QUOTE(jimmyphelps @ Mar 23 2007, 10:55 PM) [snapback]1597377[/snapback]
agreed i brought forth some other theory by Judy
and It was attacked also they dont like when we
have reputable sources so they attack them wholeheartedly
thsi chik knows her stuff when it comes to engineering
agreed this was an ambush interview like you see on oreilly and such
thanks for posting
In a separate thread (
link), you posted:
QUOTE(jimmyphelps @ Mar 10 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1576810[/snapback]
One of the Most Credible witness to report the molten pools of steel?
One of the Owners Of Controlled Demolition Incorporated
as well as of course NASA sattelite imagery showing extreme temp
for up to 4 weeks AFTER the collapse's
Yet in Dr. Woods' online report (
link), she states:
QUOTE(Beam Weapon 4 - Holes)
Figure Thermal (a) shows thermal imaging of WTC on September 16, 2001, and F is the largest hot spot. We understand that the raw data came from NASA and then these images were produced by USGS using the NASA data. How reliable are these data? Assume the data are valid for the sake of argument. Figure Thermal (b ), September 23, 2001, shows no large hot spots anywhere, casting doubt on the stories of long-lived molten metal. So, if the imaging data are reliable, then the hot spots disappeared within two weeks, not 99 days. But there are reasons to suspect that the imaging data are false. A spot like F would seem to be the most likely location to find molten metal, yet this spot coincides with hole 2 as shown in Figure 300 above, where we found no evidence of molten metal. Instead it appears to be a damp basement.
There are other reasons to doubt the stories of "pools of molten metal." First, the stories of molten metal come from interested parties like the head of Tully Construction and Controlled Demolition, Inc. Second, there are no photos of molten metal that we believe are reliable. Third, there are no photos of the solidified molten metal after it cooled either in place or being carried out. There's no evidence of molten metal before, during, or after. Fourth, the molten metal may be a cover story to hide the grim truth. Vehicle dust kicked up on a dirt road does not take six months to settle out. Dust from traditional controlled demolition settles out quickly, even after being jackhammered and pushed around. But the dust at the WTC was so ultra-fine that hosing it down would have been a wise thing to do. It is quite possible that GZ workers were not hosing down molten metal but were hosing down ultra-fine dust and the fumes of molecular dissociation. (See this figure.)
Similarly, in the same thread mentioned above, you
posted:
QUOTE(jimmyphelps @ Mar 12 2007, 10:57 AM) [snapback]1579056[/snapback]
Im not a Demolition expert so i dont have adefenitive answer to your question.
The obvius thing that i feel you sidestep is that It would have required detonations
throughout the structure to allow it to collapse in the manner it did
as i stated I feel it was a combination of rudimentary explosives and Thermite
or possibly thermate as some suggest
being that the explosions we are discussing would be at the very core of the building it would appear to be rather obvious that the main support columns would have to be shaered to facilitate the type of collpase we witnessed..lets also not forget that in 1993 the attcaks ocurred in the same area the basement and parking levels in an attempt to disrupt the main structure
Yet again, Dr. Woods disagrees (
link):
QUOTE
In fact, the data refute theories a to e–natural, arson, official, conventional and thermite demolition–in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors. The arson and thermite theories fail to explain every data point, but all the unburned paper in particular refute any high-temperature based hypothesis.
So, jimmyphelps, you seem to have a bit of a dilemma here. If Dr. Woods is indeed a reputable source and an engineering expert in these matters, then the thermite/demolition hypothesis is incorrect and you must withdraw your support of it. If you continue to believe the thermite/controlled demolition hypothesis is valid, that then implies that Dr. Woods has made some gross errors in her work which raise serious questions about her expertise in these areas.
Please note that I'm not attacking any theory or any person here. I'm merely pointing out that you're currently showing support for two opposing viewpoints and asking you to choose a side. In your view, which is the correct theory?