Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : Dr. Wood has not made a sufficient case for missing steel

2012-06-13

It is easy to get confused, particularly when different arguments are made to debunk different aspects of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory (OCT) that itself morphed over time. Moreover, this thread is a bunch of 9/11 truthers arguing amongst ourselves using the same evidence to support their claims.

Here's the way I sum it up. The OCT suggests that a 20-30 story pile driver demolished the lower 70-80 stories.

Dr. Wood is one of many who debunks this. She uses seismic evidence to support her debunking. Namely, if such a pile driver existed and were at work, it would have had a more noticable seismic spike, particularly when it hit the ground. In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events. Moreover, she takes it a step further, by saying (paraphrased) that if the towers were to have collapsed in a natural fashion, much larger cohesive chunks would have been expected to fall outside of the foot print, would have fallen from great heights, would have acquired large amounts of kinetic energy, and would have had both larger seismic spikes as well as crippling damage to bath tub.

So far, everything I have written undermines the OCT and could support the hypotheses of any form of controlled demolition including DEW.

The dustification of content and the disassembly of steel sections she argues weren't flukes of an overly redundant, exceptionally thorough overkill demolition. No, this was planned so that damage to the bath tub could be minimized.


Now is when we get into the hair splitting part for the 9/11 truthers to bash each other about.

Dr. Wood questions the amount of steel in the pile, particularly from the inner core box columns and trusses supporting floor pans. She points to the 3 out of 7 unobstructed subway lines as well as images from those "spelunking" into the debris pile looking for gold... *cough*, ... I mean survivors to say that the debris of the upper 110 stories was not contained in the sub-basement levels. This comes about in part from the debris not falling into the towers footprint but in spreading out. However, when looking at the overall scope of the debris at the WTC complex and in particular at the debris on top of of other buildings (WTC-3, WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6) that the OCT credits for their demise, she correctly points out that WTC-1 and WTC-2 debris is represented in insufficient quantities to account for the thoroughness of their destruction.

I particularly like all of the evidence she presents about WTC-4 that had its 9 story main edifice leveled to almost the street at the boundary line with its north wing, despite the fact that both the main edifice and north wing were within the radius of falling tower debris. Not only did the north wing not have significant amounts of debris on its roof, but the debris directly attributable to the towers sitting on top of the main edifice, while certainly damaging, was insufficient to account for the neat leveling of that 9 story structure. In similar fashion, she points to the insufficient amounts of debris directly attributable to the towers as the top layer of crap at the bottom of the WTC-6 crater and how it would have been incapable of creating such vertical punch-outs of every floor in the WTC-6.

So far, so good. Dr. Wood is debunking the OCT with arguments that could support different hypotheses.

The problem with the WTC destruction is that you have to use a zoom-out to understand the scope and in doing so, you loose sight & perspective of the size of individual pieces. And when you zoom-in (as if you were a clean-up worker), you might be able to appreciate the size of individual pieces, but you loose the ability to connect together mentally such individual pieces (large or small) into any wholistic view for magnitude of the destruction. "Can't see the forests from the trees."

On this theme, the doubts cast by Dr. Wood on there being sufficient amounts of steel represented in the pile were based on I believe these mental zoom-in/zoom-out disconnections to scope magnitude. And then she craftily interjects the spire's demise from only one persective to present the lingering innuendo that steel is under-represented and thus must have been vaporized.

From the time this appeared on her website to the time of the last draft prior to publication of her book, one would think that Dr. Wood would have run across or been pointed to videos of the spire from other perspectives that suggest the steel fell and that at best the residual "glue" joints of concrete and drywall were zapped to dust to cause it to fall so suddently and breaking neatly apart.

Lest there be any doubt, IMHO the spire's demise appears to be key to Dr. Wood's steel vaporization theme.

Yet the spire wasn't vaporized; it fell. Yet the steel wasn't under-represented in the pile; it was chunked into pieces and distributed to confuse its original purposes. Yet Dr. Jenkins is grossly erroring in his energy calculations that try to dustify 200,000 tons of steel (or some huge, unreasonable amount); still, energy calculations to vaporize even one bar of steel is valid and doesn't come from nowhere.

Just above, I wrote:


In fact, traveling down and impacting floors would have released energy into the still intact lower structure that would transmit to the foundation and then to the seismic measuring station such signature events.

Dr. Wood also seemingly argues that the explosive charges of a conventional demolition (using whatever mix of incendiaries and explosives) would have had their explosive signatures transmitted down the still intact lower structure and into the foundation to be picked up by seismic equipment. She argues from the seismic data that this did not happen either. (Ergo, DEW.)

Dr. Sunder from NIST argues that expected decibel signatures from incendiaries and explosives combinations weren't measured at expected levels in audio recordings, thus those weren't the (primary) mechanisms of destruction. [And he might be right. He probably would not have made such a forceful but lame argument against incendiaries and explosives combinations unless he had an ace up his sleeve in the form of knowing the towers were destroyed by other means.]

All of the above is essentially the basis on which DEW considerations get started.

Now that I've had a year to contemplate Dr. Wood's textbook (and I'm on the cusp of reading it cover-to-cover for the second time with Mr. Rogue), I can more readily see aspects of "lingering innuendo" that need to be either solidified with evidence or blown away as dust.

I do not believe Dr. Wood has made a sufficient case for missing steel, gone missing via dustification or vaporization. The energy requirements for such would have been massive. Dustification of concrete is another matter and also requires lots of energy, but not as much as zapping steel would.

It is gosh darn suprising that she leaps to Tesla-energy-from-space instead of to mini-nuclear reactors that has anomalous radiation measurements that could potentially support it. It is gosh darn surprising that Dr. Wood does not address the radiation measurements, despite having "lingering innuendo" via pictures of hazmat procedures resembling nuclear clean up: carting in and spreading of fresh dirt, letting sit for a few days, removal of fresh dirt.

My hobby horse today stands on Dr. Wood's shoulders and walks a different direction towards mini-nuclear-reactor powered DEW devices that dustified via high-energy microwaves concrete, drywall, and content in a focused manner (but not steel). Unspent but fizzling remnants of the nuclear power source (ala Fukushima) was the source of weeks-long under-rubble hot spots. The power source and DEW explain the meteor and other anomalous fusion of separate items (e.g., coins).

Hide All / Expand All



Señor El Once : Dr. Wood obviously got it wrong, 'cause the spire fell.

2012-06-13



Señor El Once : DEW assertions are NOT demolished

2012-06-13




Señor El Once : why we don't outright reject DEW

2012-06-14



Señor El Once : One step back to go two forward.

2012-06-14



Señor El Once : DEW is exists and is operational

2012-06-14




Señor El Once : assertions do not account for the radiation measurements

2012-06-15



Señor El Once : fix them in revision 2

2012-06-15



Señor El Once : confuse people and manage their perceptions

2012-06-15




Señor El Once : propped up Dr. Wood's textbook

2012-06-15



Señor El Once : get to seismic signals in due time

2012-06-15



Señor El Once : We are both wrong about WTC-2 spire

2012-06-17




Señor El Once : no radioactivity at Ground Zero

2012-06-17



Señor El Once : Hyperbole that Dr. Jones was called in, you no likey?

2012-06-17



Señor El Once : play horse hockey

2012-06-18




Señor El Once : framing into "all nuclear weapons"

2012-06-18



Señor El Once : tad too much reliance on the radiation readings being truthful

2012-06-18



Señor El Once : Something else is causing the hot-spots

2012-06-19




Señor El Once : grasp new concepts and incorporate into subsequent actions

2012-06-20



Señor El Once : dismissal in its entirety

2012-06-20



Señor El Once : Mr. Rogue's posting does not belong here

2012-06-21



Señor El Once : pretense and conjecture do not address all of the evidence

2012-06-21




Señor El Once : still left with evidence in the aftermath for which we must continue looking for a source

2012-06-24



Señor El Once : foaming at the mouth hot sauce

2012-06-25




No comments: