Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Oh noz the neighborhood of make believe has been destroyed!! Poor Henrietta Pussycat!!
[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
Oh noz the neighborhood of make believe has been destroyed!! Poor Henrietta Pussycat!!
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
It "clearly shows" nothing of the sort. You don't know where the photographer was standing, and judging from the size of the debris relative to that of the firefighters the photo gives the exact opposite appearance of what you're claiming it does.
Last edited:
The original of the post containing the above quoted observation appears right below an iconic photograph of GZ plainly showing that GZ was flat.
That is rich.
It is also highly illustrative of the psy op nature of 9/11. People simply do not believe what they, themselves can actually see. Then, on top of that, they become insistent to the point of being rude notwithstanding the information right in front of their noses contradicts their invective.
Buy hey, that is what 9/11 is: A psy op. People have been induced to say and believe certain things, no matter what the actual evidence shows.
Everyone who lives in NYC knows that from the closest observation point that people were allowed to go to after 9/11 all you could see was the iconic three-cornered wall segment, which actually served to prove there was no pile and a fence and an extended crane with a firefighter perched on it.
The "impression" of height was created by props and by media use of the words "the pile."
Here, from ground view. And note, too, that the equipment of choice to remove the remains of not one but two 110 storey buildings was a shovel. The buildings were pulverized, turned to dust and utterly destroyed. Kerosene did not do that.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
One story?
Contempt only just scratches the surface for how I feel about you conspiracy criminals.
You know what sparky? You're absolutely right. GRAVITY did it.
It "clearly shows" nothing of the sort. You don't know where the photographer was standing, and judging from the size of the debris relative to that of the firefighters the photo gives the exact opposite appearance of what you're claiming it does.
Interpretation of what photos show is subjective to a degree. Each of us has the responsibility to be honest with ourselves as to what information a photograph reveals. However, even though you may be said to be defending a position that GZ had a pile of debris that was measured in "many stories" the photo you rely on puts paid to that claim. And, even in your above quoted post, you are, at best, fighting a losing battle about the height of the debris pile. It is a lot lower than the remains of WTC 4 which was only 8 stories to begin with. Indeed, that building's roof towers over GZ.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
jammonius:
Are you afraid of what you might find out by actually talking to people that were there?
Are you afraid of what you might find out by actually talking to people that were there?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
jammonius,
If you ARE being honest with yourself, then you know you are lying to the world to make yourself into some sort of faux hero to some pathetic losers.
But honestly I think you cannot tell the difference between truth and lies any more. If you ever could.
Pathetic.
-Ben
If you ARE being honest with yourself, then you know you are lying to the world to make yourself into some sort of faux hero to some pathetic losers.
But honestly I think you cannot tell the difference between truth and lies any more. If you ever could.
Pathetic.
-Ben
There is one heap in your picture that is about one storey, the rest is flat. But, you do not provide the date of your picture. It is known that as the remediation process got under way, a lot of dirt was (and continues to be) brought into GZ to remediate the effects of DEW. Rubble was moved about and piles were created.
You can rely on invective all you want; but, even your own photo shows a flat GZ that is, for the most part, less than 1 storey in height. And, what is more, as 9/11 is a psy op, people may continue to look at your photo and not actually see that what it mainly depicts is a flat GZ, just like this one does, that actually dates from 9/11 and not from some uncertain date as is the case for the picture you posted.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What assumptions? HAVE YOU TALKED THE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. (I know you haven't)
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Most piles in that picture are about 5 stories in height with some debris up to 12 stories in height. Additionally, WTC tower debris is on and in all of the other wrecked buildings in that photo. There is a really good photo posted here recently, that I should have saved a link to, of a ground-level shot with a claw crane and other equipment dwarfed by the pile.
These photos are NOT subject to interpretation, that is a lie. They ARE subject to be misunderstood by mental midgets, however, and spun by liars.
These photos are NOT subject to interpretation, that is a lie. They ARE subject to be misunderstood by mental midgets, however, and spun by liars.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
Source please.
He makes it up as he goes along. Typical disinfo. Just ask theauthor
Let's repost, and examine together the picture posted for the proposition that GZ is not less than 1 storey in height:
Let's set the stage for discussion.
Picture is looking in the NE direction, all agreed?
Starting at the top part of that part of the picture showing GZ, the first part of the debris shown is that of the remains of WTC 7.
Any dispute so far?
It is clear that the remains of WTC7, what had been a 47 story building, is higher than the remains for the Twin Towers. Typically, too, GZ is defined to exclude WTC 7; even now, WTC 7 has already been rebuilt, while GZ is still being remediated with dirt being trucked in and out on a nearly daily basis and virtually no construction going on from what I can see.
Now, proceeding downward from WTC 7, the next building is WTC 6, which did not get fully destroyed. Its outerwalls remain at their original height of 8 stories if memory serves me correctly, it might have been 9.
And, it can be seen that WTC 6 towers over the rest of GZ, with the exception of the skeletal outer wall of WTC 1 that is seen in the next lower segment of the picture, right in from of WTC 6. Much of that outer wall of WTC 1 is about the same height as WTC 6, with one exception, the part that is farthest to the east is a bit taller. However, as that is a part of the remant outer wall, its height does not define the flatness of GZ. Everyone knows that a three cornered segment of the outer wall of WTC 1 survived, but that segment is not a fair measure of the height of GZ.
However, what does serve as a frame of reference for height measurement is that part of the outer wall that can seen at its lowest point. The outer wall shows the higher and pointed or peeked window segments of the lobby of WTC 1. That, of course, lets us know we are able to see ground level at that segment.
Then, in front of that is a thin pile that might or might not have been there on 9/11 that also looks a bit like an exterior wall because of its thinness. Even there, however, one can clearly see the lobby windows of the north wall of WTC 1 that places the height of that one segment of debris at no more than 2 stories and it is clearly distinguishable from the rest of the indicated elevation in all of the remainder of the photograph that shows GZ.
In particular, I think the lower left hand portion of the photo, where WTC 3 and WTC2 had been is remarkably flat.
That segment of the photo might be the most telling part because WTC 3 was 22 stories and is altogether gone, as in totally missing; and, where WTC 2 (110 stores) had been there is likewise next to nothing.
Posters know, of course, that Vesey Street separates WTC 7 from WTC 6. It also appears to me that the west corner of WTC 5, also a 9 storey building is seen at the right edge of the photo, next to WTC 7, 6, and the remains of 1. WTC 5 likewise towers over the rest of GZ.
Posters do not have to agree with my assessment of that visual information. I think it's a pretty good photo standing for the overall flatness of GZ. Others, of course, may see it differently. No problem.
Let's set the stage for discussion.
Picture is looking in the NE direction, all agreed?
Starting at the top part of that part of the picture showing GZ, the first part of the debris shown is that of the remains of WTC 7.
Any dispute so far?
It is clear that the remains of WTC7, what had been a 47 story building, is higher than the remains for the Twin Towers. Typically, too, GZ is defined to exclude WTC 7; even now, WTC 7 has already been rebuilt, while GZ is still being remediated with dirt being trucked in and out on a nearly daily basis and virtually no construction going on from what I can see.
Now, proceeding downward from WTC 7, the next building is WTC 6, which did not get fully destroyed. Its outerwalls remain at their original height of 8 stories if memory serves me correctly, it might have been 9.
And, it can be seen that WTC 6 towers over the rest of GZ, with the exception of the skeletal outer wall of WTC 1 that is seen in the next lower segment of the picture, right in from of WTC 6. Much of that outer wall of WTC 1 is about the same height as WTC 6, with one exception, the part that is farthest to the east is a bit taller. However, as that is a part of the remant outer wall, its height does not define the flatness of GZ. Everyone knows that a three cornered segment of the outer wall of WTC 1 survived, but that segment is not a fair measure of the height of GZ.
However, what does serve as a frame of reference for height measurement is that part of the outer wall that can seen at its lowest point. The outer wall shows the higher and pointed or peeked window segments of the lobby of WTC 1. That, of course, lets us know we are able to see ground level at that segment.
Then, in front of that is a thin pile that might or might not have been there on 9/11 that also looks a bit like an exterior wall because of its thinness. Even there, however, one can clearly see the lobby windows of the north wall of WTC 1 that places the height of that one segment of debris at no more than 2 stories and it is clearly distinguishable from the rest of the indicated elevation in all of the remainder of the photograph that shows GZ.
In particular, I think the lower left hand portion of the photo, where WTC 3 and WTC2 had been is remarkably flat.
That segment of the photo might be the most telling part because WTC 3 was 22 stories and is altogether gone, as in totally missing; and, where WTC 2 (110 stores) had been there is likewise next to nothing.
Posters know, of course, that Vesey Street separates WTC 7 from WTC 6. It also appears to me that the west corner of WTC 5, also a 9 storey building is seen at the right edge of the photo, next to WTC 7, 6, and the remains of 1. WTC 5 likewise towers over the rest of GZ.
Posters do not have to agree with my assessment of that visual information. I think it's a pretty good photo standing for the overall flatness of GZ. Others, of course, may see it differently. No problem.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
You are taking the surface of the pile to be ground level, and its not. And you are not comprehending the perspective and foreshortening from thus overhead shot. It's not "flat" just because you want it to be.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
That's the problem with the entire truth movment. No evidence whatsoever, just "different takes" on the evidence which proves them to be full of
.Jammonius,
Please provide proof that it was impossible for the impact damage and subsequent fire damage to bring down the wtc towers.
Nevermind about your DEW fantasies, unless you can prove that the damage sustained from the aircraft crashes could not cause the collapse which was witnessed, then your DEW is totally pointless.
Proceed.
Please provide proof that it was impossible for the impact damage and subsequent fire damage to bring down the wtc towers.
Nevermind about your DEW fantasies, unless you can prove that the damage sustained from the aircraft crashes could not cause the collapse which was witnessed, then your DEW is totally pointless.
Proceed.
Last edited:
