Show #15: No Ordinary Inside Job: The 9/11 Psy-Ops

[Niall]

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
E=(CS∆T1+CF +CL∆T2+CV)M=5.7×1014J (Equation1)

The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, respectively.[3]
If you consider that this amount of energy, 5.7 ×1014 J , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7x1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth[26] including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss (pg 5).

[...]

The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine. Power requirements were shown to be absurdly large to vaporize half of the steel in both WTC towers. Since the power requirements are so large, any hypothetical beam weapon would necessarily be ground based. Any reflecting satellite, if we falsely assume the reflector would survive, would require unrealistically colossal thrust to oppose the momentum transfer of the beam (pg 14).

So, in trying to 'crush' Wood's work, he actually wound up supporting the evidence that 9/11 was 'out of this world'.

 

[Guardian]

I'm not calling you names, I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

Actually I said I was listening to Anart, not you. I did stop listening to you when you started calling me "ignorant"

Your opinion regarding whatever you perceive me to be no longer longer matters to me in the slightest.

 

[Laura]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Not much new there, and as usual Duff throws in some nonsense, like stating that a 757 can't fly at 500mph at low altitude, which I understand to be untrue. So here he's going for the "no planes" theory, which is, IMO, disinformation.

"No planes at the WTC IS obvious disinfo, but he was speaking only about the Pentagon. Where does he advocate "no planes" at the WTC?

 

[Cosmos]

I'm not calling you names, I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

Actually I said I was listening to Anart, not you. I did stop listening to you when you started calling me "ignorant"

Your opinion regarding whatever you perceive me to be no longer longer matters to me in the slightest.

Ok, I'm sorry if you feel offended about me calling what I see "ignorant" (If that is the case). It wasn't and is not my intention to offend, attack or doing anything similar to you. And I hope you at least can eccept my honest apology if I've come across as anything like that to you.

I could certainly be wrong about it FWIW and could simply have not enough of a reference point or were you are coming from, so to speak...
A hard statement from your side but if that is really how you feel, I can understand.

But I really would like to emphasis to you again that it is NOT my and was NOT my intention to hurt or offend you with what I wrote.

Maybe what I wrote it is really over the top or wrong and I'm not seeing something?

 

[QuantumLogic]

So, in trying to 'crush' Wood's work, he actually wound up supporting the evidence that 9/11 was 'out of this world'.

That is what it seems like to me. The energy extrapolation clearly shows that not enough power is generated in the entire world to vaporize 100% of the steel through heat. So in many ways neither the power nor the technology that would be necessary to accomplish what occurred currently exists on this world, at least according to publicly available data at this time. Even using a gravity generator, I can't even fathom the amount of power that would be necessary for disintegrating something with as much mass as those 3 buildings unless they have effects that are not fully understood.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I'm not calling you names, I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

Actually I said I was listening to Anart, not you. I did stop listening to you when you started calling me "ignorant"

Your opinion regarding whatever you perceive me to be no longer longer matters to me in the slightest.

Ok, I'm sorry if you feel offended about me calling what I see "ignorant" (If that is the case). It wasn't and is not my intention to offend, attack or doing anything similar to you. And I hope you at least can eccept my honest apology if I've come across as anything like that to you.

I could certainly be wrong about it FWIW and could simply have not enough of a reference point or were you are coming from, so to speak...
A hard statement from your side but if that is really how you feel, I can understand.

But I really would like to emphasis to you again that it is NOT my and was NOT my intention to hurt or offend you with what I wrote.

Maybe what I wrote it is really over the top or wrong and I'm not seeing something?

One possibility. The word ignorant has insulting connotations, like calling someone stupid. For example, if you call me ignorant about Wood's book, I'd agree with you, because I haven't read it yet. But if you call me ignorant, I might get offended, because I like to think of myself as not a complete idiot. In other words, partly a language issue? And partly just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Turgon]

Maybe what I wrote it is really over the top or wrong and I'm not seeing something?

Pashalis, I noticed you coming off as authoritative and rigid in this thread in your back and forth exchange with Guardian. Something in the way you were posting that reminded me of myself and other's when they think they are an authority on a given topic. And this has absolutely nothing to do with whether you or Guardian were right or wrong in your assessment's of Judy Wood, but how you come across.

Edit:

And partly just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[Carl]

I think it should be a given by now that none of us here wish to attack each other, so getting offended over incorrect wording isn't really helping. There are language barriers here, not just between countries, but between different people's different understanding of certain words. It is very difficult to word a post in such a way as to be truly considerate of another, Pashalis. From my position it is pretty clear that you did not intend to offend, and you were trying to give Guardian an accurate mirror. However, your use of the word "ignorant" in the general sense, rather than a specific sense (as exampled by AI above) obviously caused problems, so this is a good lesson in considerate posting.


I also think Guardian's emotional reaction to your post was somewhat unwarranted, although understandable.

 

[Cosmos]

I'm not calling you names, I'm simply stating what I perceive, wich can be wrong.

Actually I said I was listening to Anart, not you. I did stop listening to you when you started calling me "ignorant"

Your opinion regarding whatever you perceive me to be no longer longer matters to me in the slightest.

Ok, I'm sorry if you feel offended about me calling what I see "ignorant" (If that is the case). It wasn't and is not my intention to offend, attack or doing anything similar to you. And I hope you at least can eccept my honest apology if I've come across as anything like that to you.

I could certainly be wrong about it FWIW and could simply have not enough of a reference point or were you are coming from, so to speak...
A hard statement from your side but if that is really how you feel, I can understand.

But I really would like to emphasis to you again that it is NOT my and was NOT my intention to hurt or offend you with what I wrote.

Maybe what I wrote it is really over the top or wrong and I'm not seeing something?

One possibility. The word ignorant has insulting connotations, like calling someone stupid. For example, if you call me ignorant about Wood's book, I'd agree with you, because I haven't read it yet. But if you call me ignorant, I might get offended, because I like to think of myself as not a complete idiot. In other words, partly a language issue? And partly just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Ohh yes. I can see me calling Guardian ignorant can definitely come across the wrong way, wich seems to be the result of me not expressing myself not well enough and not enough in a external considerate way. So again sorry Guardian if it has come across in an insulting way to you.

And yes looking back now, arguing for the sake of arguing definitely played a role in my writing here too. Thanks for pointing it out again...

Edit: grammer and a missing word

 

[Joe]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Not much new there, and as usual Duff throws in some nonsense, like stating that a 757 can't fly at 500mph at low altitude, which I understand to be untrue. So here he's going for the "no planes" theory, which is, IMO, disinformation.

"No planes at the WTC IS obvious disinfo, but he was speaking only about the Pentagon. Where does he advocate "no planes" at the WTC?

He's the owner of Veteran's today, one of his editors is 9/11 pundit James Fetzer, who regularly promotes no planes and "video fakery".

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.fr/2011/08/open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about.html

He also says that 4 small nuclear weapons were used at the WTC, based on his "intel contacts".

 

[sitting]

The main convergence point is this: she says it was some strange weapon. We say it was some strange "force" utilized in a strange way, possibly combined with a strange weapon, and the high strangeness events are the bits and bobs of evidence for that.

Yes Laura. I believe there is a convergence.

You could even say that after acknowledging the high strangeness factor, the two sides are really not that far apart...unless significantly different implications branch off from the "energy disruption" scenario versus "information disruption" scenario. Otherwise, it would be the fine tuning of the actual physics of it...which of course is also important.

We know the implications from the "Muslims did it" scenario. It was huge and it was tragic. I fell for it for years. The "energy disruption" scenario (which compiled the high strangeness data) made it clear to me Muslims couldn't have done it. I was relieved of that lie. I'm now very curious to see what the "information disruption" scenario might imply down the road.

 

[dant]

It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
E=(CS∆T1+CF +CL∆T2+CV)M=5.7×1014J (Equation1)

The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas, respectively.[3]
If you consider that this amount of energy, 5.7 ×1014 J , which is only 50% of the energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize the steel would be 5.7x1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the entire earth[26] including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric power, etc. This is with no loss (pg 5).

[...]

The minimum amount of power required to dissociate the steel in one of the WTC towers is astronomically large, over 5 times the total power output of the world. A very conservative estimate of loss mechanisms swell this to at least thousands of worlds of power. Any method used to dissociate steel would require at least this massive amount of energy. Any mechanism claiming to dissociate the steel with less than the minimum required energy is breaking fundamental tenets of physics and can be labeled a perpetual motion machine. Power requirements were shown to be absurdly large to vaporize half of the steel in both WTC towers. Since the power requirements are so large, any hypothetical beam weapon would necessarily be ground based. Any reflecting satellite, if we falsely assume the reflector would survive, would require unrealistically colossal thrust to oppose the momentum transfer of the beam (pg 14).

So, in trying to 'crush' Wood's work, he actually wound up supporting the evidence that 9/11 was 'out of this world'.

That is how I saw it too, because it appeared to me that he was trying
to create the (selective) data in order to fit the agenda to discredit Wood
by implying that no such power exists on earth using publicly known
technology. Since I was reminded by the Cs stating that the MIC is at
least 150 years ahead of public information, I asked myself the question,
what if such technology/power exists and is 'out of this world'?

Shades of the movie: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"? ;)

 

[LQB]

Along the lines of Punch and Judy, here's an interesting interview with Gordon Duff:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/18/911-interview-with-gordon-duff-sahar-university-video/

What do ya'll think of this?

Not much new there, and as usual Duff throws in some nonsense, like stating that a 757 can't fly at 500mph at low altitude, which I understand to be untrue. So here he's going for the "no planes" theory, which is, IMO, disinformation.

"No planes at the WTC IS obvious disinfo, but he was speaking only about the Pentagon. Where does he advocate "no planes" at the WTC?

He's the owner of Veteran's today, one of his editors is 9/11 pundit James Fetzer, who regularly promotes no planes and "video fakery".

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.fr/2011/08/open-letter-to-anthony-lawson-about.html

He also says that 4 small nuclear weapons were used at the WTC, based on his "intel contacts".

Also strange (if I heard right) that he implies he on the counter-terrorism gravy train but mocks the "muslim" terror threat.

 

[LQB]

It may be that the explosive charges (thermite, nuc or whatever) was really just a cover for what was actually done to the steel. If you add the steel beams to all the rebar that must have been in the cement - that is a huge amount of steel. The sudden conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy might explain the "dustification" of the cement, but the steel may have "disappeared" just before this putting everything into free fall at once. The steel is mostly iron so something selective against iron might have the effect we see in the collapse.

It would be interesting to see a computer sim of mechanical structure showing a prediction of the dynamics if the structural steel were suddenly removed.

 

[aragorn]

Here's an video with Greg Jenkins interviewing Judy Wood. Jenkins might have some lack of awareness of certain things, and his paper has it's flaws, but in this interview it is Wood who appears like she is totally not knowing what she's talking about. Changing the subject, interrupting, not being able to provide coherent scientific explanations for her theories.

Sorry, but she does not come across as a real scientist.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_qYm1AnUKi8

Judy Wood is one of the first and foremost supporters of the hypothesis that so-called (imaginary) "Directed Energy Weapons" were used to destroy the World Trade Center Twin Towers on 9/11.

This topic is discussed and analyzed in this interview between Wood and Dr. Greg Jenkins (of DC 9/11 Truth) on January 10th, 2007. The relevant features of Judy Wood's "hypothesis" are discussed and shown to be wholly inadequate and unscientific (ridiculous in fact!).

Many of Wood's weakly supported arguments rely on misinterpretations about "what happened" that are subsequently used to advance misleading explanations for "how it happened".

The topic covered in this interview is also dealt with extensively in Dr. Jenkins' paper: The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center (PDF), available at the following link...