" following my previous discussion with Miguel over the WTC building collapses, Judy Woods, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University, has recently published a website in which she discusses 'The Case for Controlled Demolition'. It's a damned fined case, scientifically compelling and approachable to the public. (link)i havent read through the Woods piece - but i respect Damien's judgement, prima facie.
Just a reminder: if the WTC were brought down by controlled demolition then the case for 911 as an inside job is a done deal."
btw - i know i'm getting lots of new visitors every day - ftr, this isnt a 911 blog - although there has been a recent focus on that - mostly because the blog is kinda sibel-centric and i recently stumbled across her statements that in jul/aug 01, she translated documents which indicated that blueprints and such of certain skyscrapers were sent to certain mid-east countries.
that info has led to a bunch of speculation about why this happened, and whether the blueprints were intended to help the pilots pinpoint a weakspot, or alternatively, whether the blueprint story suggests that perhaps explosives were planted in the buildings
that proposition is further enhanced by our recent focus on ledeen and the strategy of tension, and perhaps even the modus operandi of p2 and events such as the bologna train bombings
7 comments:
I have to admit, it sounds convincing but I am way out of my league in evaluating this kind of stuff. I was awful in Physics and only marginal in mathematics.
But just another cautionary note: we are talking about a mechanical, not a structural engineer. Do we have any structural engineers on record saying it's a "slam dunk" that there was a controlled demolition?
I'm always appreciative of your caution Miguel. But sometimes I wish you'd stop taking your 'cautionary' pills and take some of my triple dose 'tin foil' stuff. Especially when there is so much 'Bush-Fox-bullshit' already in the water.
In this case no medication is required. Judy's modelling, as a mechanical engineer, is scientifically sound. She takes the time of the fall of the WTC as the one indisputable fact (10 sec). She then looks at the idealised scenario of dropping billiard balls under the various scenarios that would SUPPORT the official explanation. In every case the result takes WAY longer than the result that could be obtained under the most idealised of circumstances.
This is why her results ought to shock people. They show conclusively that the official explanation fails (and keep in mind that the official report by NIST never examined the fall of the buildings at all, only the alleged structural weakening of the WTCs due to fire prior to the collapse).
I am not a structural engineer, but I have a degree in mathematical statistics, and I taught mechanics to high school students for years. I can tell you her modelling is absolutely sound on the mechanics side of things.
On the matter of structural and construction engineers or materials scientists, again, the matter is quite straightforward. WHATEVER the material composition of the building, or the manner in which it was built, the resistance forces of the materials involved in the collapse could only produce a WORSE outcome than those showed by Judy Woods. Even if they allowed for no building resistance at all (impossible) structural engineers would still be faced with the idea that the collapse time of 10 secs can only be explained if the entire structural edifice gave way at every point simultaneously. There is no reason why the lower floors should do this, and the videos don't support it.
The only explanation that accounts for the rate of collapse is progressive demolitions where the lower floors are weakened or demolished ahead of the downflow.
I agree with you that it is unsatisfactory that no structural engineers have come forward to support her views; but that is a social phenomenon, not science. Judy's science is real. I can only suggest to people that they bookmark her page and ask scientists they know what they think of it.
I am certain you are underrating yourself on your maths, Miguel. In any event, Judy Wood's claim is a quality one that you can show to others for their opinion.
Will come back to the physics stuff later, because I have to mull it over. I'm still not convinced, but I'm keeping an open mind. And what most makes me most keep an open mind is the stuff that's come out about the initial reaction to the events of September 11 by people like Rumsfeld (forget Bush, he was a deer caught in the headlights).
I just think it's awfully bizarre how quickly Rumsfeld and others seized on 9/11 with a plan to attack Iraq, who they surely knew was not involved. I believe it was within minutes. It did not seem they had a 'normal' reaction of shock and outrage against al-Qaeda.
Give me time to chew on the collapse- there's a lot to absorb.
Miguel,never take things on faith. Caution approved. I've posted some items on my blog headed "Judy Wood" in the hope that they assist. (I'll update them). There's always questions, I agree. But solid evidence for demolitions keeps coming in. Cheers.
Miguel - Here is Jim Hoffman's analysis of the NIST report on the WTC building failures. It's quite clear that NIST (the official account of the collapse of the buildings) is a seriously flawed scientific document.
Jim Hoffman is correct about NIST being seriously flawed. Kevin Ryan has documented one reason why - the SAME PEOPLE who made up the FEMA team who did the initial flawed building collapse investigations also were the core NIST team.
My degree is in electrical engineering (Carnegie-Mellon, '69) but at least at that school there was lots of "cross training". So I took required classes in material science, as well as chemistry, physics, etc. So whereas a structual engineer would be ideal, most engineers can present a well informed case. So, IMO, Judy Woods is highly qualified to make the assessments she has done, and she is quite correct in her conclusions.
Since there are more than a dozen different characteristics of the fall of all 3 towers which match those of controlled demolition, and since many of those characteristics are consistent ONLY with controlled demolition, the ONLY logical conclusion is that all 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition. And as Prof. Steven Jones has now proven, thermate was the primary incendiary used to do the job.
Judy Wood is a materials science researcher. Her focus is dentistry compounds.
She doesn't have any expertise in office towers.
She needs to shut up until she gets more experience with office towers.
Her stupid little graphics make light of the collapse in which thousands of people died.
Post a Comment