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

Image 26 - "These shelves in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport hold various items saved from the retails stores that were below the World Trade Center. (Photo by Lane Johnson)"

In other words - jammonius lost, ha,ha,ha.
 
Last edited:
jammonius, I have a great idea for you. Instead of relying on pictures, how about you contact the FDNY and NYPD so you can query them about the height of the debris pile. Since you reject any pic posted by anyone that disproves your delusion, go ask the people who were there.
 
Image 26 - "These shelves in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport hold various items saved from the retails stores that were below the World Trade Center. (Photo by Lane Johnson)"

In other words - jammonius lost, ha,ha,ha.

Heh. This thread is simultaneously funny and sad.

I wish Mackey could re-work his calculations to account for a beam that can actually evaporate most of the building, as our guest here apparently claims. I'm guessing we're talking many orders of magnitude larger than the space station sized device he considered.

And of course if he/she objects that the conspirators have in fact overcome all of thos technological limitations to the degree that they can generate/store/project that kind of energy, then the conspirators would not need to conspirate at all. They hold technology that would let them dominate literally every industry on earth, from transportation to defense to power generation.

So take your pick.
 
Heh. This thread is simultaneously funny and sad.

I wish Mackey could re-work his calculations to account for a beam that can actually evaporate most of the building, as our guest here apparently claims. I'm guessing we're talking many orders of magnitude larger than the space station sized device he considered.

And of course if he/she objects that the conspirators have in fact overcome all of thos technological limitations to the degree that they can generate/store/project that kind of energy, then the conspirators would not need to conspirate at all. They hold technology that would let them dominate literally every industry on earth, from transportation to defense to power generation.

So take your pick.

It can evaporate the building yet only burn out cars with a thickness of about 2mm of sheet metal. Makes a lot of sense.
 
I wish Mackey could re-work his calculations to account for a beam that can actually evaporate most of the building, as our guest here apparently claims.


Alas Mackey works only with real facts and precise calculations founded on proper science. Whereas "our guest" seems to be able only to conduct (invariably wrong or unfalsifyable) analysis based on reams of ambiguous pictures. The reasoning behind it all is unfathomable, the stark absence of all scientific method is stunningly obvious, the conclusions insane.

Reminds me of Willard and Colonel Kurtz......

Willard:They told me you are insane.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: There is no method.

BV
 
Jammonious can either get serious here, or not. If the discussion continues in this vein, I won't participate.

What would be fun though is to compute the energy any DEW would require to do this from orbit. While we are there, we can compute how far away the "shine" from that event would set paper alight.

And we need to consider what wavelength or type of particle beam would work.

Now, forget proton, or electron beams; Even if you used a laser to open up a near vacuum ahead of them, the earth magnetic field would not allow the beam to use that path and it would be near-impossible to aim them.

Neutrons we can rule out because at that intensity nucleosynthesis would be easily detected in a very large radioactivity signature.

We can rule out neutrinos and other exotic particles for similar reasons and because it would take the energies of a small star to make them in the required quantities.

So, we are left with lasers and masers.

Now, the atmosphere absorbs many frequencies, which is why astronomers are so very keen to have orbiting telescopes. Here is a diagram of that;

windows.gif


So, UV is out, as are all but FAR X-rays.

We think know how to make an X-ray laser; It involves a thermonuclear detonation to pump the laser for a single shot (the device does not survive) but the one and only test was not a stunning success, and the device did not produce far X-rays.

Gamma rays? OK, maybe. How to make them in a beam like that of laser-like intensity. Plus with 15-20% of them taken up by the atmosphere, there would be a column of glowing, heated gas POINTING to the source like a finger.

The same objection, the glowing finger of air, applies to most IR wavelengths except for very near IR and one window. So, OK, if you can make an IR laser that operates in that window, maybe.

Visible light? Ruled out by our being able to just plain SEE it.

Now radio. A beamed RF pulse? Remember that all electronic devices contain diodes and all of them pick up frequencies that they were not designed for and rectify those frequencies into a pulsed DC current. We deal with that in electronics either by those effects being so small as to be subliminal or by passive filters and chokes and zener diodes to ground pulses or active filtering in one or more stages. Lightning causes a pulse like this that most nearby electronics just cannot easily deal with. Lightning protection and building entry systems in particular are nearly a black art; I worked with lightning protection guys for years at Cook Electric, where the gas tube was invented. they were always making something catch fire in their simulated lighting pulses in their lab; It was fun.

In this case, we can rule out an RF pulse by the lack of effects on electronics. We have electronic cameras, some quite close aboard, which observed both collapses, and in none of them did we see failures or ever a few messed up frames as would have been the case had an RF weapon been used.

SO, we are left with IR pulses in the two windows, very near IR and one other, that the atmosphere does not absorb significantly. The same windows ground-based IR astronomy uses.

Now, we CAN rule out the near IR; All electronic cameras are sensitive to near IR. They have optical filters to keep that light away from the sensor, but if there is ENOUGH near IR, the camera would detect it, and it did not.

Now, what about the IR windows;

We have high transmissivity windows at 1.1-14. microns, 1.5-1.8 microns, 2.0-2.4 microns, and 3.5-4.0 microns. At all other wavelengths there would be significant atmospheric absorption and heating. In fact none of these are as clear as the optical wavelengths.

We have dealt with the near IR - sensor chips will respond easily even to the 2.0-2.4 micron window if the signal is bright enough. This is where the IR acts mostly like heat, and we use that fact in heat-seeking missiles, sensors for firefighters, non-contact thermometers, and passive night vision devices. And people nearby would have felt the heat pulse on their skin!

So, we are left with the 3.5-4.0 micron window. Now, Mr skinny can chime in here; What sort of laser would that have to be? I am out of my depth there.

But we are also left with the problem that the "shine" from the event would have been immense; Paper in NJ would have flashed into flame if exposed to enough energy to have "dustified" the steel of the towers.

So, sorry, Judy, I just ruled out your fair tale...
 
As a matter of fact, before people start going off on basement this and sub-basement that, and slurry wall the other, hadn't one ought to have a proper frame of reference for what they are talking about? I think the answer is yes, there should be a proper frame of reference for what is being discussed.

Note: I here assert that the starting point for that part of the discussion consisted in the assertion, in response to my answering query of "what?" when someone said that 1 storey = 4 or 5 of them. I assert that 1 storey does not equal 4 or 5, rather it equals 1.

Multiple posts clearly indicated that the argument was that your assertion of 1 story above ground meant that the true height of the pile must include the portion below ground. 1 story above ground equals 4 to 6 total. This was made clear in several posts.

That is a terrible attempt to obfuscate. Everyone else but you seems to understand what was being talked about here.

So, the answer turns out to have been that 1 = 5 or was it 6? because the basement levels were a debris field and count as part of the height meaurement.

But, in making that claim, none of you have really posted up what you're talking about. You haven't shown us what the basement levels or below ground levels of the WTC consisted in and you have not shown their relationship to the overall site.

The tub is the foundation for the WTC complex. That is basic knowledge. And yes, I have posted what I'm talking about. Again, that is a bad attempt to obfuscate. Basic knowledge of the construction of the WTC complex includes understanding the multistory tub it was constructed in. If you are unfamiliar with the basics of the tub, this link provides a quick description:
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLJ9?OpenDocument

As indicated at the outset, the photo quoted in the post to which this replies is not even of the subbasement or any part of it. In having this discussion, I am not here seeking to prove someone a liar and I am not decaring myself to have a monopoly on truth, either.

I would like to think we can be information oriented here and see what the data show, without declaring "jammonius lost, ha,ha,ha." If that is the case, then the data will pretty much show it to the be case and people do not have to engage in self-congratulation. Let the data do the talking.

Taking photographs of isolated sections of Ground Zero and drawing conclusions extending to the whole of the area is not being "information oriented". It is being selective. The testimony from engineers and cleanup crews clearly indicate that debris fell into the tub/subbasement area of the complex and collapsed much of the below ground structure. The data is doing the talking, and it is contradicting your assertions.

Here, for rank starters, then, is the Warner Bros. Store that was located on the first sub-basement level -- that is, the level closest to the surface, right underneath the towers -- what debris?

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image107.jpg

No, that is incorrect. As DGM pointed out, that image was taken at a hanger at Kennedy airport. The picture's caption reads:

These shelves in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport hold various items saved from the retails stores that were below the World Trade Center.
(Source: http://www.amny.com/news/local/grou...ogallery?coll=amny_news_local_groundzero_util, image #26)

Your image is of a holding shelf at the airport where small debris was stored. It is not of the store itself.


It takes a series of photos to illustrate the nature of the underground levels at the WTC; and, here for starters is an overall depiction, providing the basic elements of the all important "bathtub" that encompassed the WTC to keep it dry. Had it been damaged -- it wasn't -- the site and much of lower Manhattan would have been flooded:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image88.gif

Yes, if the wall facing the Hudson River had failed, there would have been flooding. That's quite obvious. However, the rest of your assertion is incorrect. The tub was indeed damaged. As a matter of fact, the headline for my first linked article is "Half of WTC ‘Bathtub' Basement Damaged By Twin Towers' Fall".

You need to do better research:

When the twin towers collapsed, the falling structures demolished most of these supporting slabs. Portions of the permanent basement slabs crushed when the twin towers collapsed into the WTC basement. The result was a drastic reduction in the effective lateral support of the perimeter slurry wall. Consequently, the slurry wall experienced deformations in excess of 2 ft into the WTC basement. The slurry wall withstood both the large deformations and the large unsupported lengths. The stability of the WTC slurry wall immediately after the collapse is mainly to be attributed to the ability of poorly or non-supported individual panels to cantilever from the base, to benefit from any residual floor diaphragms, and to span adjacent panels that had adequate lateral support. Nonetheless, the stability of the slurry wall had to be ensured by proper anchoring before the recovery crews could "safely" reach the old subgrade 75 ft beneath the Hudson River. The general philosophy of the redesign was that the old anchor system had to be replicated in some fashion. Most importantly, the first level of rock anchors was prestressed with considerably excess force to account for the possibility of further collapses in the basement. Relatively small deformations occurred after the first level of anchors was prestressed. Many panels were pushed back towards the retained soil as anchor installation proceeded deeper (considering the position of the wall before the first level of anchors was installed as initial). As expected, individual panel exhibited considerably different deformations. Moskowitz and Tamaro (2002) discuss this subject in more detail.
http://www.deepexcavation.com/casestudies4.html

1-Slurry walls form water-tight bathtub.
2-PATH rail lines pass under WTC 2.
3-Even cracks in the bathtub would allow water inside.

Some water did get in. How much of it was from the river is unknown, since there was a tremendous amount contributed by severed watermains and firefighting efforts, but cleanup personnel often include river water when they mention the water that must be pumped out of the area.

Also: The wall facing the Hudson river did indeed not fail... because the debris piled up against the wall. This was noted by engineers.

As a staff engineer for the Port Authority in 1967, Mr. Tamaro helped build the World Trade Center's basement, a 16-acre, 70-foot-deep hole in the ground that until last Tuesday housed seven levels of shopping, parking and, at the very bottom, the PATH train station. Now he and others are concerned that debris from the collapse of the twin towers might be the only thing supporting the walls of that giant hole against the pressure of muck and water and dirt on the outside.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04EEDD143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

The primary challenge facing workers below ground is how to remove debris from the WTC's 16-acre basement without tipping over the Center's slurry wall...

...When the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed down, so too crumbled the six supporting floors, "so the slabs are not there, the floors are not there, but the debris is doing what the floors used to do," says Daniel Hahn, senior associate engineer at the consulting company Mueser Rutledge.

-------

You were shown quotes from engineering articles and cleanup personnel stating that large amounts of debris fell into the WTC "tub". Again:

Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers...

..."A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything," says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20011008b.asp

When the twin towers collapsed, the falling structures demolished most of these supporting slabs. Portions of the permanent basement slabs crushed when the twin towers collapsed into the WTC basement.

http://www.deepexcavation.com/casestudies4.html


Much of the tower debris that had crashed into the basement could not be removed before the 3-ft-thick walls were pinned back because, in many places, the compacted debris had replaced the floor slabs that supported the walls.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCent.../20020401a.asp


The primary challenge facing workers below ground is how to remove debris from the WTC's 16-acre basement without tipping over the Center's slurry wall...

... When the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed down, so too crumbled the six supporting floors, "so the slabs are not there, the floors are not there, but the debris is doing what the floors used to do," says Daniel Hahn, senior associate engineer at the consulting company Mueser Rutledge."

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html


But yet, you not only continue to assert an incorrect fact - that the below-ground levels of the towers were undamaged - but also you continue to insist that the height of the debris pile was only 1 single story, and try to support that assertion with above-street-level photos. And you do all that in the face of multiple sources demonstrating 1. The existence of the below-ground "tub", 2. Engineers stating that major portions of the main towers fell into the tub, and 3. The obvious conclusion that, if debris falls into a hole, the total height of the pile is the above ground segment plus the below ground segment. Your assertions are rendered false by simple comparison against the known facts.
 
Last edited:
So, we are left with the 3.5-4.0 micron window. Now, Mr skinny can chime in here; What sort of laser would that have to be? I am out of my depth there.
Well, I'm not a laser expert, Ben. I just work with a lot of them.

Off the top of my head though, I think deuterium flouride lasers operate in the 3500-4000 nanometer wavelength range.

I imagine there are others.
 
Well, I'm not a laser expert, Ben. I just work with a lot of them.

Off the top of my head though, I think deuterium flouride lasers operate in the 3500-4000 nanometer wavelength range.

I imagine there are others.

ah ok. I was going to ask a bit about how such a beast would be pumped and etc. DFl? That's a pretty strong acid!

But the point is that there is a reason most beam weapons work best in space, and a reason that anti aircraft and anti missile laser systems only barely work; the amount of energy one has to hit a boost phase missile with is not all that large as rockets are fragile. Plus the source tracking makes use difficult in a situation where the enemy is similarly equipped!
 
ah ok. I was going to ask a bit about how such a beast would be pumped and etc. DFl? That's a pretty strong acid!

But the point is that there is a reason most beam weapons work best in space, and a reason that anti aircraft and anti missile laser systems only barely work; the amount of energy one has to hit a boost phase missile with is not all that large as rockets are fragile. Plus the source tracking makes use difficult in a situation where the enemy is similarly equipped!
Ben, your questions are similar to mine. If jammonius thinks a DEW brought down the WTC's, I want specifics that I can take to the experts I work with to get their opinion.

For example, we once tried to take a 150 kilowatt CO2 beam a few thousand yards through atmosphere and found considerable loss of power on target due to beam "bloom" from atmospheric contaminants. If jammonius suggests a space based laser, it would seem to me it would have massive problems delivering power on target. Delivering enough power to bring down a building would seem to require truly massive amounts of spaced-based power, it would seem.

Since jammonius seems to think this is possible, I want to know how s/he thinks this could be done. Certainly s/he would have to come to this conclusion through some scientific reasoning, otherwise I have to chalk it up to pure fantasy on his/her part.

I went through this exercise once with Max Photon. He was intelligent enough to abandon the theory. I'm not sure about jammonius.
 
For example, we once tried to take a 150 kilowatt CO2 beam a few thousand yards through atmosphere and found considerable loss of power on target due to beam "bloom" from atmospheric contaminants.

...and then on top of atmospheric dispersive effects, when you actually hit anything, then you have the problem of penetrating material or vapor ablated from the surface.

The most amazing aspect of Judy Wood's beams are that they continue to penetrate the vaporized and pulverized material to work on the buildings, and the apparent presence of all of that smoke, vapor, concrete, and what-have-you, doesn't seem to impact the effectiveness of the beams on the remaining building below the vaporization front.

But, as Ben noted, our Jammonious has an apparent cognitive deficit and some interesting strategies for dealing with it. For example, since she can't do any sort of analytical mathematics of the type that she should know that she was once capable of doing, the invitation to do so is declined by saying that the NIST calculations were done to obscure the truth. Nobody asked Jammonius to obscure anything, but merely to present some actual engineering analysis beyond looking at undated pictures - most of which Jammonius has no idea where, when, or by whom they were taken.

What Judy does remember is that there was some aspect of "looking at pictures" that was important to the limited work she did in connection with Moire interferometry, but she no longer grasps the math. The insidious aspect of her condition is that she does not realize, because of the way the brain compensates for damage, what she's missing.
 
Last edited:
He was intelligent enough to abandon the theory. I'm not sure about jammonius.

With Dr. Wood's theories, you are confronting a form of brain damage. It's not a question of intelligence or honesty. She actually does not understand that she's not making sense, and she is thoroughly manipulated by several others who reinforce her belief that she is making sense. If she is supported by some kind of annuity or settlement from her injury, then the situation is pretty clear.
 
With Dr. Wood's theories, you are confronting a form of brain damage. It's not a question of intelligence or honesty. She actually does not understand that she's not making sense, and she is thoroughly manipulated by several others who reinforce her belief that she is making sense. If she is supported by some kind of annuity or settlement from her injury, then the situation is pretty clear.
It's not clear to me that jammonius and Dr. Judy Wood are the same person. That said, the questions to jammonius remain the same.

I won't speculate about brain damage, as I'm not qualified in that area.

The DEW theory is either supportable, or it is not.

Oh, and your expansion on the topic of ablation and laser generated air contaminants is spot on to my previous statements. Never had to deal with the issue since air contamination alone was enough to nix the project I mentioned.
 
With Dr. Wood's theories, you are confronting a form of brain damage. It's not a question of intelligence or honesty. She actually does not understand that she's not making sense, and she is thoroughly manipulated by several others who reinforce her belief that she is making sense. If she is supported by some kind of annuity or settlement from her injury, then the situation is pretty clear.

Anybody who wants some real insight into this, go read "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" by Oliver Sacks.

I recommend it for anybody who is at all interested in the biological underpinnings of epistemology.
 
jammonius, I have a great idea for you. Instead of relying on pictures, how about you contact the FDNY and NYPD so you can query them about the height of the debris pile. Since you reject any pic posted by anyone that disproves your delusion, go ask the people who were there.

This has already been done. But it is interesting that the phenomenon I have earlier spoken of -- that with respect to 9/11 people do not believe what they themselves see -- holds true, yet again. The pictures are not ambiguous and neither is the witness testimony. As many of you know, there are 503 officially transcribed statements from First Responders, police, firefighters and EMTs that contain a number of references to GZ being flat and to the sublevels being intact.

Look, this is not a mystery. The Twin Towers disappeared before your vry eyes and many of you probably saw it in real time on TV. The First Responders were, for the most part, present. Many of them describe the event as being like nothing they ever expected to see. They knew the buildings had disappeared, but had no ready explanation or comprehension of how, on earth, any such thing could have happened.

By the way, for those of you are interested in finding out more than msm revealed about the events, do your own research. You can either do objectively, or do it, as some have done here, from a particular bias or mindset.

Some of you are doing that. Some of you are actually trying to prove that GZ was greater than one storey in height. So far, you have failed to provide clear and cogent information in support of your claim, in my view. Just as it is your view that I have not shown that GZ was no more than e storey in height and was, in many areas, such as where WTC 3 had stood, virtually flat.

There was no significant underground accumulation of debris because the foundation was not badly damaged. The steel and the concrete were pulverizd and turned to dust almost instantaneously.

You saw this. So, either believe your own eyes, or choose not to do so.

I will say this, I did not know the Warner Bros. Store items were in hangar 17. Thanks for that information.

Needless to say, if that many undamaged goods could be recovered, how bad could the damage have been? Keep in mind, from the towers themselves, not a single identifable piece of furniture was said to have been found, I do believe. Does anyone have any contrary information on that assertion?

And, oh, by the way, this is the mall and not hangar 17:

Image311.jpg
 

Back
Top Bottom