Collapse analysis by Physicist & allegation of beam weap

[neilkeeler]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html#c3

Very good summary of the physics involved in the collapse including a very effective refutation of the official collapse theory. Good use of logic & diagrams to prove the official explanation is simply beyond the laws of physics.

Other allegations on the same site relate to a proposed beam weapon that could have been the cause of the devastation, spire vapourisation etc.

This seems entirely fantastic/completely incredible stuff. Is it possible this was the test of some incredible new super weapon? What do others think?

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

NB site is still under construction. See also rather disturbing news of the peculiarly cold blooded street murder of a student working for Scholars for Truth who was known to this physicist.

I find it incredible but again the physics should be the crucial factor. Would explain the basement wreckage heat & the lack of serious blast damage that a tactical nuke would surely have left? See the issues of trains undamaged beneath the WTC, she also makes comments on the damaged cars etc.

Views please? Any physicists out there got a view on this? Are Tesla type particle/beams a possible explanation or is this really sci-fi stuff still?

[A Sharp Major]

Judy Wood isn't a physicist, she is an engineer, on paper anyway.

She sees suspicious activity everywhere. There is probably something suspicious going on in her navel. This is one paranoid lady. I expect she'll go the same way Steven E Jones did.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/PictureTours/PictureTours1.html

File under 'unreliable' and I'm being kind.

[Andrew Johnson]

ASM,

I believe you are an OCT supporter - I think you may not have been made aware of our poilicy on such critical posts. We ask you to post in Critic's Corner and then post a link to thread to which you are referring.

As for Judy Wood, I have corresponded with her several times and her analyses are sound - being as they are based on lots of physical evidence.

It is to this which your post should refer, not her qualifications - paper or not.

I believe Judy Wood has also had a run-in (worse than Steve Jones's) with her superiors at Clemson.

I have a BSc in Computer Science and Physics - this doesn't not affect my ability to understand the basic law of gravity. Neither does it affect my ability to understand the lack of damage to the "Bathtub" in which the WTC towers were constructed, which Morgan and Judy's article discusses, among other things.

Thank you ASM for understanding our posting policy (which was revised during the time you weren't posting).

[Andrew Johnson]

Judy said I could post the following, which she sent me:
=======================

1. My Ph.D. is from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at VPI&SU (aka Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, aka Virginia Tech). Engineering Mechanics is synonymous with "Applied Physics." So, although the initial poster is technically correct (my degree is not from a department of theoretical Physics), he is NOT practically correct. His description of my area of expertise (applied physics) is indeed correct.


2. However, what is more worrisome is the comment by this poster (A Sharp Major) that implies "Wood is bogus because I said so." I have a problem with this type of 'cause I said so' "logic."

If someone had a problem with a technical issue I am presenting, I'd love to hear about it! So far, I have yet to hear of any problem with the technical content I have presented.


"Your mother wears army boots" is not recognized as valid criticism.

By the way, you may want to view this blog. It illustrates some comments by intelligent individuals.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t99633-50.h tml



J.

[blackcat]

[A Sharp Major]

I’m well aware of Judy Wood’s credentials. Degrees and doctorate in engineering therefore on paper-an engineer. I appreciate there are shared areas in physics and engineering mechanics but I wouldn’t go as far as to call them synonomous. Physicists don’t design and build buildings. As for taking issue with her technical musings, it has been done. JW might like to Google herself (dosen’t mean all her critics are correct either ).

Blackcat, I gave a link to JW's commenting on 'suspicious' activity. She refers to a cable as 'string'. No other engineer would.

[ian neal]

Critics corner please ASM

Thanks

[Patrick Brown]

Well I read the article and thought it was pretty good. Can someone thank Judy for her efforts and tell her she's doing a great job.

EDIT: After reading Wood's research I can no longer be seen to support her although her work on the speed of collapse of the tower seemed sound the "Beam Weapon" is just wack.

Listen to Wood's try and discredit Steven Jones here: http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=37437#37437

Here is what Steven Jones had to say about Reynolds' and Wood's attacks on him: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/JonesReplytoReynolds-Wood.pdf

[neilkeeler]

Coming back to the original topic is it comprehensible that this could have been some form of particle beam weapon?

Is it feasible for a powerful enough beam to be able to do this kind of damage to such huge structures? I understand they are completely feasible as a smaller weapons system but at this level of power?

Where could it have been sited a satellite perhaps or high altitude aircraft?

Just following this through for a second (that was my original intention a little healthy discussion!) surely if it did exist it would need a vast amount of energy? How would this be stored? Wouldn't it require some huge (heavy?) battery cell system?

Would it need to 'recharge' or build up capacity for multiple shots or was it one huge beam?

Presumable the suggestion is it was fired at some point after the collapse was initiated. Otherwise presumably it would have attacked the structure from the top down?

Would it leave any tell tale signs or smoking guns? The burnt out cars are rather interesting but did they all do this or was it only those nearest to 'the towers'? Might support the theory.

Would it explain the absolutely incredible 'spire' vapourisation? I find that absolutely eerie.

Sorry to have so many questions but that is probably a very good start if anyone else can share with me their informed & reasonable views?

[neilkeeler]

Sorry Andrew missed your link earlier has a lot of very interesting stuff, will read up before I post any more.

[Andrew Johnson]

<snip>

[Andrew Johnson]

[chek]

[Thermate]

[Bowery Boy]

http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/tesla/tesla1.html

[Fallious]

[Worried]

A non-scientific comment:

We know that the Official Conspiracy Theory is provably false - the 'energy gap' - between the official cause, 'jet fuel/pancake collapse', and the complete destruction of the twin towers (can jet fuel cut steel beams and throw them hundreds of feet?).

Judy Woods theory provides an explanation for this energy and provides two, I think, readily testable elements:

a) the molten steel - Woods claims this didn't exist

b) the 'disappearing steel' - not shipped to Asia, but 'poofed' by Star Wars weaponry.

For the purpose of 911 Truth, I hope people concentrate on exposing the anomalies within the Official Myth (Building 7, it's contents and collapse) and press or a full criminal investigation which will expose precisely 'what' caused the destruction of the WTC buildings.