!

Judy: But also I started thinking about how do trees come down? They don’t start turning into sawdust from the top down.

(laughter)

Judy: With sawdust flying out.

Fetzer: That’s a perfect parallel, because what we actually have with the twin towers is they are blowing up from the top. Each floor is blowing up. So the sawdust, turning a tree into sawdust is perfect! Judy, absolutely a perfect analogy!

Judy: And recently I gave a talk at an engineering conference where I showed some diagrams of the buildings being built and I showed, “If this were a tree and the Keebler elves cut out this big chunk out of the side here, for their little house, where their dwelling is. Would that affect the towers?” And everyone in
the room could see, that no, the way the structure is designed, it can’t bring it down.

Fetzer: And the little house would be analogous to the plane impact?

Judy: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!
I do not know what to say to that. I am literally speechless.

76 Comments:

At 30 June, 2006 15:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

But what if the elves filled a owl full of jet fuel and crashed it into a Colorado blue spruce?

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:32, Blogger CHF said...

Fucking morons.

All of them.

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:33, Blogger apathoid said...

I do not know what to say to that. I am literally speechless

Speechless as well...and trees are 95% air? Interesting! Who knew!

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:36, Blogger default.xbe said...

so trees are hollow tubes within tubes, i never knew, this conspiracy reaches far deeper than i thought

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:36, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:38, Blogger Richard said...

Wow, My brain hurts now. There is no way she is an engineer, and if she is, she obviously graduated at the bottom of her class at nuttyville community college.

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:40, Blogger apathoid said...

Judy: Right, you could have several planes, the planes hitting the towers were like a bullet being shot into a tree.

Clemson Tiger alums, hang yer heads in shame!!!!!

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:41, Blogger MarkyX said...

Judy Wood is currently studying the stresses of dentistry..

And she is comparing a skycraper to trees? My brain hurts.

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:41, Blogger Richard said...

Calm down, nesnyc! I know your franticaly smashing your keyboard trying to prove us all wrong. Let me save you the trouble, I'm aware that I'm not an engineer but neither are you so don't bother talking about it :)

 
At 30 June, 2006 15:59, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I don't see your problem with what she said. More nitpicky stuff about her style or that she says something cute about the Keebler elves?

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:02, Blogger CHF said...

joan,

Wood's "style" isn't the problem.

The problem is that this idiot thinks trees can be compared to hollow structures that are 95% air.

Do you think they're the same?

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:03, Blogger Chad said...

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

How is it possible to rationally argue with people that believe this shit?!?!?!

I seriously want to punch this bitch in the face for being so fucking retarded. I'm sorry for the language, but COME ON!!

Trees and skyscrapers?!?!!

TREES AND SKYSCRAPERS!!?!?!?!?!

I'm just gonna throw this out there to any CTer reading this thread. Think about it. And then let me know whether or not Judy the Dipshit and Jimmy the Retard are correct in thinking that this analogy is even remotely sane....

Were. The towers. A solid. Mass?

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:12, Blogger CHF said...

just when I think I've seen the hight of their stupidity...

...they out do themselves.

"Fetzer: Excellent! Excellent!"

This is what an echo chamber does to the human mind.

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

Fetzer is king!!!
Everything this guy gets his hands on is just golden!

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:44, Blogger CHF said...

"Were. The towers. A solid. Mass?"

bj, joan, nesnyc, roger...

Please, for the love of God, do NOT get the answer wrong.

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:52, Blogger shawn said...

I don't see your problem with what she said. More nitpicky stuff about her style

She compared a structure that was 95 percent air to a fucking tree.

 
At 30 June, 2006 16:54, Blogger apathoid said...

Ok, lets recap here. The only two full time engineering members of st911 think:

- Keebler Elf dwellings are analagous to 767 impact damage

- Trees are similar to skyscrapers

- US bombed Jupiter with an anti-matter bomb and blamed it on Shoemaker-Levy 9

- Claims that aliens from Ummo have sent letters to selected people, including himself


Alarm bells should be ringing CT'ers. Wake up! (see, we can say that too)

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:04, Blogger jackhanyes said...

She compared a structure that was 95 percent air to a fucking tree.

She compared the skyscaper's core to a tree. While it's very strange to do so, and something I would never do nor support, because the structure are so vastly different.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

Bombs created the buckling, not fuel and office equipment fires. Many heard bombs all through the whole incident.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:36, Blogger nesNYC said...

Wow, My brain hurts now. There is no way she is an engineer, and if she is, she obviously graduated at the bottom of her class at nuttyville community college.

Even engineers are susceptible to lemminghood.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:40, Blogger shawn said...

Many heard bombs all through the whole incident.

No, no, no idiot. They heard explosions. Secondary explosions are normal in a fire. Can you people be honest for once?

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:40, Blogger shawn said...

Even engineers are susceptible to lemminghood.

Irony alert.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:49, Blogger apathoid said...

Bombs created the buckling

Finish the sentence.

Bombs created the buckling because......(post a very detailed reason, complete with math, previous examples of buckling observed in CDs, etc)

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:52, Blogger shawn said...

Love how nesnyc completely ignores his lie and the pointing out of said lie?

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:54, Blogger nesNYC said...

No, no, no idiot. They heard explosions. Secondary explosions are normal in a fire. Can you people be honest for once?

So Avian bottles and laser printers blow up? Hahahaha..

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:55, Blogger shawn said...

So Avian bottles and laser printers blow up? Hahahaha..

All sorts of cleaning materials, compressed cans of gas, transformers, etc...

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:55, Blogger shawn said...

Next you'll tell me people who heard explosions in house fires are all liars.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

Finish the sentence.

Bombs created the buckling because the buildings were systematically dismantled through the time period in question. This facilitated the final demolition charges to do their job without any significant obstructions.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:56, Blogger Chad said...

Jack, Nessie!!!!

She compared the Twin Towers to FUCKING TREES!!!!

Fetzer thought this was a marvelous analogy!!!

What's unfortunate for you is that I could say, "Your collective brains are like a pile of cat shit that my dog ate and then threw up on my bedspread" and STILL be more accurate than what that crazy loon said.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

Next you'll tell me people who heard explosions in house fires are all liars.

No, their houses don't implode either.

 
At 30 June, 2006 17:57, Blogger shawn said...

No, their houses don't implode either.

And neither did the WTC! (That's sorta how it damaged buildings quite a bit away).

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:03, Blogger default.xbe said...

so explosions in a house fire are ok, but explosions at the WTC proves it was a CD?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:07, Blogger shawn said...

Bombs created the buckling because the buildings were systematically dismantled through the time period in question. This facilitated the final demolition charges to do their job without any significant obstructions.

And somehow everyone missed this charges, even though they'd have to be quite large to do any damage.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:07, Blogger nesNYC said...

so explosions in a house fire are ok, but explosions at the WTC proves it was a CD?

Explosions in house fires aren't frequent and don't demolish the house to the ground unlike that witnessed multiple explosions that that did indeed bring down the towers. That’s the difference if the topic is getting over your head.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger shawn said...

Explosions in house fires aren't frequent and don't demolish the house to the ground unlike that witnessed multiple explosions that that did indeed bring down the towers. That’s the difference if the topic is getting over your head.

Right...right...somehow people heard the explosions right as the building collapsed and survived to report their tale.

Man, you love lying.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:09, Blogger default.xbe said...

Explosions in house fires aren't frequent

riiiight

and don't demolish the house to the ground unlike that witnessed multiple explosions that that did indeed bring down the towers.

it wasnt the explosions that brought down the towers

That’s the difference if the topic is getting over your head.

another difference that may be over your head is that the average house fire isnt started by a 140 ton airliner with 10,000 pounds of fuel slamming into the building at 500+ miles per hour

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:10, Blogger nesNYC said...

And somehow everyone missed this charges, even though they'd have to be quite large to do any damage.

Not really. You're saying limited fires bought down the towers but discount limited explosives? Does that make any sense? People head the bombs and saw the flashes. All the collapse videos show controlled demolition. Only the foolish are missing the obvious.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:11, Blogger nesNYC said...

it wasnt the explosions that brought down the towers

Almost everybody said "the top blew off and the tower fell." Look it up champ.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:11, Blogger roger_sq said...

No, she's completely off her meds.

The tensile strength of a tree pales in comparison to the tensile strength of steel. Let alone vertical strength of steel, which has got to be an order of magnitude higher than wood.

That's why they make skyscrapers out of steel now days. If they were made of wood, fires could cause them to collapse.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:11, Blogger apathoid said...

nes,

So, the buckiling by itself wouldnt lead to catastrophic failure, they needed more bombs to "finish the job"?

You base this on .......(insert math and computer simulation data)

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:12, Blogger shawn said...

You're saying limited fires bought down the towers but discount limited explosives?

A raging inferno isn't a "limited fire". The charges couldn't be limited, because each one would have to be large (remember a van full of explosives did superficial damage).

Does that make any sense? People head the bombs and saw the flashes.

THEY HEARD EXPLOSIONS, NOT BOMBS.

All the collapse videos show controlled demolition. Only the foolish are missing the obvious.

Too bad it looks nothing like any controlled demolition in the history of mankind.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:13, Blogger shawn said...

If they were made of wood, fires could cause them to collapse.

Yup, steel faces no danger from the flame, that's why we insulate it in fireproofing.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:14, Blogger apathoid said...

You're saying limited fires bought down the towers but discount limited explosives?

nes,

The airliners themselves tookout 44 columns (38 perimeter, 6 core).
So, the precludes the need for some preliminary explosives.....

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

The airliners themselves tookout 44 columns (38 perimeter, 6 core).
So, the precludes the need for some preliminary explosives.....


That's not accurate. The building stood all the way until the fires began to cool, but they came down anyway. The whole place was rigged (shape charges, thermite) ; you would need far more damage and heat to cause the sudden collapse of the building like that.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:22, Blogger shawn said...

The whole place was rigged (shape charges, thermite) ; you would need far more damage and heat to cause the sudden collapse of the building like that.

It wasn't exactly "sudden". And you completely ignore the fact that it would take years to rig the "whole place".

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:25, Blogger CHF said...

nesnyc,

bombs do not bend the structure supports and warp floors!

Bombs SNAP the structure while FIRE bends it.

Did you even graduate from high school?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:26, Blogger apathoid said...

The whole place was rigged (shape charges, thermite)

Since it obvious, to you, that a massive numbers of charges were needed, can you give us a ballpark figure?
200?
2000?
How much Thermite would be necessary for keep burning its oxygen supply for 8 weeks?

Is there a video available that has 200-2000 explosive charges clearly audible?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:27, Blogger James B. said...

Bombs SNAP the structure while FIRE bends it.


Maybe they were really slow bombs?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:27, Blogger BG said...

I'm not sure that is best place to enter this comment.

Here is is a four minute audio of Jim Fetzer with Ingraham on her show this a.m. This is all I see that is available for free. Fetzer performance in this clip doesn't show anything like the behaviors on Colmes show from a few nights ago.

Laura cites the New York Times, for goodness sake, which she has been bashing to no end, for part of the evidence that she brings up to call the CD idea of the WTC looney.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:42, Blogger CHF said...

apathoid,

Exactly.

THIS is what a CD looks/sounds like: http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/
archive/0318implosion1/index.html

Only a fucking moron thinks it even resembles 9/11.

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:45, Blogger roger_sq said...

The airliners themselves tookout 44 columns (38 perimeter, 6 core).
So, the precludes the need for some preliminary explosives.....


The (only) peer reviewed journal you guys can find specifically states that it was exclusively fire and no meaninful stuctural damage occurred from impact.

So... now you guys are experts too?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:47, Blogger roger_sq said...

No, no, no idiot. They heard explosions. Secondary explosions are normal in a fire. Can you people be honest for once?

lies

William Rodriguez

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:50, Blogger Alex said...

The (only) peer reviewed journal you guys can find specifically states that it was exclusively fire and no meaninful stuctural damage occurred from impact.

What the hell?

Which corner of your ass did you pull THAT out of?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:55, Blogger CHF said...

roger,

there were explosions heard in the 2005 Madrid office tower fire.

Got a bomb theory to cover that?

 
At 30 June, 2006 18:56, Blogger apathoid said...

roger,

I was going along with Nessie, who said that an initial volley of charges took out enough columns to start the creep buckling. I merely brought up the fact that this wasnt necessary as 44 columns were already taken out...I wasnt refuted what the Northwestern professor said

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:00, Blogger apathoid said...

William Rodriguez

This gentleman was a witness to the *results* of an explosion (atomized JetA forced down an elevator shaft) and not an explosive device.

Why would they blow the base core columns over an hour before the collapse anyways?
You guys make no sense..

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:07, Blogger jackhanyes said...

Maybe they were really slow bombs?

Like thermite?

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:15, Blogger James B. said...

But thermite is a very powerful explosive according to Jim Fetzer.

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:33, Blogger Alex said...

Like thermite?

Thermite is neither slow, nor a "bomb".

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:40, Blogger Chad said...

Last I checked, thermite doesn't make an explosive sound that the underground janitor would've heard either.

 
At 30 June, 2006 19:44, Blogger CHF said...

CTers basically have no clue about the issues they speak of.

Blowing the base structure in a CD would see the tower collapse from the bottom up.

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:00, Blogger apathoid said...

"Blowing the base structure in a CD would see the tower collapse from the bottom up. "

Dont ya see, the base HAD to be weakened because 400,000 tons of concrete and steel barreling downward at 50 mph couldnt possibly crush the base of the Towers.

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:16, Blogger default.xbe said...

no no no, remember the connection to the foundation was cut at the base of the columns to keep the tower from toppling over...for some reason

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:27, Blogger apathoid said...

Thats right, now I remember.
They had to cut the bases before they blew the buildings to smithereens, but after they rammed them with fuel laden jets because they wanted to minimize casualties and collateral damage by falling buildings.

Thanks for clearing that up..

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:35, Blogger James B. said...

Now imagine the World Trade Center was a shrubbery. Now if a family of leprachauns built a home in that shrubbery and then set fire to it after downing a keg of Guinness, do you think that shubbery would just turn into branches and collapse? I don't think so.

See, it had to be controlled demolition. Case closed.

 
At 30 June, 2006 20:46, Blogger MarkyX said...


Like thermite?


Thermite is also an incendiary, not an explosive device.

 
At 01 July, 2006 07:49, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Fetzer really got the better of the debate with Laura Ingraham. I hope everyone here listens to it because it'll explain what you're missing:

If the government's version couldn't have happened, something else happened.

And the government's version is very implausible that 19 Arabs run by a guy in a cave in Afghanistan outsmarted and overcame the most sophisticated defense systems the world has ever known.

(And nobody's been fired over it.)

 
At 01 July, 2006 08:10, Blogger CHF said...

joan,

19 Arabs with boxcutters did not take over a military base, destroy 50 tanks, shoot down a dozen F-16s and kill 500 Marines.

If they had, then you'd be on the mark with your "overcame the most sophisticated defense systems the world has ever known" claim.

They went to war against civil aviation and a defence system geared to counter OUTSIDE theats. That was an easier war to win pre-9/11.

 
At 01 July, 2006 13:10, Blogger Chad said...

Now imagine the World Trade Center was a shrubbery.

Good God man!! That's it!

The towers were shrubbery, brought down not with planes, or fires, or bombs, or thermite, but with...

A HERRING!!!

(This post brought to you by the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.)

 
At 01 July, 2006 13:31, Blogger James B. said...

Now if it were hit by a swallow...

 
At 01 July, 2006 14:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

Now if it were hit by a swallow...

african or european?

AND...

at what velocity?

 
At 01 July, 2006 14:39, Blogger Chad said...

It could grip it by the husk!

 
At 01 July, 2006 15:01, Blogger James B. said...

European of course. Everyone knows that African swallows are not migratory.

 
At 01 July, 2006 15:45, Blogger default.xbe said...

then its a simple matter of weight ratios, a 5 ounce bird cannot carry 1 pound of C4, therefore it must have been an african swallow, proving conclusively them being non-migratory is a conspiracy

 
At 09 July, 2006 17:59, Blogger TruthSeeker1234 said...

The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the most shimmering of samite, held aloft from the bosom of the water Excaliber, signifying by devine province that I, Arthur, was to rule this land. That is why I'm your king.

9/11 was an inside job. Judy Wood's analogy between a twin tower and a tree is an apt one. Here's why.

A tree turning into sawdust under its own weight is absurd. The reason it is absurd is that the gravitational potential energy from the elevated mass does not contain enough energy to break the chemical bonds between so many molecules. To turn a tree into sawdust requires much more energy than is present.

Same with a tower. Same with anything that stands up. Physical objects which are strong enough to stand up against gravity and wind do not contain enough mass to pulverize themselves into fine powder under their own weight. You could drop the entire tower from twice its height. It would break apart all over the place, but would not get anywhere near turning into powder.

The fact that a tower is 95% air is not relevant. "Solid" wood is, in fact, 99.99% empty space. So what? That doesn't change the known properties of solid objects, such a steel frame.

In order to show that the top part of a building could crush the lower parts into powder, one would set up anb energy balance sheet. On one side, the total available potential energy. On the other side, the amount of energy required to pulverize the building contents.

Such calculations have been undertaken, such as here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

You also have the annoying problem of trying to explain pools of molten iron with sulfur in it.

more later.

 
At 09 July, 2006 18:06, Blogger TruthSeeker1234 said...

The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the most shimmering of samite, held aloft from the bosom of the water Excaliber, signifying by devine province that I, Arthur, was to rule this land. That is why I'm your king.

9/11 was an inside job. Judy Wood's analogy between a twin tower and a tree is an apt one. Here's why.

A tree turning into sawdust under its own weight is absurd. The reason it is absurd is that the gravitational potential energy from the elevated mass does not contain enough energy to break the chemical bonds between so many molecules. To turn a tree into sawdust requires much more energy than is present.

Same with a tower. Same with anything that stands up. Physical objects which are strong enough to stand up against gravity and wind do not contain enough mass to pulverize themselves into fine powder under their own weight. You could drop the entire tower from twice its height. It would break apart all over the place, but would not get anywhere near turning into powder.

The fact that a tower is 95% air is not relevant. "Solid" wood is, in fact, 99.99% empty space. So what? That doesn't change the known properties of solid objects, such a steel frame.

In order to show that the top part of a building could crush the lower parts into powder, one would set up anb energy balance sheet. On one side, the total available potential energy. On the other side, the amount of energy required to pulverize the building contents.

Such calculations have been undertaken, such as here

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

You also have the annoying problem of trying to explain pools of molten iron with sulfur in it.

more later.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home