It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
At the time she sounded like a lone voice with an extraordinary claim and so the convenient appellation of "nut job" was applied to her
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
I am not endorsing the OS by any means, but I've yet to find a conspiracy theory on 9/11 that I would consider plausible.
Google Video Link |
Originally posted by snowcrash911
I watched a great video too.
A video wherein Judy Woods is interviewed by physicist Greg Jenkins from the Journal Of Nine-Eleven Studies.
Very courageous work by Dr. Jenkins! Really allows one to see if Judy's claims stand up to scientific scrutiny; highly recommended!
Originally posted by ANOK
For example, the NIST report claims trusses sagged due to being heated up, and then they pulled in the columns they were attached to. Does anyone really need to explain why that is simply impossible? If anyone does need it explaining then they need to brush up on thermal expansion. Once you understand what happens to steel when it heats up, you will understand why they sag, and hopefully why they wouldn't pull on the columns.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Dr. Wood doesn't make any assertions about who did 9/11, their purpose or anything about the airplanes or the pentagon. What she does do is look at the physical evidence and eliminate possibilities. Most of the evidence is hard physical facts.....
Originally posted by pteridine
.....is akin to claiming 'magic' unless it can be demonstrated.
Originally posted by pteridine
Expansion would be offset by sagging under floor loads as the steel was heated.
The columns that had been sheared by the aircraft were discontinuous in that span and there was little to prevent the tops from being pulled inward as the floor sagged.
Temperatures of objects
It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with a object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by snowcrash911
This is hilarious I can understand why someone like Anok thinks "She makes a lot of sense", she is about as confused.
Originally posted by Kester
Originally posted by pteridine
.....is akin to claiming 'magic' unless it can be demonstrated.
Much as the 'inevitable' process by which the towers became dust and debris can only be viewed as mysterious and unexplained until a model demonstrates the same behaviour. Do you agree with the view popular amongst supporters of the official story that it would be a "waste of time" to investigate this process?