Monday, July 10, 2006

The Keebler Elves: Part II

I posted earlier on "scholar" Judy Woods talking with Jim Fetzer about the simlarities between the damage to the World Trade Center caused by an airplane crashing into it, and Keebler elves building a house in a tree. She mentioned that she made this comparison during a presentation at an engineering conference. For those who may have thought she was joking, here is the powerpoint.
















It would be interesting to see what the response of her professional colleagues was. Hopefully she waited until after drinks were served.

For an idea of the work real structural engineers do, read this paper by Zdenek Bazant, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University. My favorite bit, of this rather technical paper:

As generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts (though not by some laymen and fanatics seeking to detect a conspiracy), the failure scenario, broadly proposed by Bazant (2001), and Bazant and Zhou (2002), on the basis of simplifed analysis, and supported by very realistic, meticulous and illuminating computer simulations and exhaustive investigations by S. Shyam Sunder's team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, 2005), may be summarized as follows:



Update: A video lecture by Professor Bazant on this subject, for those of you who don't like reading.

16 Comments:

At 10 July, 2006 10:02, Blogger Jujigatami said...

What is your point?

It's indisputable that the Keebler elves are Neocons, part of the PNAC, the NWO (not the wrestling one), the illuminata, and the tripartate commission.

I'm not suprised they are involved in the 9/11 cover up. They've been putting mind control drugs in their delicious baked goods for decades, since Bush's grandfather was on the board of a company that invested heavily in Keebler.

Plus, as a rule, you should never trust an elf.

 
At 10 July, 2006 10:04, Blogger Alex said...

Holy fuck is she ever UGLY.

I mean, I know that has nothing to do with credibility. But like....DAMN. She looks like her face caught fire and someone put it out with a fistfull of rusty chains.

 
At 10 July, 2006 10:54, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Re Prof. Bazant's paper, this line from the bottom of page 3 sure gives one a lot of confidence - not!

"Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did."

Bazant and Zhou and the rest of them need to be willing to defend their work mano a mano with other experts and they are not. They are hiding behind "papers." You guys on this blog know it needs defending; thats why you're here but you have to just surmise that the official version was thorough and honest because . . . just because. It runs through all of your commentary that you are mostly just trusting these people, even after 5 years of lies.

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:02, Blogger furrod said...

Is this Judy Wood a legit engineering PhD? Does the Truth Movement have any others? Has her analysis been critiqued?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:17, Blogger Alex said...

Bazant and Zhou and the rest of them need to be willing to defend their work mano a mano with other experts and they are not.

WHAT experts? If one or two experts came out and said "hey, listen, this doesn't really make sense because..." I'm sure both Bazant and Zhou would gladly discuss their methods and conclusions. But there haven't been ANY experts challanging their conclusions. You don't seriously expect them to debate their findings with someone like Alex Jones or Dylan Avery do you?

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:18, Blogger Manny said...

They are hiding behind "papers."

Holy Toledo, I think I just found an entry candidate for Conspiracy Theorists Say the Darndest Things

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:35, Blogger Alex said...

Bazant and Zhou and the rest of them need to be willing to defend their work mano a mano with other experts

Mano-a-mano, eh? Heh, I'm getting this great mental image of a tag-team mach between 4 old proffesors.

"The slide rule! Use the slide-rule!"

"OHHHH, Bazant clobbers Jones with a textbook! He's down for the count! Let's see that in slow motion...."

 
At 10 July, 2006 11:35, Blogger undense said...

joan,

Why don't you rebut Bazant and Zhou? You dismiss their work so you must understand exactly what they are saying. E-mail them a written rebuttal showing where their work is deficient.

 
At 10 July, 2006 12:39, Blogger Jujigatami said...

"Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did."

It should have said:

"Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did, because only a complete fucking lunatic would believe any of the myriad of idiotic conspiracy theories."

 
At 10 July, 2006 17:42, Blogger shawn said...

You guys on this blog know it needs defending; thats why you're here but you have to just surmise that the official version was thorough and honest because . . . just because. It runs through all of your commentary that you are mostly just trusting these people, even after 5 years of lies.


Wow, how wrong can you be before you shut your yap (or stop tapping your keyboard if you want to get technical)?

Again, lies don't prove other "lies.

We don't believe the story just because the government tells us (the collapse of the buildings and such is just basic physics).

 
At 10 July, 2006 17:54, Blogger Viking Son said...

Ever wonder what it was like in one of the World Trade Towers when disaster struck. There's nothing like a good old strictly engineering take from the National Institue of Standards and Technology: "The floor an occupant was on when WTC1 was attacked (distance to safety) increased the probability of encountering an environmental cue (smoke, damage, fire, etc.). Additionally, being on a higher floor predicted greater evacuation initiation delay times and encountering environmental cues, which predicted higher normalized stairwell travel time. Independently, interrupting evacuation for any reason increased the normalized stairwell travel time."

 
At 10 July, 2006 20:28, Blogger Avery Dylan said...

Like hey man, did like you know, get any cookies from the elves, man I mean, at least we could ask the elves some questions, you know.

 
At 10 July, 2006 20:41, Blogger roger_sq said...

Bazant IS FETZER.

You guys are so friggin' confused. Look at this friggin clown, half way through he admits he had to make up his data because he didn't have the actual figures.

Did you even listen to this fucking clown? This is the OFFICIAL representation?

Hilarious!

 
At 10 July, 2006 20:45, Blogger roger_sq said...

Ha! This guy totally debunks his own story.

Shows a slide, written ON THE SLIDE. Says building collapsed in 9 seconds (uh-oh, I thought the debunkers debunked that- now what?) and free fall speed is 9.21 seconds.

The official story disregards physics. WHat do y'all think about that??

 
At 10 July, 2006 21:06, Blogger shawn said...

The official story disregards physics. WHat do y'all think about that??

Well, it doesn't, but you can continue to delude yourself on matters numerous and varied.

 
At 11 July, 2006 02:53, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

Roger, if free fall speed is 9.21 seconds, and you claim the towers fell in nine seconds(which they didn't), that would mean the entire towers were falling FASTER THAN FREE FALL. That would mean they had propulsion from above.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home