This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) at 06:57, 18 December 2006 (WP:BLP violation.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:57, 18 December 2006 by Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) (WP:BLP violation.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
.jpg){kind=small} | Physics Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 Archives |
Controlled Demolitions and Common Sense
Many people call those who understand physics "conspiracy theorists". Steel framed buildings are over-designed. Thinking that one could collapse at freefall speed from anything other than a controlled demolition is absurd. In order to collapse at free fall speed, the underlying floors need to be removed before the floors above. It's something called Conservation of Momentum, and anyone not familiar with this should get educated before making a fool of themselves using the CT term again.
Former Clemson Univ Mechanical Engineering Professor Judy Wood already PROVED controlled demolitions, and her paper "A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory" has not been refuted. (Google it here, but I can't post the direct tripod.com link because wikipedia blacklisted it.)
Now take a look at her "Star Wars Beam Weapon" paper. (google it here.) Contrary to Steven Jones "thermate", the Star Wars Beam Weapon theory takes into account ALL of the evidence. (A new paper "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" by Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds (google it here) details the many mistakes Jones has made.) Anyone having even the tiniest bit of scientific reasoning skills should know that a hypothesis is only valid if it accounts for ALL of the evidence. I encourage all to carefully look through her papers and try to understand the information she reveals.
For instance, she says the towers did not collapse, but were blown up from the top down with a high-energy exotic weapon. Here are three examples of Massive Energy Releases:
1. Mount St Helens - Erupting Volcano:
2. Nevada Desert - Nuclear Blast:
3. WTC - High Energy Demolition? Standard CD? Impact Damage/Fires?
NINE PIECES OF EVIDENCE FOR SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ON 9/11:
1. Seismic readings too low to account for two 500,000 ton towers . Dr Wood claims the lower 20 floors may have collapsed in a regular controlled demolition. This would account for the seismic readings, the existing debris, and the eyewitness testimony of explosions. (On Dec 14, 2006, a NIST scientist said "...the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant...". See Wood's "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" for mp3 links.)
2. Concrete pulverized to powder in a way that cannot be accounted in a standard controlled demolition. (i.e. more than 50% of samples under 100 microns)
3. Steel spire turns to dust and trickles down in news videos.
4. Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers.
5. Toasted cars over half a mile from Ground Zero.
6. Large sections of buildings "vanish". Round holes in WTC 5 roof ; Large vertical chunks "missing" from WTC 3 and WTC 6
7. Downtown Manhattan not flooded. If one million tons of towers collapsed on the slurry wall / bathtub at freefall speed, it would have broken through and flooded New York.
8. All airplanes ordered to land about fifteen minutes before the South Tower is destroyed. Right after the North Tower goes, government allows military aircraft back up.
9. Evidence for existence of Space-based weapons. (Let's remember, the government is always at least 15-20 years ahead in technology from where they publicly admit.)
That's just a small sampling!! Take a look at Dr Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon paper for much more. Also note that wikipedia has an entry on the Star Wars program.
Controlled demolitions at the WTC has been scientifically proven *long ago*, as the government's version defies basic laws of physics. At this point it's just a matter of figuring out what method was used for the demolition.
So, ask yourself... what can explain ALL the anomalies listed above?
Dr Judy Wood is not the only scientist speaking up about exotic weaponry at the WTC:
Dr Jeff King, MD, former M.I.T. Electrical Engineer, was one of the first to speak up about controlled demolitions at the WTC. The previous link is from 2004, but much evidence has come out since. Listen to this MP3 from Webster Griffin Tarpley's March 2006 radio show, where he discusses exotic weaponry in more detail. See here for more analysis by King.
Also, Charles Pegelow, a Structural Engineer, has come forward. He was interviewed on James Fetzer's radio show on November 30th, 2006 and MP3s of this show are here: hour 1, hour 2.
BTW, is everyone aware that GWB gave a speech (broadcast live on FOX) where he talks about Muslims planting bombs in the buildings? (Government propaganda of course.)
As prominent conservative Paul Craig Roberts says: "How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime." http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm
Kings 32 13:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Could you elaborate a little on wikipedia blacklisting the link you discussed above? Please provide links to the actual act of blacklisting if possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Umeboshi (talk • contribs) 14:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC). sorry, forgot to sign: Umeboshi 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- See here.
- Search page for this text: #Jon Harald Søby's list
- Judy Wood's link is the 2nd in the list.
- Kings 32 04:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I found it quite informative. Umeboshi 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Isn't Judy Wood a "Dental Materials Engineer"? Morton devonshire 02:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- Judy has some experience in that field, but it's not her specialty. From her bio (on her tripod page): B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering), M.S (Engineering Mechanics, 1983), and, Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) Virginia Polytechnic. "Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including Experimental Stress Analysis, Engineering Mechanics, Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials), Strength of Materials Testing. From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11. One of Dr. Wood’s research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports. Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told. " Kings 32 06:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I feel that this section of the talk page violated WP:BLP, as it implies that the subject is an idiot. Since I believe he is an idiot (but for different reasons), I don't know if I should remove it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)