9/11, 10 years on and Dr. Judy Wood

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Yeah ignore the pictures of weirdly melted cars next to intact cars 1/2 a mile away from the WTC.

OK, I will. Because those cars were towed there from the site. Are you really falling for this crap?

Care to supply your evidence for this towing or is everyone supposed to take your word?

psik

No, no. Go right ahead and believe that those cars mysteriously burned up under a bridge blocks away from ground zero, neatly tucked aside from the travel lanes. That makes much more sense.

The objective is not to BELIEVE anything.

The objective is UNDERSTANDING. But that means getting the data correct.

If you want to BELIEVE they were towed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that is your business. But if lots of cars were towed there shouldn't there be pictures of that and shouldn't they have turned up by now? And it is not like that is the only place this apparently happened.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
You mean like the distributions of steel and concrete down the buildings just so they can hold themselves up? The physicists can't even accurately compute the Potential Energy of the towers without that. And then the physicists manage to not mention that for TEN YEARS.

I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that just because physicists are unable to document the exact physical progression of the collapse down to every nut and bolt it necessarily proves conspiracy? That's like saying becuase we don't know the exact physical progression of the sinking of the Titanic down to every rivet and bulkhead it necessarily means all that bit about hitting the iceberg is baloney and it was really sunk by a submarine. The absence of information by no means gives you license to fill in the blanks with your preconcieved theories.

Besides, there hasn't been a single one among the conspiracy people who's been able to document the exact physicsl progression of the collapse due to controlled demolitions, nukes in the basement, or even Wood's lasers from outer space either, which I find disingenuous. What the heck is Gage doing with all that money he's collecting, other than simply concocting new ways to collect more money?

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If you want to BELIEVE they were towed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that is your business. But if lots of cars were towed there shouldn't there be pictures of that and shouldn't they have turned up by now? And it is not like that is the only place this apparently happened.

Rather than waste our time and yours from our trying to explain how there's nothing particularly mysterious or even hocus pocus about tow trucks, what say YOU explain how these cars were supposedly burned to a crisp by these lasers from outer space and yet all the people who were there (firefighters, first responders, police, workers from the buildings, etc) weren't likewise burned to a crisp. This is what Just Wood is claiming, isn't it?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The objective is not to BELIEVE anything.

Fine. But let me tell you something, if you can't accept anything without certified and notarized photos or paperwork then you're pretty much screwed.

The objective is UNDERSTANDING. But that means getting the data correct.

You mean you can't UNDERSTAND why they would tow burnt up cars away from ground zero and store them?

If you want to BELIEVE they were towed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that is your business.

No evidence? You've never heard of cars being towed away after an accident? Please.

But if lots of cars were towed there shouldn't there be pictures of that and shouldn't they have turned up by now?

Why? How did you come to that understanding?

And it is not like that is the only place this apparently happened.

No, you're right. Happens all the time. Cars are towed away from an accident scene. Everyday. Everywhere.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
If you want to BELIEVE they were towed on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that is your business. But if lots of cars were towed there shouldn't there be pictures of that and shouldn't they have turned up by now? And it is not like that is the only place this apparently happened.

Rather than waste our time and yours from our trying to explain how there's nothing particularly mysterious or even hocus pocus about tow trucks, what say YOU explain how these cars were supposedly burned to a crisp by these lasers from outer space and yet all the people who were there (firefighters, first responders, police, workers from the buildings, etc) weren't likewise burned to a crisp. This is what Just Wood is claiming, isn't it?

I am not interested in trying to make up bullsh# about what I admit that I don't know.

If the cars were towed then where are the pictures of them being towed?

The Spire looking like it turns to dust is more important than those cars. But I am not going to just dismiss them with a glib simple explanation without evidence to support it because some people just prefer to BELIEVE glib simple explanations.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Make your research on the Hankinson Effect, also on ATS. It is a quite obvious hoax. A sincere 9/11 researcher cannot try to explain something with it.

Dr. Wood is right big part about dustification, but it does not make her DEW version true.
If you like the "dustification" idea and looking for some explanations, why not to pick something more realistic, that releases a lot of energy too.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

If the cars were towed then where are the pictures of them being towed?

With collapsed buildings, body parts, fire, heavy equipment arriving, who would want to take pictures of cars on a hook?
It's not like anyone was documenting every minute activity of the clean up process.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If the cars were towed then where are the pictures of them being towed?

With collapsed buildings, body parts, fire, heavy equipment arriving, who would want to take pictures of cars on a hook? It's not like anyone was documenting every minute activity of the clean up process.

So then there is no proof. I am not saying they weren't towed I am just saying I have no reason to believe that they were. I DON'T KNOW! There are videos of all sorts of things from 9/11. There are videos of people's feet walking through dust.

I already said I consider the Spire looking like it is turning to dust more important than those cars. So why are making a big deal about cars? Does that give you something to muddy the waters about?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

So then there is no proof. I am not saying they weren't towed I am just saying I have no reason to believe that they were. I DON'T KNOW! There are videos of all sorts of things from 9/11. There are videos of people's feet walking through dust.
I already said I consider the Spire looking like it is turning to dust more important than those cars. So why are making a big deal about cars? Does that give you something to muddy the waters about?

You're right - there's no "proof" that the cars were towed into the spots were the pictures were taken, ergo, any means that you can conjure up in your imagination is equally valid. Space beams, gnomes, pixie dust - all must be considered equally valid.

It isn't muddy water - its part of the factual foundation for the j woods nonsense, or more to the point - the non-factual foundation.

You're logic made me think - I can't find one picture of anyone in New York City yesterday scratching their butts - do you think it is therefore reasonable to consider that no one in New York City scratched their butt yesterday?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

So then there is no proof. I am not saying they weren't towed I am just saying I have no reason to believe that they were. I DON'T KNOW! There are videos of all sorts of things from 9/11. There are videos of people's feet walking through dust.
I already said I consider the Spire looking like it is turning to dust more important than those cars. So why are making a big deal about cars? Does that give you something to muddy the waters about?

You're right - there's no "proof" that the cars were towed into the spots were the pictures were taken, ergo, any means that you can conjure up in your imagination is equally valid. Space beams, gnomes, pixie dust - all must be considered equally valid.

It isn't muddy water - its part of the factual foundation for the j woods nonsense, or more to the point - the non-factual foundation.

You're logic made me think - I can't find one picture of anyone in New York City yesterday scratching their butts - do you think it is therefore reasonable to consider that no one in New York City scratched their butt yesterday?

Provide a link to where I said anything about space beams.

But see you are not saying anything about The Spire. That is on video. Tow trucks did not do it. All you can do is play your psychological ridicule games. But we still have TEN YEARS of physicists not addressing the distributions of steel and concrete down skyscrapers. So scientific! What has Judy Wood said about it?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

If the cars were towed then where are the pictures of them being towed?

With collapsed buildings, body parts, fire, heavy equipment arriving, who would want to take pictures of cars on a hook? It's not like anyone was documenting every minute activity of the clean up process.

So then there is no proof. I am not saying they weren't towed I am just saying I have no reason to believe that they were. I DON'T KNOW! There are videos of all sorts of things from 9/11. There are videos of people's feet walking through dust.

I already said I consider the Spire looking like it is turning to dust more important than those cars. So why are making a big deal about cars? Does that give you something to muddy the waters about?

psik

Me, I'm amazed at all the photo finishes with 9/11, stuff seemingly too close to call etc. Did flight 93 crash or was it shot down? Is it thermite or paint chips? The spire seems to dustify just as it seems to fall, it's a razor's edge assessment and I've watched it 40 times.

Now, were the cars toasted there or towed there?

Whatever happened I bet they weren't driven and parked there seeing how THEY WERE LACKING ENGINES!

Ok. The clean up seemed to be organized with steely precision, the steel was removed and monitored, no one created a big pile of steel over on the dock or a big pile of office supplies and dust in the local park etc. I would think if you were moving wrecked and toasted cars you wouldn't just scoot them over, but like the steel and other debris (Fresh Kills) you would remove them completely from the area.

You got them hooked up, the steel had a definite plan, why not the wrecked cars? Why not drive them right out of there first run?

If, as many assert, the moving of the steel so rapidly and completely was suspicious then just parking the cars over by the bridge where anyone could look at them, video and photograph them, well that wouldn't do. And that would be inconsistent with the treatment of the steel and other debris handling from a conspiracy standpoint of hiding "the evidence".

So I'm interested in finding out which it is but I presently lean to it being unnecessary, too much double work and too risky if you got something to hide to tow and place the cars there that are 'toasted'.

Judy Wood in one interview I heard mentioned some EMS worker dispatched to the scene who, as Wood claims, was said to have felt heat on her way over the bridge, placing her unit on the other side of the toasted bridge cars in direct line to the towers. Which is strange because no one next to the parking lot mentioned heat while near the cars that were burning. Wood claims what appears hot by color as it concerns cars may not actually be hot, so what does it matter if the EMS worker felt heat? How can you say it ain't hot fire action and then say the EMS worker on the other side of the toasted cars felt heat?! So what? It's an inconsistency.


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned
Me, I'm amazed at all the photo finishes with 9/11, stuff seemingly too close to call etc. Did flight 93 crash or was it shot down? Is it thermite or paint chips? The spire seems to dustify just as it seems to fall, it's a razor's edge assessment and I've watched it 40 times.

Well I don't care that much about the cars or flight 93.

I think it is pretty clear that the Spire dustified and I haven't watched it 40 times.

But regardless of what happened to the Spire we should have accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the towers and the physics profession should have been demanding it for years. I don't even know of any physicist ever talking about the center of mass of the tilted top 29 stories of the south tower. That is certainly curious.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr


If you like the spire videos you may like the first 35 seconds of this:



Tell me, have you seen this before? What do you make of it? What would cause the core to disappear so completely and progressively?


Cheers

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Tell me, have you seen this before? What do you make of it? What would cause the core to disappear so completely and progressively?

I have seen at least some of the pictures before. For about two weeks after 9/11 the destruction of those two buildings was about all I could think about. My pledge father was an architect and we could watch the Sears Tower being constructed from campus. The impressive thing about any big skyscraper is the amount of mass being held up and that mass holding up against the wind. It can get windy in Chicago.

So the idea of those towers coming straight down just because they were hit by airliners made no sense to me whatsoever. Maybe I could believe the portion above the impact falling down the side but crushing everything below and doing it in less than 18 seconds? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Now what could actually do it? Explosives sounds the simplest but I am not an explosives expert. But all of this talk about it taking months to design an wire is ridiculous also. In a NORMAL controlled demolition the objective is to use the minimum of explosive and put it in EXACTLY the right locations to minimise external damage and of course there are not supposed to be any people in the building. But 9/11 was not NORMAL. Whoever did it did not care. So if five or ten times as much explosives was used then the positioning would not be that critical and careful so it should not take so long.

But if normal airliners were supposed to have done that then our normal physicists should explain it based on accurate data about the buildings. But they don't seem to want accurate data. Most of them don't seem to care and are saying nothing. Of course if they can figure out there is no way airliners could do it and can only see downsides to getting involved...

It does make you wonder what would have happened in 2002 if they had held a press conference and just stated there was no way airliners could do that. The media would have done what? Call them all liars?

psik

reply to post by NWOwned

I would think if you were moving wrecked and toasted cars you wouldn't just scoot them over, but like the steel and other debris (Fresh Kills) you would remove them completely from the area.

Did you consider they moved them just out of the destruction zone to allow emergency equipment in?

Those first few hours after, they felt there were trapped survivors in the rubble. They needed to get the heavy equipment into the area. Which means you have to clear the roads. Disposal of the wrecks was not on their minds.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

But regardless of what happened to the Spire we should have accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the towers and the physics profession should have been demanding it for years.

This line is getting tiresome to read.
There is accurate data on the steel and concrete. You just don't want to look.
I have found diagrams for the trusses, including steel size.
I have found bolt sizes for the truss attachment.
I have found concrete thickness and strength data.
I have found exterior steel cross sections with the thickness and insulation and exterior cladding.

You have it stuck in your head that all the worlds physicist’s must be in on it because they aren’t shouting conspiracy.

Why haven’t Iran’s physicist’s come out? Do we control them too?
Why haven’t N Korea’s engineers come out? Do we control them?

It’s like the whole world is hiding the whole cover up!
Or is it that you are wrong?

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

But regardless of what happened to the Spire we should have accurate steel and concrete distribution data on the towers and the physics profession should have been demanding it for years.

This line is getting tiresome to read.
There is accurate data on the steel and concrete. You just don't want to look.
I have found diagrams for the trusses, including steel size.
I have found bolt sizes for the truss attachment.
I have found concrete thickness and strength data.
I have found exterior steel cross sections with the thickness and insulation and exterior cladding.

You have it stuck in your head that all the worlds physicist’s must be in on it because they aren’t shouting conspiracy.

Why haven’t Iran’s physicist’s come out? Do we control them too?
Why haven’t N Korea’s engineers come out? Do we control them?

It’s like the whole world is hiding the whole cover up!
Or is it that you are wrong?

Grade school physics is tiresome. That is why it is so ridiculous this crap has dragged on for TEN YEARS.

The trusses were the same on every level. Were the columns in the core the same on every level? The perimeter columns came in standard shaped panels. How many different grades of panels were there and what were the weights and quantities of each type? Why is that so hard?

What about data on the horizontal beams in the core? Were they the same all of the way up the building? Were they arranged the same way on each floor. Since the elevator shafts were different lengths they did not have to be the same. So why don't we have something as simple as the tons of steel on each level? That would be so much simpler.

Why doesn't some engineering school that charges $100,000+ for four years of education just build a self supporting model that can completely collapse while damaging its supports in the process? That damage requires energy and that slows the falling mass. So why didn't that happen to the north tower?

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The trusses were the same on every level. Were the columns in the core the same on every level? The perimeter columns came in standard shaped panels. How many different grades of panels were there and what were the weights and quantities of each type? Why is that so hard?

What about data on the horizontal beams in the core? Were they the same all of the way up the building? Were they arranged the same way on each floor. Since the elevator shafts were different lengths they did not have to be the same. So why don't we have something as simple as the tons of steel on each level?

The great mystery here is: Why do you refuse to read the one report that may contain all the information that you seek?

reply to post by psikeyhackr

The perimeter columns came in standard shaped panels. How many different grades of panels were there and what were the weights and quantities of each type? Why is that so hard?

What difference would it make?
Suppose it was 6 tons per level. Or maybe 20 tons per level. Just what would you personally do with the information?
Are you personally able to reconstruct wtc in a computer?
Just what use would you put a complete set of plans to?

Most likely the experts look it in simpler terms.
Since all the floors (except the machinery) had the exact same trusses and connections, if you overload floor x to the point of collapse, all the floors below x will will collapse.

Could the design of the core support itself for 110 stories without the lateral support of the floors and exterior?
My internal gut says no because it's too small compared to its height. But if an expert comes here and says otherwise I'll accept it.

Could the exterior support itself without the lateral support of the floors and core?
My internal gut says no once again.

So we have three parts put together to make it work. If any one were to fail the other two would also fail.