Interview with Judy Wood.

[Bushwick Bill]

If there is one thing that might bring us all to some common ground in this forum, this insanity just might be it. The interview starts a couple of minutes into the video. All you really need is to listen to her answer to the first question. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

[Make7]

1. 'A little from column A, a little from column B.'

 

Bushwick Bill wrote:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I don't think it's necessary to exclude either option.

Bushwick Bill wrote:

All you really need is to listen to her answer to the first question.

I disagree - there was so much more to the interview. For example, see her discussion of the picture of the South Tower mid-collapse.

- Make7

[LARED]

2. I actually watched the whole thing

At first it was funny, then it got disturbing, then I felt like like I was watching a documentary of mental breakdown symptoms. She is obviously not well.

Dr. Jenkins behaved as a complete gentlemen. Kudos to him.

[salvorhardin]

4. Yes! That's exactly what I thought

That or she's falling down drunk.

You're right, despite the opportunity to take potshots at her, Greg Jenkins was very kind.

[salvorhardin]

3. Oh this is priceless!

Greg Jenkins: "...has anything been done {in the lab} to turn steel into dust"

Judy Wood: "Ummhmm."

GJ: "What?"

JW: "Uhhh... Various, uh, types of energy."

GJ: "What kind? What kind of energy?"

JW: "Well, let's see... You put something in your microwave oven and leave it on there extra long and see what happens to it."

GJ: "That's food. Right. That's not metal."

JW: "Or, or something else... or..."

GJ: "If you put metal in a microwave, it'll {the microwave radiation} will reflect off of it."

JW: "Yeah, yeah. I haven't tried a fork in there... You're not supposed to but I, uh, so I'm waiting for someone else to do it."

GJ: "Yeah, you know it's kinda fun, also if you burn a disc, something like a CD or something, stick it in the microwave it makes a nice little show for ya so you might try that. It's kind of a fun thing to do."

GJ: "But the thing is I don't know of a way to dustify steel in any situation, and, ah, in..."

JW: "Well, let's talk about physical principles..."

GJ: "OK"

JW: "If you heat steel, or, uh, heat some kind of, oh, umm, uh, what's that word I'm looking for...? umm... p-pick some kind of particular, umm, element and heat it at a, with a, particular vapor pressure it evaporates."

GJ: "It evaporates...? Yes."

JW: "Yeah. Well, let's talk about physical principles now... it will evaporate... so... if you have enough temperature, enough energy, you can quickly put a lot of energy into something, it'll go *poof*."

<incredulous look from Greg Jenkins>

[Generarth]

5. A post for Judy

You're an idiot Judy, get out of 9/11 and take your clown-show with you. You know who they are.

And many thanks to Greg Jenkins for having the patience to take her to task on her idiocy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. Wow, just wow

is that what an education gets you?

This is how I imagine some of the posters here.

Pennies on a windowsill?

[MervinFerd]

8. Yeah, I can think of some folks I would like to see interviewed.

And, they don't even have tenure.

[MervinFerd]

7. "And there, gentlemen, we see the true effects of academic tenure."

I've seen a couple of dudes in about that shape. Usually takes longer, though. Like, fossilized in the office with piles of papers building up on the desk.

The interviewer, truly, shows a superhuman patience.

[Generarth]

9. In agreement with you Mervyn

He did a fine job.

[KJF]

10. She is awful

How can anybody be so clueless? There were a lots of times my jaw dropped completely. Was she ill or is she always like this?

[Tim Howells]

11. Judy Wood has serious problems

I suspect it is related to the fact that she was
in a coma for a few years due to a head injury
(no joke, this is true). She came out of the coma,
and has gotten on with her life, which is truly
remarkable. I have had some discussions with
her in the Scholars group before she quit. Unfortuately
it is obvious that she does not have it all together
mentally, which is not surprising. I agree that it
is very unfortunate that she is being put forward as a
representative of the 911 Truth movement.

Tim Howells

[LARED]

12. You're right, I remember reading about the coma somewhere

and had forgotten it. Those people that put her in the public should be ashamed of themselves.

[JackRiddler]

13. For once we are in agreement

She's a patsy and not to be judged too harshly. The frauds are the ones who are using her as a meatpuppet, who advance her patently ridiculous theories that they themselves cannot possibly all believe. Fetzer, Reynolds, Haupt, Siegel... these guys are sufficiently clever and capable in getting their fake plane/exotic weapons ideas out, so much so that one finds it difficult to believe they also actually believe this stuff, or (if they're crazy) that they would all happen to believe the same set of unlikely ideas. Which in turn raises the question of why they would do this. It's not a reliable moneymaker. So what motivates them? Why do they intentionally want to advance these ideas? Is it a comedy act? A joke on the real 9/11 skeptics? A coordinated operation of some sort?

[salvorhardin]

14. More likely than not

It's just to give their own insanity the veneer of authority or a patina of authenticity. They're grifters and they have no morals.

I'm sorry to hear about Judy Wood's tragic circumstances. If I had known I would not have made fun of her.

[JackRiddler]

15. I don't buy this

For years, the research into the circumstances of the day, the pre-history, foreknowledge, alleged hijackers, wargames etc. and especially the coverup (conflicting timelines, the Commission, etc.) has built consistently off of a set of ideas that arose already in the first month after 9/11. This has also been true of the demolition hypothesis as rendered by people like Hoffman, Berger, Jones and Ryan. You can disagree with all of it, but if you're honest, you consider it misguided, not crazy.

Meanwhile, the search for exotic beasts has been very flexible, moving easily from plane swaps (not impossible but extremely problematic) to pods that aren't actually there to holograms to no planes at all, fake passenger lists, fake phone calls, fake witnesses - veritable armies of conspirators wholly unnecessary to the implementation of a false-flag operation. And from mini-nukes at the base (since as you know when you hit the base the building starts crumbling from the 82nd floor down) to exotic beam weapons.

And you see the same group constantly throw out these ideas, support each other, and not seem to mind at all as they drop one for the next, until they can achieve a perfect combination seemingly designed to alienate everyone who cares passionately about the issues one way or another. Their ability to function and socialize amongst each other belies simple dementia (the really crazy people I know just can't keep up this kind of team work). Therefore I do think this is an operation, and I also suspect the debunkers side has people who are working for agencies or PR departments and intentionally focusing on this stuff.

The latter isn't strictly necessary - there are enough passionate believers in the official story to provide a couple of battalions of debunkers who really believe what they're saying, for whom it turns into a game - just as it does on the other side - of using whatever tactic or argument confirms their bias, whether true or valid or not. And I am not among those who think anyone in particular on this board is an OCT agent.

In short, the likes of Fetzer and Haupt and their well-known allies are too systematic merely to be crazy, and their professed ideas are too crazy in a cartoonish way to have one believe that they really believe them.

[salvorhardin]

16. If you look at the "woowoo" topics as some of us skeptics call them

New Age, UFOs, Face On Mars, Alt. Health, etc. you'll see the exact same dynamic play out among the core of people that frequent each of those scenes. Heck, just listen to Coast To Coast AM for a few months and you'll hear it too. They're almost all grifters and con-artists with an occasional loony true believer thrown in for good measure.

I just don't think there's any need to ascribe to conspiracy what can be explained by greed here. It's natural for people to seek easily digestible answers when reality is too complex or frightening and there's always going to be people who exploit that very real need for fun and profit.

[JackRiddler]

17. Your last sentence

contradicts the woo-woo argument. "No planes hit the WTC and two dozen videos of the South Tower hit were faked and everyone who thinks they saw plane impacts live was duped or is an agent." - This not an easily digestible answer! "Osama did it" is. (Paul Thompson's work is also clearly not seeking an easily digestible answer, compared to the 9/11 Commission Report.) The need for easy answers surely motivates those who are nodding off to every Homeland Security and new war boondoggle (or the Giuliani candidacy) as much as it does any "conspiracy theorist."

What you're saying may apply to UFOs or bigfoot or whatever but does not to the exotically complex and physically impossible 9/11 theories preferred by a certain tight set who are constantly cross-promoting each other. Nor is this particular set making money (the more conventional 9/11 skeptics are selling a lot more books).

Look, argue for whatever answers to 9/11 you find most plausible, but leave aside the too-easy psychology (itself an easily digestible answer).

[spooked911]

41. I suspect you know almost nothing about Judy Wood and her motives

you're simply wrong if you think she is into this stuff for fun and/or profit.

I don't even think she's into it for fame. I think she is a very honest person who really wants to make a difference. She is a highly trained engineer who has made some remarkable observations.

The problem of course is that this stuff is easy to make fun of-- but that hardly means it is wrong.

[MervinFerd]

48. ---Judy Wood's---- motives were not questioned. Grifter's motives were

questioned. And it is --unquestionable-- that grifters, fools and knaves have used Judy Wood for their own purposes.

If you watched the video, it is very clear that her days as a "highly trained engineer" are past. Very sad for her, and all who knew her before her illness.

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. Only you spooky

could possibly think Dr Wood's rant in this interview made any sense whatsoever. Congrats, you continue to amaze me.

[spooked911]

44. oh man, that is rich coming from you!

Wood is NOT a patsy, that is ridiculous.

[spooked911]

42. "those people"?

what the hell are you talking about?

[petgoat]

18. I'd like to know more about the circumstances of this interview.

For instance, what time of day was it, was Dr. Wood's participation a spontaneous
decision on her part, had she been socializing immediately before.

By the end she was objecting that the proceedings were some kind of game.

Dr. Wood is under a lot of stress, having lost her job, having st911 fall apart,
being shaken by the murder of her graduate student colleague. She should have
had the final editorial approval of this video. Thankfully, only 350 people have
seen it on Youtube. I don't think she's been treated fairly.

Here's the photo under discussion.



She points to the upraised white pinkie as an example of debris flying up; Dr. Jenkins
pretends not to see this. Rick Siegel and others have shown pictures far more dramatic
that show an upward trajectory to debris.

Dr. Jenkins also claims to see tower debris in the "snowball;" I see a lot of cladding,
some "wheatchex" at the bottom of the snowball, but I see dust rather than steel debris.
I don't know what's inside that snowball.

Dr. Wood also questions the smoke rising from the level of the fiftieth floor. The
fiftieth floor was not on fire. Did the fire fall with the building? Maybe so.
Fell six hundred feet? I don't think it's a loony question.

The fact remains that none of the conventional CD or OCT theories explain the
enormous energies necessary to create the clouds of pulverized concrete. AFAIK only
the energy-beam hypothesis can explain this. The electrical substation under WTC7
might arguably provide such amounts of energy.

I've never been happy with Dr. Wood's billiard ball model because I think that at
some point around the 50th floor the accumulated debris would overwhelm all resistance
so that near-freefall speeds would be reasonable, and her model does not allow for that.

110 floors of 4" concrete should have amounted to a stack of concrete pancakes
37 feet high. (I got in trouble once before for a hasty calculation.) That's
without the steel, or the pennies on the windowsill.


Maybe Dr. Wood deserves a hatchet job for her attacks on Dr. Jones. I wouldn't want
to judge. But I don't think she's been treated fairly here. Her ideas should be
evaluated on their merits rather than on her presentation. To her critics I say:
"Pray it never happens to you."

[LARED]

19. "only the energy-beam hypothesis can explain this"

Were you in a long term coma? Did you suffer a serious brain injury? There must be some reason you believe that.

[petgoat]

20. The OCT defenders tell us the dustification of the upper part of the towers

could not have been caused by explovies because it would require ten thousand
gazillion tons of TNT to do it. Jim Hoffman tells us the pulverization would
require many times the energy available in the potential energy and the
fires.

Thus additional energy sources are required to explain the pulverization clouds.

Nobody can explain where the energy came from: not NIST, FEMA, or Jones.

[hack89]

21. You misunderstand ..

We say that if Hoffman is right then it would require an enormous amount of explosives - the point of course being that Hoffman's calculations are wrong. The OCT position is that the PE of the towers was sufficient to produce the dust clouds, being the equivalent of hundreds of tons of explosives.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. No

You guys are the ones thinking that there's more energy required.

I have consistently maintained that the collapse of the towers alone provided enough energy to pulverize everything that was.

You guys trot out silly reasons why there needs to be more, and then start speculating about energy weapons.

Keep this distinction clear in your head.

[angstlessk]

33. You obviously have never set pancakes on fire..looks just like that

NOT...very interesting...such would require an energy beyond normal detonation...but .,.well it just happend because the floors fell! These OCT defenders get bizzarer and bizzarer all the time!

[MervinFerd]

53. +10 points for most bizarre, incomprehensible post.

Dude (or Dudette), I have --NO-- idea what you are talking about.

Do you?

[vincent_vega_lives]

59. She must have learned it on the Internet(s)

Perhaps the interdimensional internet?

[salvorhardin]

55. +20 points, Creativity

Flaming pancakes? Tell me more. I'm intrigued. And are they good to eat?

[vincent_vega_lives]

60. Kind of like Baked Alaska? (n/t)

[petgoat]

22. Here's one of those pictures showing upward trajectory.

[MervinFerd]

24. Yeah, that nails it.

Laser beams. No doubt about it.

[petgoat]

25. It nails nothing. It is merely evidence that Dr. Wood's claim

that her picture showed an upward debris trajectory is not loopy,
as Dr. Jenkins suggests it is.

I think the exotic weapons question deserves further research
until the apparent energy deficit of the other theories can be
explained. I don't think it's ready for public consumption,
though, and I think Dr. Wood was wise not to get lured into
speculations on the nature of the weapons.

I could be wrong, but it's tempting to suppose that she got
seduced by a charming younger man into a taped interview after
she'd been enjoying a bit of wine. They didn't even have the
decency to suggest that she comb her hair before they shoot
her.

Like I said, maybe she deserves it. I don't know. Pray it
never happens to you.

[MervinFerd]

29. Mr. Goat, is there --ANY-- theory to loopy for you to defend?

What do you have against -my- theory of Spontaneous Ferrous Combustion?

Is it personal?

[petgoat]

31. There's no evidence for your theory.

There may be, however, evidence of excess energies in the pulverization
of the concrete and the dust clouds that are not explained by the potential
energy in the towers and the heat of combustion.

These excess energies are not explained by the theories of FEMA, NIST,
or Jones. Which is why exotic weapons must be regarded as plausible
at least until the energy question is answered.

[MervinFerd]

51. Whatever, Mr Goat.

You speak nonsense.

"There is no evidence" for gravity collapse?

Jeeebus F'ing Christ on Skate Board wearing a Beanie! What a stupid claim.

"Excess Energies?"
No, this has been explained too many times to even bother with doing again.

Mr. Goat, NOBODY is this dense.
PLEASE stop making these ridiculous jokes.
Now, run along.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. That does NOT show upward trajectory.

That claim is only possible with a still photograph.

That debris is falling out and down, not up at all. Any video running at normal speed makes this absolutely clear.

[rman]

38. still images don't show movement. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

61. Watch the video

And THEN tell me about "upward trajectory". :eyes:

[MervinFerd]

23. Yes, mornings are often better for the mentally impaired.

There's a term--"Sundowners"?

Perhaps that was Dr. Woods' problem. She did the interview too late in the day.


This stuff wouldn't sound any more sane at 8:00 AM, however.

[spooked911]

46. it was an ambush interview after she had been up one night working on her paper

and then another night driving to DC.

The whole thing, IMO, was a calculated set-up to provoke exactly the kind of response on display in his thread.

Did Jenkins ever ONCE ask her what she thought happened?

[vincent_vega_lives]

58. Yes it looks odd when looking at JUST this picture

but when you watch the video it is clear what you are seeing here.

It's what differentiates wackos from normal people.

[StrictlyRockers]

93. Something anomalous happened to ths towers. Look at the pictures.

That big snowball shows a massive cloud of debris being blown outward and upward. This is not explained by a "collapse". Collapse does not sufficiently explain why two inches of dust were found up to a mile away. Collapse does not explain why the sub-basement retaining walls were blown out along with the seven story parking garage basement.

The people who come to this forum and consistently bring negativity, shoot down every hypothesis and act like they enjoy it are completely lame! To bring negativity here over and over is an indication of a huge mental illness, imho. Why do you do it? Does it feed your emotions to seek something to get upset about and post a pithy response? Who does this help? All it does is prove that you are very negative people with nothing better to do than feed your negative emotion addiction by coming here seeking something to upset you. Get a life. You are pathetic and lame if you can't find something better to do with your time than be "Mr. Negativeman". I try to be understanding of your illness, but all I can really do is pity you and your condition.

I don't know about the space beam theory - but something besides a "pancake collapse" happened to those buildings. That is ludicrous.

SR

[petgoat]

28. Interesting thread at Randirhodes featuring some intelligent

defences of Dr. Wood.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=106193&st=0

[MervinFerd]

30. "intelligent defenses of Dr. Wood". Can you spell "oxymoron"?

[petgoat]

32. Have you read the thread? I didn't think so. nt

[greyl]

34. This is a good one:

LEH: Greg is a committed 9/11 truth activist, and a very kind person. We were invited to the Press Club for dinner and Fetzer's presentation. Greg knows that Wood's theory is a joke, and that its promotion via Jim Fetzer is intentional disinformation. He asked her if he could interview her about it. (He has a doctorate in physics, and another member of our group, with whom he consulted, has a masters in chemistry.)

Bear in mind, this is at the National Press Club, in a room with two stand video cameras running. Wood agreed to clip on a mic and discuss her work. I've never known an academic who wouldn't chew your ear off about his or her latest research or project, and Wood is doing it as a road show! What about this sounds like a hit piece? Is it because she was so incapable of articulating the most basic principles of physics? Because it sounded as though she wrote her paper in crayon? Because her entire thesis is based on a photograph whose characteristics she can't identify? Even those of us who knew or suspected that the Fetzer/Wood show is bogus were astounded at the ineptitude -- we literally had our jaws on the floor.

What you didn't see was how ugly Fetzer got at the end, when he realized just how bad it was. But I'm telling you, Greg gave her every chance to make her case. He had pages of notes he couldn't get to because he had to keep dumbing it down to meet her. We seriously felt sorry for her, and if this concerted disinformation effort weren't so serious, we would have given greater pause to posting it.

It is what it is, and no one should lend a shred of credibility to this charade. Those towers were brought down through controlled demolition, no question, but this crap is intended to muddy the waters and turn people away from the truth.

[petgoat]

36. That is a good one in that it's contra-indicated in the first sentence.

Dr. Jenkins would not permit the "Pennies from Heaven" montage
to be used if he were a kind person. (Unless Dr. Wood has done
something I don't know about to deserve this treatment.)

[spooked911]

47. Indeed

[vincent_vega_lives]

80. Paper on Judy Wood's theory

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Gourley5JAN07.pdf

[Laurier]

35. Ya know, I don't buy conspiracy theories but

I feel sorry for her in that video.

[spooked911]

37. The interview was a set-up, an ambush, and she hadn't slept for two days

IMO, the whole point of the interview was to make her look bad.

Jenkins was a smug little jerk who simply was not even trying to understand her POV. Eventually, she gave up with him and started getting annoyed.

If Jenkins had any intention of an honest interview, he would have asked her what she thinking happened and to explain her data. Instead, he starts jumping on energy requirements and "dustification", and it was downhill from there.

[Generarth]

39. Awww diddums, next stop, NPT. nt

[spooked911]

40. have you ever even looked at her article?

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

[LARED]

43. Actually he asked her a number of times

to explain what she was talking about. It is not Jenkins fault she cannot provide a coherent answer.

[spooked911]

45. It was a set-up and Jenkins was not being an honest open interviewer

he clearly had an agenda.

[LARED]

49. Whether he had an agenda or not is moot

Judy Wood is not capable of articulating her theory in scientific terms. She can barely put to together multiple sentences that make sense. She has serious problems not of her own making, and anyone that puts her in the spotlight like that is despicable.

[petgoat]

50. Why is it moot? If his agenda was the agenda clear in the

Googlevideo presentation of ridiculing Dr. Wood, I don't see how that's
moot at all.

Or are you making the claim that it's moot because: It happened, it's
over, get over it.

Your claim that she can't put two sentences together is absurd.
Have you read the paper?

[MervinFerd]

52. His agenda is moot; Wood's mental status is not.

Doesn't matter what the interviewer's agenda was. If Wood could defend her points articulately, she had opportunity to do that.

The paper is moot for the present issue also. But, its pretty damn batty also. And it does not answer obvious questions, which the interviewer presents to Wood:

How -much- energy would be needed?
What kind of energy could it possibly be?

These are just obvious issues, which would come immediately to the mind of any "highly trained engineer".

[petgoat]

54. Have you read the paper? Have you ever been under stress,

like, fearing for your life? Fearing for your pet's life?
Has anyone ever slipped you a micky?

Jenkins's agenda is not moot. Is obvious he was out to make
her look like a geek. They didn't even tell her to comb her hair.
That ain't science. It's office politics taken to the internets.

[MervinFerd]

56. I've read the paper; she doesn't answer the obvious Q's there either.

Unless Jenkins really did slip her a micky, his intentions still are moot. He asked entirely obvious and necessary questions; any "highly trained engineer" should be able to answer them, whatever the intent of the questioner.

"How -much- energy would be required?"
"And, how might that energy have been delivered?"

Absent answers to these questions, the whole thing is just babble.

[spooked911]

74. Wood is defining what happened to the building first

Once we figure out exactly what happened, then we can possibly figure out the energy requirement.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I have a feeling the only reason the energy requirement is important to you is because you think it helps debunk the idea of directed energy weapons being used to take down the WTC.

[eyl]

82. Well, if the energy requirement is such

that the theory is implausible, that's worth checking out of the gate, no?

For example: I tried to do a quick-n'-dirty calculation of the energy which would be required. I couldn't find figures for the latent heat of vaporization, so I just calculated the energy needed to melt it.

The constants for mild steel* are:

Melting point: 1515°C.
Specific heat: 620J/(kg*°K) (Averaged between 20°C to 1515°C).
Latent heat of fusion: 247 J/g.
Room temperature is 25°C

Putting it all together, melting one ton of steel would require an energy input of about 924 megaJoules, input over a short amount of time. We're talking about the full output of at least one power plant (wikipedia places the typical output of a nuclear power plant at 600-1,200 MW, so if you had the full output of one of those you would be able to melt steel at the rate of about 1 ton per second). This, of course, excludes the energy needed to vaporize the steel (which doubles the requirements, more or less). It's also an underestimate, because it assumes perfect heat transfer and no loss during the process.

So, an obvious question is, where is the energy coming from. If there's no answer, theres no point starting to delve into the esoterics.

*These are the first figures I found; I assume the steel used in the WTC isn't too different

[petgoat]

83. where is the energy coming from.

According to the FEMA/ASCE report, WTC7 housed an electrical substation that
supplied power to lower Manhattan. http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

Does that sound like a reasonable amount of juice?

According to this article, a transformer can supply 80 Megawatts, and the
new WTC7 substation has three of them and will ultimately have ten.

http://www.renewnyc.com/displaynews.aspx?newsid=ded539df-81d7-485a-ad18-6e60c398100e

According to this one, there are several substations in Lower Manhattan.

http://www.lowermanhattan.info/news/behind_the_power_of_78900.aspx

How much capacity there was in the original WTC7 substation may be difficult to
determine. Of course capacitor banks might increase the juice available to operations.

[LARED]

85. Let me guess, you post ridiculous

stuff on purpose, just to see if people catch on that the whole energy, mass, thingy is a mystery to you.

[petgoat]

86. Let's see, you think an electrical substation does not provide

sufficient energy to power an exotic weapon?

OK, how about if they tapped into the subway power system too?

[MervinFerd]

99. That's right. Energy is required to "dustify" steel. LOTS OF ENERGY.

But that's just mainstream stuff like basic physics. Probably part of the coverup.

[eyl]

87. 80 MW will suffice

to vaporize a bit less than half a ton of steel* - let's say 400 Kg - in one second. How long would it take to vaporize all the steel you claim is missing (which is what, 100s of tons? more?)? Remember you have to do this quickly. How much of that 80 MW can you actually apply to whatever a specific application (you're going to need some really heavy-duty cabling, for one thing)? Also remember that you're losing a lot of heat in transmission and as the steel grows hotter, heat energy is lost to the environment at an increasing rate, and that lost heat needs to be "replaced". If you're drawing power from other substations, the amount you need (especially since you're losing more in transmission) is very large - a power drop which would be very noticable.

Lastly, how do you apply so much energy to the steel without losing most of it? Remember a lot of heat is escaping into the environment due to conduction.

*I was innacurate in my previous post; it would take 924 MJ to melt a mass of 1 ton of steel, which means a weight of 1 ton requires a tenth of that

[MervinFerd]

88. -10 points for confusing mass and weight.

But a factory of 10 wouldn't really matter, would it?

Interesting calculation.

[eyl]

92. mea culpa

:blush:

[MervinFerd]

94. Actually, are you sure you are wrong the first time?

1 kg (mass) is equivalent to 2.2 lbs (weight). The tables of specific heat and vaporization energy would be given in either kg or lbs, not Newtons.

A Kg weighs about 10 Newtons, right? (1 kg X 9.8 m/s^2), but that's not relevant since the tables would always be given in kg.

[eyl]

95. I did all the calcs, as well as the constants, in kg (mass)

so the results are for 1,000 Kg (mass) of steel, which weighs 10,000 Kg-force (=Newton). You're welcome to double-check me if you want.

In any event, given the amount of steel which needs to be vaporized, a factor of 10 doesn't really change the main point

[MervinFerd]

97. I will take your word for it.

[vincent_vega_lives]

64. Holy Crap.

thats fucking Hilarious! :rofl:

[petgoat]

70. I'll take that as a no, you've never feared for your life.

Dr. Wood believes she has good reason to fear for her life.
Her graduate student Michael Zebuhr was murdered; she believes
it was because of the 911 Truth work he was doing with her.

Unless you've walked a mile in her shoes, I'd suggest you
eschew the snarky smileys.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. It wouldn't be moot

if the video was edited to make Dr Wood look bad, or put forth some agenda.

It wasnt. Its moot.

[petgoat]

66. It appears the video was shot to look bad. Dr. Wood was

obviously having a bad day. If you look at the web site you see she
actually puts on a case.

She wisely refused to get involved in speculations about specifics.

[vincent_vega_lives]

79. "She wisely refused to get involved in speculations about specifics"

Huh. Thought the specifics she did get into made her look bad enough.

I'm finding the defense of Dr Wood's argument here rather amusing.

[petgoat]

81. You found the shameful attack amusing too, so I'm not surprised. nt

[LARED]

65. It's moot because

Wood is not capable of defending her theory. Even if Jenkins had an agenda, she could have easily dismissed it by stating clearly and concisely what in God's green earth she is trying to sell. It quite frankly can't be explained by anyone because it is a bunch of nonsense. I've read her paper (or most of it) and it is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time.

[petgoat]

67. Not capable? How do you know? You never had a bad day? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. A "bad day" would never cause me to utter the phrase

"pennies on a windowsill".

[spooked911]

73. it's called a joke

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Got that right

The sad part was the thought behind the sarcastic remark wasn't a joke. That there was NO significant debris as it was all vaporized by an energy beam.

[spooked911]

89. where did she ever say that? where where where?

[spooked911]

75. I disagree about her answers. From the right perspective, her answers

were fine. She didn't want to get trapped by Jenkins.

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. So what parts do you lend to exaustion? (n/t)

[petgoat]

68. All of it. Obviously. Even her appearance. She looks like she

hasn't slept in days.

[vincent_vega_lives]

69. What ideas, opinions and theories I mean (n/t)

[greyl]

72. All you're doing is making Appeals to Emotion - zero argument on the substance.

Listen, all we humans have liberal amounts of empathy for her.
That doesn't make her paper or her arguments proffered in the interview with another Truther any more valid and less ridiculous.

Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument):

"I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan."

Some authors want you to know they're suffering for their beliefs. For example, "Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME."

There is a strange variant which shows up on Usenet. Somebody refuses to answer questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker is mean and has hurt their feelings. Or, that the question is personal.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#pity

[petgoat]

76. I am not making an appeal to emotion to argue for substance

in Dr. Woods's paper.

I am making an appeal to emotion to argue that Dr. Jenkins is NOT
a kind person, and that the video was obviously a hatchet job.

Maybe Dr. Wood deserved it; I don't know.

[salvorhardin]

77. I'm suffering

All these harebrained paranoid conspiracy theories just make my head hurt.

[MervinFerd]

84. Bump. Cause this one reveals so much.

But, I apologize to Dr. Wood, who needs care, not ridicule or expoitation.

[spooked911]

90. Jenkins claim that the dust cloud was all from the fire was either disingenuous

or just plain wrong.

Either way, the fact that he argued there was no new smoke as the building went down showed where this guy was coming from.

[MervinFerd]

91. And Wood's claim that there was no debris falling was....

what? Reasonable and sane?

[spooked911]

96. I think at that point she started digging in her heels

her answer was not what I would have given, but I understand why she said what she said

[dailykoff]

98. Kudos to Dr. Wood for sticking her neck out for all of us.

:yourock:

She's worth more than a thousand slimy crypto-shill "physicists" combined.

:puke:

[MervinFerd]

100. ...whilst their brains are sucked out through their eyes.