Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Kevin M. West]

I've read her work, it's nonsense. She has each ball released and start from 0 velocity as the one above it reaches its level. In reality the one above it would be impacting the one below and transferring momentum to it, and each floor would fail faster than the one before it as the momentum of the falling load increased.

[Len Colby]

I've read her work, it's nonsense. She has each ball released and start from 0 velocity as the one above it reaches its level. In reality the one above it would be impacting the one below and transferring momentum to it, and each floor would fail faster than the one before it as the momentum of the falling load increased.

Indeed

What Jack omits is that she is an ex-professor of mechanical engineering whose area of specialty is composite (biological and synthetic) materials especially dental fillings. Nothing in her resume or published works suggests any expertise relating to structural engineering, or construction methods or materials. She never justified her assumption the collapse would have come to a complete halt at regular intervals. I asked her about this in an e-mail but she never replied. Four professors of structural engineering at UC – Berkley, Northwestern University and MIT independently of each other (and any government agency in the latter two cases) all concluded the delay caused by the floor connections would have been minimal. I don’t know of any qualified engineers who have questioned this.

She also compared the structure of the "Twin Towers", which were 80 - 90 % air (by volume) and made of relatively small hollow steel columns and trusses bolted or welded together, to trees.

Also none of the WTC towers collapsed at anything close to free fall speed on 9/11 despite the repeated claims by "inside jobbers" that they did.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Len Colby

[Peter McKenna]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

Jack,

I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).

I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.

I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.

I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.

If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION"

doing calculations. Why?

Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by

any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by

anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless

of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree?

Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs?

How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult

an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough.

Jack

Jack,

Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html).

Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not).

Peter

[Jack White]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

Jack,

I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).

I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.

I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.

I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.

If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION"

doing calculations. Why?

Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by

any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by

anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless

of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree?

Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs?

How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult

an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough.

Jack

Jack,

Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html).

Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not).

Peter

The article I posted is EXACTLY TO THE POINT. IT IS SCIENCE, NOT THEORIES.

You are the one who's a few cards short of a deck, not Dr. Woods. What are YOUR

qualifications in engineering and physics to challenge her??? Calling her loony DOES

NOT ADDRESS THE POINTS SHE RAISES. You raised the question of the falling of the

twin towers, not me. I was just replying with salient answers to questions you said

had been settled. Do you possess better information than a professor of engineering

with a PhD?

Please read her studies and refute them if they are wrong. If they are not wrong,

admit it. I think you have not read the article, since you have quoted nothing from

it to indicate you know what it contains. Instead, you post non sequiturs.

I am not arguing. I am just presenting expert studies, not opinion. There is NO POINT

IN "BUILDING A CONSENSUS" of faulty opinions. That will not help find the TRUTH!

Jack

[Sid Walker]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Thanks Sid,

I will peruse the referenced site.

I am always very short on time, hence the request.

But, reviewing video records of the collapse of WTC 7, the symmetry of the collapse, the lack of localized visble damage precluding a complete collapse, and the descent, seeming simply too symetrical, and without a sense of a localized 'cause and effect' sequence subsequently leading to its collapse, IMO makes this a compelling starting point.

Likewise, the arrest of Zaccaharius Moussoui, and the lack of investigation into (with hindsight) obvious subsequent connections to publicized sequence of events and persons identified as the hijackers.

Lack of any video evidence of the pentagon crash.

These are some of the incidents which I find suspicious and which should bear tighter scrutiny.

Also likewise, some POVs which may be just what they seem (or not, but arguably may be far too distracting to start with), can be parked for later review, rather than become too wrapped around the axle (for now).

With my limited available time, this would seem a logical way (for me) to research this topic. I sense that this would benefit a large portion of people, like me, who are skeptical of aspects, but keep getting into diamterically opposing views on certain aspects, which ultimately detracts from making any progress.

Thanks

Peter

[Peter McKenna]

Little is known? I disagree.

Evan

Can you remind me who you are disagreeing with?

Sid,

Although we disagree on many topics and my sometimes lack of investment of time into some topics (as I have very little spare time), I do believe that you have a fine questioning attitude on areas of the 9/11 historical perspective.

I personally have found that some aspects of 9/11 have been contaminated with certain POVs that are not necessarily indicative of absolutely suspect presentation. For me this includes WTC 1 and 2, which I believe can be explained (and are, with some veracity) by the events as described in the mianstream. Even subsequent explosions can be explained by the effets of fuel air mixture, which can reach explosive detonation, once heated to flash point, and if at the appropriate fuel air mixtures (this is not to say that this is the absolute truth, just an explanation).

By contrast, events such as the collapse of WTC 7, events unfolding after the arrest of Zaccharius Moussoui, the behavior of high government officials, the secrecy surrounding release of what should be public information, certain aspects of the pentagon strike, behavior I have read about the hijackers, after entering the US, pre 9/11 intel, etc. do merit further discussion and explanation.

There is a huge disparity between the presntation/positions of many 9/11 'truthers' and who I believe are many, interested, parties (such as myself), and events have not been explained satisfactorily to a this majority of interseted parties.

barring WTC 1 and 2 (because I think the collapse of these two structures can be explained rationally, without attaching a hidden agenda), what facets of 9/11 (list them if you don't mind) do you think bear further scrutiny, since the facts as given today remain dubious, or have otherwise been spun.

I think there has been enitrely too many different theories, 'facts', POVs, accusations, and general noise handed out on both sides of the argument, tending to alienate people from the salient questions which should, but may not, remain.

Which facets do you think, merit greater scrutiny (and please limit this list to those most pressing facets due to being suspicious, obvious/semi-obvious manipulation applied, most negative implications if 'spin' is applied, and the most seemingly false legends given by government or media).

I think this forum would benefit from the examination of a list of the more controversial and/or abvious issues surrounding 9/11, instead of the all or nothing POV, a position that many 'truthers' have adopted. I think you would likely be able to provide a fairly objective and comprehensive list, of your suspicions and facets, and one which this site could help insghtfully edit to provide a decent base from which to debate, without getting sidetracked to more contentious facets. This will hopefully (maybe) help us avoid some of the more diametrically opposed arguments and begin a constructive bit of groundwork.

I would like to read your recommendations for such a list, and then make my comments, so that we could begin to reach some consensus on some of the facets most agree need some further attention. Does this interest you?

Thank you, Peter McKenna

Peter...you simply are not up to speed regarding the IMPOSSIBLE COLLAPSES

OF WTC 1 and 2.

Go to

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

and read the studies of Dr. Judy Wood, professor of engineering, regarding

the SIMPLE ELEMENTARY PHYSICS of an object in FREE FALL which can be

calculated by any physics student. She calculates the time it would take

a billiard ball to fall from the tops of the buildings vs the time it took the

buildings themselves to fall. BOTH THE TOWERS as well as BUILDING 7

FELL WITHOUT RESISTANCE, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. Steel and concrete

below the areas of impact and fire PROHIBIT the entire buildings from

falling at free fall speed.

Jack

Jack,

I do not wish to rehash the WTC 1 and 2 collapse. I have read the reports from various academic and engineering organizations, which explain the WTC 1 and 2 collapse to my satisfaction (at this time anyway).

I have other suspicions which I would like to see explored, and which others may agree also appear suspicious. Whether or not the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is either suspicious to you or you have convinced yourself that the 'official' (i.e. the explanation provided by bona fide engineering associations) portraying these events have been fictionalized is irrelevant to my request.

I am simply trying to come up with some aspects of 9/11 that are suspicious to many to establish some common ground from which I and others may begin some of our own research and evaluation. Bldg. 7 I believe is one such aspect. There are others.

I felt Sid could step back from the all or nothing POV and help come up with a set of aspects of 9/11 that more mainstream skeptics might agree with are worth further insight. Whether or not you feel some other aspects have been spun or fictionalized (that are not suspect to the majority on this site) will only detract.

If you feel strongly that WTC 1 and 2 should be re-examined, perhaps it would benefit this task to first establish some common ground for others who do not feel this way. A case should be built from the bottom up, and from more obvious suspicions to those less obvious. If one establishes reasonable confidence in the fact that WTC 7 was 'Pulled' in a controlled demolition, then one might find material for a case in point concerning WTC 1 and 2. Either way it doesn't do much good to insist on focusing on WTC 1 and 2, at this time.

Peter, I find your reply disingenious at best. You insist on a 'BONAFIDE ENGINEERING ASSOCIATION"

doing calculations. Why?

Why won't a BONAFIDE PROFESSOR OF ENGINEERING do? After all, these calculations can be done by

any PHYSICS STUDENT aware of the laws of gravity. Dr. Woods' studies can be understood easily by

anyone of average intelligence. A falling body accelerates at 32 feet per second per second regardless

of the person or group doing the study. Or do you disagree?

Did you take time to read her studies, or did you find them inconvenient to your preconceived beliefs?

How about actually commenting on her studies, and then refuting them if you can. No need to consult

an engineering "association". Common sense is good enough.

Jack

Jack,

Arguing over Judy Wood's input to 9/11 is totally off the point. Not only is it counterproductive to building a consensus about any pertinent matters that might be of further interest to the run of the mill, I think her theories are a few cards shy of a full deck (e.g as the theory about the WTC being attacked by star wars particle beams, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html).

Jack, you continue to waste time and energy inserting your opinion where it adds the least value. Please read my request. I do not wish to argue over WTC 1 and 2 in this context. If you wish to, please find a willing participant. I'm sure that you can find one somewhere (maybe not).

Peter

The article I posted is EXACTLY TO THE POINT. IT IS SCIENCE, NOT THEORIES.

You are the one who's a few cards short of a deck, not Dr. Woods. What are YOUR

qualifications in engineering and physics to challenge her??? Calling her loony DOES

NOT ADDRESS THE POINTS SHE RAISES. You raised the question of the falling of the

twin towers, not me. I was just replying with salient answers to questions you said

had been settled. Do you possess better information than a professor of engineering

with a PhD?

Please read her studies and refute them if they are wrong. If they are not wrong,

admit it. I think you have not read the article, since you have quoted nothing from

it to indicate you know what it contains. Instead, you post non sequiturs.

I am not arguing. I am just presenting expert studies, not opinion. There is NO POINT

IN "BUILDING A CONSENSUS" of faulty opinions. That will not help find the TRUTH!

Jack

"..This is science, not theories."

Finding one uninformed degreed theorist to support whatever theory which you subscribe to does NOT establishes Judy Wood's theories (and that is what they are) as truth, Jack, no matter how hard you proclaim it so.

Please stop wasting my time with your proclamations of what is science and truth, and who is qualified to differentiate between the two. I don't believe the Jack White 'Seal of Approval' exalts a dental orthotics designer into any kind of 'Expert' on the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers. I'm sure you can find an 'expert' with some kind of 'pedigree' to agree with almost any of your 'opinions' (yes, not facts).

I don't have time for this.

[Jack White]

If McKenna will not read what Dr. Woods says and then discuss what she says

because HE DOES NOT HAVE TIME FOR THIS, as he says...HE IS NOT TO

BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

If McKenna will not read what Dr. Woods says and then discuss what she says

because HE DOES NOT HAVE TIME FOR THIS, as he says...HE IS NOT TO

BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

Jack

There you have it! Jack White can now dictate who and what is to be taken seriously, what is truth, fact, distortion, anything.

Jack White is now is under the delusion that he is God.

Jack, your rants are a joke, LOL, keep them coming.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

1,000 APOLOGIES TO SID WALKER. THIS POST WAS MEANT FOR PETER MCKENNA, NOT HIM.

Has this guy actually read the paper he has denigrated on this thread? Here are links:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#energy

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#A

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#COM

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#COE

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#B

I don't know Peter McKenna, but I do know Judy Wood. She is easily the most highly qualified

scientist studying 9/11. She has degrees in civil engineering (with emphasis on structural),

engineering mechanics (also known as applied physics), and in materials engineering science.

These are the three disciplines most appropriate for the study of events at the World Trade

Center. I have known her for a year and a half, including speaking on the same poduim (at

Cooper Union in New York, for example) and having had her as my featured guest on "The

Dynamic Duo", 3-5 PM/CT, on gcnlive.com. (The programs are archived.) As the founder

of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I know most of the players. I am a big fan of A. K. Dewdney,

for example, but profoundly skeptical of the work of Steven Jones. Judy, without doubt, is

the most creative and productive student of 9/11, having compiled a massive assemblage

of photographs and other records indispensable to understand the nature and scope of what

we have to explain. (In technical language, she--and Morgan Reynolds--have been doing

what must be done BEFORE alternative explanations can be assessed, namely, clarifying

the explanandum.) For someone to suggest she (or her theories) are "a few cards short

of a full deck" displays massive ignorance, extreme prejudice, and sexual bias. I can see

no evidence that Peter McKenna is familiar with Judy's work and I resent this kind of depiction.

There are pleny of trolls out there who have no interest in the discovery of truth about 9/11

who are regulary misrepresenting her and her work. (As a nice illustrastion, VPU and State

University does not even have a dental school, but it does have a very strong engineering

program, so I wonder in which she earned her degrees?) Those unfamiliar with her work

would be wise to become acquainted with it, since, in my opinion, it forces us to face up to

the manifest incapacity of conventional explosives to account for the explanandum. What

occurred here has to have involved either mini-nukes (atomic or hydrogen of the 3rd or 4th

generation kind), lasers, masers, plasmoids, anti-matter or other unconventional modes of

causation, which is fascinating, since their use implicates the American military and the DoD,

which control them. Those who resort to denigrating phrases like "space beams" and "death

rays" are indulging residual junior-high-school attitudes to conceal their anxiety over coming

to an understanding of the phenomena. Weapons of these kinds exist in many versions and

can be ground-based, air-borne, blimp-mounted, or satellite-carried. Since she has yet to

commit herself to a specific hypothesis, it is difficult to see how "her hypothesis" could have

been refutated, as so many want to claim. That is a lot of rubbish. As many observers of

the devastation of the Twin Towers have remarked, some massive source of energy had to

have been involved, which went far beyond what thermite/thermate, RDX, and such could

provide. (See my critique of http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/manipulation.html and that of

Stephen Phillips, a physicist, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/physicist_critiques_jones.html )

It's a good idea to become familiar with someone's research before you start attacking it.

My opinion is that Judy's work has greater promise of paying off than any other approach.

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Edited June 26, 2007 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Hogan]

For someone to suggest she (or her theories) are "a few cards short

of a full deck" displays massive ignorance, extreme prejudice, and sexual bias. I can see

no evidence that Sid Walker is familiar with Judy's work and I resent this kind of depiction.

There are pleny of trolls out there who have no interest in the discovery of truth about 9/11

who are regulary misrepresenting her and her work.

Mr Fetzer,

I don't think Sid said what you said he said.

[Jack White]

Has this guy actually read the paper he has denigrated on this thread? Here are links:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#energy

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#A

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#COM

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#COE

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#B

I don't know Sid Walter, but I do know Judy Wood. She is easily the most highly qualified

scientist studying 9/11. She has degrees in civil engineering (with emphasis on structural),

engineering mechanics (also known as applied physics), and in materials engineering science.

These are the three disciplines most appropriate for the study of events at the World Trade

Center. I have known her for a year and a half, including speaking on the same poduim (at

Cooper Union in New York, for example) and having had her as my featured guest on "The

Dynamic Duo", 3-5 PM/CT, on gcnlive.com. (The programs are archived.) As the founder

of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I know most of the players. I am a big fan of A. K. Dewdney,

for example, but profoundly skeptical of the work of Steven Jones. Judy, without doubt, is

the most creative and productive student of 9/11, having compiled a massive assemblage

of photographs and other records indispensable to understand the nature and scope of what

we have to explain. (In technical language, she--and Morgan Reynolds--have been doing

what must be done BEFORE alternative explanations can be assessed, namely, clarifying

the explanandum.) For someone to suggest she (or her theories) are "a few cards short

of a full deck" displays massive ignorance, extreme prejudice, and sexual bias. I can see

no evidence that Sid Walker is familiar with Judy's work and I resent this kind of depiction.

There are pleny of trolls out there who have no interest in the discovery of truth about 9/11

who are regulary misrepresenting her and her work. (As a nice illustrastion, VPU and State

University does not even have a dental school, but it does have a very strong engineering

program, so I wonder in which she earned her degrees?) Those unfamiliar with her work

would be wise to become acquainted with it, since, in my opinion, it forces us to face up to

the manifest incapacity of conventional explosives to account for the explanandum. What

occurred here has to have involved either mini-nukes (atomic or hydrogen of the 3rd or 4th

generation kind), lasers, masers, plasmoids, anti-matter or other unconventional modes of

causation, which is fascinating, since their use implicates the American military and the DoD,

which control them. Those who resort to denigrating phrases like "space beams" and "death

rays" are indulging residual junior-high-school attitudes to conceal their anxiety over coming

to an understanding of the phenomena. Weapons of these kinds exist in many versions and

can be ground-based, air-borne, blimp-mounted, or satellite-carried. Since she has yet to

commit herself to a specific hypothesis, it is difficult to see how "her hypothesis" could have

been refutated, as so many want to claim. That is a lot of rubbish. As many observers of

the devastation of the Twin Towers have remarked, some massive source of energy had to

have been involved, which went far beyond what thermite/thermate, RDX, and such could

provide. (See my critique of http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/manipulation.html and that of

Stephen Phillips, a physicist, http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/physicist_critiques_jones.html )

It's a good idea to become familiar with someone's research before you start attacking it.

My opinion is that Judy's work has greater promise of paying off than any other approach.

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Jim...glad to see your input, but you mistakenly addressed Sid, instead of PETER MCKENNA

who is the one making all the absurd accusations against Dr. Woods.

Jack

[Peter McKenna]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Sid,

From the video footage on WTC 7, I only could observe the upper floors during the collapse, maybe the top two thirds of the building. The visible outline of the building showed no collapse of the roof periphery during the descent of the building.

Does this agree with your impressions?

I do not have the plans of WTC 7, they were not availble nor as accessible as the twin towers. However, since the twin towers were curtain wall design (as per a Discovery Channel special on the building construction) which facilitated their tremendous height and the ratio of the towers' height over their cross section (again allowing the construction of these buildings, which were tall and not tapered, e.g. Empire State Bldg. along the height of the towers), I would assume that the WTC 7, at 47 stories tall, was constructed as a simple steel frame design.

Modeling a steel frame design would include connecting elements between the columns (trusses), forming a 47 section box frame. This is of course oversimplified to a great degree.

In weakening various structural members (peripheral columns and trusses in various combinations), the WTC 7 collapse would require some amount of folding inwards upon itself (at best - to contain the collapse within the smallest footprint area), a gross simplification being a house of cards.

In any model manipulation, the building should not fall straight down. The only way to model this effect is to cause a complete buckling of all (or almost all) of the columns, on several of the bottom floors, SIMULTANEOUSLY.

In that case the building would fall straight down (basically the legs have been kicked out from under it), and the inertia results in the subsequent buckling of the upper columns, which would act as something like battering rams experiencing loading in excess of their allowable compressive strength (which for a standard 'W' or 'I' beam section would be at least 60,000 PSI (assuming that the slenderness ratio, the L/D is not totally wrong, which would be an extremely remote possibility). Also basically all of the peripheral columns would have to fail almost simultaneously. Therefore for the upper floors to remain intact, falling in a symetrical and dimensionally stable monolithic structure, as shown in the video I saw, it would stand to reason that the lower columns were either cut, or pulled out, simultaneously.

The modeling assumes that the upper part of the building did not fold inwards (I didn't see it fold inwards, did you?) before collapsing, that a portion or portions of the WTC 7 did not fail in succession instead of simultaneously. A cascading or successive failure wold have caused a structural failure in some smaller portion (a part of WTC 7 fails, the remaining loads exceed the yield strength of the remaining parts/sections of the building), and eventually lead to insufficient strength to prop up the remaining parts of the building.

The video images which I viewed show the building falling as a whole, not in stages.

Is that what you observed?

Lastly, the building remained oriented vertically and horizontally during the first part of the fall, in the same orientation as when it was standing before the collapse.

This should only happen if the lower columns were removed or simultaneously cut, such that the upper portion was quickly in an unsupported state, and subject to gravity, the building could only fall directly downwards.

This is the building behavior which I observed from the video footage available.

If anyone knows the type/style of building design for WTC 7, I would appreciate this information. Also if anyone had any other views of the collapse.

The modeling was rudimentary, but I am fairly confident that more advanced modeling would yield very similar results.

With the exception of the lower columns, demolitions would not have been necessary to produce the observed effect. High temperature exothermics, such as phosphorus, would have been very effective at significantly damaging the columns, but explosions would not have been necessary.

This is a theory, based upon several unverified assumpitons, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Sid Walker]

For someone to suggest she (or her theories) are "a few cards short

of a full deck" displays massive ignorance, extreme prejudice, and sexual bias. I can see

no evidence that Sid Walker is familiar with Judy's work and I resent this kind of depiction.

There are pleny of trolls out there who have no interest in the discovery of truth about 9/11

who are regulary misrepresenting her and her work.

Mr Fetzer,

I don't think Sid said what you said he said.

Thanks Michael. You (and Jack) are correct. I hadn't commented on Judy Woods paper. I wasn't familiar with it.

Having had a quick read, it looks like good stuff to me, FWIW.

[Sid Walker]

Peter

Today I find myself very short of time. Apologies for that.

FWIW, I recommend the website physics911.net, especially articles therein by contributed by by its founder and leading inspiration, Kew Dewdney.

The website separates articles about 'What Did Not Happen' from articles speculating on 'What May Have Happened'. That's elementary - as Holmes might have said to Watson - but it's amazing how much these two approaches get mixed up in popular debate about 9-11.

Proving (or refuting) the proposition that 9-11 did not happen as per the official story is the first logical step.

If one then takes the view that the official story doesn't stack up, it would nevertheless be hard to argue that case persuasively without at least one plausible alternative scenario. That's the value of the speculative section.

I could make the list you request - not today, but perhaps another time. However, I don't consider myself an expert on 9-11. But if your interest is truly to consider the 9-11 critique in its strongest manifestation (as opposed to the intellectual dishonesty of those such as George Monbiot who chase only straw men), then I applaud you - and believe that Dewdney's articles will not disappoint.

When the story is eventually pieced together of the evolution of the '9-11 truth movement', the pivotal role of that brilliant man will become more evident.

Before Dewdney's work on cellphone calls, for example, one of the main (and seemingly irrefutable) pieces of 'evidence' in favour of the official story were the phone calls to ground allegedly made by Barbara Olsen and others. These were widely publicized in the mass media. They made it seem certain that Arab hijackers were responsible for what happened to the planes.

Dewdney punctured that bubble. Although there has never been an official retraction, babble about the cellphone calls (and Barbara Olsen) has greatly diminished since 2003. Dewdney had exposed the narrative's Achilles Heel.

Dewdney also showed how it was possible to account for the events of 9-11 without any 'real' hijackers at all. His scenario - written up in Operation Pearl - may not be correct, but it is, IMO, plausible.

These articles are several years old. They have stood the test of time. Much 9-11 disinformation and many false trails have come and gone since they were written. Dewdney's work remains, as far as I can see, unscathed.

Sid,

From the video footage on WTC 7, I only could observe the upper floors during the collapse, maybe the top two thirds of the building. The visible outline of the building showed no collapse of the roof periphery during the descent of the building.

Does this agree with your impressions?

I do not have the plans of WTC 7, they were not availble nor as accessible as the twin towers. However, since the twin towers were curtain wall design (as per a Discovery Channel special on the building construction) which facilitated their tremendous height and the ratio of the towers' height over their cross section (again allowing the construction of these buildings, which were tall and not tapered, e.g. Empire State Bldg. along the height of the towers), I would assume that the WTC 7, at 47 stories tall, was constructed as a simple steel frame design.

Modeling a steel frame design would include connecting elements between the columns (trusses), forming a 47 section box frame. This is of course oversimplified to a great degree.

In weakening various structural members (peripheral columns and trusses in various combinations), the WTC 7 collapse would require some amount of folding inwards upon itself (at best - to contain the collapse within the smallest footprint area), a gross simplification being a house of cards.

In any model manipulation, the building should not fall straight down. The only way to model this effect is to cause a complete buckling of all (or almost all) of the columns, on several of the bottom floors, SIMULTANEOUSLY.

In that case the building would fall straight down (basically the legs have been kicked out from under it), and the inertia results in the subsequent buckling of the upper columns, which would act as something like battering rams experiencing loading in excess of their allowable compressive strength (which for a standard 'W' or 'I' beam section would be at least 60,000 PSI (assuming that the slenderness ratio, the L/D is not totally wrong, which would be an extremely remote possibility). Also basically all of the peripheral columns would have to fail almost simultaneously. Therefore for the upper floors to remain intact, falling in a symetrical and dimensionally stable monolithic structure, as shown in the video I saw, it would stand to reason that the lower columns were either cut, or pulled out, simultaneously.

The modeling assumes that the upper part of the building did not fold inwards (I didn't see it fold inwards, did you?) before collapsing, that a portion or portions of the WTC 7 did not fail in succession instead of simultaneously. A cascading or successive failure wold have caused a structural failure in some smaller portion (a part of WTC 7 fails, the remaining loads exceed the yield strength of the remaining parts/sections of the building), and eventually lead to insufficient strength to prop up the remaining parts of the building.

The video images which I viewed show the building falling as a whole, not in stages.

Is that what you observed?

Lastly, the building remained oriented vertically and horizontally during the first part of the fall, in the same orientation as when it was standing before the collapse.

This should only happen if the lower columns were removed or simultaneously cut, such that the upper portion was quickly in an unsupported state, and subject to gravity, the building could only fall directly downwards.

This is the building behavior which I observed from the video footage available.

If anyone knows the type/style of building design for WTC 7, I would appreciate this information. Also if anyone had any other views of the collapse.

The modeling was rudimentary, but I am fairly confident that more advanced modeling would yield very similar results.

With the exception of the lower columns, demolitions would not have been necessary to produce the observed effect. High temperature exothermics, such as phosphorus, would have been very effective at significantly damaging the columns, but explosions would not have been necessary.

This is a theory, based upon several unverified assumptions, so take it with a grain of salt.

If I understand you correctly, Peter, then I believe what you say of WTC-7 is true of all three buildings that collpased on the fateful day.

Whether the word 'explosions' is appropriate is another matter. The key point is that some form of controlled demolition techniques must have been employed. Exactly what devices, which technology etc... I leave to others, better informed than I, to debate.

Controlled demolition for such large buildings takes a considerable time to set up. If some form of controlled demolition was applied, the official story collapses. 9-11 must have been some manner of 'inside job'. Mass media collusion at the highest levels must also be inferred... there's no other explanation for how the official line has been spun so vigorously from the first few hours, IMO.