Jul 25, 2014

9/11 No-Planes Fail Blog: Dr. Judy Wood

9/11 Cartoon Physics

Why Dr. Judy Wood Laughed While Watching the Attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001

In an interview with conspiracy theorist Richard D. Hall of RICHPLANET TV, Dr. Judy Wood stated that she "smirked" while watching the live coverage of the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11 with colleagues at Clemson University. Dr. Wood says that she found the event humorous because it was similar to watching a Looney Tunes Roadrunner cartoon (never mind that hundreds of real people were trapped in the buildings, burning and jumping to their deaths).


The impact hole in WTC1, according to Wood, appeared unrealistic--like a Wile E. Coyote cut-out. What most caught her attention, she says, was that the wing-tips of the alleged airliner had cut cleanly through the steel perimeter box-columns of the tower. Dr. Wood explains that this is an obvious impossibility. The wing-tips of an airliner are light and fragile, don't carry fuel like the rest of the wing, and therefore lack the necessary mass to penetrate the columns.

world trade center no plane 9/11

"When we see things that are impossible", stated Wood, "we giggle". The physics professor therefore giggled to herself upon seeing the massively damaged Twin Towers which had become a horrific inferno and death trap on the morning of 9/11.


Epic Fail: Dr.Wood's Ignorance

It's rather shocking that Dr. Wood--purportedly an accomplished and respected physicist, researcher, and academic--would be so arrogant, so brazen, and so scientifically inept as to conclude immediately that the impact hole in WTC1 was impossible merely from a subjective visual assessment of the damage on standard definition television. So confident was Dr. Wood in her prima facie analysis that she actually smirked, laughing to herself while among faculty colleagues who watched aghast the horror unfolding before them. 

How can any such person be at all regarded as rational, much less scientifically credible?

In fact, her analysis of the damage was/is absolutely wrong. Dr. Wood bases her "cartoon physics" criticism on her conjecture that an airliner's aluminum wingtips are too light and fragile to have penetrated the towers' columns as she apparently observed on television. The problem with her rationale is that no wingtip of either plane penetrated the steel columns of either tower. It's astounding that she's ignorant of this fact.

The first and most obvious way Dr. Wood could have verified her initial observation (had the notion occurred to her) would have been to examine existing photographs of the impact holes. It's foolish to rely solely on low resolution video for forensic analysis. If Dr. Wood was skeptical regarding the physical nature of the impact damage, why wouldn't she have examined any of the existing high-resolution images of the towers taken by photographers on 9/11? When looking at photographs, it's very easy to see that the wingtips did not sever the steel columns, and instead cut only through the exterior aluminum cladding, marking and/or bending the columns underneath, but not severing them. (click on the below images to see them in full resolution).

Tower 1 Impact Hole
WTC1 airplane hole

North Tower Wing-tip Impact

9/11 North Tower Wing Impact

Tower 2 Impact Hole
WTC2 Airplane Hole


WTC2 Wing-tip damage

Dr. Wood's negligence extends beyond overlooking the photographic evidence, however, because not only is it obvious from photographs that the wing-tips did not penetrate the columns, this observation was explicitly stated in the NIST report as is shown below.(NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis)

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 65
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, p. 108


It's clear that Dr. Wood hasn't even read this part of the NIST report, the chapter devoted to assessing the initial damage to the towers. How could this be? How could someone who claims to be a scientist and truth-seeking researcher, someone who has published her own book claiming to be "the only comprehensive-forensic investigation into what happened to the World Trade Center complex on 9/11" have neglected to thoroughly read the NIST report, the most exhaustive investigative study published on the destruction of the towers?


Judy Wood wants you to believe this:

The reality is this:
WTC 1
WTC 2 
(Dotted lines show where the outer aluminum cladding was marked, leaving intact the steel columns underneath.)


Conclusion

Dr. Wood criticizes the NIST report, but hasn't even read it. She laughs at the airplane impact damage, but hasn't really looked at it. Whatever sort of "research" Dr. Wood claims to have done, it's far from scientific and cannot be taken seriously. 

The impact holes in the twin towers present a very a big problem for the No-Plane Theory, leaving questions to which proponents of the theory have failed to provide any viable answers.

  • If real planes did not impact the towers how were the perpetrators able to create large holes that exactly match the dimensions of 767's with exterior steel beams and/or entire steel panels bent or punched INWARD? This was done with explosives? Explosives that were somehow invisible from the outside of the towers? How could this have possibly been done?
  • Additionally, how were they able to create impressions of the wingtips and vertical stabilizers, indentations in the outer aluminum cladding ONLY that left the steel underneath intact, or in some cases bent (again, inward)? This would be impossible to do with explosives planted only on the inside of the towers, and probably impossible with any kind of explosives inside or outside the towers.
  • None of this--the imprinted outer cladding, the inwardly bent columns, the massive column panels punched into the interior of towers--has been reasonably explained by no-plane theorists, nor can it be. The only viable explanation is the obvious one, that jumbo jet planes flying extremely fast--the same ones filmed and photographed by dozens of photographers and witnessed by thousands of bystanders--impacted and penetrated both towers, causing the observed gashes in the buildings, exactly the kind of physical damage as would be expected.

For genuine, scientifically-based, information on the physics of the WTC airplane impacts go here:


Also See:

_____________________________________________________________


Check out another 9/11 conspiracy FAIL: "9 11 NO PLANES-VIDEO FAKERY - Watch for proof !!"

 


28 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Why would you leave a comment in the comment section, stating that you actually have no comment? Wouldn't it have been more effective to just, I don't know... not comment?

      Delete
    2. wiec miała racje pani wood haha koncowki skrzydeł niebbyływ stanie przeciac tych kolumn wiec w czym jest problem ;) ?, ale sadzeze nnietylko koncowki nie byływ stanie rpzeciac tych kolumn ale tez reszta skrzydła swoia droga zaatakuje pania wood z innej strony twój argument jest nic niewart w końcu maila racje odnośnie koncowek skrzydel ;) natomiast teoria ze tylko masa ma wpływ na penetracje jednego obiektu w drugi przecięcie go itp. jest ridiculous na to jak dany obiekt spenetruje i czy wgl inny ma wpływ wiele czynnikow masa i to nawet niejednnostkowa cyzli na dana objetosc obiektu ma mały wpływ chyba ze dla jakiś tam wartości granicznych a cyznniki decydujące to zgrubsza predkosc gestosc twardość kruchość kształt nacisk jednostkowy czyli im mniejsza powierzchnia nacisku w momencie uderzenia przy tej samej masie tym lepiej dla penetracji a masa to jest pikus i 5 woda po kisielu ;) przykład proszę bardzo pancerz ochronny czołgu t 34 vs pocisk przeciwpancerny ze zubożonego uranu który wazy ze nie wiem ile ale na pewno niewiecej jak 1 kg ? ale ma mala powierzchnie nacisku ( jest porosotu ostry w skrocie ;) ) ma ogromna predkosc kilku machow i jest zajpiscie twardy i gesty w każdym bądź razie twardszy i gęstszy niż pancerz t34 dzięki tym czynnikom może go przebic teraz spróbujmy przebic ten sam pancerz boingiem 767 hahah z boinga zostaną drzazgi mimo ze wazy pierdylion ton .

      Delete
    3. gdyby np. te koncowki tych skrzydel boinga były zrobione o takim samym kształcie jak sa oczywiście i masie powiedzmy ale z materialu znacznie twardszego mocniejszego itd. ciały by ta stal lepiej bo skrzydlo przy kadlubie najprawdopodobniej tez niemoglo wgl rpzeciac tej satli ale to się okaaze podczas testu niż reszta skrzydła przy samym kadłubie pare razy ciezsza która .

      Delete
  2. gee, how did they make a hole that looked like a 767 hit it? I guess they just laid it out and faked it. doh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. direct explosiv load and you have the same results offcorse they must play explosiv with plain or something what hit in tower or hologram in egzacly teh same time that it could look reliably like in movie car hit inother car push botttom and booom .

      Delete
    2. All video evidence shows that the plane went all the way into the building with no damage to the plane or tower, then there was an explosion, then when the smoke cleared the Wiley Coyote hole was there. 9/11 criminals made the hole. The plane was an illusion.

      Delete
  3. It's a shame after all these years that this woman's maniacal narcissism is using so much energy and expending so much resources of people who should just probably ignore her. She's a nut.

    ReplyDelete
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zo8wI7ZUSjE

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wile E Coyote stays in the Truth Movement !!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the wing tips did not cut through the columns, where did they go exactly? The entire plane completely disappeared into the building. There was no debris falling from the entry wound. Gotta love it when debunker bullshit back fires.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was a high velocity/high energy impact. Why would you expect any large sections of wings to remain intact? Any sections of the wings or fuselage that didn't enter the building (through a window section), fragmented into small pieces, shattered into aluminum confetti.
      Watch the footage of the F4 Phantom jet crash test and then ask yourself where the plane went.

      Delete
    2. You write: "Any sections of the wings or fuselage that didn't enter the building (through a window section), fragmented into small pieces, shattered into aluminum confetti." but this is not what the video presents. This should be evidence to you that it was bad SGI. But for some reason it isn't. I wonder why....;)

      Delete
    3. I disagree. It's exactly what is seen in the video footage.

      Delete
    4. Aluminium wings don't shatter. It's aluminium not glass. The wings should have been torn of at best. The wings and tail section should have been on the ground and filmed by news crews in the media capital of the world.If they didn't film wings/tail section there was no wings /tail section. Stupid article.

      Delete
  7. Wow stay asleep folks-find and ask a welder what temperature steel melts and how easily you believe aluminum can slice through steel. This woman is correct folks-wake up now!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Firstly a passenger jetplane cannot not travel at 560 mph at such a low altitude. Secondly, no part of that plane could have passed through steel and reinforced concrete and thirdly the whole scenario clearly, breaks Newtons First Law of Motion which most young people will discover on any second-level course of basic physics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Firstly a passenger jetplane cannot not travel at 560 mph at such a low altitude."
      The evidence says otherwise.

      "Secondly, no part of that plane could have passed through steel and reinforced concrete".
      There was no "reinforced concrete" in the twin towers, and all the scientific research conducted on the impacts says the planes EASILY penetrated the towers.

      "and thirdly the whole scenario clearly, breaks Newtons First Law of Motion which most young people will discover on any second-level course of basic physics."
      If that's true, why can't it be demonstrated scientifically?

      Delete
    2. "all the scientific research conducted on the impacts says the planes EASILY penetrated the towers"Can you give the source for that claim."There was no "reinforced concrete" in the twin towers",so what was all the dust if not concrete?""Firstly a passenger jetplane cannot not travel at 560 mph at such a low altitude."
      The evidence says otherwise",Which evidence?can i have a source for that claim?
      Sincere.

      Delete
  9. Two man-made structures (aircraft & skyscraper) 'merge' during a high-speed intersection, where there is no visible deceleration? This event is unknown outside of SF, comic books, and manga.
    http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Structure_Merging

    ReplyDelete
  10. maybe someone can explain WHY the FOX 5 news video of the event shows the airplane going COMPLETELY through the tower and the nose sticking out the opposite side? there IS an EXTREMELY stout steel and concrete core. Not to mention the fact that the aircraft supposedly penetrated steel and concrete Floors?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It has already been explained:

      http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-nose-out-fallacy.html

      Delete
  11. tons of info on this page that no planes. more on the site that proves a hoax.
    http://www.deepinsidetherabbithole.com/september-11th-2001/911-no-planes/

    ReplyDelete
  12. first off if it was a plane the wings would have fell to the ground. second here is footage of the pentagon...you think that is a plane.......LOL
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/5dbc426c4403.gif

    ReplyDelete
  13. there was a 36 hour powerdown the weekend prior to 9/11 when explosives were planted in the towers cores. Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett confirm this, you fuckin shills!! thats how those holes got there, duh!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't think so, "No Planes." One of the times that Forbes claimed those power downs took place was also a time somebody bought a ticket to the Windows on the World restaurant. You can't get those tickets if a power down takes place.

      http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

      Delete
  14. No wake vortex seen at twin towers. Stupid article

    ReplyDelete