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

jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is claiming 1 storey debris piles also a fraud considering the pictorial evidence available in this thread and on the internet?
 
jammonius said:
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.
Click to expand...

An interesting point of view, to be sure. The idea that calculations are only useful for obfuscation, and that the only true proof is an unsupported allegation of vaguely defined fraudulent behaviour, is rather at odds with scientific thought over the last few centuries.

Dave
 
Arus808 said:
Yeah, these are just "ground" level piles:

[qimg]http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9426/ny0302wtc06sd8.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/8999/newswtcci6.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7002/pic31yo0.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/2241/pic26nt2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/492/pic5mj2.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/6766/pic4ti6.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img184.imageshack.us/img184/8804/12dy9.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/7153/aftermath102nsizedgx5.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I commend post #117 unto everyone looking at this thread. That is a good compilation. However, absent comment on them, one by one, the discussion aspect is not advanced very far merely by posting photos.

I suggest taking a closer look at them, one by one. Take for instance this one:

newswtcci6.jpg


I consider it highly revealing. It is undated, so we don't know how much cleanup had already occurred. As seen, GZ is perfectly flat; and the large dump truck attests to the fact that it is capable of being supported by an undamaged building foundation.

Note, too, that the floors of WTC 5 are clearly visible and provide an excellent measure of height and of showing the height relationship of the lobby windows (the peaked ones) of the WTC 1 outer wall remnant.

Other photos posted have shown that at or near 9/11, the lobby windows were always visible and were obscured by less than half of their height. We can see in the above picture that halfway up the lobby windows puts you at the top of the 1st floor of WTC 5.

GZ was flat and was no more than 1 storey in height. The above photo provides a frame of reference for makiing that declaration, in my opinion.

Thanks for post # 117
 
Dave Rogers said:
An interesting point of view, to be sure. The idea that calculations are only useful for obfuscation, and that the only true proof is an unsupported allegation of vaguely defined fraudulent behaviour, is rather at odds with scientific thought over the last few centuries.

Dave
Click to expand...

Hello Dave,

There is an idea in the post to which the above comments, but it is not the idea you expressed.

The idea is that science can be, and often is, misused. I dare say that one of the weaknesses of scientific methodology is that it can mislead. That is what NIST did. The examples of scientific methodology being misused are too numerous to even begin to try to list; and that refers only to those examples occurring this year so far.

I think your post is either a) optimistic; or, b) disengenuous in seeking to suggest that I have somehow expressed opposition to science as such. In short, you seem intent on deliberately changing what had been posted to another point altogether. The point you changed it to does not bear any resemblance to the plain meaning, let alone the intent, of the post you commented on.

It wastes time and does not advance the discussion to engage in such tactics, in my opinion.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
What I said. If you admit to a 1 storey pile above ground, then you admit to an overall 4 to 6 story tall pile. Right?
Click to expand...

Oh, he's talking about the basements. The six story deep basement that is always conveniently forgotten when someone tries to say the pile was too small.
 
Travis said:
Oh, he's talking about the basements. The six story deep basement that is always conveniently forgotten when someone tries to say the pile was too small.
Click to expand...

Actually, I keep seeing mentions of it being from 3 to 5 stories deep, which is where I'm getting my 4 to 6 story figure from (underground + 1 story above). I guess I really need to dive into the guts of the NIST and FEMA stuff to find out the true depth.

But yes, that's what I was referring to.
 
jammonius said:
I think your post is either a) optimistic; or, b) disengenuous in seeking to suggest that I have somehow expressed opposition to science as such. In short, you seem intent on deliberately changing what had been posted to another point altogether. The point you changed it to does not bear any resemblance to the plain meaning, let alone the intent, of the post you commented on.
Click to expand...

The point, within this thread, is that whenever calculations are presented to you, you reject those calculations on highly dubious grounds, yet you repeatedly refuse to advance any calculations of your own to refute them, preferring to rely simply on your own unreasoned dismissal. How is that to be interpreted other than as a rejection of the scientific method?

Dave
 
jammonius said:
The idea is that science can be, and often is, misused. I dare say that one of the weaknesses of scientific methodology is that it can mislead. That is what NIST did. The examples of scientific methodology being misused are too numerous to even begin to try to list; and that refers only to those examples occurring this year so far.
Click to expand...


Scientific arguments (that is to say, calculations) can mislead.

Written arguments can mislead.

Spoken words can mislead.

Images can mislead.

Music can mislead.

If we're going to reject the first due to the potential for misuse, let's be fair and reject all of them.

In accordance with this, please explain your objections to NIST's findings and the consensus narrative of 9/11 using either random noises or mental telepathy. Neither of those, historically, has ever been successfully used to mislead, so I look forward to productive honest dialog in either or both of those media.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
Images can mislead.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Once again, I caution that most of the photos of GZ were shot from a distance using long lenses (i.e. telephoto).

There is an inherent distortion in the depth of field created by those types of lenses that can be quite misleading.
 
jammonius

Regarding the dirt supposedly trucked in and sprinkled about the site:

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?
 
jammonius said:
Hello Dave,

There is an idea in the post to which the above comments, but it is not the idea you expressed.

The idea is that science can be, and often is, misused. I dare say that one of the weaknesses of scientific methodology is that it can mislead. That is what NIST did. The examples of scientific methodology being misused are too numerous to even begin to try to list; and that refers only to those examples occurring this year so far.
Click to expand...

If there are so many, why not just start a thread to specifically discuss one instance where NIST misused scientific methodology to mislead.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Some things should be summarized for Jammonius here, since they're buried in the mass of posts:

.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That is false. The subbasements were relatively undamaged. There was no signficant collapse of those floors. In fact, all you have to do to confirm this is pay close attention to what msm presented. There were firefighters who went down to look around in the immediate aftermath of the event. They walked, they said, from one end to the other, and found no one.

There are an abundance of photos showing workers walking around on all levels in days after 9/11, as well as all sorts of photos, including some posted in this thread showing heavy cranes right on top of the <1 storey debris field obviously not in any danger of crashing through. The debris in the basement claim is unsupported; and, in any event, you certainly haven't proved it.

Another msm hint about this came in the form of the media hype about the stolen jeans. You folks remember that one right?

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.
Click to expand...

There are DEW in all ranges of the light spectrum, not just the visible. Moreover, as DEW exist and are deployed, your expert is woefully out of date.
 
Myriad said:
Scientific arguments (that is to say, calculations) can mislead.

Written arguments can mislead.

Spoken words can mislead.

Images can mislead.

Music can mislead.

If we're going to reject the first due to the potential for misuse, let's be fair and reject all of them.

In accordance with this, please explain your objections to NIST's findings and the consensus narrative of 9/11 using either random noises or mental telepathy. Neither of those, historically, has ever been successfully used to mislead, so I look forward to productive honest dialog in either or both of those media.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...


Greetings Myriad:

You pose the following query:

In accordance with this, please explain your objections to NIST's findings and the consensus narrative of 9/11 using either random noises or mental telepathy. Neither of those, historically, has ever been successfully used to mislead, so I look forward to productive honest dialog in either or both of those media.
Click to expand...

NCSTAR 1 footnotes

both media
 
Alferd_Packer said:
jammonius

Regarding the dirt supposedly trucked in and sprinkled about the site:

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?
Click to expand...

With regard to question 1) above, if there's real interest in this issue, we can try to pursue it together. For starters, though, let's set the stage for the discussison.

Firstly, the beginning of the trucking in of dirt is inferentially dated from day one; namely, 9/11 itself. We establish this inferred fact from the following comment made by then Mayor Julie Annie on 9/12:


"We were able to move 120 dump trucks out of the city last night. (So) it should give you a sense of the work that was done over night. And so, some of the debris has already been removed. More of it is being removed, and it will be done by barge all throughout the day today."

It is inferred that that statement is false because overnight, from 9/11 to 9/12, rescue operations were ongoing, making it unlikely that debris would be removed in any great quantity.

However, there were a lot of dump trucks involved. They were bringing in dirt in order to try to douse the after effects of DEW. Nearly 7 years later, they are still doing so.

Look at the trucks with the yellow engine/hoods:

5644.jpg


With respect to query number 2, why don't we see if other posters can post up pictures of how the dirt at GZ is getting brought in and out. This thread seems to have a lot of people who are good at locating photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom