9/11 Judy Wood Lecture explaining the Facts about WHAT happened

Dunno about the thread title.
But I as an engineer and a pilot fully support judy in the video.
I too watched i9/11 live on tv in new jersey amd my thoughts
at that moment fully echo judy's thoughts

I think all of the 911 theories are quite honestly bananas and well into the realm of outright gaga land.

Most of it stems on the whole "it is impossible to melt the steel work at temperature x, and its improbable that the temperature was higher"

Let me ask this one, as someone who is a physicist and has worked closely with engineers to get some pretty weird and wonderful things built... What happens to the yield strength of steel when you heat it up, even to about 500-600C?

You seriously reduce the yield strength. For a structure as heavily damaged as it was, you don't need that much to get it started, the mass of material which is supported by less strength can start to move, you just need to sheer off a couple of rivets, crack the odd weld and you will get it to move. And once it has started moving, it wont stop.

Even the distruction of building 7 is a none question. everyone says it was not damaged or on fire... though if you dig around you will see pictures of building 7 (before it fell) with most of one side of it missing, fire and smoke billowing out. Plus, the building had been retrofitted and hand the load bearing structures in the middle of it drastically altered to form a horizontal load transfer. This while strong enough to support a building, was not really good enough to support a building that had had some steelwork dropped all over it while it too was on fire.

Even the whole "there is no debris around the pentagon" thing is silly... do you know how much material is between you and the outside on an aircraft? Not a whole lot... and do you know what happens when you smack an aircraft into reinforced concrete? It pretty much vaporizes. Look at any air crash that happens with a high velocity impact... you are left with a big smoking hole in the ground.

This case the velocity was horizontal mostly and the ground was not soft, it was as hard a concrete as you can make...


Seriously, let it go.... wait what am i saying, JFK died 50 years ago and people still haven't let that one go, I guess its difficult to argue against this kind of conspiracy 'faith'

i watched the video - not all of it, just the bit around 52 minutes, the bit in question, and what I saw (because I have no sound on my work pc) was the building falling, creating loads of dust clouds. it cleared enough to see some steels still standing, which then fell, nearly vertically, at what appeared to be near normal gravitational acceleration, and that's faster than the dust that was on the steels. You can watch the small ball of stuff about half way up the single spire of steel - it falls faster into the dust than the dust around it.

my conlcusion - steels not 'vaporized' or 'dustified', normal physics taking place. No reason to believe in 'energy beam', and certainly this thread is not 'proof of free energy'.

ErosA433


Let me ask this one, as someone who is a physicist and has worked closely with engineers to get some pretty weird and wonderful things built...

Like for example?

Particle beams? didn't see that.

But after watching the video and watching steal beams, "dustify" Im going to have to go along with the crown that think miniature battle field nukes were involved. Thermite may have also played a part in certain areas of the buildings a well.

Al well placed, all well timed. Why do I think that? Tritium levels, and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster. And wait, theirs more.....

First responders getting mysteriously sick, almost a epidemic. Radiation sickness?

This does not appear to be your ordinary nuke. This seemed to be targeted against, Iron. The aluminum facade of the building was just about the only thing left, while cars blocks away had their engine blocks turned to dust. All of those cars that just burst into flames, ya know.

The more iron content something had, the more it was targeted, it seems. just a observation.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


No commercial products, mainly items to perform tasks specific to our needs and research. One such item that I have observed designing and testing and upgrades to get to work correctly is a robot which is designed to fit into a acrylic sphere and sand the inner surface. Deployment is via a 13ft long 8 inch wide tube. Which sounds fairly easy mechanically but the reality is, we need it to run constantly for about 400hours without anything breaking off.
We have already witnessed hardened tooling steel bend and sheer because of the forces applied.


Iv also witnessed deployment of a structure that has a 6meter cantilever arm, which is deployed down a similarly long neck section for the purpose of cleaning the SNO+ detector, IT is not as easy as it looks when you want to stand on a suspended platform that is 6meters off the centre and not have the vertical section of the piece move at all.

I have also sheered off more 5/8 inch bolts than I care to remember during my work constructing vacuum jacketed purification equipment.

There are other smaller projects but, all i am trying to say here is that, I have heard so many people make comments about this kind of stuff, and yet they have no concept of yield strength breaking points or any idea of how easy it is to break off pieces of solid metal given enough of a push.

One of our pieces of purification system has a flange on it that is 1.25 inches thick and is about 14 inches in diameter... it is warped because we think it was dropped in the mechanical workshop. Dropped from no more a hight of 1 meter. People make comments about this stuff and have never really worked near the edges of possibility, and have no clue what happens when you build large scale structures. (larger than something that fits on a desk)

reply to post by All Seeing Eye


Sicknesses can be caused by a multitude of things. The fact that there would have been quite a lot of aviation fuel dumped into the building, along with lots of smashed fluorescent tube lighting for one, full of mercury and lovely white powered phosphor/wavelength shifting chemicals. Not to mention fumes from burning plastics that often don't behave like you expect and rise but often sink downwards.

The amount of crap in a building of any type... pretty sure anyone would get sick if you in the time scale of about 2 hours smushed it all up and dumped it into the ventillation, would make anyone quite sick, not to mention shock, PTSD

Anyway, this post doesn't really belong here in S&T

All Seeing Eye
and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster.

What vehicles were they? Link?

while cars blocks away had their engine blocks turned to dust. All of those cars that just burst into flames, ya know.

What cars?

I see what he means in the video!!!
the steel beams are swaying.
then fall and Blow away in the wind !
no way is the dust on the beams, it is swaying.

hellobruce

All Seeing Eye
and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster.

What vehicles were they? Link?

while cars blocks away had their engine blocks turned to dust. All of those cars that just burst into flames, ya know.

What cars?

Cars that were running when the dust cloud came through and ground the engines to bits did occasionally catch fire in the engine compartment. Ones that weren't running did not. And there was a gas main that ruptured near a car park adjacent to the building and burned a few parked cars. A few of the less apt truthers try to claim it was EMP, however, you don't get much in the way of EMP from a ground burst (1), they fail to explain why the power remained on (2) or why the walkie talkies weren't affected (3) or the helicopters that weren't dropped in the drink (3) or the news cameras remained functional (4), the list goes on and on.

No engine blocks were turned to dust, though, and a nuke wouldn't do that anyway.

The truther-nukers don't use a lot of observation or logic, you can't, really, and believe that to be true. Like the gentleman from upthread with the observation "Some of them became ill! Radiation sickness? UMM?" which is ridiculous on its face. If you've got radiation sickness, it's pretty stereotypical and easy to spot. Like the radiation itself, which would be detectable by anyone with a counter. That's if you ignore the little things like people not being dead all over the island, or the sad fact that 5 psi of overpressure will strip the facade off the building and blow it about the island as well. Or that nukes don't vaporize metal any more than Judy's energy beams.

And again, you don't get to just "dustify" steel without the earth shattering kaboom. It's explosive or it makes dramatic fireworks, depending on the dustification size.

winofiend
I believe OP should be warned or banned.

idiotic thread title. Arrogant stupid logic. And a lie to boot.

It's running rampant these days. Some goober on youtube makes a claim. Comets the size of galaxies and nasa lies. Shut up you nasa employees who do not believe me and the expert on youtube...

Now Free Energy. Just watch it in action.. as I make up lies to show my stupidity.

And people wonder why I go nuts half the time. Is there any sanity left?


Go back to youtube and prove it to other youtubeans. they like it.

1st Judy Wood is a Phd. You call her a goober.
2nd Judy Wood gave a lecture which someone recorded and posted to youtube. She did not post it herself.
3rd I will no longer reply to your posts.

leostokes

1st Judy Wood is a Phd. You call her a goober.

If she believes that you can turn steel into monatomic dust with a satellite death beam, she IS a goober.

Unless she can explain the lack of the earth-shattering kaboom.

hellobruce

All Seeing Eye
and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster.

What vehicles were they? Link?

while cars blocks away had their engine blocks turned to dust. All of those cars that just burst into flames, ya know.

What cars?

drjudywood.com...

There were over 1400 melted vehicles around the area of the twin towers. Many of them were missing engine blocks, melted tires and interiors, door handles and missing glass in many. What's very strange is that some of the cars were literally twisted and distorted as if they had been put in a blast furnace yet there was paper all around them that was not burned! This really doesn't make much sense if you believe the official story. Many of these cars were many blocks away from the towers with some being .5 mile away from the closest tower!

Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero. And of course we have ALL the strange cancers from first responders and many of them have died. They were forced to wear "air quality" badges which Dimitri says were really just radiation detectors in disguise so they could monitor everybody's exposure and pull people out of the hot zones for a while when their badges reported higher radiation. Easy to lie to everybody and tell them the badge is to monitor air quality. That is pure garbage if you think about it. There is not going to be that much difference in "air quality around such a relatively small area anyway.

www.project.nsearch.com...

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

reply to post by leostokes


Steel to dust.....?


Looks like of steel here ........

911research.wtc7.net...

So if it all turned to dust what is the steel doing here.......?

OneFreeMan
The video is faked and features the same or similar software
that was used in the movie independence day.

Judy wood is a gatekeeper/disinformation agent.

I will not reply to any future post of yours.

The 52:10-52:22 clip to which I refer compares visually with video which appeared on live network TV. The live news video shows the same information as in the clip Judy Wood is using. Therefore your poorly researched assertion implies that a live TV video was faked.


Live Canada TV video shows steel turning to dust.

**ATTENTION**
Allow me the remind the membership of the following.

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

Carry On.

~Tenth

firefight
reply to post by leostokes

 

Steel to dust.....?


Looks like of steel here ........

911research.wtc7.net...

So if it all turned to dust what is the steel doing here.......?

It does indeed look like steel.

No one doubts that steel was removed from the WTC site.

You miss the point.

The amount of steel removed from the site as about 10% - 20% of the amount of steel at the site before 911. Based on a study by an engineer Phd which compares seismograph images of collapsing buildings during controlled demolition.

Ask if you want a link.

All Seeing Eye

hellobruce

All Seeing Eye
and vehicles spontaneously igniting that were not even close to the disaster.

What vehicles were they? Link?

while cars blocks away had their engine blocks turned to dust. All of those cars that just burst into flames, ya know.

What cars?

drjudywood.com...

There were over 1400 melted vehicles around the area of the twin towers. Many of them were missing engine blocks, melted tires and interiors, door handles and missing glass in many. What's very strange is that some of the cars were literally twisted and distorted as if they had been put in a blast furnace yet there was paper all around them that was not burned! This really doesn't make much sense if you believe the official story. Many of these cars were many blocks away from the towers with some being .5 mile away from the closest tower!

Good grief, the cars blocks away were towed there.... any evidence at all of missing engine blocks?

So you think it is strange a fire melts/burns plastic parts of a car but does not effect steel....

Also it was never explained why Tritium levels were 55 times more than normal at ground zero.

Yes it was, as you would know if you had actually read the report...

he quantities reported are extremely small, and, as the same report states, their likely source was tritium radioluminescent devices in the World Trade Center.

911research.wtc7.net...

leostokes
The amount of steel removed from the site as about 10% - 20% of the amount of steel at the site before 911.

Your source for that claim is.....?