[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold

[phunk]

Let's repost, and examine together the picture posted for the proposition that GZ is not less than 1 storey in height:

[qimg]http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg[/qimg]

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.

You realize of course that the debris pile doesn't start at street level. The bottom of the pile is at the lowest level of the basement.

 

[uk_dave]

You realize of course that the debris pile doesn't start at street level. The bottom of the pile is at the lowest level of the basement.

Cue photos of (the wrong) subway station totally untouched by the collapse.

 

[Confuseling]

I have a question. The apparent gravity driven collapse is an intersubjective manufacture; a simulacrum.

There is, however, clear evidence, for one who has broken the spell. It is in all of these photographs.

The simulacrum is not available in other cultures. The photographs are.

Why hasn't China, for example, noticed? Wouldn't you expect them to act on this knowledge?

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

I think this has been discussed before. Twoofers do know nowadays how to use their pupetry of the sock tm when they have learned from the past.

 

[beachnut]

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.

What is your point; what does this have to do with UL etal?

BTW, the WTC were 95 percent air. When the tower fell, they sent debris over 19 acres. Tally up the hight of the damage. Oops, there are floors below the ground! Oops, you ideas, and your failed conclusions will be exposed slowly if you would say what you mean and stop being coy.

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc-photos.htm MIT photos

Got math? How many stories below the ground did the WTC complex go?

What is your point, the goal, your conclusion based on what ever you are doing with the height of the pile?

 

[Confuseling]

Allow me to elaborate slightly. It's just that it seems that people who think everyone is under some kind of group-think postmodern spell, and thereby unable to see the obvious reality in front of them, are ignorant jingoists at best, and at worst racists.

You have either of two options really: the rest of the world are too pig-ignorant to analyse photographs for themselves, and learn their science from the discovery channel. Or they're afraid. Terribly terribly afraid.

Do you honestly believe: a) that it wouldn't be in China's best geopolitical interest to announce loudly on the world stage that there had been a crypto-fascist coup in America, that the entire population was labouring under a collective hypnotic delusion, and that they had the clear proof, or b) that America could credibly threaten the nascent superpower into silence, itself under the threat of the certain revolution which would be brought about by the revelation of these facts?

Please explain. I'm dying to understand this.

 

[jberryhill]

Judy, this thread is about the progress of the lawsuit, not the substance. Start another thread and you can post as many "what's this?" photos and captions as you please.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Requests for "proof of a negative" -- 'provide proof that it was impossible for the impact damage... -- are indicative of an inherent and relentless attempt to obfuscate.

So, in response to your request, no.

 

[jammonius]

[qimg]http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r213/ssmysb/2008-05-30_170311-1.png[/qimg]

One storey? I think not.

Although the photo in the above quoted post is not very bright, it is consistent with GZ being less than 1 storey in my opinion. It takes awhile, perhaps, to get one's bearings, but the above photo is simply looking south, probably from Church Street toward Vesey Street and it plainly shows WTC 6 towering over the remant debris from WTC 1, then 2. You see the orange crane, obviously at ground level and its presence may be said to serve as a frame of reference for confirmation that there was no debris pile to speak of.

Another way to get perspective on the matter is to recall that, in the aggregate, the Twin Towers were 1/2 mile in height.

Using the above photo as a frame of reference, then, the question becomes, where did this go?

1/2 mile of steel and concrete was reduced to a pile that was less than 1 storey according to the photos that have been displayed. True, there are those who are arguing this point, and that is fine.

By the way, at the end of the Oliver Stone movie, the line was:

"Hey, where'd the buildings go?"

Since some posters are having difficulty believeing what can be seen, maybe what can be heard will add a little bit the knowledge base.

Had there been a huge debris pile, there wasn't, it is reasonable (I did not say 'certain') to assert that the person emerging from the one elevated remnant there was would have been so dumbfounded as to be required to say: "Hey, where'd the buildings go?"

In other words, he was acknowledging that the buildings had inexplicably disappeared.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Can you illustrate your contention with a photo? I don't perceive your verbal interpretation of unshown photographic data to be in any way supportable, let alonel accurate. Your comment is more in the nature of a declaration, expressing a truly held belief, but that is about it. Most people ferverently believe GZ was a huge pile of debris extending way up into the air. I know that.

 

[beachnut]

"Hey, where'd the buildings go?"

"Hey, where'd the buildings go?"

In other words, he was acknowledging that the buildings had inexplicably disappeared.

95 percent is air. Why do you fail to understand things.

You are posting the dumbest idea about this yet. Where did the buildings go. Darn, they fell down and then all the stuff was carted away. All the tons of the building were scooped up and carted away. Sorry, you failed, but you are off topic, start a new thread for failed ideas from people who lack knowledge on 9/11.

 

[jammonius]

Allow me to elaborate slightly. It's just that it seems that people who think everyone is under some kind of group-think postmodern spell, and thereby unable to see the obvious reality in front of them, are ignorant jingoists at best, and at worst racists.

You have either of two options really: the rest of the world are too pig-ignorant to analyse photographs for themselves, and learn their science from the discovery channel. Or they're afraid. Terribly terribly afraid.

Do you honestly believe: a) that it wouldn't be in China's best geopolitical interest to announce loudly on the world stage that there had been a crypto-fascist coup in America, that the entire population was labouring under a collective hypnotic delusion, and that they had the clear proof, or b) that America could credibly threaten the nascent superpower into silence, itself under the threat of the certain revolution which would be brought about by the revelation of these facts?

Please explain. I'm dying to understand this.

As far back as the onset of the radio age -- 1920s -- it was recognized that mass media, even when only in the form of a hearing or sound medium, could, indeed bring about mass psychosis of the type you've mentioned above. Indeed, the Orson Welles, October, 1938, broadcast of "The War of the Worlds" may be a good starting example. Many 1000s if not 1,000,000s of people sincerely believed a Martian attack was under way and was being described, accurately, on their trusted vehicle for the receipt of information; the radio.

Mass media today have capabilities that far outstrip radio and a vast body of psychological profiling, of neurological research of brainwave function data, where such data are keyed to visual and audio stimulus and impact analysis, etc.

The problem is, yet again, mention of this information does not normally persuade. People really do appear to think that things are fine. This may be less so starting this year because of the palpable economic decline we are experiencing. The spin machine is beginning to encounter certain difficulties.

Ameirca has fascist tendencies and always has had them. As you know, America has a political system that is more highly constricted, with the range of acceptable thought being limited to the differences, if there are any, as between two thoroughly capitalistic, corporatist, rightwing parties. Combine that with the outsourcing of governmental function -- including almost all of it that has to do with weapons development -- and the lack of any meaningful political opposition and the result is militarism of the type that is highly consistent with fascism. When to that mix is added the stripping away of personal privacy and the imposition of elements of permanent surveillance, then its not really a question of crypt0-fascism, in my view. We're talking the whole nine yards here, as I see it.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I know I haven't directly answered your questions, but the questions contain elements of things that are inappropriately attached, one to the other, in my view.

 

[bonavada]

I can't help wondering what jammonius' views are on what destroyed WTC7?

BTW Ben.....

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.

Not a ground level shot but it does show the proportions of the pile in the background there.

BV

 

[jammonius]

What is your point; what does this have to do with UL etal?

BTW, the WTC were 95 percent air. When the tower fell, they sent debris over 19 acres. Tally up the hight of the damage. Oops, there are floors below the ground! Oops, you ideas, and your failed conclusions will be exposed slowly if you would say what you mean and stop being coy.

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc-photos.htm MIT photos

Got math? How many stories below the ground did the WTC complex go?

What is your point, the goal, your conclusion based on what ever you are doing with the height of the pile?

I would like to think that this information, which relates directly to the theme and topic of this thread is intended to change, not the topic, but the tone of the discourse.

A quick review of the first 2 pages will reveal next to no substantive discussion about the lawsuits, and only one liners, generally containing the word "crazy" in them. See, for instance, post # 5 for starters.

By posting up information that has to do with what the lawsuits appear to be basing their claims on, I think it serves firstly to counter those who say the lawsuits are "crazy" and secondly it might actually contribute a little something to the substance of the thread to assess information related to the claims being made.

I mean, it's better to do this than simply banter back and forth about who's crazy and who's not, isn't it? It doesn't take much to post up slurs and pictures of roasted mixed nuts.

In contrast, however, in a thread about 9/11 related lawsuits that question the mechanism of destruction and of the common accounts of what happened, information tending to show that the common accounts and explanations were false might be helpful. That, at least, is the point and seems several posters are engaging thoughtfully on this.

There's not a lot of agreement, to be sure, but the exchange of ideas seems to be a bit more elevated than it was.

ps
Thanks for the MIT photo reference. There are some that really confirm that GZ was flat. That's a good photo compilation, considering the lack of integrity of the source -- MIT.

 

[BenBurch]

I can't help wondering what jammonius' views are on what destroyed WTC7?

BTW Ben.....




[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484840988429cfc.jpg[/qimg]


Not a ground level shot but it does show the proportions of the pile in the background there.

BV

That sure looks like "ground level" to me!

 

[jammonius]

I can't help wondering what jammonius' views are on what destroyed WTC7?

BTW Ben.....




[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/87484840988429cfc.jpg[/qimg]




Not a ground level shot but it does show the proportions of the pile in the background there.

BV

The above is slightly, I did not say "greatly", misleading in my opinion; here's why. The post starts with a query on WTC 7 and that is fine. But the post ends with a query concerning the proportions of the pile. In between, there is the photo.

That's where it gets a little misleading. The words "the pile" generally refer to GZ and most specifically to the remains of the Twin Towers.

The photo you have posted is of the remains of WTC 7, probably taken from a building on either West Broadway or Greeenwich Street.

The WTC 7 pile dwarfed that of the 2 Twin Towers. So, in reply to your query, I don't know what destroyed WTC 7, but I think it was some form of exotic weapon, similar, but not identical to that which the evidence confirms destroyed the remainder of the WTC complex.

I don't think it was controlled demolition because that would have been too hard to set up in advance and too uncertain. Prior to 9/11, the tallest building ever demolished was the Hudson's building in Detroit that was more than 100 feet shorter than WTC 7. It took many months of painstaking demolition preparation to do Hudson's building.

So, I am not a fan of CD theory. I don't say they're wrong, I just don't think that theory fits the evidence very well and certainly not nearly as well as DEW theory does.

 

[Brainache]

So what's this?:

 

[Shrinker]

or this...?

 

[LashL]

Although the photo in the above quoted post is not very bright, it is consistent with GZ being less than 1 storey in my opinion. It takes awhile, perhaps, to get one's bearings, but the above photo is simply looking south, probably from Church Street toward Vesey Street and it plainly shows WTC 6 towering over the remant debris from WTC 1, then 2. You see the orange crane, obviously at ground level and its presence may be said to serve as a frame of reference for confirmation that there was no debris pile to speak of.

Judy - can I call you Judy? - you couldn't be more wrong.

The photo was taken from a helicopter, and is facing south-southwest (note the compass in the top right corner). I obtained the photo from the man who took it when his company was tasked with doing so, and tasked with using specialized GIS software, geospatial software, and oblique imaging software, by which they were able to measure the heights and depths of the debris pile in hundreds of locations in order to map out the area so that those working on the pile could do so more safely (e.g. by identifying and measuring the depths of voids, among other things).

I can't post the high resolution version here because it is far too large (which is a shame because with the original, I can click on it and get extreme closeup views) but it is obvious, even from this smaller version, that the pile is higher than the remains of WTC6, and it rises even higher to the south/southwest - in fact, it was particularly high over a large section of West Street, south-southwest of WTC6 all the way to Liberty Street. If you have the right software, and expertise in its use, you can even measure it yourself. I don't have that expertise, but I know for a fact from speaking with the fellow who took hundreds of photos from that helicopter and who does have that expertise that the pile was much, much higher than one storey. He walked me through dozens of his photographs and showed me the measurements.

In any event, this is quite off topic to this thread and all of this discussion about the pile should be split from this thread, which is about the progress of the lawsuits, not about your website or your beam weapon theories.

 

[bonavada]

The above is slightly, I did not say "greatly", misleading in my opinion; here's why. The post starts with a query on WTC 7 and that is fine. But the post ends with a query concerning the proportions of the pile. In between, there is the photo.

Sorry no misdirection meant on my part the post was simply addressed to you and BenBurch seperately for the sake of brevity.

The photo you have posted is of the remains of WTC 7, probably taken from a building on either West Broadway or Greeenwich Street.

The WTC 7 pile dwarfed that of the 2 Twin Towers. So, in reply to your query, I don't know what destroyed WTC 7, but I think it was some form of exotic weapon, similar, but not identical to that which the evidence confirms destroyed the remainder of the WTC complex.

That must rank as one of the most bizzarre contorted assumptions I've read about 9/11. Ever.

BV