DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
OK I read it so what? Nothing that odd considering his location.
[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
A civil engineer just suggested to me that earth brought to the site was only there to create ramps up to the top of the debris and "paving" on top of it to safely move clearance equipment.
Fair enough. Keep in mind, you're looking at raw data. You're not likely to find something that says, "oh, when dgm asks, here's what I'd like for dgm to know" or whatever. I think the comment I just referred to you is consistent with GZ being flat; however, granted, it's not a definitive declaration to that effect.
Try using various search terms. For that matter, if you think those who were there will confirm that GZ was not flat (by which I mean <1storey in height, generally speaking), then put in search terms that you think will lead to references to height.
For instance, you could search on words like "climb" or "high" or "huge" or "pile" or "debris" or "mountain" etc.
The dirt is still being routinely brought into and removed from GZ by people using hazmat equipment. That is, to this very day, the remediation of GZ is continuing.
Aren't any posters just a little curious why GZ looks today no different, in terms of its overall appearance, than it has looked since 2002? Precious little construction is taking place there. Of course, I hear that Dr. Wood has provided information to the US Attorney that the cleanup is consistent with DEW having been used and that the secretive cleanup process is a part of the psy op.
Last edited:
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Well, to be blunt, I've yet to read a testimony that even speaks towards the debris field being flat. Or there being no underground damage at all. Everything I've read so far doesn't only not contradict what site engineers have said, everything I've read so far from the NYTimes link doesn't discuss that topic at all.
Besides which, I have no faith that conspiracy addicts have read the testimony correctly. As is the habit with you folks, all quotes I've seen in the past have either been misrepresentations of what the speaker said, or quotemines isolated from the true context of the statement. I can't tell you how many times I've been told that rescue workers have said there are bombs in the towers, only to see the actual quote say anything but.
It's up to you to provide the evidence. So far you have not; you've set up a "needle-in-a-haystack" problem. That's distraction, not debate.
Not a single element of Chevalo Wilson-DeBriano's interview discusses Ground Zero debris being a flat field, nor does any of it speak towards underground levels being undamaged. That testimony does not support your assertion on the debris field or the below ground levels at all.
Others can read that link and see for yourselves.
------
The one here taking shortcuts is you, not me. You're the one ignoring testimony from cleanup workers and engineers and relying on Judy Wood's flawed assertions. Not to mention the fact that your photo interpretations are lacking; posting images after debris has been removed does not speak to any lack of damage before that point. As my links have reported, portions of the tub wall had to be repaired before removal of the debris, so an image post removal of course would not show the damage that was observed post collapse.
And of course I've been using the search tool, in addition to reading the testimonies from start to finish. Again, so far, not a single one of them speak towards a flat debris field or no damage to the below-ground levels. If there were really people in those interviews who talked about Ground Zero being flat, or there being no damage below ground, why don't you point them out? And then explain why they contradict cleanup engineers who actually had to remove the debris?
To be blunt, I don't think there's any testimony there that supports your assertions. If there is, prove me wrong. Point it out. Don't point at a mass of testimony and say "It's in there". Point out who said what. I've provided exact quotes and references in my arguments. Why don't you return the favor. Your one attempt so far did not speak towards the point under consideration.
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
That is bull excrement and you know it; An outright lie. Earth is brought there now as FILL to enable site re-development. You know, I have a lot of sympathy for what you went through, but you are trying that sympathy severely by not even TRYING to understand physical reality. Most of the recover for a person such as yourself has to be self-motivated.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I can't get your "GZ was flat" because I have fiends that were there cleaning up and have friends that still work there. Guess what, People that were there if you actually talk to them will tell you the opposite of what your claiming pictures and vague interviews say.
Why don't you want to know what real people (in person) have to say? I've been to ground zero myself (2004/2006) and nothing other than a normal construction project is going on (I've been in construction for 30 years).
PS the dirt is always used because large equipment does not work well on uneven ground.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,608
So, you set up the criteria for a discussion and fail to follow up with your end of the agreement. Then, you say it is pointless. Good work so far.
jammonius said:
How can we ascertain that what is being described is from a DEW, since you have failed to support this claim. Stating it over and over again does not make it true. Also, as the buildings did disappear in about 15 seconds saince they were no longer visible to many people. Kind of hard to miss such icionic buildings suddenly not in the skyline. By the way, how does this support a DEW?
jammonius said:
So, what is her expertise? How does she know it is a military operation?
You can't answer the questions, because you have failed to do so repeatedly. Some of them are simple, since you claim to have knowledge of DEWs.
Page 4 of that document is quoted below. Jammonius, please point out the passages relevant to your assertions here.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Come on it's plain as day:
(please don't read any more of the statement)
(please don't read any more of the statement)
Last edited:
You are free to interpret the statement as you feel most comfortable with. Do you recognize that I am not obliged to agree with your interpretation of the description of events? Here's a person who was on the West Side Highway; or, a block away from GZ. WTC2 had already been destroyed and he was there for the destruction of WTC1 and couldn't see debris.
We know from other sources, including video that a lot of people saw for themselves, (but we know people tend not to believe their own eyes in re 9/11) that the cloud (it wasn't so simple a thing as smoke) didn't last very long. Plus, if the debris stack had been higher than about 1 storey, it seems to me, it would have been visible, irrespective of smoke.
Note, too, that some people really, really want there to have been a huge pile of debris, not as a personal preferrence, mind you, but because that is what we would EXPECT there to be as a remnant of a 1/4 mile high building. The fact that there wasn't, then, requires some explanation. The tendency is for people to search for reasons for why they did not see what they would have expected.
Mind you, I know that what I say does not meet with approval here. I am not posting this for personal approval or accolades. I am calling it as I see it and I respect your rights to do the same.
I do not find it necessary to call other posters "crazy;" as they are prone to doing, but that doesn't mean I am not doing some naming of phenomena.
I use the term psy op and the desire to conform to socially mandated expectations. I also call it being fearful. I think people are afraid of really looking at 9/11 for fear of what they'll actually find.
Such an excited utterance! What makes you think you have the right to say such things? You are not sourcing your claim, much less making any substantive assertion other than "you are right, I am wrong and Dr. Wood is crazy."
Earth to BenBurch, Earth to BenBurch. We know posters here think Dr. Wood is crazy. They have said that fairly frequently. It's becoming fairly obvious that that is all they have to say such that it is now very apparent that those who say such things, in every post they make, simply haven't got anything to counter the information here presented with.
What are you folks into the Rovian or Goebbels playbook? Just keep repeating the same old saw over and over again, keeping it simple, so that you'll convince yourselves.
The dirt is being trucked in, spread out, then scooped up and removed very carefully using hazmat protection and practices. If, by chance, you either live in NYC or have a good buddy who'll spend a couple of hours there during a weekday and who isn't intimidated by the veiling of GZ and by the obvious security apparatus in place there, you or that person will be able to document these things for yourselves.
By the way, I have a question for you. Are you sure dirt is being used as a fill at GZ? I thought the idea was to get to bedrock so as to build a sturdy, solid foundation for, among other things, a 1776ft skyscraper.
I, for one, would hope that a skyscraper that tall would not be built on top of dirt, but hey, that's just me.
Some people cave in to fascism; some heroes fight to destroy it; some deranged, America-hating liars call Harry Truman's courageous decision to win World War II without causing one million American and five million Japanese casualties a "war crime."
I like your yarn about the DOD affecting hiring decisions at colleges and universities. Yeah, it's tough for a loony-left, incompetent America-hater to get tenure. It's simply amazing how many of them manage to do it.
Someday you'll let us know why the military isn't able to use the futuristic weapons available to the Bush-Cheney crime family. I'd love to see the budget for those beauties. I'll bet they're real cheap.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Dr. Wood, Earth is used extensively in fill in all such construction. The original fill for this area, on which all existing buildings were "built" was oyster shells and waste. Large parts of San Francisco are built on garbage fill. The Chicago lakefront is built on garbage fill. The fact that this fill exists does not mean columns are not sunk to bedrock. Such foundations do not fill all the area so earth or other fill is required. In places where there is no bedrock at reachable depth, large buildings are actually floated on the non-bedrock soil. You know this, or you did know this at one time in your life.
-Ben
-Ben
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I haven't see any real references to "haz-mat" type transport of fill but I suspect they're referring to standard (for most cities) practices. Things like load covers, tire wash downs and that sort of thing. All aimed at keeping the mess of a construction site on the site.
For some time during the clean-up they did seal off the loads that were going to Fresh kills so nothing would get lost before the loads were screened.
I'm not sure where the idea that hazardous material procedures are still in use comes from.
For some time during the clean-up they did seal off the loads that were going to Fresh kills so nothing would get lost before the loads were screened.
I'm not sure where the idea that hazardous material procedures are still in use comes from.
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
You make some gigantic assumptions there. With reference to the subject here ie "the pile", all I can gather from the statement is that Wilson-DeBriano "really couldn't see" the debris because of the effects of "smoke" (you can call it a cloud, dust or even candy-floss if you like, we are discussing Wilson-DeBrianos words here as you suggested we should) and because he was "a distance from" it.
I would suggest to you jammonius that it is quite possible Wilson-DeBriano may have known full well where the debris pile was situated and his position relative to it. He was a first responder after all who more than likely spent an extended time post-collapse in the WTC area. The fact is that the statement you suggested we all read fails in any way to address the subject, it has no bearing on your argument here at all. Did you even read the statement? Did you just google for "no debris" close your eyes and hope for the best?
BV