Judy Wood

[A Sharp Major]

On the linked thread I commented on Judy Wood- unreliable.

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5188

A Sharp Major said

As for taking issue with her technical musings, it has been done. JW might like to Google herself (dosen’t mean all her critics are correct either ).

Andrew Johnson said

Care to comment (in Critics Corner as you are an OCT supporter) on any of the points of evidence Ms. Wood raises?

You are not listening Andrew. Conspiracy Theorists seldom do.

Here is an interview with Judy Wood.

http://control-alt-delete.ca/v-web/bull ... 7c8f6d935b

Interviewer is James Fetzer. At 6:45 Fetzer, in 'explaining' physical laws to his lay audience says " none of us would expect water to be liquid if it's below 32".

Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer has surely heard of subcooled water. Subcooled water occurs in nature too (ask a meteorologist). She doesn't correct Fetzer (or for that matter the listener) and another alternative scientific 'fact' is introduced to the Conspiracy Theorists' lexicon.

Now perhaps later in the interview, JW does correct Fetzer but after that we were into analogies of elves and tree houses so it was time to go. Andrew, you have a hotline to Judy. Liquid water below 32 (degrees F). Possible or not? Why not correct Fetzer and by association, his audience? If she did later I will eat humble pie and listen to the whole interview, elves and all. As for taking issue with the rest of her musings, it's been done and I have a day job, unlike some.

Google crashes as thousands of Conspiracy Theorists google "sub cooled water"

[Andrew Johnson]

Thanks for posting in the requested place.

You are not listening Andrew. Conspiracy Theorists seldom do.

You are absolutely right - I no longer listen to Gravity Deniers (i.e. those who do not seem to accept the proof that the WTC as destroyed with explosives.)

I don't really care if Judy Wood is an undergraduate or has a fake degree either - her analysis about the "bathtub" is correct in terms of basic laws of physics. It could not have survived in the state it did if all the huge quantity of WTC material had come down into it. Lower Manhattan did not get flooded out on 9/11. Yes. It's that simple

Bye.

[Bushwacker]

You are absolutely right - I no longer listen to Gravity Deniers (i.e. those who do not seem to accept the proof that the WTC as destroyed with explosives.)

That would include Judy Wood, then.

[Anti-sophist]

You are absolutely right - I no longer listen to Gravity Deniers (i.e. those who do not seem to accept the proof that the WTC as destroyed with explosives.)

It's hard to accept a sum total of 0 proof.

I don't really care if Judy Wood is an undergraduate or has a fake degree either - her analysis about the "bathtub" is correct in terms of basic laws of physics.

Her analysis is the funniest pile of mathematical gibberish I've ever seen. Aren't you supposed to "think for yourself"? Why are you being spoonfed what to think by Judy Wood?

[aggle-rithm]

Andrew, you have a hotline to Judy. Liquid water below 32 (degrees F). Possible or not? Why not correct Fetzer and by association, his audience? If she did later I will eat humble pie and listen to the whole interview, elves and all. As for taking issue with the rest of her musings, it's been done and I have a day job, unlike some.

Google crashes as thousands of Conspiracy Theorists google "sub cooled water"

I think the 1500 people who froze to death in the sub-freezing water after the Titanic sank would be surprised to hear they were killed by something that is impossible, by CT standards.

Maybe it was Bush's great-grandpappy who killed them?

[chek]

Andrew, you have a hotline to Judy. Liquid water below 32 (degrees F). Possible or not? Why not correct Fetzer and by association, his audience? If she did later I will eat humble pie and listen to the whole interview, elves and all. As for taking issue with the rest of her musings, it's been done and I have a day job, unlike some.

Google crashes as thousands of Conspiracy Theorists google "sub cooled water"

I think the 1500 people who froze to death in the sub-freezing water after the Titanic sank would be surprised to hear they were killed by something that is impossible, by CT standards.

Maybe it was Bush's great-grandpappy who killed them?

So the sea has now turned to pure fresh water in lala land?
The world will breath a sigh of relief at that revelation.
Oh dear.
Occam's dessert spoon just told me it's merely more critic misrepresented science in action.

[James C]

You are absolutely right - I no longer listen to Gravity Deniers (i.e. those who do not seem to accept the proof that the WTC as destroyed with explosives.)

It's hard to accept a sum total of 0 proof.

I don't really care if Judy Wood is an undergraduate or has a fake degree either - her analysis about the "bathtub" is correct in terms of basic laws of physics.

Her analysis is the funniest pile of mathematical gibberish I've ever seen. Aren't you supposed to "think for yourself"? Why are you being spoonfed what to think by Judy Wood?

Why are you being spoonfed the lies that NIST propogate?

Please tell me why her mathematics is so funny? The only funny thing is that you and the other shills have failed to discredit anything we have said about the WTC collapses.

I have to say, it has been a pleasure to get up in the mornings lately just to witness how badly you lot have squirmed as you attempt to cobble together your lousy ideas. Please carry on, I'm loving it.

And stop using the word gibbersih. Gibberish means unintelligable speech or meaningless sounds. Please bear that in mind.

[aggle-rithm]

So the sea has now turned to pure fresh water in lala land?
The world will breath a sigh of relief at that revelation.
Oh dear.
Occam's dessert spoon just told me it's merely more critic misrepresented science in action.

Did Fetzer specify fresh water? I don't know, I don't have the stomach to listen to that loon-fest.

[chipmunk stew]

I don't really care if Judy Wood is an undergraduate or has a fake degree either - her analysis about the "bathtub" is correct in terms of basic laws of physics. It could not have survived in the state it did if all the huge quantity of WTC material had come down into it. Lower Manhattan did not get flooded out on 9/11. Yes. It's that simple

Are you saying that you believe the collapses didn't happen at all? In any fashion?

[A Sharp Major]

chek said

So the sea has now turned to pure fresh water in lala land?

aggle-rithm asked

Did Fetzer specify fresh water?

Fetzer did not, I quoted him. I'm not talking about sea water, brine or fresh water with ethylene glycol added. Fresh water can exist as liquid well below 32° F / 0°C, down to -40° F / -40°C if memory serves. Judy Wood should have corrected Fetzer so either;

1: She didn't know. She's a PhD Mechanical Engineer for crying out loud! Thermodynamics is a mechanical engineering sub discipline.

2: She knew but let it go and a (likely high) proportion of her and Fetzer's audience went away misinformed. If so, poor engineering ethics.

3. JW corrected Fetzer later in the interview in which case, I will be eating humble pie. I haven't got my spoon and double cream ready.

I called Judy Wood 'unreliable'. The above would seem to underpin that view. I'm being kind. I'm not about to get into a point by point debunking her theories. It's been done.

Andrew, you should be aware of subcooled (some say 'supercooled' which is probably more apt) water, having a degree in Physics and all. It happens in nature too, ask an engineer, physicist, pilot or meteorologist and Andrew; listen carefully.

[chek]

chek said

So the sea has now turned to pure fresh water in lala land?

aggle-rithm asked

Did Fetzer specify fresh water?

Fetzer did not, I quoted him. I'm not talking about sea water, brine or fresh water with ethylene glycol added. .

Aggle-rithm however did make that 'Titanically' false analogy.

[A Sharp Major]

chek said

Aggle-rithm however did make that 'Titanically' false analogy.

Yes yes but what about Judy Wood? Not as clued up as a PhD Engineer should be or deliberate endorser of disinfomation and junk science?

Aggle-rithm's example (not an analogy) is apt enough. Fetzer, like many conspiracy theorists don't have a 'big picture' function.

[chek]

chek said

Aggle-rithm however did make that 'Titanically' false analogy.

Yes yes but what about Judy Wood? Not as clued up as a PhD Engineer should be or deliberate endorser of disinfomation and junk science?

The more likely explanation being that it was not directly relevant to the issue under discussion, rather than it's empirical status as a non-related factoid.

Or curses, have you discovered the true CT plot to deceive the world on the true physical properties of water.
D*mn you.
Quick lads, run for the van, sharpish.

[Johnny Pixels]

My beef with Judy Woods is the billiard ball diagram. She neglects to include momentum transfer between impact floors. This either means she is

a) nonsense at physics
b) Lying

Now couple that with the freezing water, I'm tending towards nonsense at physics.

[A Sharp Major]

Chek said

The more likely explanation being that it was not directly relevant to the issue under discussion, rather than it's empirical status as a non-related factoid.

Judy Wood's integrity and or knowledge of engineering science is directly relevant. And in the interview, Fetzer's unscientific statement (unchallenged by Wood) sets the scene for the interview. Relevant whatever way you look at it.

Chek mocked

Or curses, have you discovered the true CT plot to deceive the world on the true physical properties of water.

No Chek, just another example of all conspiracy theorists (even your champions) being nonsense at physics/engineering science, analysis, conceptualising, telling the truth, answering the question an so on.

I was right about Steven E Jones (before your time Chek but check my posts). JW is heading the same way.

[chipmunk stew]

If the Truthiness Movement wants to follow Wood and Reynolds over the cliffs of insanity, who am I to stop them?

Seriously. AJ, chek, James: These people are completely mental. They add exactly zilch to your mission to get a new independent investigation (except maybe concrete shoes).

[chek]

Chek said

The more likely explanation being that it was not directly relevant to the issue under discussion, rather than it's empirical status as a non-related factoid.

Judy Wood's integrity and or knowledge of engineering science is directly relevant. And in the interview, Fetzer's unscientific statement (unchallenged by Wood) sets the scene for the interview. Relevant whatever way you look at it.

Chek mocked

Or curses, have you discovered the true CT plot to deceive the world on the true physical properties of water.

No Chek, just another example of all conspiracy theorists (even your champions) being nonsense at physics/engineering science, analysis, conceptualising, telling the truth, answering the question an so on.

I was right about Steven E Jones (before your time Chek but check my posts). JW is heading the same way.

Two things occur to me - firstly what way has Steven Jones 'gone'?
Politically motivated professional assassination? Quelle suprise.
and
secondly, despite the assertion, Wood's 'billiard balls' example is a good one.

Each floor has to accelerate from rest - the uncalculated 'imparted momentum' criticism is only valid in explaining the unprecendented speed of collapse when trying to fit the OCT myth to observed reality.

I've yet to see her physics discredited other than by implying she's somehow 'wrong'.
State what your alternate case is, and I'm sure a way can be found for her to consider them.

[aggle-rithm]

and
secondly, despite the assertion, Wood's 'billiard balls' example is a good one.

Each floor has to accelerate from rest - the uncalculated 'imparted momentum' criticism is only valid in explaining the unprecendented speed of collapse when trying to fit the OCT myth to observed reality.

I've yet to see her physics discredited other than by implying she's somehow 'wrong'.

How about this? The billiard balls in the example do not have a force applied to them that causes them to continue to accelerate once they are put in motion. Perhaps if the cue ball was set in motion with a continuous jet of compressed air rather than a stick, the analogy would be more apt.

[aggle-rithm]

Double double post post.

[A Sharp Major]

Check said of Judy Wood's billiard ball stuff

State what your alternate case is, and I'm sure a way can be found for her to consider them.

I haven't mentioned JW's billiard balls. Read my posts in this thread again. I'm raising the issue of;

Judy Wood's integrity and or knowledge of engineering science is directly relevant. And in the interview, Fetzer's unscientific statement (unchallenged by Wood) sets the scene for the interview. Relevant whatever way you look at it.

Chek, are you saying that Judy Wood is doing her profession a favour by not flagging up Fetzer's junk science? Or do you not believe in the existence of supercooled water?

As for Jones, Jones deserved everything he got (and didn't). Even Judy Wood isn't impresssed by him or have you been asleep longer than I thought? The truthiness technical champions have fallen out.

Chek, your evasion and changing the subject is typical of conspiracy theorists.

[chek]

and
secondly, despite the assertion, Wood's 'billiard balls' example is a good one.

Each floor has to accelerate from rest - the uncalculated 'imparted momentum' criticism is only valid in explaining the unprecendented speed of collapse when trying to fit the OCT myth to observed reality.

I've yet to see her physics discredited other than by implying she's somehow 'wrong'.

How about this? The billiard balls in the example do not have a force applied to them that causes them to continue to accelerate once they are put in motion. Perhaps if the cue ball was set in motion with a continuous jet of compressed air rather than a stick, the analogy would be more apt.

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

[aggle-rithm]

and
secondly, despite the assertion, Wood's 'billiard balls' example is a good one.

Each floor has to accelerate from rest - the uncalculated 'imparted momentum' criticism is only valid in explaining the unprecendented speed of collapse when trying to fit the OCT myth to observed reality.

I've yet to see her physics discredited other than by implying she's somehow 'wrong'.

How about this? The billiard balls in the example do not have a force applied to them that causes them to continue to accelerate once they are put in motion. Perhaps if the cue ball was set in motion with a continuous jet of compressed air rather than a stick, the analogy would be more apt.

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

Of course it can be instantaneous. Not every object comes to a stop when it strikes another object. When a car hits a pedestrian, does it stop, even for an instant?

Of course, I recognize that it's possible that if the momentum was just right in relation to the resistance, that an object might stop for an instant, or even rebound, before it continues on its way. However, in order to demonstrate this, you would have to show actual numbers in terms of momentum and resistance, and show that one is sufficient to stop the other.

[Anti-sophist]

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

This physics is gibberish. The floors do not accelerate, due to gravity, from rest. They have huge amounts of momentum imparted on them over tiny fractions of time (nanoseconds) that well exeeds the acceleration due to gravity. This acceleration ends once the new floor and the colliding mass are heading downward at the same speed, which then is accelerating downward due to gravity.

The concept that each floor is "broken loose" and then begins to freefall, starting at rest, is completely and utterly flawed.

Furthermore, the billiard ball analogy is among the most ridiculous of all, because the collapse is obviously more correctly analyzed as a series of perfectly inelastic collisions, not perfectly elastic ones. That is to say it's more correctly analyzed as snowballs that combine into larger snowballs as they collide and gain mass. The analogy is bad but a proper explanation requires some knowledge of physics, so feel free to consult wikipedia.

[James C]

How about this? The billiard balls in the example do not have a force applied to them that causes them to continue to accelerate once they are put in motion. Perhaps if the cue ball was set in motion with a continuous jet of compressed air rather than a stick, the analogy would be more apt.

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

Of course it can be instantaneous. Not every object comes to a stop when it strikes another object. When a car hits a pedestrian, does it stop, even for an instant?

Of course, I recognize that it's possible that if the momentum was just right in relation to the resistance, that an object might stop for an instant, or even rebound, before it continues on its way. However, in order to demonstrate this, you would have to show actual numbers in terms of momentum and resistance, and show that one is sufficient to stop the other.

Oh I get it, so when car manufacturers do crash tests, they actually know what is going to happen because they have calculated everything before hand.

But wait a minute. Why do the crash tests then if they know the only possible outcome in advance?

I better go and think about that. I suggest you do to.

Caught any mice this evening? It's going to be cold!

[chek]

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

This physics is gibberish. The floors do not accelerate, due to gravity, from rest. They have huge amounts of momentum imparted on them over tiny fractions of time (nanoseconds) that well exeeds the acceleration due to gravity. This acceleration ends once the new floor and the colliding mass are heading downward at the same speed, which then is accelerating downward due to gravity.

The concept that each floor is "broken loose" and then begins to freefall, starting at rest, is completely and utterly flawed.

Furthermore, the billiard ball analogy is among the most ridiculous of all, because the collapse is obviously more correctly analyzed as a series of perfectly inelastic collisions, not perfectly elastic ones. That is to say it's more correctly analyzed as snowballs that combine into larger snowballs as they collide and gain mass. The analogy is bad but a proper explanation requires some knowledge of physics, so feel free to consult wikipedia.

Flawed how? You make a lot of unjustified assertions for someone so apparently wedded to evidence.
Like I said, give us your numbers and I'm sure a way can be found to have them seen by someone competent.
Of course you can't, because the OCT 'explanation' itself is fantasy.

[James C]

Yet there is still the problem of 'stutter' to overcome as each floor is broken free and can only then accelerate from rest.
How many milliseconds did this process take per floor?
The one thing that is certain is it can't be instantaneous, yet that's exactly what the actual observed collapse demands.

This physics is gibberish. The floors do not accelerate, due to gravity, from rest. They have huge amounts of momentum imparted on them over tiny fractions of time (nanoseconds) that well exeeds the acceleration due to gravity. This acceleration ends once the new floor and the colliding mass are heading downward at the same speed, which then is accelerating downward due to gravity.

The concept that each floor is "broken loose" and then begins to freefall, starting at rest, is completely and utterly flawed.

Furthermore, the billiard ball analogy is among the most ridiculous of all, because the collapse is obviously more correctly analyzed as a series of perfectly inelastic collisions, not perfectly elastic ones. That is to say it's more correctly analyzed as snowballs that combine into larger snowballs as they collide and gain mass. The analogy is bad but a proper explanation requires some knowledge of physics, so feel free to consult wikipedia.

I've told you before about using the word gibberish. The irony is of course that it shows poor use of the english language and yet you always use it to suggest that people have a poor understanding of something. Bizzare.

[Anti-sophist]

Flawed how? You make a lot of unjustified assertions for someone so apparently wedded to evidence.

I just explained it to you. She assumes elastic collisions. Try reading. When you get to something that's too technical for you, look it up, isntead of continuing to be ignorant.

Elastic collision assumptions, that Judy Wood makes, are completely and utterly wrong. Inelastic collisions are MUCH more accurate and just as easy to calculate.

[aggle-rithm]

Oh I get it, so when car manufacturers do crash tests, they actually know what is going to happen because they have calculated everything before hand.

They have a pretty good idea, but there's no substitute for empirical data just to make sure nothing was overlooked.

But wait a minute. Why do the crash tests then if they know the only possible outcome in advance?

There's a difference between the way something is supposed to behave, and the way it actually behaves. A good example can be found in the WTC towers, which were supposed to remain standing after an airliner crash.

You never know for sure until you test it in the real world.

[Anti-sophist]

I've told you before about using the word gibberish. The irony is of course that it shows poor use of the english language and yet you always use it to suggest that people have a poor understanding of something. Bizzare.

I know that the conversation got a little too science-y for you, what with the high-school levels of physics terms and whatnot, but try to at least pretend to add something useful next time instead of the usual off-topic yammering.

Maybe you can start by looking up the terms "inelastic" and "elastic". It'll be educational.

[A Sharp Major]

A Sharp Major asked Chek

Are you saying that Judy Wood is doing her profession a favour by not flagging up Fetzer's junk science? Or do you not believe in the existence of supercooled water?

Chek didn't answer. Now everyone is talking billiard balls and Chek will be pleased.

You are in Critics' Corner Chek. It behoves you to answer your critic.
Are you saying that Judy Wood is doing her profession a favour by not flagging up Fetzer's junk science? Or do you not believe in the existence of supercooled water?

Thanking you in anticipation.