Judy Wood's "Math"

[Anti-sophist]

I tried to use the search feature and couldn't find anything...

Is there a definitive analysis of her math, anywhere, or just bits and pieces?
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html
Appendix A

I mean, her opening calculation

If momentum is conserved it can be used to calculate unknown velocities following a collision.

[SIZE=+1](m1 * v1)i + (m2 * v2)i= (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f[/SIZE]
where the subscript i signifies initial, before the collision, and f signifies final, after the collision.

If [SIZE=+1](m1)i[/SIZE] = 0, and [SIZE=+1](v2)i[/SIZE] = 0, then [SIZE=+1] (v2)f[/SIZE] must =0.
So, for conservation of momentum, there cannot be pulverization.

...is incredibly bizarre. Essentially she states that an object at rest colliding with an object of 0 mass will stay at rest. That's a restatement of Newton's First Law. Exactly how does this prove their cannot be pulverization?



Has anyone looked at the rest of this math in any depth?

 

[uk_dave]

Well it's obvious.....

If a plane really did hit the tower, then, since by the evidence of our own eyes the tower stayed where it was, the plane obviously wasn't moving when it hit the tower. So a plane which is stationary could not cause damage to a tower which is also stationary.

Obviously

 

[delphi_ote]

Has anyone looked at the rest of this math in any depth?

I looked at her website quite a bit. She's way out to lunch with her math and reasoning. Things like "If there was enough kinetic energy for pulverization, there will be pancaking or pulverization, but not both."

And her "model" of the collapse is so unrealistic it's absurd. Basically, the floors colliding with each other completely stop the entire collapsing mass.

 

[jhunter1163]

I know we have some eminently qualified mathematicians here who could take this nonsense apart. I'm not one of them, but I'll lurk and await the debunking. Which I will also read with great glee.

 

[einsteen]

Her momentum pulverization equation does not really make sense, but what she tries to explain is that pulverized mass doesn't contribute its momentum to the block below. Of course momentum is conserved and will even increase in gravity dP=Fdt. In vacuum the sum of each microparticle's mass times its velocity vector should still be the same but small particles will reach their terminal velocity quickly and do not contribute. I don't really know why the billiard balls are used because that's an elastic situation and the stuff bounces back during the collapse and only the lower ball breaks the next floor and so on. There is no collection of mass in this model. Imo she has a point that you should take pulverization into account and in fact modify Greening's model, but then you should organize your work a little bit and start with step A then B.
And since she is not anonymous I don't get why you use a tripod domain, that doesn't look very professionally.

 

[T.A.M.]

Her momentum pulverization equation does not really make sense, but what she tries to explain is that pulverized mass doesn't contribute its momentum to the block below. Of course momentum is conserved and will even increase in gravity dP=Fdt. In vacuum the sum of each microparticle's mass times its velocity vector should still be the same but small particles will reach their terminal velocity quickly and do not contribute. I don't really know why the billiard balls are used because that's an elastic situation and the stuff bounces back during the collapse and only the lower ball breaks the next floor and so on. There is no collection of mass in this model. Imo she has a point that you should take pulverization into account and in fact modify Greening's model, but then you should organize your work a little bit and start with step A then B.
And since she is not anonymous I don't get why you use a tripod domain, that doesn't look very professionally.

Did we mention she also believe:

1. The towers are like tall trees, and should have fallen as such.
2. A mini "STAR WARS" Beam was involved in the collapses of the Towers.

and that she uses:

1. Keebler elves

in her talks, and her best mate in this uses:

1. Roadrunner and Coyote cartoons

to explain how the planes should have hit the Towers.

Now does the Tripod thing make more sense...

TAM

 

[einsteen]

Here a combination of noplanes and a mini H-bomb...

http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/

Maybe some CT'ers are no real CT'ers but paid by the government to make all CT's look absurd. But that is also a CT isn't it...

 

[R.Mackey]

Here a combination of noplanes and a mini H-bomb...

http://911-for-dummies.blogspot.com/

Maybe some CT'ers are no real CT'ers but paid by the government to make all CT's look absurd. But that is also a CT isn't it...

Well, at least one poster here believes that to be true.

I don't buy it, though. The CT's have demonstrated such overwhelming stupidity, I don't think they need any help. The argument smacks of "that's so insane that it MUST be true" to me -- viz. utterly counter-intuitive.

I also don't see much point looking at her "math" in depth. Her core assumption, that of elastic collisions between floors, is just plain stupid.

 

[delphi_ote]

Her core assumption, that of elastic collisions between floors, is just plain stupid.

The core wasn't steel or concrete. It was rubber!

 

[Bell]

The core wasn't steel or concrete. It was rubber!

And that's the proof no planes hit the towers! If they did, they would have been swung back out! HA!

 

[R.Mackey]

Her approach is even stupider than I imagined it could be.

This figure, Figure 6 from http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html, shows her collapse time:



Each of those colored lines is meant to represent the trajectory of a single WTC floor.

You'll notice they all start from rest, and all accelerate at a constant rate (gravity).

In other words, Woods is assuming that when falling floors hit floors below, they impart no energy at all to the floors below -- merely break them loose.

In reality, the falling upper pile of debris not only breaks lower sections loose, but also imparts momentum, and this momentum increases as the collapse progresses.

I'd fail this report in a junior high physics class.

 

[delphi_ote]

In other words, Woods is assuming that when falling floors hit floors below, they impart no energy at all to the floors below -- merely break them loose.

Exactly. The entire mass stops in mid-air!

 

[beachnut]

Her approach is even stupider than I imagined it could be.

This figure, Figure 6 from http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html, shows her collapse time:



Each of those colored lines is meant to represent the trajectory of a single WTC floor.

You'll notice they all start from rest, and all accelerate at a constant rate (gravity).

In other words, Woods is assuming that when falling floors hit floors below, they impart no energy at all to the floors below -- merely break them loose.

In reality, the falling upper pile of debris not only breaks lower sections loose, but also imparts momentum, and this momentum increases as the collapse progresses.

I'd fail this report in a junior high physics class.

I think people have problems with a floor failing and having an instantaneous velocity of the new total mass, based on the impact mass momentum minus the energy to cause failure.

There are no stops once the energy available causes all below to fail.

 

[R.Mackey]

I think people have problems with a floor failing and having an instantaneous velocity of the new total mass, based on the impact mass momentum minus the energy to cause failure.

There are no stops once the energy available causes all below to fail.

To be utterly pedantic, not "instantaneous," of course. When the two masses hit, there is some compression of steel and concrete, the impact behaving as a pressure wave travelling at the speed of sound in materials, and then the new combined mass equilibrates at its new velocity.

But pretty darn close to instantaneous. The process would be over in milliseconds.

Just trying to anticipate the next complaint. You can never be too accurate when dealing with these people -- their anomaly detectors are set on hair triggers.

 

[T.A.M.]

so a more accurate analogy than billiard balls hitting one off the other in succession, would be one billiard ball hitting the next, the two moving together, faster than the first, than this small train hits a third, the three moving faster still, this train hits a fourth, and so on...

TAM

 

[Mashuna]

I don't have any kind of engineering background, but is this just an example of people getting confused by Zeno's paradox? They posit an instant where the floor falling meets the floor that is still in place, and there must be an instant when the momentum is transferred. At that point, they reset all the calculations.

The argument that Woods presents (which I may have misunderstood entirely) reads to me like an attempt to disprove a physical event from (misapplied) logical principles.

 

[delphi_ote]

The argument that Woods presents (which I may have misunderstood entirely) reads to me like an attempt to disprove a physical event from (misapplied) logical principles.

In a sense, yes. She's forgetting about all about the kinetic energy mass above the collision. Rather than crashing into the floor below and adding its kinetic energy to the combined falling mass, she invents a fantasy where the mass hits the floor below and completely stops. It then patiently waits for the floor below to accelerate from 0 velocity until they hit the next floor.

Any wonder why she gets a figure of a minute and a half for the building to collapse?!

 

[Mashuna]

In a sense, yes. She's forgetting about all about the kinetic energy mass above the collision. Rather than crashing into the floor below and adding its kinetic energy to the combined falling mass, she invents a fantasy where the mass hits the floor below and completely stops. It then patiently waits for the floor below to accelerate from 0 velocity until they hit the next floor.

Any wonder why she gets a figure of a minute and a half for the building to collapse?!

That's pretty much what I thought she'd done (good to have it confirmed). What would happen if she used the same train of thought on any demolition or building collapse? What I'm trying to get at, is that if her theory were true, wouldn't she effectively be showing that no building can collapse at a fast speed, irrespective of whether it's been intentionally demolished or collapsed as a result of a natural disaster?

 

[delphi_ote]

That's pretty much what I thought she'd done (good to have it confirmed). What would happen if she used the same train of thought on any demolition or building collapse? What I'm trying to get at, is that if her theory were true, wouldn't she effectively be showing that no building can collapse at a fast speed, irrespective of whether it's been intentionally demolished or collapsed as a result of a natural disaster?

Basically, yes. And this woman teaches college courses. In engineering.

 

[Mashuna]

Basically, yes. And this woman teaches college courses. In engineering.

Well, if she teaches college courses, that proves the collapse must have been due to the Death Star. Or something.

I've only made brief forays into the CT area, as I find the whole place just too depressing. I've read about Judy Woods being one of the star performers for the MIHOP crowd, but if this is the level it's operating on, I think I'll withdraw again, maybe come back when people can generally accept that the reason for the collapse of the towers was two great big aeroplanes flying into them.