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

[jammonius]

It can evaporate the building yet only burn out cars with a thickness of about 2mm of sheet metal. Makes a lot of sense.

Disbelief,

You're getting warm (pun intended) in the above thought process, could you but realize it.

This tread is not about DEW, so I suspect the mods are going to send you a message. Perhaps you'd like to start one?

The analogy is Hiroshima. Prior to that particular war crime, no one had ever seen damage done that completely, that thoroughly and that instantaneously. DEW are, basically, a more sophisticated type of WMD that can be aimed and calibrated while nukes are indiscriminate. DEW, however, have some spill over effects, thus causing lighter (another intended one) damage at slightly greater distances from the aim point.

It is not practicable, in my view, to treat the subject of DEW casually. However, if someone wants to start a thread, fine. I am going to elect not to do so as I, quite frankly, don't have anything I need to prove to myself and I'm not inclined to start one absent some clear indication that the subject will be taken seriously. If one is started, I'll likely monitor it and contribute as I can.

Meanwhile, here's another of the mall with the ceiling clearly intact and with the store sign INNOVATION faintly visible on the left (you'll need a good monitor to see it). INNOVATION was a store in the mall.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

That is correct. The problem lays in the fact that the testimony and evidence is contrary to your assertions.

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.

Provide a source for this please. We have been providing our evidence for perusal.

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.

True, but none of that leads towards any conspiratorial hypotheses.

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.

What we have been doing is studying the evidence dispassionately, and seeing where the weight of the evidence points. It does not point towards any thesis of DEW.

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.

Your view is mistaken, then. We are providing ample evidence from debris clearing workers and engineers onsite who had to actually deal with the wreckage. We are not relying on Judy Woods's misinterpretations, or misrepresentations of photographs to reach our conclusions.

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.

Absolutely, positively incorrect. The in-person observations from engineers and workers onsite say the opposite. See my links above.

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

I choose to believe those who actually saw and dealt with the debris.

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

Kudos to DGM for coming up with that.

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?

Those few shelves fall far short of represent the entirety of the stores contents. If that's all that was left, I'd say that the damage was pretty extensive, if it can all fit on a small number of shelves in a corner of a room.

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

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image311.jpg

That there are segments where workers can enter and not be surrounded by debris does not invalidate the ample testimony of engineers and other workers onsite saying that major portions of the tower fell into the tub.

 

[A W Smith]

Why must jammonius LIE

Disbelief,

You're getting warm (pun intended) in the above thought process, could you but realize it.

This tread is not about DEW, so I suspect the mods are going to send you a message. Perhaps you'd like to start one?

The analogy is Hiroshima. Prior to that particular war crime, no one had ever seen damage done that completely, that thoroughly and that instantaneously. DEW are, basically, a more sophisticated type of WMD that can be aimed and calibrated while nukes are indiscriminate. DEW, however, have some spill over effects, thus causing lighter (another intended one) damage at slightly greater distances from the aim point.

It is not practicable, in my view, to treat the subject of DEW casually. However, if someone wants to start a thread, fine. I am going to elect not to do so as I, quite frankly, don't have anything I need to prove to myself and I'm not inclined to start one absent some clear indication that the subject will be taken seriously. If one is started, I'll likely monitor it and contribute as I can.

Meanwhile, here's another of the mall with the ceiling clearly intact and with the store sign INNOVATION faintly visible on the left (you'll need a good monitor to see it). INNOVATION was a store in the mall.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image312.jpg

How incredibly deceptive and dishonest of you jammonius. look at this map of the mall. Note the location of the store "innovation Luggage". It is the one and only store in the mall with 'innovation" in its name. Notice it is in the extreme east end of the concourse level. Note also On the footprint image that alt-f4 provided (not the one the Liar Judy Wood had altered to promote her theory) that the location is outside the collapse zone in the grayed area.

 

[jammonius]

That is correct. The problem lays in the fact that the testimony and evidence is contrary to your assertions.



Provide a source for this please. We have been providing our evidence for perusal.



True, but none of that leads towards any conspiratorial hypotheses.



What we have been doing is studying the evidence dispassionately, and seeing where the weight of the evidence points. It does not point towards any thesis of DEW.



Your view is mistaken, then. We are providing ample evidence from debris clearing workers and engineers onsite who had to actually deal with the wreckage. We are not relying on Judy Woods's misinterpretations, or misrepresentations of photographs to reach our conclusions.



Absolutely, positively incorrect. The in-person observations from engineers and workers onsite say the opposite. See my links above.



I choose to believe those who actually saw and dealt with the debris.



Kudos to DGM for coming up with that.



Those few shelves fall far short of represent the entirety of the stores contents. If that's all that was left, I'd say that the damage was pretty extensive, if it can all fit on a small number of shelves in a corner of a room.



That there are segments where workers can enter and not be surrounded by debris does not invalidate the ample testimony of engineers and other workers onsite saying that major portions of the tower fell into the tub.

The 503 Witness Statements may be found here. Enjoy:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/08/12/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC.html

If you want some, there are many, that graphically discuss issues like the building disappearing before their very eyes, or in other respects desmonstrating characteristics that would cause the buildings to disappear -- I said "disappear" -- see some of the following witness statements:

(last names only, they're in alphabetical order at the NYT site given above)

Becker
Camacho
Deshore
Goldbach
Goldfarb
Ondrovic

Caution, some of the statements are blanked out, as has been mentioned before in the other thread, before this one got separated out.

And, oh, by the way, the effects of DEW are very long lasting. As has been mentioned, GZ is still being cleanup up; and here's a photo dating from March 2002, after the full autumn and the full winter of 01-02 had passed and they're still hosing it down. Posters, that is not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire; rather it is consistent with DEW. This photo also shows there was no damage to the bathtub:

 

[jberryhill]

Note the location of the store "innovation Luggage".

...and that the Warner Bros. store, from which a limited number of items were removed to JFK Airport, is also at that same end.

Jammonius won't have an explanation for using a picture in that vicinity of the concourse to "disprove" any significant underground collapse. She'll just flit from picture to picture that she doesn't understand.

 

[DGM]

Jammonius:

City construction sites are hosed down constantly to reduce dust. You don't get out much do you?

 

[A W Smith]

Jammonius. they hose it down to control the dust. that is done on just about every construction site.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

The 503 Witness Statements may be found here. Enjoy:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2005/08/12/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC.html

If you want some, there are many, that graphically discuss issues like the building disappearing before their very eyes, or in other respects desmonstrating characteristics that would cause the buildings to disappear -- I said "disappear" -- see some of the following witness statements:

(last names only, they're in alphabetical order at the NYT site given above)

Becker
Camacho
Deshore
Goldbach
Goldfarb
Ondrovic

Caution, some of the statements are blanked out, as has been mentioned before in the other thread, before this one got separated out.

And, oh, by the way, the effects of DEW are very long lasting. As has been mentioned, GZ is still being cleanup up; and here's a photo dating from March 2002, after the full autumn and the full winter of 01-02 had passed and they're still hosing it down. Posters, that is not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire; rather it is consistent with DEW. This photo also shows there was no damage to the bathtub:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image304.jpg

(bolding mine)

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. Can you compare and contrast hydrocarbon fires vs. DEW effects?

Folks, I think I'm going to abandon this thread. Jammonius doesn't seem to want to respond to questions.

Can I suggest to others that they develop a "Larsen List" for Jammonius?

 

[jammonius]

How incredibly deceptive and dishonest of you jammonius. look at this map of the mall. Note the location of the store "innovation Luggage". It is the one and only store in the mall with 'innovation" in its name. Notice it is in the extreme east end of the concourse level. Note also On the footprint image that alt-f4 provided (not the one the Liar Judy Wood had altered to promote her theory) that the location is outside the collapse zone in the grayed area.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/WTCmallinnovationluggage.jpg[/qimg]

Thank you for the diagram. It is to be recalled, that this is what I have asked posters to offer up. It advances the discussion. Your diagram also shows the Warner Bros. Store, as well. It, too, was away from the Twin Towers.

However, I'm not sure that it is accurate to say those stores are "outside the 'collapse' zone" because you have not factored in WTC 4,5,6 that had those huge cylindrical holes that are, nonetheless, empty. Some posters have sought to say a lot of the debris crashed through those buildings; well, we now know that it didn't harm the mall; and, as there's no debris at the bottom of the buildings, the contention that the destruction was caused by DEW is, I think, enhanced by your chart.

I sincerely mean it when I say that this is the kind of information that advances the discussion, AW Smith. We are learning something here, I think.

Now, for additional reference as to what is inside and outside the relevant footprint, consider this:

For further rererence:

Perhaps a more complete overlay of the entire WTC complex, showing building location relative to the mall can be posted up by someone? That would help, I think.

 

[jammonius]

By the way, the photo in #229 advances the proposition that GZ was flat because it is of high quality, and contains excellent means of verifying the height by comparison with the remnant wall of WTC 1, as I see it.

 

[A W Smith]

innovation Luggage was directly underneath WTC4, all you need to do is scroll up to Alt+f4 posted image

 

[jammonius]

Here's an illustration from the Washington Post that clearly shows and explains the damage to the below-ground structures of the WTC.

[qimg]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/ground_zero.gif[/qimg]

Below is how the image appears on Dr. Judy's website. Note how she manipulated the illustration to continue the lie that there was no damage to the subterranean levels.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam1.html

[qimg]http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p78/altf4_photo/Image91.gif[/qimg]

What?

The illustration that you say is from the Washington Post is worth reposting:

The actual caption states: "...the below ground levels remained intact...".

That is what has been claimed, so I'm not sure why you posted that illustration if you wanted to prove something? The issue of what got "compacted" is interesting. I don't think that caption is accurate in that respect in that the Path trains were pulled out intact and there's also photographic evidence of the track area showing little damage.

As well, the word "compacted" is not terribly descriptive. Compacted how much?

Here's what a Path train actually looked like after the event:

Keep in mind, too, that the trains were at the lowest level. It is already indicated from a source that Alt-F4 relied on -- WashPost -- that the other levels were intact. So, too, was the lowest level, which might be pretty obvious.

 

[A W Smith]

By the way, the photo in #229 advances the proposition that GZ was flat because it is of high quality, and contains excellent means of verifying the height by comparison with the remnant wall of WTC 1, as I see it.

you need to 'reference" the photo, the image is of two dimensions taken from directly overhead with an unknown lens. it is nearly impossible to discern depth in that photo outside of the holes evident. you can't even tell how tall the booms were on those two cranes, and they are at a minimum 250 feet.

 

[Disbelief]

Disbelief,

You're getting warm (pun intended) in the above thought process, could you but realize it.

This tread is not about DEW, so I suspect the mods are going to send you a message. Perhaps you'd like to start one?

The analogy is Hiroshima. Prior to that particular war crime, no one had ever seen damage done that completely, that thoroughly and that instantaneously. DEW are, basically, a more sophisticated type of WMD that can be aimed and calibrated while nukes are indiscriminate. DEW, however, have some spill over effects, thus causing lighter (another intended one) damage at slightly greater distances from the aim point.

So, explain how the spill over effect would not penetrate and vaporize any of the sheet metal, considering that portions are less than 1mm thick. Why would they onkly catch fire? What would cause them to catch fire? What is the combustible that ignites? How can they control penetration? Would it not blast a large hole in the ground? Why would there not be cratering around the site from this dispersion?

 

[jammonius]

innovation Luggage was directly underneath WTC4, all you need to do is scroll up to Alt+f4 posted image

And WTC 4 was mostly pulverized, with just a narrow sliver of it remaining and still no damage underneath.

 

[jammonius]

So, explain how the spill over effect would not penetrate and vaporize any of the sheet metal, considering that portions are less than 1mm thick. Why would they onkly catch fire? What would cause them to catch fire? What is the combustible that ignites? How can they control penetration? Would it not blast a large hole in the ground? Why would there not be cratering around the site from this dispersion?

What is your take on some of your own questions? Once again, this is NOT a DEW thread. This is a thread showing the flatness of GZ. See the title.

Now, to the extent you queries concern the flatness, I'm willing to "engage" with you. Note: As I see it, engage means discuss. I don't think anyone gets to be in the position of permanent question asker and no one is in the position of question answerer. If you have interest in DEW questions, research them.

As to the issue of cratering around the site, I think that one comes close enough to the topic of the thread to merit this:

The holes and the craters are fairly obvious, as I see it. Other posters, of course, may disagree.

 

[jammonius]

you need to 'reference" the photo, the image is of two dimensions taken from directly overhead with an unknown lens. it is nearly impossible to discern depth in that photo outside of the holes evident. you can't even tell how tall the booms were on those two cranes, and they are at a minimum 250 feet.

Here are two ways that might help with the reference factor. One shows the horizontal aspect, the other shows the lobby of one of the Twin Towers. I think that helps confirm that the distinctive lobby windows were not covered by more than 1 storey of debris:

I don't mind responding to your requests as best I can, as I think you did all of us a favor in posting up the mall floor plan. Thanks again.

Can you assist in finding other diagrams or photos that help to confirm the flatness OR the height of the debris at GZ?

By the way, I gotta stop now. See you later.

 

[twinstead]

The holes and the craters are fairly obvious, as I see it. Other posters, of course, may disagree.

If by 'fairly obvious' you mean only visible to one who is predisposed to believe they are there and no other rational person, then yea, you are right.

 

[A W Smith]

And WTC 4 was mostly pulverized, with just a narrow sliver of it remaining and still no damage underneath.

here is the north wing of what remained of WTC4. North is to the right. Innovation luggage would be to the left just about at the southern edge of the penthouse.

The entire site shown in hi res at NOAA

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

 

[A W Smith]

the site is anything but flat

Interesting GZ radar image maps here

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/s798b.htm