|
Post by echnaton on Jul 14, 2006 14:13:24 GMT -4
Please provide some names I would like to talk to them... I believe you could start with the authors of the NIST report. Care to refute in detail any of there findings?
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 14:30:18 GMT -4
reading is fundemental. Dr. Wood's models do not attempt to simulate the collapse of the towers. Her models merely demonstrate that physics ALONE can show that the 9/11 Commision Report and NIST Reports are wrong and put forward theories that are impossible. And the times are the Government times published as the Official Times. Only supporters of the pancake theory extend the times to get their explainations to just fit. So to attack the official times is to contridict the Official Conspiracy Theory.
The NIST Engineers have refused to debate the merits of their work. Which is abyssmal... reprehensor.gnn.tv/blogs/16483/NIST_Won_t_Debate_Their_Collapse_Theories
|
|
|
Post by phunk on Jul 14, 2006 14:43:28 GMT -4
Reading is fundamental, but understanding is obviously not in your case. My point is that her model doesn't even remotely fit the collapse of a building, so it is irrelevant. Her model doesn't even fit the fall of billiard balls. It most certainly does not show that the official story is wrong.
Care to cite some sources for a government claim of a 10 second collapse?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 14, 2006 14:45:23 GMT -4
You will find many, many people every bit as qualified or MORE than Dr Wood who would disagree. Some of them even frequent this and other discussion boards.
I would assume that you are capable of defending your views against people who know what they are talking about yet disagree, correct? If you can, and can stay polite, then stick around and show some of the experts on this board how they are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 14:53:25 GMT -4
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 14, 2006 15:45:30 GMT -4
Do you think this mention of "ten seconds" is intended to be an exact measurment of the time it took the building to collapse, or did they put "ten seconds" in the report as an approximate measure, emphasizing the fact that it was a very sudden collapse?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 14, 2006 15:47:39 GMT -4
That sure is a pretty big chunk of reebar reinforced concrete in those picts.....
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 14, 2006 15:57:35 GMT -4
The ten second time is the only one clearly stated, the Commision report was very careful to limit the information concerning the collapse times. Even if it is intended to be an approximation the OMISSION of times is just one of many omissions of the report.
That sure is a large piece of concrete w/ rebar for reinforcement. These were at the lowest points of the towers (foundations) directly on the bedrock.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 14, 2006 16:38:19 GMT -4
The official FEMA report shows that the seismic signal associated with the collapses of the buildings was 10 seconds for Tower 2, 8 seconds for Tower 1, and 18 seconds for WTC 7. Maybe that's where they got the figure for the Commission report?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 14, 2006 21:18:32 GMT -4
The ten second time is the only one clearly stated, the Commision report was very careful to limit the information concerning the collapse times. Even if it is intended to be an approximation the OMISSION of times is just one of many omissions of the report.
That sure is a large piece of concrete w/ rebar for reinforcement. These were at the lowest points of the towers (foundations) directly on the bedrock. The Commision Report was not primarily concerned with the technical aspects of the collapes of the WTC buildings that was up to the ASCE and NIST there was no need for them to get into the collapes times. The collapes obviously took between 13 and 16 second as even many CT site asknowledge. What exactly do you think those chunks of concrete prove? How does it diminish the fact that Jones confused reenforced concrete with once molten steel that had resolidified?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 14, 2006 21:43:43 GMT -4
Basically Jones is a prime example of a pretty smart guy who has let ideology cloud his judgment and skew his 'investigation'. Kind of like you bpd1069, huh?
He isn't the first and won't be the last.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 14, 2006 22:05:41 GMT -4
Dr. Judy Wood has numerous degrees in mechanical engineering, mechanics, experimental mechanics. Here is a link to her paper that was presented at 2006 Society for Experimental Mechanics Annual Conference... janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.htmlHer paper simplicity is its strength. She shows the collapse times alone are impossible. She supports Dr. Jones' work... And just to clear up some issues, Prof. Jones is focused on evidence of Thermate, that falls in his realm of expertise. That is his theory, the implications of Why and who are not part of his theory AT ALL. So if one is to attack his theory you must limit the attack to the paper itself. He has hard evidence, which tests were duplicated by atleast 2 other universities of sulfur in the slag material. The fact it was present may not seem important but you must realize for it to be IN the material the material would have to be in a molten state. This is in line with thermate, also evidence of maganese aswell (also used as an accelerant) Dr. Wood's paper is totally of topic for this thread it has been discued elsewhere on this forum. He area of expertise is detal fillings nothing in her resume suggests any expertise in structural engineering or building materials / methods. She never jutifies her assumtion that the collapse would had to have come to a complete stop at regular intervals. I aked her if she had any expertise in the subject and what her justification for her assumtion were but she never replied. Please offer evidence that he preented this at the SEM conference other than her claim. The only mention of her in the advance program is as chair of a session about "Bio-inspired Structures"(pg. 23) the topic of the conference was “The Building Blocks for Structural Health Management”(pg. 1) www.sem.org/PDF/06sAP.pdf there is no mention of her at all in the “conference at a glance” www.sem.org/PDF/06sAtAGlance.pdf or the “schedule of events” www.sem.org/PDF/06sCompleteSchedule.pdf “Prof. Jones is focused on evidence of Thermate, that falls in his realm of expertise” Thermate and thermite have nothing at all to do with Jones area of expertise “He has hard evidence, which tests were duplicated by atleast 2 other universities of sulfur in the slag material.” So he claims. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe he has yet to: -put this claim in writing -say what the other universities were -release any details of this analysis -claim to have detected barium nitrate which there is 14 – 15 x more of than sulfur in thermate -explain how he eliminated other sources such as heating oil or gypsum from the dry wall etc a potential sources of sulfur -explain how he verified the origin of the steel scrapings. “but you must realize for it to be IN the material” In the Alex Jones interview he said it had been scraped off the steel.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 15, 2006 13:46:04 GMT -4
Dr. Wood's paper is totally of topic for this thread it has been discued elsewhere on this forum. I was asked to point to someone who has relevent expertise in Structual Engineering. I produced Dr. Woods. I cited the paper to establish that she does indeed support the over all conclusion that everyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement shares. The Official Conspiracy Theory is not true. But since you have attacked the merits of her work I will answer them in turn. He area of expertise is detal fillings nothing in her resume suggests any expertise in structural engineering or building materials / methods.
Her academic resume is here - www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdfnote: Teaching Interests: Statics, Structures and Soldi Mechanisc, Experimental Stress Analysis. Research Interests: Experimental Stress Analysis, Optical Methods of Deformation Analysis, Morie Interferometry, Biomaterials, Composite Materials, Micromechanics, Bimaterial Interfaces. Additional information can be found here - www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/www.ces.clemson.edu/~woodj/EM893.htmShe has degrees in : civil engineering, engineering mechanics, materials engineering science, and mechanical engineering She never jutifies her assumtion that the collapse would had to have come to a complete stop at regular intervals.
She acknowledges the issue and even allows the false assumption to exist, the assumption lets the Official Theory hold on to an incorrect conclusion, which pancaking can pulverize the floors and yet over come the strength the lower floor. From the last paragraph of Case#1: "To illustrate the timing for this domino effect, we will use a sequence of falling billiard balls, where each billiard ball triggers the release of the next billiard ball in the sequence. This is analogous to assuming pulverization is instantaneous and does not slow down the process. In reality, this pulverization would slow down the "pancake" progression, so longer times would be expected. Thus, if anything, this means the calculated collapse times are more generous to the official story than they need to be." I aked her if she had any expertise in the subject and what her justification for her assumtion were but she never replied.
Her "Academic Resume" speaks volumes for her, all you need to do is read it. Please offer evidence that he preented this at the SEM conference other than her claim. The only mention of her in the advance program is as chair of a session about "Bio-inspired Structures"(pg. 23) the topic of the conference was “The Building Blocks for Structural Health Management”(pg. 1) www.sem.org/PDF/06sAP.pdf there is no mention of her at all in the “conference at a glance” www.sem.org/PDF/06sAtAGlance.pdf or the “schedule of events” www.sem.org/PDF/06sCompleteSchedule.pdf. Here is abstract for her conference paper as well as a powerpoint presentation that was presented at the conference. Her insight into biologically-inspired structures offers an examination of the tree-like structure of the Towers. www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PPT_Presentations.html#JudyWoodThermate and thermite have nothing at all to do with Jones area of expertise Dr. Jones is addressing the existance of Thermite/Thermate/Superthermite at WTC. The methods he is using fall squarely in his expertise of Archaeometry, specifically using different methods to determine the chemical composition of a material. So he claims. Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe he has yet to: -put this claim in writing -say what the other universities were -release any details of this analysis -claim to have detected barium nitrate which there is 14 – 15 x more of than sulfur in thermate -explain how he eliminated other sources such as heating oil or gypsum from the dry wall etc a potential sources of sulfur -explain how he verified the origin of the steel scrapings. He has not published his findings but has stated that preliminary research indicates evidence of Thermate. Prof. Jones is research scientist, I assume things work a bit slower than internet speed when one has professional and academic standards to follow. In the Alex Jones interview he said it had been scraped off the steel. I never heard the interview, but I do remember that he has stated there was two independant sources of material and both sources show the same things.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jul 15, 2006 14:49:50 GMT -4
claim to have detected barium nitrate which there is 14 – 15 x more of than sulfur in thermate
This is a show stopper for me. Unless he finds barium, how can he conclude that the ONLY way sulfur could come to be found on the steel is from thermate?
I am just not impressed with his research, as are a good many folks who, more than I, would know what they are talking about.
Smoking gun evidence of CD? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by bpd1069 on Jul 15, 2006 16:45:47 GMT -4
Then you have a very low threshold for critical analysis. Thermate embodies a large class of compositions which undergo a thermite reaction. Different compositions have different properties, such as the amount of energy released as well as the rate of energy released. This 14-15x ratio of Barium Nitrate and Sulfur is valid if you are talking about Thermate-TH3 which is used by the US Military, specifically for soldiers to wield as a grenade to cut open doors or safes. There are many more formulations of Thermate, this is the purpose of the chemical analysis to determine which classes can be ruled out and which remain. I believe another material found in large abundence is potassium permanganate, also an accelerant.
Another class of Thermites would be Superthermite, which uses nanoaluminum to dramatically increase the surface area of the alumnium and thus move the thermite reaction (which traditionally is slow) into the realm of explosives. Look for "Nanoaluminum" and "Energetics" to get a feel for how much money is being poured into research. I believe Univ of Minnesota has a large research grant from the DoD into this emerging technology.
A traditional application of superthermite would be the ignition systems for some airbag systems, using "Superthermite Matches". These are quick acting charges which initiate the expansion of air-bags found in automobiles. They are electronic ignition devices.
|
|