Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:
She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.
Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.
Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:
: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?
They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.
Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.
#21. To: BeAChooser, Nolu Chan, Christine, Zipporah, Kamala, Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, Everyone Interested In How Silly The Government's Official Collapse Story REALLY Sounds (#1)
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either.
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
BUT, demolition experts the world over should be VERY thankful to OBL, and those 19 Mooslim cohorts that set out to prove the worlds "experts" wrong!!! They showed that not only DOES it work, but with an extremely high success rate! In fact, 100% success rate (it would have worked on the Pentagon too, but that one was a little to "sprawled out")!
Just think of all the profit potential this has for demolition firms... Hell, all they need is to purchase some decommissioned aircraft; have it outfitted with remote control capability (Systems Planning Corporation - [Zakheim's old haunt] can help them with that, it's their specialty); buy 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (around 30 grand at today's prices); and in less than 2 hours have that sucker down!!!!! It'll save god-only-knows how many man-hours rigging buildings for weeks and months in advance, plus the costs of the explosives themselves, and the need for high paid professionals to handle those explosives. And that's for one of the world's LARGEST structures!! Why shit, if it's a small enough eye-sore (like a 20 story run-down old office they need to "take out" to make room for a parking lot for the new bank) they could probably even get by with a little old twin-engine Cessna - and get the job done REALLY dirt cheap!!!
Wonder when Controled Demolition Inc is gonna start using this newfound technology???
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2002-04-29-klein.htm "Why the Towers Fell': Larry Klein ... snip ... I had a chance to listen to someone who specializes in taking buildings down (imploding them), and he stated that when he saw the damage to the Towers he knew they were coming down, and he tried to call the New York City emergency agency and couldn't get through."
And if you told the rest of those professionals what we now know ... that the planes would impact the building at nearly maximum velocity, that the impact would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes had nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional in the towers, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires either ... then I suspect a great many more would have had doubts about the structures, too.
This is what you quoted from innieway in your reply to him:
I wonder if someone had asked EVERY structural engineer and demolition expert in the world prior to 9/11 if it would work to bring down a structure like one of the twin towers by flying a large jet into the top third of it, how many would have said "Hey - that MIGHT work!"?????
Answer: PROBABLY NOT A SINGLE ONE WOULD HAVE.....
And the first line of your answer:
Actually, I think you are wrong, in part because some structural engineers and demolition experts came forward right after 911 saying that they knew right away that the towers were in trouble.
I guess you are still trying to learn the kindergarten version of the dictionary, yes, the one with all the full color pretty pictures in it.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
I figured I would clue you in before you make an even bigger ass out of yourself than you already are (if at all possible) - but prior is the opposite of after.
ladybug, don't you think that what the experts said shortly after the collapse might be an indication of what they would have said before the collapse ... PROVIDED they knew all the facts we now know about the situation?
In other words (and I clarify this only because you seem to have had difficulty understand my reasoning the first time I stated it), if PRIOR TO 911, you told the professional engineering community around the world that large commercial jets would impact the towers at nearly maximum velocity, that the impacts would shatter numerous structural members and severely damage fireproofing coatings on the remaining steel, that the planes would have nearly full fuel tanks, that the fire suppression systems would NOT be functional, that fire fighters would be unable to reach and fight the fires ... then I suspect a great many more than "not a single one" would have had doubts about the structures surviving.
Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
I shall address your closing statement first.
Anyone who knows me (there are a couple on the forum) knows for a fact that I do not spend as much time online in the summer time. I spend the vast majority of my time producing our own food, including vegetable gardens, milking goats and a cow, and even growing our own feed for the milk animals. I also make our own butter, and so on. So that means I have much less time to address your drivel than you may like.
As to "experts", for starters, it only takes common sense to realize something is definitely wrong with the official 9/11 story, but if you need an expert to tell you this, here is a site that has several educated folks that can put common sense into "big words" for people like you that only believe what the "officials" tell you.
I am sure you will find a list of excuses why these officials don't count, but I really don't care what ignorant people like you think.
My point regarding your reply to inniway's post is simple. If flying planes into buildings is such a sure fired way to make the damn thing fall into it's own footprint, then you find me an expert that thinks this is such a great idea. After all, it worked so well on 9/11 - they dropped 3 buildings with only 2 planes.
Until you can provide me with such an expert, there is no need for you to grace me with one of your precious little 15 posts for the day.
Gosh, that must be hell on such a big mouth as you to be so limited.
M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992)
from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
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 was an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.
It would appear that Dr. Wood has at least three more engineering degrees, and one more structural engineering degree, than WTC structural engineer Leslie Robertson.
* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and
* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992)
What nolu_chan doesn't want to tell ladybug (... to keep her in the dark) is that Dr Wood's ENTIRE career has been spent studying dental materials. Her expertise (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf) is in statics, not dynamics. In biological materials and composites, not steel, impact or fire. In moire interferometry ... as opposed to anything that would actually help one understand what happened to the towers that day. She is a member of the IADR (International Association for Dental Research), and the Academy of Dental Materials. ALL her published papers are on that subject. She doesn't even understand the concept of momentum as her billiard ball analysis proves. Her pet theory is that some star-war like energy weapon from space destroyed the towers. If you really want to see what a complete kook Dr Wood is, look at the following video:
In this video, Dr Greg Jenkins of DC 911Truth (and who has a PhD in physics) interviews her about her beam weapon theory. It starts off with him asking her what type of weapon would have done what she claims. She says she doesn't know. Then she doesn't want to get distracted by the figures for the energy required to "dustify" the structures.
Dr Jenkins starts to tell her his calculation about the amount of energy needed to evaporate the steel in the towers and she objects. She wants to talk instead about "nanofying" the structure instead. He asks if that's been done in the laboratory ... turn steel into dust. She says "uh-huh". He asks for details. And she starts waving hands. He tells her he doesn't know of a way to "dustify" steel in any situation. And her response is laughable.
Wood is way out of her depth. Since she can't seem to explain to Jenkins how it happened they move on to the issue of what happened which is where she says they need to focus before going further anyway. They discuss the issue of whether the debris pile is too small afterwords for it to have been a simple collapse. Based on a comparison of the collapsed volume to the original volume of other structures that have collapsed (like the KingDome) she says the height of the debris pile at the WTC should have been much higher ... somewhere around 12% of its original height, apparently ... which would be 15 stories. But it's not. It's much less, she says.
Jenkins points out that the King Dome collapsed inside it's foot print whereas the WTC towers did not. He tells her that the WTC collapsed in a radius six times its footprint. Then she claims that it was more like a million times its footprint because it went into the upper atmosphere. She keeps talking about the stuff in the upper atmosphere when the video started out by showing all of us with pictures from that day that no cloud went upward during the collapse. It's a priceless moment in this whole saga.
When he points this out during the interview she argues with him saying he didn't look at the pictures. She apparently thinks, because of the angle the tower was viewed at in one picture, that there was a column of dust rising upward into the atmosphere from the south tower. He points out that was smoke from the North Tower (which is proven at the beginning of his video). She then wisecracks ... "you mean the smoke from the smoke bombs?" and then insists that it is dust going up into the upper atmosphere. It just doesn't get any funnier ... except when someone like nolu_chan references her as an *expert*.
Dr Jenkins was clearly unprepared for such a silly response. Because he didn't have the other images they show at the beginning of the video clip handy to show her, he can't destroy her on camera. So instead he suggests they go back to the issue of how wide the collapsing debris spreads and she quips "because this wasn't working for you, you want to change to another subject?" Could Dr Wood be any more clueless?
And the interview goes downhill from there. She is so out there and so unable to grasp the reality of what she is looking at that Dr Jenkins (another 911 *truther*) ends up scratching his head in puzzlement as to why she doesn't see falling debris in a picture that clearly shows falling debris. She is so nutty that she finally insists the towers "did not collapse". And you just have to see the last couple minutes of the video when they show image after image of the debris that Dr Wood claims didn't exist. I love it when the truth movement makes fun of the truth movement. But it is a good sign.
Now what was that you were telling ladybug about Dr Wood, nolu? ROTFLOL!
The BAC challenge to ladybug was to offer a name of a structural engineer who thinks the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes.
Dr. Judy Wood holds a degree in structural engineering and holds the opinion that the towers were brought down by the means specified by BAC.
Challenge answered with the name of a structural engineer. Just for good measure, Dr. Wood also holds a masters in Engineering Mechanics, and a doctorate in Materials Engineering Science.
When last checked, Virginia Polytechnic Institute is not a Dental School.
[BAC] Now you once told me with great confidence that "there are structural engineers out there that KNOW that the official story is NOT POSSIBLE, but you will not listen to THOSE experts" so I'm challenging you to NAME some of those structural engineers who think the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes. Can you offer a name or are you just PRETENDING that there are structural engineers out there that agree with you and the rest of the 4um *truthers*? Last time I asked that question of you ... well ... you just vanished from the thread. Are we going to see a repeat performance, ladybug?
The BAC challenge to ladybug was to offer a name of a structural engineer who thinks the WTC towers were brought down by bombs or thermite or energy beams or nukes.
Dr. Judy Wood holds a degree in structural engineering and holds the opinion that the towers were brought down by the means specified by BAC.
Challenge answered with the name of a structural engineer.
Well good for you, nolu. If you want to stand there and claim Judy Woods has ANY demonstrated competence in structures, steel, concrete, fire, impact or dynamics ... noting all that I noted about her in a previous post ... go right ahead. If you truly want to leave your credibility in shambles, I have no objection.
Just for good measure, Dr. Wood also holds a masters in Engineering Mechanics, and a doctorate in Materials Engineering Science.
And Steven Jones has a PhD in physics. But does he have competence in any of the areas related to buildings, demolition, impact, fire, steel, concrete, seismology or macro-world events? No. He, like Wood, has spent his ENTIRE career working on something TOTALLY unrelated to any of those topics ... sub-atomic particles and cold fusion. With nary a paper or project involving anything other than sub-atomic particles. But if you want to insist that makes him competent to challenge a world full of professionals who do have competence in buildings, impact, demolition, fire, steel, concrete, seismology and macro-world physics ... go right ahead. I have no objections if you want to destroy your own credibility in this manner.
When last checked, Virginia Polytechnic Institute is not a Dental School.
Nevertheless, her ENTIRE career has been devoted to dental and biological materials, and statics. One need only look at her billiard ball analogy of the WTC collapse to understand how little she grasps physics and dynamics. One need only watch her performance in that video to see her KOOKiness and total disconnect from reality. But if you want to champion her as your expert, NC ... go right ahead. You'll only end up destroying the truth movement's credibility. But perhaps that is your goal. Who do you work for, nolu?