-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lest we forget. Do you see that WTC tower disintegrating?
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
The book can be accessed freely here:
Where Did The Towers Go? : Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Correction: Judy Wood is here name, not Woods.
Where Did The Towers Go? : Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Correction: Judy Wood is here name, not Woods.
Video? Where?
If you mean the Dmitri Khalezov book linked, not video, it is pretty worthless. Well, it did have some high quality photos of that day. But his theory does not fit. Neither does he show proper understanding of of what Judy Wood lays out in her book, most of which he ignores - spontaneous fires far from the site, molecular disassociation of metals and other materials. Cars burning with heatless fires - yet with paper and fabric nearby untouched. No, this guy did not really do careful research.
If you mean the Dmitri Khalezov book linked, not video, it is pretty worthless. Well, it did have some high quality photos of that day. But his theory does not fit. Neither does he show proper understanding of of what Judy Wood lays out in her book, most of which he ignores - spontaneous fires far from the site, molecular disassociation of metals and other materials. Cars burning with heatless fires - yet with paper and fabric nearby untouched. No, this guy did not really do careful research.
Last edited:
Every once in a while I peek into the "ignore" box, hoping that you will say something worthwhile.
But, no. You are exhibit A for Normalcy Bias.
LOL
Paranoia certainly isn't my specialty.
If you can look at that series of photos showing steel disintegrating in seconds and say that is normal then you have problems
So...all the humans on the plane were somehow made of some unknown incendiary devise that burned differently than a plane with normal jet fuel would burn?
Come on, just accept the fact that God ordained the attack and caused the towers to collapse. Stop looking for a boogeyman around every corner. You're wasting your time.
I always keep an open mind on things, but on this I think it was actually couple of nutjobs in planes.
We had a massive county-wide industrial fire a few nights back, one of the largest in the whole history of the county. Every department was dispatched to our little county capitol.
The building had steel trusses, and the seat of the fire was in a big warehouse with good ventilation. The fire temp averaged about 1200 to 1500 degrees. No steel melted, but the roof trusses weakened enough in the heat that the weight of the roof pushing down on the truss caused them to bow. The walls were then pulled inwards and the roof kept pushing down and voila the building collapsed in on itself.
The WTC had those same trusses in it and those trusses are what provided rigidity. When those trusses weakened the whole building became unstable. Plus it's important to mention that it wasn't just jet fuel burning. It may have been initially, but the fire load of those buildings consisted of massive amounts of metal, carpeting, wood, plastic etc. That load can extremely easily get over 1500 degrees, especially in a tower that is containing much of the heat.
We had a massive county-wide industrial fire a few nights back, one of the largest in the whole history of the county. Every department was dispatched to our little county capitol.
The building had steel trusses, and the seat of the fire was in a big warehouse with good ventilation. The fire temp averaged about 1200 to 1500 degrees. No steel melted, but the roof trusses weakened enough in the heat that the weight of the roof pushing down on the truss caused them to bow. The walls were then pulled inwards and the roof kept pushing down and voila the building collapsed in on itself.
The WTC had those same trusses in it and those trusses are what provided rigidity. When those trusses weakened the whole building became unstable. Plus it's important to mention that it wasn't just jet fuel burning. It may have been initially, but the fire load of those buildings consisted of massive amounts of metal, carpeting, wood, plastic etc. That load can extremely easily get over 1500 degrees, especially in a tower that is containing much of the heat.
If you do have an open mind maybe you could take a look at the book. It is free. Very detailed, lots of photographs.
The link is here.
The author has a B.A. in Civil Engineering, an M.S. in Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering Science. I am just coming to the end of this book, fascinating and difficult in places. But worth the effort.
There is a lot of information that is not covered in the news reports and ongoing media coverage, like spontaneous fire that generate no heat, cars "burning" from the inside dissolving metal parts but leaving fabric and paper untouched.
Too much to mention here but I hope you really are willing to consider the alternative presented here. The book itself was a work of 8 years. It is easily the best non-Christian book I have read in many years.
---
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...PM25iAnJEn3kGj8eqw3aBLihX6bvMeHzd8THrb43xPhbQ
Forget it.
I've given him a couple chances but now convinced "ignore box" is best place for him.
I hate to keep people too long there, but in his case I think I will make an exception.
I'll definitely give it a look over. Looks like there's first responder testimonies at the bottom I'd like to read too anywho.
That's what I have been saying all along. Forget these foolish conspiracy theories.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
… and yet they did.
How did the WTC's collapse?
"[A] 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
"[A] 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
This article is riddled with wrong assumptions and projections based on the official story, not the actual evidence that Judy Wood carefully lays out. Jon, you would do well to check out this free pdf.
Just one item out of many from your link. There was no 1,000,000 tons of debris on the ground. If there was the "bathtub" retaining structure below those two buildings would've been crushed. But it wasn't. Look at the photos in the book from the day and day after - many of which are no longer available elsewhere. Do you see a mountain of debris? No.
This was a new phenomenon.
Last edited:
I took a look at the book and spot-checked one section beginning on page 62.
The author asserted that the two main towers came down without damaging other buildings around them. That’s completely false. There’s plenty of photographic and witness testimony to the contrary.
She also makes much of the seismic signature of the collapse, assuming that the initial part of both collapse events (one, a classic pancaking event, the second, and peeling apart along with pancaking) would cause a significant seismic reading before the mass of the debris hit the ground. Based on that false assumption, she makes much of the rate of free fall from that height (measuring the wrong thing) and compares the event to seismic records of controlled demolitions. A controlled demolition creates an initial seismic event because of explosions at the base of the supporting columns all the way up the structure.
It is clear she is not an engineer (she claims a BA in engineering, but an engineer has to go through an on-the-job training process and take an examination). It is also extremely clear she does not understand logic or analysis.
I am not an engineer myself, but I have worked closely with engineers, architects and construction professions for more than two decades as a technical writer, translating engineering lingo and concepts into everyday English.
The few pages of the book I reviewed were laughably bad, and I wouldn’t place any faith in this person’s analysis.
The author asserted that the two main towers came down without damaging other buildings around them. That’s completely false. There’s plenty of photographic and witness testimony to the contrary.
She also makes much of the seismic signature of the collapse, assuming that the initial part of both collapse events (one, a classic pancaking event, the second, and peeling apart along with pancaking) would cause a significant seismic reading before the mass of the debris hit the ground. Based on that false assumption, she makes much of the rate of free fall from that height (measuring the wrong thing) and compares the event to seismic records of controlled demolitions. A controlled demolition creates an initial seismic event because of explosions at the base of the supporting columns all the way up the structure.
It is clear she is not an engineer (she claims a BA in engineering, but an engineer has to go through an on-the-job training process and take an examination). It is also extremely clear she does not understand logic or analysis.
I am not an engineer myself, but I have worked closely with engineers, architects and construction professions for more than two decades as a technical writer, translating engineering lingo and concepts into everyday English.
The few pages of the book I reviewed were laughably bad, and I wouldn’t place any faith in this person’s analysis.