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

[jammonius]

US Navy T-44A Pegasus twin-engine trainer.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/17060484148245c158.jpg[/qimg]

Top speed: 287 mph

Jetliners are no match for steel cables, let alone structrual steel

dental floss

 

[uk_dave]

[qimg]http://nomoregames.net/911/we_have_holes/bunker_buster_boeings.jpg[/qimg]


The illustrate strength of Boeing jetliners when they encounter a single steel cable.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1706048411dc99e6c2.jpg[/qimg]

Root canal

Are you attempting to use those photos to prove (a negative) that the planes couldn't have caused sufficient damage to the towers to cause their collapse?

Why not do it with some calculations instead? I dare ya.

(Oh and please confirm whether you are or are not Judy wood, as the MA here prohibits being mean to other members but doesn't extend to non members.)

 

[Dog Town]

(Oh and please confirm whether you are or are not Judy wood, as the MA here prohibits being mean to other members but doesn't extend to non members.)

Don't think it's the Doc. Started speaking in third person, if it is. Judy is that you....?

 

[LashL]

Don't think it's the Doc. Started speaking in third person, if it is. Judy is that you....?

I'm pretty sure it is, but if she claims otherwise, that's even better in light of the rules.

 

[A W Smith]

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

http://www.debunking911.com/b7debris.jpg

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.

and therein lies your problem. Building seven was less than half the height of the twin towers. Therefore during collapse what would the collapse wave of debris have accelerated to when it reached the top of their respective piles? Think compaction. Also realize that building seven did not share the bathtub with the towers, there was no basement levels for the collapse wave to compact into as the consolidated Edison sub station it was built over had no basement or slurry wall bathtub.

Typically, too, GZ is defined to exclude WTC 7; even now, WTC 7 has already been rebuilt,

Again, building seven did not share the bathtub with the towers,

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.

you have posted that you cannot see the job site from a public view. So how did you come to those conclusions? and why would they both truck fill in and out at the same time? Why do you call stabilization "remediation"?

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.

you have never visited the trade center when they existed have you? I have.

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.

you may want to ask the survivors in the core stairwell how flat it was. Their remarkable rescue and journey to safety was anything but 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.

"storey" , thats a curious spelling unless youi are from the uk.

 

[Minadin]

"storey" , thats a curious spelling unless youi are from the uk.

I use the spelling "storey" here in the USA to prevent any confusion between a particular level of a building and a tale told to children. But, it's possible that I'm odd in that regard.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I haven't, but these poor birds have. As you can see, however, even birds can do signficant damage to thin, hollow, built to be as lightweight as possible, aircraft:

So birds, which are much softer than aluminium, can nevertheless penetrate aluminium structures if they strike them at a high relative velocity. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that lightweight aluminium structures, which are much softer than structural steel columns, can nevertheless penetrate steel structures if they strike them at a high relative velocity.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I also appreciate your reference to the above thread and post12086102. Boy was that ever b o r i n g in my opinion.

And that is the full measure of your refutation? Forgive me for saying so, but that is a pathetic response. Mackey's post is carefully argued and contains calculations based on reasonable physical assumptions, and your only comment on it is that you found it boring? Until you have actually addressed the post, rather than refused to address it because you can't be bothered, you have no rational position to defend.

Consider, for example, the oft stated canard, "to destroy the WTC in 10 seconds with DEW, more power than is generated on earth in an entire day would have been needed."

OK, well, if that is the case, then why aren't the Twin Towers still standing? After all, they did disappear down to next to nothing in 10 seconds, leaving a combined debris field that was almost completely uniform in a height of LESS THAN 1 STOREY.

If kerosene (for that is what jet fuel is), gravity and a smack from a hollow aluminum tube can do that, why do we need any other kind of weapon?

Because it took more than a day to build the Twin Towers, and throughout that time potential energy was being stored in them. That potential energy was released over a period of about 15 seconds. That's all it needs. If you want to claim that this energy release didn't happen and to invoke some other energy source, you've got to come up with one of similar total energy. Existing DEW are many, many orders of magnitude short of that total energy, and Mackey's analysis indicates that it is impossible for them to approach it. Refute that with calculations, rather than insinuations.

Dave

 

[bonavada]

and therein lies your problem. Building seven was less than half the height of the twin towers. <snip>

Let us be reminded that Judy jammonius has already stated that Building7 was also destroyed by DEW technology. This must raise other major questions as to the relative size of "piles" (from her point of view)

As for the trucking of dirt in/out. I think Judy's been there, done that. See below. (Careful you don't nod off)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BV

 

[bonavada]

If you want to claim that this energy release didn't happen and to invoke some other energy source, you've got to come up with one of similar total energy.

Dave

This is where Hurricane Erin enters the picture I presume.
All this time Dr Judy has had to come up with something and THIS is it?

BV

 

[ellindsey]

The illustrate strength of Boeing jetliners when they encounter a single steel cable.

Jammonius is showing pictures from the crash of AA flight 1420 , which overran the end of a runway. The plane went through a security fence, then struck a steel structure supporting the runway approach lighting system. About 250 feet of the lighting support structure was destroyed by the collision. The airplane, which was a McDonnell Douglas DC-9, not a Boeing, broke into three pieces but remained sufficiently intact for nearly all the passengers to escape before the fuselage was consumed by fire.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Some things should be summarized for Jammonius here, since they're buried in the mass of posts:

1. As a few other posters here have pointed out, the Ground Zero debris pile is not a single story tall. Trying to argue that it is from photographs ignores the fact that the main towers fell into the 4 or 5 story hole that was occupied by the sub basements. Even if one conceded that the above-street-level height was only one story - it was not, photographic evidence shows sections being multiple stories high - that is an admission that the pile itself measured 5 or 6 stories tall, since the portion of the pile below street level must be accounted for.

2. Even though Mackey asserted that beam weapons don't exist, the gist of his argument concernes the difficulties of conducting such an event. He doesn't base his rebuttal on the existence of beam weapons, but rather on the exceptional difficulties in actually utilizing them. Constructing two - not one, but two (read his argument for why) - orbital beam weapons that are powerful enough to account for the effets observed is difficult enough; avoiding observation for the duration of the construction or the duration of their orbits is well nigh impossible. As amateur astronomers know, putting something up in LEO does not mean it's hidden, and constructing a weapon with enough capacity to bring down the towers simply cannot escape notice. And that's before you discharge the weapon. Not only would the discharge itself be painfully obvious, but the weapon would affect other structures in it's path, unless you managed to get it directly overhead. And then, you run into the other exceptional difficulties Mackey lays out.

Bottom line: It is useless to argue whether they exist. Even if they did, that doesn't overcome the difficulties in actually using them. And that's the point of his argument.

Perhaps conversation from this point forward should keep those two points in mind.

 

[CurtC]

I'm confused about what jammonius is arguing, with the debris pile thing. Is it her contention that a space beam would make the material disappear? I mean, even if the Death Star itself had blasted the towers during the collapse, that would just add energy to heat up the structures, right? They matter would still have to *go* somewhere.

J, are you saying that this DEW would somehow make the debris pile smaller than it would be with just a collapse?

And doesn't everyone agree that the towers were about 95% air by volume? And if a 110 story tower collapses to squeeze the air out, it should then be like 5.5 stories of material if it were still within its footprint? And the towers had several levels below the street level? And a significant portion of the material spilled out, outside of the footprints? If that much is agreed to by all, what's to explain here?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Dirt

There have been numerous claims that dirt was trucked into the site and "sprinkled" on top of the debris pile.

I would like to ask the following questions:

1) Who trucked it in? Where are the truck drivers? From the looks of it, they would have needed hundreds of trucks and drivers a day making multiple turn to provide the dirt.

2) How did they "Sprinkle" the dirt? in most of the pictures with the so called "trucked in dirt," the debris pile is too obstructed to direct dump the dirt onto it. How did this dirt get distributed? Is there a picture of the "distribution" equipment?

 

[Travis]

I'm skeptical that any theoretical DEW with enough power to vaporize thousands of tons of steel could actually become airborne let alone be put into orbit.

 

[A W Smith]

Let us be reminded that Judy jammonius has already stated that Building7 was also destroyed by DEW technology. This must raise other major questions as to the relative size of "piles" (from her point of view)

As for the trucking of dirt in/out. I think Judy's been there, done that. See below. (Careful you don't nod off)

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

BV

Jammonius I think may be the english guy in that video which would explain the "storey' spelling in his post I quoted

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Thanks for the tip, but Dr. Wood has been in direct correspondence with the head of the US Directed Energy Directorate for well over a year now, as exemplified by this correspondence FROM USDED, to DR WOOD in April, 2007:

Minor nitpick: That letter was not from "USDED" as you indicate. It if from the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory. Their office symbol is AFRL/RD (formerly AFRL/DE), not "USDED".

 

[sts60]

I'm skeptical that any theoretical DEW with enough power to vaporize thousands of tons of steel could actually become airborne let alone be put into orbit.

jammonius is fond of showing pictures of the beam director of USAF's Airborne Laser system, but that system is designed to damage - not vaporize - missiles each weighing on the order of ten tons.

That system requires a 747 to fly it and its fuel. And the whole thing hasn't even been integrated yet. Yet jammonius seems to think that showing us a picture of it somehow provides evidence for this fantasy. She certainly hasn't answered any of my challenges, nor anybody else's - not even the clear refutation of the "one story debris pile" nonsense.

Ironically, the only the airborne laser system she likes to show could bring down one of the Twin Towers would be to fly into it at high speed.

 

[Travis]

jammonius is fond of showing pictures of the beam director of USAF's Airborne Laser system, but that system is designed to damage - not vaporize - missiles each weighing on the order of ten tons.

That system requires a 747 to fly it and its fuel. And the whole thing hasn't even been integrated yet. Yet jammonius seems to think that showing us a picture of it somehow provides evidence for this fantasy. She certainly hasn't answered any of my challenges, nor anybody else's - not even the clear refutation of the "one story debris pile" nonsense.

Ironically, the only the airborne laser system she likes to show could bring down one of the Twin Towers would be to fly into it at high speed.

Exactly, she shows the USAF Airborne Laser but what in the heck would that thing do if it were aimed at the WTC? Perhaps accidentally blind some day traders?

Or is she one of those people that thinks we have all this reverse engineered alien technology that is being held secret?

 

[jammonius]

Are you attempting to use those photos to prove (a negative) that the planes couldn't have caused sufficient damage to the towers to cause their collapse?

Why not do it with some calculations instead? I dare ya.

(Oh and please confirm whether you are or are not Judy wood, as the MA here prohibits being mean to other members but doesn't extend to non members.)

NIST was supposed to have done that. That is what they paid all those contractors for, supposedly. However, and as you know, NIST and contractors committed fraud instead and used 10,000pgs of calculations to prove nothing.

Your invitation to engage in a bruhaha of calculation is consistent with the same song and dance NIST engaged in: Obfuscation for purposes of commiting fraud.