http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3804970279512923290&q=911+june+2006Dr Judy Wood, PhD. - Summarized bby 240, just for you
----- She starts with her background. Civil engineering. Mechanical engineering using composite materials. Worked at NASA. Got the PhD in Theroerical & Practical Engineering Applications from Virginia tech. Did her dissertation on thermal stresses.
----- On 911, she was bothered by how the towers came down. Building was unraveling. Didn't make sense to her. Mentioned the similarity of the towers' structure to trees' - they don't turn into sawdust when they fall - they break. The planes hitting the towers were like a bullet shot into a tree.
----- Point #1 - There isn't enough potential energy from the falling material to pulverize concrete. This makes perfect sense. No matter how hot, or how heavy the materials were, they did not possess the energy to pulverize concrete. Also, not enought energy to buckle columns. And CERTAINLY not enough energy to do both. This from an expert in the field.
----- Point #2 - How did it collapse so uniformly when the fire was distributed so unevenly?
----- Point #3 - Pancake theory - assuming no resistance - It still would have consisted of a series of freefalls, as each floor destroys the one below it. Given no time for pulverization or buckling of columns, it STILL would have taken 31 seconds.
----- Point #4 - Floors were blown out many floors BELOW the debris cloud - ensuring no friction. The outward explosion - steel beams being blasted upwards and outwards - was a smokescreen.Without the smoke, we could have seen a consistent pattern of horizontal mushroom clouds, all the way down. Plus, the steel that was ejected was solid, not melted as it should have been under their theory.
-----Point #5 - In order to get the building down in ten seconds, here is what had to have happened: The 100th floor has to start moving BEFORE the 110th floor hit it. This way, it does not impede its motion at all, and it able to adhieve the near freefall speed that it achieved
(start to finish in 9.2 seconds). The buildings were blown up one floor at a time from the top down - there was NO air resistance. The building was actually destroyed in the air, floor by floor, sequentially.
----- Point #6 - The NTSB has not fulfilled its obligations according to the law. Frank Gayle of the NTSB was not able to answer her questions on the physics of that day, but pushed the report through anyway. He provided unreasonable responses to what happened to the fireproofing. He claimed that all of the asbestos fireproof coating- asymmetrical fires and damage- failed at once. This is the only way the collapse would be symmetrically. "Gravity is symmterical" was his response. however the matter meeting the gravity is ONLY symmetrical when all matter above it is equal. Fireproofing on the central columns dispels this theory. Listen to 27:00 of clip for more detail. when asked for scientific analysis, the NTBS declined. He ignored both facts and analysis and passed the buck.-
---- Point #7 - ARUB (world building conglomerate) was the group which put out the pancake theory - There was a team of people pre-stationed in NY, completely prepared for interviews that morning. They had info and materials ready for the media right after it happened. Comparisons were made to the JFK story - how the media had the pre-planned story with impossible levels of details right after shooting. Just like 911.
----- Point #8 - One professor at New Mexico Tech received an $85 million grant to change his research. He went from anti-belief to pro-belief in one week.
----- Point #9 - No pancake. Would have looked more like an avalanche. Pancake theory would not create the massive dust cloud. How tall would the pile of rubble had been? 10 to 30 stories high- and wide- being the 110 floors, piled up and falling out in the avalance manner. Observers were stunned that 110 floors of building were changed to fine dust. It just makes no sense to this PhD.
----- Point #10 - Kinetic energy is addressed. There wasn't enough momentum to develop the kinetic energy to EITHER collapse the columns, or pulverize the concrete. Not one. And not both.
----- Point #11 - Why is the structural engineering community so quiet on the subject? The physics of the collapse is so simple to this group.
----- Point #12 - Teams of engineers had free access to the building to do "recabling" in the 2 weeks before the attacks. Surprise security inspections in which teams of men entered the building and had free access to inner structure.
----- Point #13 - NTSB admitted they found sulfur residue they cannot explain. However, this fits well with the explosive use theory.
----- Point #14 - The pancake theory had 100 to 500 times less than the required energy to pulverize concrete. In other words, the actual energy available from the crash and fires is 100 to 500 times too low to convert the concrete to dust. Absolute proof here.
----- Point #15 - Cheney & Bush stonewalled the investigation. At every turn until it was politically impossible to stop. Why did they wait until we were at war for 16 months to garner justification for said invasion?
