Democratic Underground - OK, you want something more detailed?

1) As noted, it would take a massive amount of energy to vaporize the steel in the WTC. Wood tries to get around this, first by talking about different processes of heating and energy transfer (e.g. laser wavelengths, fires, or resistive heating). But she ignores thatit doesn't matter. The energy is massive when you have an ideal case - 100% energy transmission, no losses (IOW, 100% efficiency). This is the energy you need. The differences between the heating methods are in their efficiency, which only increase your energy requirement.
2) For some reason, she proposes evaporation as an alternate explanation. But besides the fact that evaporation is a phenomenon which occurs in liquids, not solids - a major gaffe right there - the energy requirement is essentially the same, since it's basically the same process.
3) Then she discusses "dustification". She seems unable to give anything approaching a precise description of the process; when asked about the experiments they conducted, she just answers that they used "energy".
4) All this shows a problem in her methedology; she wants to start with "what", move on to "how", and so on. But when her "how" is impossible (for all practicle purposes, anyway), it's time to stop with it. In analogy, if I'm investigating a murder, and the victim was stabbed to death, it's a waste of my time to look for guns.
5) Another couple of points, which occured to me regarding the DEW theory but weren't addressed as far as I saw. Such a weapon, by its nature, focuses the energy at a specific point. If you're feeding energy into, say, a girder, because the speed at which heat propagates in the girder is finite, most of the heat will escape rather than traveling along the girder, until you punch a hole through it; after that most of the energy will "bypass" the girder through the hole instead of heating it. You'd need a beam the diameter of the WTC to pull this off (asumming you're beaming the energy from directly above or below it, otherwise you need an even wider beam), so you could heat all of the girders uniformly (actually, this still wouldn't work, since you'd have to melt your way through the outer layers to get to the inner ones). That makes your already stupendous energy costs much bigger.
Second, if you're beaming this much energy through the atmosphere, it's going to be very noticable. Yet there are no indications anything like this happened.

In short, Wood shows an appaling lack of knowledge of basic physical principles, as well as any respect for the practicalities of her theories.

Reply #53: OK, you want something more detailed? [View All]