"Judy Would"
In what easily has to be one of the most disturbing things I have seen in a long time, someone has created a tribute to former Clemson engineering professor Judy Wood (famous for her Keebler Elf theory), to include a song in her honor titled, "Judy Would".
I haven't listened to the song yet, I am too scared...
posted by James B. @ 11:15 PM
134 comments
134 Comments:
Judy wood is the thorn in the debunking trolls side
What color is the sky in your world? Judy Wood is so irrelevant since she holds onto the most ludicrous of theories. Her 'theory' on the collapse was debunkabkle by anyone with High School physics (and laughable from that standpoint). She's also the one who thinks buildings are like trees and should fall like them.
as i said earlier, the tree analogy is 1,000,000 times more believable than jenga.
That's your shortcoming, isn't it?
I thought u liked experts, well shes an expert so quit mocking her and start liking her.
I like experts who make a lick of sense. Her opinion, again, is in the minority, and a very poorly formed one.
I would like to ask you a question, why are we called tin foil hat wearers?
'cos you're fucking NUTS.
See, people with physics degrees, like him, don't NEED to be anal. They just guesstimate and round off numbers whenever they feel like it. An approximation is just as good as an accurate analysis in Judy-Wood-and-Pdoherty-land.
Yeah, huh, how 'bout dat u guys?!?! And if NASA be so wunderfl, how come they keep making shuttles that blow up??? HUH?!?!??!?!
if a real terrorist blew up a building in an american city tonight i would be appaled and say hunt the bastard down
Except you would never admit that it was a terrorist. As long as it happens on US soil, you'll always be convinced it was a "CIA asset". You probably think Israel keeps faking all of the attacks on them too. You're a goddamn retard, and your idiotic revisionism helps divert attention away from the fight against terrorism. So yes, you certainly are a terrorist supporter/enabler.
It IS a force you moron. And YOU have a physics degree? My ass. Gravity may be CAUSED by a curvature in space, but that doesn't mean it's not also a force. There's a reason it's still called "the force of gravity"!
Christ. Get a clue kid.
wrong again alex, i believe timothy mcveigh was a terrorist and that he had nothing to do with the CIA.
Ok, so you're a selective retard. Good job.
*sigh* let's not get into THAT debate. If it looks like a force and generally acts like a force, for all intents and purposes it IS a force. Treating gravity as a curvature in space-time is only useful when dealing with problems in relativity. When attempting to model any problem within a gravity field it makes no sense to treat it as such. And the observable effect on objects caused by gravity is still that of a force. Meaning only two types of people insist on point out that "gravity is not a force": those who are clueless on the subject but want to sound smart, and relativity snobs.
No PD, you obviously didn't understand the page you quoted, so here, I've got one for you which you should be able to understand:
More on your level.
Anyway, you really need to get another hobby. So far on here you've lied, you've insulted, and you've displayed both your lack of intelligence and your utterly unearned arrogance for all the world to see. I'd suggest you quit while you're only a few lightyears behind. For my part, I'm gong to stop now. Shooting fish in a barrel sounds like fun at first, but pretty soon you start to feel sorry for the poor little bastards.
Alright, one more response:
Nobody says experts can't be wrong. Unfortunately for your analogy, experts in the past have always been proven wrong by other experts. Einstein wasn't a 22 year old kid doing research on YouTube, and Galileo wasn't an 18 year old kid with a "Bush=Hitler" shirt. When intelligent, logical, qualified people start to come out and state they believe 9/11 was an inside job, then I'll start to pay attention. However, even my own knowledge of physics, engineering, and demolition, is enough to tell me there is nothing "suspicious" about the collapse of any of the three buildings. In fact, it was the expected result. I DID expect the twin towers to collapse, and while I didn't think WTC7 would fall, the firefighters on the ground did. All 3 buildings acted in exactly the way they would be expected to act under those conditions.
I thought gravity was one of the 4 Fundamental Forces
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c1
If you're able to keep your argument somewhat logical, I'll continue debating you for a while longer. However, so far you've shown no capacity for logic whatsoever, and as far as that holds true I don't intend to waste my time on you.
Gosh Dad I suppose we should just take your word for it
I will run along when you provide hard proof of what you say, so far all you do is break wind.
Heh. Guess what guys, it turns out you need to know relativity in order to understand building collapse! Geeze. And I'm still working on my degree in dentistry at the Judy Wood school of controlled demolition.
Nice tapdance but what does any of this have to do with Judy wood?
so u only like majority opinions telescope?
The important thing to consider is that I am discussing the opinions of informed experts. No Joe Blow on the street or some UK wanker who thinks his physics degree qualifies him as an Engineer.
When I say 'Her opinion is the minority', I am referring to her professional field.
By rights, I cannot even truly consider her opinion to be a 'minority' as she has not produced a peer-reviewed article.
well the majority of americans think oswald was a patsy
I think you need to learn the difference between relevant experts opinions and the ad populum fallacy.
maybe we should apply relativity to the towers cos guess what...when we apply newtonian mechanics to it the inconvenient answer is that bombs brought em down
Who provided this 'inconvenient answer'? Because it wasn't demolitionists, structural engineers, or other relevant professions.
"I won and now I'm leaving"
like we've never seen a CTer say that before scampering out with his tail between his legs.
please pick a new user name and come back so you can pretend you didn't call someone a pedophile and 5 seconds later pretend you didn't.
My point exactly. you make all these calim but never give any real proof of what you claim. Your bommb theory have been proven wrong so many times it is growing mold
Hey, I just found a neat little video clip that does a really good job of simplifying the buckling effect on the beams. It'd be a good thing to point new twoofers at, along with the video of steel "melting" that was posted a few days ago. Anyway, here's the clip:
Buckling
get ur facts right alex, einstein has never been an expertin anything. he worked as a clerk in a patent office. he was an ameteur physicist with radical ideas
Excuse me? Einstein had more education than you give him credit for. He had to pay the bills, so he took the clerical job. He obtained even more education while on that job.
In the early 20th century, there really wasn't such a thing as a 'professional physicist'. Heck, people were still referring to Einstein as a 'Mathematician' until 1950 or so.
What happens to steel in an oil fire
http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm
all the energy at the beginning(plane kinetic energy, fuel energy, office combustible energy, potential energy) isnt high enough to account for the energy at the end(pulverised concrete, pyroclastic flows)
This is exactly why we call you an idiot. According to my calculations, each building contained just under 1 terajoule of potential energy. That's the equivalent of 234 tons of TNT. How would a few bombs have made any difference?
alex talking of beams i am still waiting for one of you people to explain the beam featured in "011 mysteries".
it is in a perfect semi-circle, no buckling cracking or transverse warping
Oh, they must have rigged a special "circular charge" on that beam. We government guys use those specificaly when we want to get conspiratoids to question our false flag attacks.
What are you, retarded?
Energy in a system must be conserved. lets treat the towers as a system. all the energy at the beginning(plane kinetic energy, fuel energy, office combustible energy, potential energy) isnt high enough to account for the energy at the end(pulverised concrete, pyroclastic flows)
You've done the calculations for this? I doubt it.
When I hear the phrase 'pulverized concrete', I wince. Becuase it sure as heck was not all pulverized. This is simply a CT myth.
BTW, are you aware of how much explosives are required to pulverise concrete? You'd require the concrete surfaces to be practically covered with the stuff. Somebody would noticed. And when all that explosive when off, you REALLY notice.
No wonder the explosives are considered such a joke by the building demolition community.
Would a professional terrorist enter the US with a passport under his real name when it's already known to the FBI that he was part of the al-qaeda network?
The question is, was it known to him that he was known to the FBI.
Stop being an idiot Joan. One of those things concerns an actual act by a member of the government, the other involves a few soldiers. You may as well complain that Congress never had ANY testimony about the Manson murders. You're comparing apples and oranges. AGAIN.
telescope einstein got the equivalent of a third class degree. his tutor is qouted as saying that einstein was a lazy student who was nearly thrown out of the university.
Do some research, he got a full doctorate with thesis.
no professional physicists? well erm who was teaching einstein?,
You might want to learn some history of the field you are in. Start with Feynmann.
alex go watch 011 mysteries, the beam, as is shown, ended up that way because of the pressure wave of a bomb next to it.
No, it didn't. I've worked with explosives, they don't do that. It makes much more sense for it to have been "rolled" into that shape by the collapsing mass of the building, although nobody can say for certain exactly how it happened. What we can tell you is that it wasn't done by explosives.
his mental response was "oh shit i cant"
Now in addition to being a "physicist", you're also a psychic, huh?
Do you think you could stop lying in every second sentence? Maybe slow down? Make it every third or fourth sentence?
so alex no one can say how it was rolled into that shape? erm i thought u had all ur experts, why cant they explain it
If you understood the first thing about science you'd be able to answer your own question.
When a million tons of debris comes crashing down many things can happen that are difficult to explain. There are no benchmarks for something like this. I bet you could have walked around in the debris pile and come up with a myriad of anomilies that would be very hard to explain.
telescope i never claimed he didnt get a thesis
He wrote a thesis, he didn't 'get' one. He recieved a doctorate. They don't just give those away. You've tried to paint Einstein as some kind of outsider to the field, when he was not.
Here, dumbass:
Another bent beam
I suppose that one was also caused by a bomb?
Then how about this one?
While we're at it, here's some of that concrete which you say was turned into dust.
Look through the site, maybe you'll learn something. Probably not since it's hard to learn anything while your eyes and ears are covered, but what the hell, go take a look anyway, you never know.
ur rite alex, there are no benchmarks which is why the experts havent really got a clue what happened, how could they> its unprecedented
Multiple things in the engineering and disaster are unprecedented. That does not mean that they cannot figure out what was going wrong. This is a most ignorant statement on your part.
my credibility is not in question, u lot already think im a liar, a nutcase and terrorist supporter and u always will so think what u like
Well, you lied about your qualifications, and you lied about not calling cassio a pedophile. So you're a liar.
You think bombs caused a steel beam to bend, so you're a nutcase.
And your lies make it harder for us to persecute the war on terror, so you're at the very least a terrorist enabler, if not an outright supporter.
Now, if you don't like the way you're being judged, change the way you act. Not lying would be a good start.
when a structural engineer writes a new theory of how the towers came down he will be laughed at. see the difference?
To date, no SE has produced a paper on an alternative method of collapse. not even one that was submitted for peer review and rejected.
Your comparison is invalid.
when a structural engineer writes a new theory of how the towers came down he will be laughed at. see the difference?
Yes. Einstein came up with a new model for understanding the universe. A structural engineer yelling "BOMBS!!!" would hardly be equivalent. We don't need a new science for understanding how buildings collapse. Frankly, I'd be more interested in a new psychological study as to why people like you exist at all. It should be counter-evolutionary to be THAT stupid.
"BBC" and "real documentary" don't really go hand in hand these days. Unless I'm mistaken, those are the same clowns who reported that a tank fired a shell down a street which caused a vacuum powerful enough to "suck insurgents out of their hiding holes" and into the street, where they were promptly shot or run over by the tank. Which, ironically enough, should make perfect sense to you, but is rather funny to anyone with any relevant knowledge in THAT particular field.
people are still investigating the murder of jfk 44 years later, do you think they are gonna forget to investigate 911 cos of a few trolls that try to shut them up
Thing is they're not investigating, just like you lunatics aren't investigating 9/11. Calling your efforts an investigation is equivalent to calling last years fireworks an attempt to develop nuclear weapons. What the JFK clowns are REALLY doing is rehashing the same tired old arguments which were rejected decades ago by anyone with an IQ over 5. And you're right, the same thing will happen with 9/11. And the 9/11 deniers will become just as irrelevant as the JFK revisionists. Or rather, they'll CONTINUE to be just as irrelevant, since you've already reached that stage.
if a truther came up with an indisputable piece of evidence what would you guys actually do?
If we had some ham, we could make a ham and cheese sandwich. If we had some cheese.....
that qoute coulb be used against all debunkers
Point out ONE occasion where any of us here has lied.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Great piks Alex and it proves my point. There may not be benchmarks but every qualified agency has disprover the toofers over and over.
All the toorfes do is ask the same dumb questiong that have been answers by real experts. I would love to see the toofers come up with hard proof or a list of experts in relative fields but all they have are the same dopey questions
no confession, and he didnt have time give one cos mafia hitman ruby was allowed to shoot him.
That's not evidence either for or against.
a fake photo of him holding a gun.
Well, the fact that you think the photo is fake isn't evidence for or against either, but it IS evidence that you're a friggin loon.
oh yes and then theres all the witnesses who heard grassy knoll shots
If you'd ever been shot at (as I have) you'd know just how hard it can be to pinpoint the origin of the sound. The first two steps of battle procedure after coming under fire are "react to effective enemy fire" and "locate the enemy". That second one usualy takes quite a while.
and also people who have admitted being second shooters
Yes, there must be what, 10 of them by now? Must have been damn crowded on the grassy knoll.
by the way could one of u debunkers tell me y bush claimed he saw flight 11 hit the first tower?
It's called a mistake. You know, kinda similar to the night you were conceived.
oh and while ur at it an explanation of why the flights arent listed as scheduled that day?
*sigh*
Just forget it man. It's obvious you haven't done even the most basic research into this stuff.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
and a large proportion of them think it was an inside job
A large proportion? So far I've seen exactly four of them who hold that opinion. Perhaps you could provide some more names? Maybe even a statistic? Not that it really matters what they think, but if you can show that you're right I'd definitely be more open towards a new investigation. It wouldn't prove anything that the first one didn't, but if there's enough concern among victims families it'd be worth it to try and put their minds at ease.
bush couldnt make that mistake and you know it, at the very least he was lying to create dramatic effect
Right. One minute you'd have us beleive Bush is the dumbest man on the planet, the next minute you want us to beleive he's an evil genius who could never make any sort of mistake.
If you really do hold any sort of degree, you may as well go shred it.
purporting to be on the side of 'truth' and holding the moral high ground and you've been exposed as an unrepentant liar.
How ironic.
Quite. At least on the face of it. In reality, people screaming at the top of their lungs about "the truth" are usually the ones living in a delusional fantasy of their own making. So, really, maybe it's not so ironic after all. Once you get to know the "truth" movement, you expect them to be liars.
the poor families of those victims had to fight that bastard bush just to get an investigation
Where do you get this nonsense? Seriously. Like, which lunatic asylums patient-produced newspaper is pumping out this garbage?
Alex
We now know that a hidden volcano underneith each tower brought them down
The toofers get more desperate every day, pyroclastic flows, LOL what a crock
dog town ive heard from u lot that the world trade centre was a jenga game so dont start on the pyroclastic flow business.
One's an analogy, the other is a claim of an actual occurence. Once again, you're comparing apples to oranges.
ive heard ur crowd state that the plane at the pentagon went in in more of a liquid state than a solid.
Anyone stating something like that is certainly not part of "my crowd".
and by the definition of a pyroclastic flow thats what it was.
Yeah, and you're a physicist, right? Sure, why not. And by definition, I'm a Japanese jet pilot.
by the way i hasten to add that i do know flight 77 hit the pentagon, before u pounce on that
So you're only marginally insane. Well, that's something at least. Maybe they'll take that into account when they size you for the straightjacket, and let you have one arm free.
please watch "911 press for truth" in which lots of family members are shown trying to get an investigation.
How many is lots? 5? 10 maybe? Sorry man, that aint gonna do it.
And he's still stuck on the 800 figre.
Wanna try to explain it to him again Marky? Maybe the second time around he'll actually HEAR you. Then you only have to explain it 5 more times before he'll understand it.
alex yet again i will prove you wrong
Please, go ahead. Although I take issue with the "yet again" bit. If you were to prove me wrong, it'd be for the first time ever.
Unfortunately for you, you CAN'T prove me wrong because I was making a statement of fact. Anyone who claims that the aircraft entered the building in a liquid state is NOT part of "my crowd" for the simple reason that I would never associate myself with someone making such claims. Whoever you heard it from is just as confused as the twoofers are.
The liquid plane was an anology to describe how the plane may have acted, not a literal discription.
a spark between two electrodes could be called lightning. it isnt a million volts or up in the sky but theres no reason i cant call it lightning
:D
How do you talk to someone like this?
See, the worst part is...when you finally pull your head out of your ass, you're still going to smell like shit.
There are no factions because there's no fucking fraternity. We're not a goddamn movement, we're just average Joe's who are either pissed off at you idiots, or get a kick out of making fun of you.
And as Steve just finished explaining to you, nobody ever claimed the aircraft were liquid. You're using another conspiracy nut tool known as "quote mining". I also like to call it "misrepresentation". Just like you did with the Janga analogy.
*shrug*
Can't be any sadder than getting your enjoyment out of supporting terrorists, pissing on the graves of victims of 9/11, and accusing the government and the New York fire department of mass murder. And you seem to have no problem with doing ALL of the above.
And it wasn't an admission of any type asshole. I do it because if I can show even one person just how illogical most conspiracy theories are, it'll have been worth it. Fighting ignorance is a big part of the fight against terrorism.
"alex please give me the equation for a builings potential energy. hint: dont look it up on google"
Hint: Don't be a hypocrite. That's exactly what you did for your quote about gravity above:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html.
While you're at it, pre-relativity physicists were not "wrong" in the sense that they were the opposite of "right" or "correct". They were wrong in that they didn't have any relativistic framework in which to evaluate their observations. You cannot call that "wrong"; remember, as your high school and 100 level college physics courses should have told you, that witching non-relativistic frameworks, Newtonian physics is still absolutely correct, as they properly describe observations and provide a framework within which to make accurate predictions.
On top of that, how do you defend your assertion that there's not enough energy to account for pyroclastic flow? Or better yet, can you explain how you're applying the concept of pyroclastic flow to what was observed in the WTC collapse to begin with? I know you said that it was "exactly what we saw on 911"; now explain how the total concept applies beyond simply resembling a volcanic eruption.
While we're here, mind posting your CV or any other proof that you are indeed a physics student? You may of course delete or obscure any personally identifying information, but I do not believe your claim that you've studied relativity, or anything beyond high school physics. Your writing lends itself to the opposite conclusion. I do not believe at all that you've "studied relativity for a long time"; you do not appear to have any proper background in physics, as all you seem to do is cut and paste from the web. Not to mention your "get a thesis" post shows that you're not familiar with how things work in the postgraduate world. In short, you cut and paste and borrow from the web well, but you do not seem capable of explaining physics concepts in your own words, so I do not believe that you have any relevant experience in the field. Prove me wrong.
Elmondohummus
Very nice I wish I had the way with words you do. The toofers have a gift of tapdance, spin and never back things up with anything more than questions.
They have yet to give any explaination of their theories, all we get from them is opinion, conjecture and speculation.
If they are so positive in their theories why then do they not back them up in detail with hard evidence instead of the same dumb questions?
"yes stevew in the simplified version of physics known as 'newtonian mechanics' gravgity is a force. that is just a useful approximation because relativity is a bit hard to teach to novices like u lot"
This from a guy that promotes "Screw: Screw Loose Change", a small one-minute video that has, of all things, the equation wrong, not to mention a good measurement on the time of collapse and the height from where the towers descended.
Would a professional terroist think it would have been known to the FBI that he's with al-qaeda?
9/11 coverup and his moronic cohorts like to do that "evidence for the official story is actually evidence against the official story" dance.
"alex please give me the equation for a builings potential energy. hint: dont look it up on google"
I didn't even see that question until Elmondohummus repeated it. It's been discussed here before, but I'll post in a quick note:
Weight = 500,000tons+
Mean Height ~= 200m
500,000,000x200x9.8 = 980,000,000,000 or 0.98 trajoules
1gram of TNT = 4184 Joules, 1kg = 4,184,000
980,000,000 / 4,184 = 234,225 kilos of TNT, or 234 TONS of TNT per building.
Funny, I would have thought a guy with a "physics diploma" would have been able to do that himself. Personaly I've only got highschool physics.
Default Can you explain how it can't happen?
It did so why don't you people explain anything instead of asking the same dumb questions?
When a million tons of debris comes crashing down many things can happen that are difficult to explain.
Can you explain how a thin piece of AL can slice thru a 3' palm tree or how a 2x4 can embed its self totally thru a tree in a hurricane?
Default's not a twoofer, Steve. In fact, he was basicaly asking the exact smae question you were, except his was actually aimed at a twoofer :)
Sorry for the missunderstanding :(
Like I said Talking sense to people like these serves as much purpose as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations. Gets agravating
"as licking a bald man's head to solve algebraic equations."
Um.... eeew!
Default
Did you see these?
What happens to steel in an oil fire
http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm
WOW
That's amazing, Steve. Deffinitely going in my archives. Thanks!
There is a very clear explanation of how and why when steel deforms why it never returns to shape. this was a fuel truck of some kind not some exotic mixture and these girders have a larger cross section than any of the tower girders
so alex admits he only has high school physics. im glad its the really qualified people that are debunkers.
I know that your just trying to shits-stiar again, but I will point out that HS physics is more than you have demonstrated at this time
for example the central columns (which debunkers deny the existance of)
Will you cease telling lies? What support do you have for this statement?
This is
talking of which, can one of you high school physicists explain to me why the sky lobby floors didnt halt or slow down ur crepe suzette collapse?
You still don't appreciate the forces involved, apparently.
Did you ever even see the towers? Do you know how much mass there was?
You are basicly complaining that an ant should have slowed down your stomping boot where the slug did not.
the 911 ommision denies the existence of these columns, try reading it
They do no such a thing. Unless you are one of those idiots who thinks 'hollow column' is not a good terminology for the box column structure.
I defy you to prove this statement.
ur simple centre of mass version assumes uniform density of material which is not true.
True, but I also intentionally underestimated the weight of the buildings, and, as you pointed out, the TV antenna would make up for any weight difference in the upper floors. Anyway, assume my estimate is off by as much as 20% plus or minus. That means the buildings each contained somewhere between 0.78 and 1.17 terajoules of energy. It STILL makes your argument look retarded. Even 0.78 terajoules is hundreds of times more energy than would have been provided by your hypothetical explosives. So no, my equation isn't wrong, and neither is my conclusion, whereas you have still failed to show any evidence of explosives.
talking of which, can one of you high school physicists explain to me why the sky lobby floors didnt halt or slow down ur crepe suzette collapse?
Can you explain why they should have?
Wait, no, I have a better question! Can you, Mr I-Have-a-Physics-Degree-but-don't-understand-momentum explain to me why a piece of drywall won't stop or significantly slow a speeding truck?
You seem to be having difficulty grasping the difference in mass and momentum ratios between something like 150,000 tons of falling building and a stationary sky-lobby floor.
telescope much as it pains u i have a degree in maths that majored mainly in mathematical physics.
Easily said, but hardly close to proven. Several major errors by you have been shown.
I think that it patently obvious from my posts. i dont claim to be a structural engineer but i dont need to be.
Actually, for the claims you make, you do.
no one has slapped me about, jenga was a perfect example
You've been taken to the wall and used on Jenga. Just because you are too dense to admit it doesn't mean you weren't.
they said the core was essentially hollow housing elevators and maintenance tunnels. the core could not have collapsed like a pack of cards(or jenga) like it did
Where did they say that? Where do they deny the existance of columns? Give me a page number, a quote? Don't expect me to take your word on it, you guys hear what you want.
telescope how come i need to be a structural engineer for the claims i make but its fine for alex just to have high school physics?
Because his work is not contradicting the work and opinions of SEs. His work does not contradict the direct statements of demolition experts.
His work is complementary to theirs, and counters your worthless work. If you are going to tread into another field and reject the work of all the experts, you better have some clue as to what you are talking about. So far, you failed to demonstrate even a small clue.
if u had read it telescope you could give me the page number, proves you havent read it
I'd say 'nice try' but it wasn't. The reason I won't be able to find a statement saying there were no core columns is because there was no such statement. You can't find one either or you'd be posting that quote instead of playing this sad little 'turnabout' game.
Stop telling lies.
The 24' sections were the outer girders that were bolted to gether in sections thus creating a weak point at the joint. Every one knows that joints are always weak points. There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. The floors were not designed to be self standing but designed for lateral loads. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. The floors had little or no rebar just steel screen like that of home slabs.
The failure of the floor system led to a free fall of a mass of approximately 30 stories and 14
stories onto the 80 and 96, respectively, floor structure below. The enormous kinetic energy
released by this 2-3-floor downfall was too large to be absorbed by the structure underneath.
The impact effect generated from this upper part onto the lower part was surely much higher
than the buckling resistance of the columns below.
The lighter perimeter columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 appear to have used column-to-column connections with 4 bolts, whereas larger members presumably from lower floors used six-bolt column-to-column connections. Core column sizes vary, with some heavier sections at the lower floors having plates 4 inches thick or greater. The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons. They were all bolted together which creats a weak point.
that is the exact quote telescope, its at the beginning of section 9. now tell me why they are lying
They're telling the literal truth. The core WAS a hollow steel shaft. The center columns made up the walls of that shaft. Inside it was hollow. Their statement in no way claims that the columns weren't there. You're simply misreading their statements in order to justify your own theories.
I would love for someone to do a count of how many of these posts are related to Judy Wood, and the song dedicated to her, as was the original blog post being COMMENTED on.
Seriously, maybe a FORUM would be a better place argue like this...the invitation is still open PD, although, as I said, I myself personally, am done dealing with you.
While I am sure, given how good natured both Pat and Jim are, they wouldnt say anything, these 200-400 posts on totally irrelivant (to the topic) posts with name calling, insulting, etc, is not really doing the blog justice.
Questions and answers yes, tit for tat name calling and rubbish...IMO not really a good thing.
TAM
"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped"
that is the exact quote telescope, its at the beginning of section 9. now tell me why they are lying
Because 'Hollow steel shaft' as I pointed out earlier, is not denying existance of the the columns.
In fact, several engineers have pointed it out as an accurate description a box column when this came up before.
So yeah, saying that we 'deny the existance of the columns' is a lie from you.
Steve brings up a good point (which has been discussed before, but regaurdless, let's rehash it):
"Every one knows that joints are always weak points."
The strength of the central and perimeter columns become pretty much irrelevant once the collapse begins. Even had they been strong enough to resist the downward momentum of the building, the connecting points between columns and floors would not have been. So, assuming the columns themselves had been strong enough, what you would have seen would be the outer columns all peeling away from the building (and we did see that in some cases) while the internal columns remained standing, with the collapsing mass coming down around them. You still would have had a collapse, it would just have looked slightly different.
Are you blind or jus stupid? THE CORE WAS HOLLOW! Go look at the damn blueprints! The internal steel columns were arranged as a box. Inside that box was HOLLOW. THAT is where the elevators were housed!
no telescope they are claiming the core his hollow not the individual colums. notice they say "in which" the elevators are housed
Its an accurate description of the structure. A hollow steel shaft is a decent description of a box column structure. You seem to be confusing the terms 'shaft' with 'column', at best.
so ur claiming they think the elevators are inside individual columns?
Where do you get these delusions? They are talking about the core being hollow, not the columns.
Goddamit! Seriously, I thought the UK educational system was supposed to be good! How the hell did you manage to squeeze through?
i have proved they deny the existance of the columns. next
It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.
Goddamit! Seriously, I thought the UK educational system was supposed to be good! How the hell did you manage to squeeze through?
I'm thinking maybe his degree is from Oxford.
The only thing PD has proved is that he knows jack about the towers construction
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. As you can see in the piks in the PDF they were in 2 story sections, bolted and welded together as were the central core griders. 12-foot floor-to-floor height. Every joint is a weak point but I would not expect a maroon like you to understand But then you never mention the 50-100000 tons of building pushing down of that the impact force was 4-6X what the buildings were designed for..
Alex
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm
Great construction piks here
The 9/11 commission was not an engineering study, it was a study of the terrorists who commited the attacks and the mistakes the intelligence community commited which allowed the attacks to happen. The fact that they may have gotten a few engineering points wrong is irrelevent.
Shaft:
# A vertical passage housing an elevator.
# A duct or conduit for the passage of air, as for ventilation or heating.
You really are retarded, aren't you? A shaft is simply a hollow object. A hollow object, by definition, requires some sort of perimeter. In this case, the interior columns made up the perimeter, otherwise known as the walls, of the shaft.
You really are pathetic. Even my uncle, who believes in every CT out there, wouldn't be trying to make these sorts of ridiculous arguments. Granted that's primarily because he's an engineer, and hence has a much better understanding of structures than you do, but still....you're arguing like someone who's never picked up a book in his entire life.
Steve, thanks, that site seems to be quite an excellent resource.
not oxford, manchester. You rang my tutor yet?
Give me the number, I'll be more than happy to. We can have a nice discussion about how he can better help you in the future.
they call it a hollow steel shaft
Which is an adequete definition of a box column structure. But hey, don't take my work for it, ask an engineer.
go find the definition of a shaft, it certainly isnt an interlocking grid if steel columns
Actually, it is. What do you think a mine shaft is?
have you lot bothered to read the 115 omissions and distortions that griffin points out in the report?
Oh look, its trying to sidestep the fact that it lied again.
thats right 115
Big numbers impress you, gotcha.
(For the record, the '115 omissions is the silliest batch of 'They didn't run the Comission the way I wanted, wah!' listings. Most of them have long been debunked, many of them were never important, and were just used to pad out the list. Griffin
a mine shaft has walls u cock
And is hollow. What is the problem here?
I wonder how many reports one could go thru and say they ommited this and that and come up with 115
Like all the so called scholars, Griffin is a fraud
What's a "raft of qualifications"?
Anyway, I fired off an e-mail to the good professor, so we'll see what he has to say about you soon enough.
60 million was spent to investigate whether that lewinsky whore sucked clintons bell end, but only 15 million was spent investigating the worst attack on america in history
You're just all over the freaking map, little doger. Why don't you just admit you lied about what the Comission said?
(For the record NIST was spending over $16+ million per year alone, and our boy has inflated the Starr investigation budget by at least 50%)
telescope why are u so frightened of revealing ur qualifications, erm because you have none.
First of all, you asked all of a few minutes ago. I am not at your beck and call. So get stuffed, I don't dance for kooks.
Second of all, I have said very little that requires me to have any bigtime qualifications. Even if I had none, I have shown I am smart enough to defer and consult the relevant experts to get proper answers. The only point I have tried to make any points about qualifications were when you made some bone-headed mistakes that could have been poor typing skills or a lack of credentials. Ergo I, and others questioned it.
Third, I actually already told you my qualfifications elsewhere. So I can see this is just your attempt to be a nag.
i have never seen you post ur qualifications, honestly. could have missed the post.
This is my fault?
anyway if you have more than first year level college education i will eat my tin foil hat
Bachelor of Arts. Physics. Care for some salt with that hat?
PD's against the wall on facts, so he changes the subject. Why do they all do that?
PD misinterprets how the word "experts" is applied, doesn't provide proper alternative arguments or answers, very very weakly nitpicks at arguments made here, rehashes already debunked arguments from conspiracy fantasists, yet tries to impress us with 1. A supposed math degree, which isn't helping him here, since he doesn't appear to know the path of postgraduate work (exactly how does one "get" a thesis, BTW?), and 2. An off topic post regarding the amount of money spent on two different investigations, which doesn't speak towards the veracity of any of the arguments posted here, doesn't prove his case one iota, and is an attempt at diversion on top of all that.
Ditch the money argument. I too am pissed at the amount of dough spent on the stupid investigation of Clinton. But as I've said in other forums elsewhere, politics does not answer questions on physics, nor does it prove any claim about the collapse of the WTC. Try arguing the points: Judy Wood has not provided an accurate model (how exactly is the tree anology "1,000,000 times" more believable than Jenga?). You have not properly answered Alex's model, you've only nitpicked at it with a single issue - uniformity of mass - without explaining exactly how that undoes his model. You have not explained how pyroclastic flow concepts apply to the WTC collapse, or even why others apply it. You have not answered the major obvious unstated question in Alex's calculations regarding the amount of explosives required and how it was installed. You have not done any basic research of the arguments posted previously on this blog, as they answer nearly every single factual physical question you've tried to bring up. You also cut and paste explanations from other websites without trying to rephrase them in your own words. Yet when people bring facts to bear, you respond wtih subject changes and very adolescent language. This is how you debate? You've not proven any of your points, only become intractable at trying to parrot arguments made elsewhere on the internet and answered in earlier posts here. Why don't you try actually answering the real points? Explain how Judy Wood's model is superior. Explain how your critique of Alex's calculations actually results in the building not collapsing. Explain pyroclastic flow, and why it's brought up in conspiracy fantasies regarding the collapse. And try using a word processor and proper spelling, please. It's very hard to take you seriously when you talk like a pre-teen on Instant Messenger.
In short, speak to the factual arguments, and try to address everyone as if you're actually an adult. Then, maybe you'll get a better, more informative debate.
all i know about u telecope is that u do re-enactments, which is something that is ridiculed in britain more than train spotting or going to star trek conventions
Its called a hobby. I'm sorry that you have no life, but many folks find hobbies to be enjoyable.
talking of wich why dont ur re-enactment posee rebuild the towers and fly some planes into them, u could all look up in awe as....they dont collapse
OK, I dare you to make less sense.
Bachelor of arts? its a batchelor of science here.
It depends on the institution.
i will not be eating my hat just yet, u see u could be lying about that degree
But I am not. You'll just have to deal with that.
besides if you want a game of "my degree is better than ur degree", ive got a masters, think that trumps ur bachelor
You started this dickwaving contest, and you're the only one with your pants down.
An Associates Degree could tell you you're out of your field with trying to tell SE's they are wrong. Heck, a first year could tell you that.
So far, you have yet to demonstrate that your alleged masters degree has actually meant you learned anything.
yes but some hobbies are slightly odd. bit like the hobby roberts and scott have of going to ground zero every week to argue with people they think are mental
Except it gives Abby great material, and quite frankly its a duty that gives great satisfaction. After all, when was the last time a fireman who risked his life during 9/11 came over to you and personally thanked you for what you were doing?
so u accuse me of lying about my degree and i offer evidence then u claim to have a degree and im supposed to roll over and accept it.
You made several real boneheaded mistakes, and more to the point, refused to back away from them. Instead you threw up more irrelevant things as a smoke screen. That's the sign of someone bluffing.
im very dubious but i couldnt care less. u r educated i can tell
Actually, you do care, otherwise you would not have been asking three times in half an hour.
i never claimed structural engineers are wrong, they just dont know how those towers collapsed so they pretend they do.
That would be the definition of claming they are wrong.
the firemen dont believe those buildings collapsed,
Uh, yeah. They do. Why don't you talk to some of them. Like Robert and Abby did. When they did that they revealed that what you say above is a lie.
How many FDNY members have you interviewed?
the engineers arent wrong because they arent publishing what they think. they are publishing something just coherent enough to fool people like
And yet no Engineer in the entire world is able to point out the problems.
You're beyond 'grasping as straws', you are just out and out slandering a profession since you don't like what they are telling you.
You guys keep talking about degrees, for my own information I was just curious how old you are?
At the time nobody thought they would collapse. Afterward studies were done by the most qualified people in the country. The whak comunity got a bunch of frauds and looked at the studies and asked questions that they knew could have multiple meanings and tried to make a case.
These conspiracy theorists have taken fact out of context and turned it to fiction, they have carefully selected random clippings which were the extreme end of the spectrum not the mean average of the time, meaning it is a very skewed view of what we saw and heard during our present period.
29 Ok that explains a lot
Pedoherty-
You get in these threads and you just keep backpedaling. What were you talking about originally? I don't even remember.
Take a clue, man. You can't defend your positions because your positions are indefensible.
You can't come up with any evidence that the U.S. Government perpetrated the attacks because there isn't any.
You're wrong. There's no shame in it, everybody's wrong sometimes. If you can't see it, though...
"experts are often wrong or misinforming. you treat experts as if they are the embodied form of the laws of physics. they are totally fallable, especially in cases of totally unprecedented events"
Yes, but you're not explaining how they are wrong! Explain what they've gotten wrong!
And while you're at it, explain how Judy Wood's tree model is superior to the Jenga one, or any other model. And explain pyroclastic flow's applicability to the observed events. And explain how your critique of Alex's calculations leads to the towers not falling.
You've done nothing but charge and assert. You've not proven a single thing, nor have you done anything but parrot other people's arguments.
well done on rehashing other peoples joke by putting pedo in my name. it was lame the first time, but the 5th repeat is lameness of the erm 5th order
what are you talking about? I didn't put pedo in your name.
"pdoherty76 said...
thats strange stevew because the other day ur lot was telling me loads of structural engineers knew that it would collapse."
That is a bald faced lie I never said that
Woods model is just bull shit nothing more
Thats the point. I have run into whaks and most are about your age, old enough to think you know things but don't have the experience to be taken seriously
Please tell us
Why do you ask questions that have been answered in great detail?
Give us your qualifications for anaylsis
Do you always answer questions with questions that have been answered many times?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?
Tell us about all your experience with building design
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with missles.
Which one have you designed?
A perfect example of PD's attempt to spin:
"you lot also said it didnt collapse at free fall speed, the nist report says "very close to a free fall rate"
Why is this a problem?
"that same report claims the floors below gave little resistance to the mass above which not only contadicts momentum laws but it also contradicts u clowns claiming the concrete turned to dust due to the resistance from the lower floors"
Thats a good try
There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. The floors were not designed to be self standing but designed for lateral loads. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. The floors had little or no rebar just steel screen like that of home slabs. The building was mostly hollow and did offer little resistance
I am responsible for what I say only.
Had you more experience and qualifications then we might be enclined to take you seriously.
At 29 you are still wet behind the ears
can you address the other questions?
Please tell us
Why do you ask questions that have been answered in great detail?
Give us your qualifications for anaylsis
Do you always answer questions with questions that have been answered many times?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with Structrial Dynamics
Tell us about all your experience with aircraft investigators.
Which crashes did you investigate?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with airplanes.
Which ones have you worked on?
Tell us about all your mechanical design experience with missles.
Which one have you designed?
Interesting Acme
Do you think that is why he will not answer my simple questions?
Dodgeing, weaving is the M.O. of the whaks. All I wanted to know if he was really qualified and what they were but these fools will never give stgraight answers. I have never had a problem with that but for some reason they do
Doherty's "blog" not surprisingly states that he set the whole thing up to prove we are his pets.
He came over here, posted a million times, challenged someone to spend 30 seconds writing an email to an address he provided, and we're his pets. As if we went to his blog and begged him to come over here.
Sad, pathetic and very amusing soul.
Doherty's "blog" not surprisingly states that he set the whole thing up to prove we are his pets.
Its the oldest, lamest trick in the online discussion book. Make a claim, watch it get proven false, and then claim you were running some kind of 'psycholoogistical expuriment on u guyz'.
It was candy-ass at least as far back as '94, and probably well before that.
telescope it has not and will not be proven false.
the irrelevant degree u obsess over is real and i obtained it.
sorry to doisappoint u boys
That's not even the point any more. You dared someone to check up on you, then acted like you were being stalked when they did so.
That he's a liar and a charlatan is no longer in question. The professor responded by asking for more information on myself before he commits himself to an answer. A perfectly reasonable request, but frankly I don't see a point in bothering the man any more.
This is the only time I'll bother responding to you, simply because of the amazing way in which you've just illustrated the CT mindset:
If I refuse to bother a man for no reason other than to further illustrate your abject stupidity, you accuse me of "backing out". Doubtless you'll go on to accuse me of being a coward who's not interested in the truth.
If I continue talking to him, you accuse me of being your "pet", and doing your bidding.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
I simply have no interest in any further discourse with an individual who has shown himself to be an ignorant, bigoted, delusional little man, and, most importantly, a liar.
Judy Wood is absolutely insane. Trust me, I'm an engineering student at the school she teaches at. She honestly has a screw loose, no one even buys her crap. Apparently, people who took her class just zoned her out when she started spewing conspiracy garbage. As for the song, it's more mocking her crap.
pdoherty76, she's certainly not an expert. Having taught a statics class certainly does not qualify her as an "expert" by any means in structural design. Unless you can prove to me that her graph of each floor falling is at all accurate (which it could be, considering absolute perfect circumstances in a vacuum), then you have no room to speak.
The PowerPoint is awful, it doesn't expose anything. The commission on the WTC said that it fell in NINE seconds (official documentatin), and calculated free-fall acceleration for the height of the WTC buildings would be 8.99 seconds. 1/100 of a second off, surely it's a conspiracy!
Post a Comment
<< Home