I can’t see the video right now, but Judy Wood is certainly special. All the Truthers loved her because she has a PhD in engineering and thought the towers were brought down by demolition.
But then a few months after she became famous in those circles, she started advocating the idea that the specific mechanism of that demolition was directed-energy weapons beamed from space. The less-insane Truthers dropped her and her buddy Jim Fetzer* like a hot potato, many saying that they thought Judy was planted by the government to discredit the movement.
Yes, that Fetzer, the one who made his reputation by claiming that the Zapruder film was fake.
Now if she’d claimed that the WTC towers were brought down by a team of commandos who used dental drills to cut the support columns at least she’d be getting closer to her actual area of expertise.
“Now in photo 18 you can plainly see fluoride residue on the girders!”
I would call a 767 traveling in excess of VNE a high-energy weapon. On a different note, I’m surprised Boeing hasn’t been sued for misrepresenting the speed rating.
It was ana example…something a normal person could relate to. I could have said bricks, or cinderblocks. I knew someone would obsess on “lincoln logs”.
The idea was ratio…hight to width. Tall thin building as opposed to a shorter wider one.
Go figure someone on the internet would obsess on the lincoln logs, instead of the ratio I was referring to. I just used those as something anyone might have around the house to demonstrate how easily something that tall and thin could “tip over”.
It is overwhelmingly clear that you’re just preaching religion at this point, Mozart. You have no clue about physics or engineering. Not a clue. I barely know jack shit about them, but you know far, far less than jack shit. This is like listening to a creationist talk about geology and biology. Lincoln logs are your banana and 20 story “skyscrapers” tipping over are your crocoduck. I’m just flabbergasted that you’re shooting off at the mouth in other threads about how important education is. The average 10th grader could absolutely demolish you in a moderated debate about this.
You seriously believe a structure constructed like the Twin Towers could tip over?
You can see the top of one of the towers tip quite a bit, then you can see it shear apart and fall into itself.
A building is primarily designed to withstand vertical loads (gravity) acting through the long axis of the columns. As soon as you introduce other loads, such as those gravity loads acting other than through the long axis, you introduce bending loads that the columns can not handle.
As far as I can tell, he believes they SHOLD have tipped over, and the fact that they collapsed vertically instead is a sign that there is something rotten in Denmark.
Instead of saying “Well, my expectations did not match observation, what was wrong with my expectations” he is tying himself into knots trying to force the observations to agree with his prejudices. When they start multiplying entities so much, Ockham would need a daisy-cutter bomb instead of just a razor.
The video of the collapse speaks for its self. Comapre it to that of a controlled demolition. Very simple if you aren’t looking for excuses why it’s NOT a controlled demolition.
Why would they have done a controlled demolition anyway? Did Silverstein have some kind of interest in making sure other buildings weren’t destroyed- even though that would cast additional suspicion on him? In what world does this make sense?
This is where your assumptions and day to day experiences fail you. You are assuming if you build something shaped lie the twin towers but smaller out of similar materials it will act the same. It won’t. I don’t want to get to specific, but if you have 1:500 ratio model of the WTC would have (1/500)^2 the structural strength but only (1/500)^3 meaning its strength to weight ratio would 500 times higher than the full size tower.
Also, consider this. Why would any engineer design a building strong enough to hold together while it topples over? It would be hugely expensive, and reduce the usefulness of the building for with the only upside being to reduce the chance of something that is already extremely unlikely.
It only looks the same to people who don’t know what they are talking about. Yourself, for instance. Controlled demolitions start from the bottom. The Towers collapsed FROM THE IMPACT POINT (unsurprisingly, since they were hit by fucking air planes there).
Bottom. Impact point. Bottom. Impact point. Bottom. Impact point (the repetition is from the movie JFK…figured maybe it would work getting this information through the meter of so of bone you call a skull). Bottom. Impact point.
See the difference? There are, of course, myriad other differences that a trained observer could see (which is why trained observers overwhelmingly favor the ‘official story’ over the BS Truther non-sense), but this is one that even someone who doesn’t know much about the subject can see and understand the difference.
Let’s go through it again, since you seem to be having trouble grasping the basics. Controlled demolitions start where? At the bottom of the structure? Good, good. And the bottom is where? That’s right! At the bottom of the building! Very good. Now, the Towers collapse began where? No…not at the bottom. smack smack Where? Top? Close, but no. Try again. Where? That’s right! They started at the impact area! And what impacted the building? That’s right! A big ass air plane traveling at several hundred miles per hour!
This has already been explained to him in this thread. Instead of explaining it again so he can ignore it again, shouldn’t we be directing him back to where it was explained the first time and asking him why he ignored it then? Because if we explain it 100 times, he will ignore it 100 times. I promise you that.
The problem is clearly not that he doesn’t have all the information. He clearly does. The problem is that he is choosing to ignore it. If you don’t get to the bottom of why he’s doing that, you can literally hand him the book on 9/11 and it’s not going to do him (or anyone else) a picofuck of good.