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

[DGM]

Original debris WERE hazmat/biohazard because of asbestos and the large number of pulverized human bodies.

True, but that stopped in mid 2002 IIRC.

 

[BenBurch]

True, but that stopped in mid 2002 IIRC.

Certainly by the end of 2002.

 

[David Wong]

I just don't think the DEW theory is very realistice.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I just don't think the DEW theory is very realistice.

And again in other news:

CATHOLIC

[RULE 10]S IN THE WOODS

STILL DEAD

ATHEIST


(Sorry, but this one was too perfect not to say it again )

 

[jammonius]

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

You start out challenging, in an around about way, MY use of assumptions, then you simply substitute your own. Fair enough.

One thing is certain, you cannot infer from what this person said anything about the debris field, or lack thereof, one way or the other; with one exception: He did not see one.

And that is the point.

Now, the matter is open for searching what other responders saw and reported. I showed you were the information is. Someone, perhaps it was you, asked for more help, i.e., a specific witness because the person couldn't find any references to debris. I then posted up one who reported as he reported. His information is not conclusive; and, for that matter, for those who are wedded to their particular persuasion on this matter, it is highly doubtful that there is any such thing as a conclusive statement.

In any event, I have shown the existence of a viable database of people who were verifiably at GZ on 9/11 and who, by virtue of being present and by virtue of having made official, recorded statements close in time to the event, therefore comprise a viable database of information. You have to look at all of them. There are no shortcuts.

This person was there and did not see debris. He said his view was obscured. And that is all he said.

I accept what he said. Do you?

Since the database is public, it now seems to me that those who assert there was a huge, multi-storey debris pile need to see if their claim can be corroborated to the same extent as any other claim.

I am not here trying to persuade anyone to come to the same conclusion as I have. I am merely saying what my conclusion is and showing the photographic, chart, diagramatic and other information that I think supports it.

For the most part, those who disagree have relied on epithets; that, and little else. A few have offered up photos of their own and those have been countered (I did not say totally refuted, I said "countered"). Some have tried to include the sub-levels as a debris field source; however, I assert that that one HAS BEEN refuted and found to be unsupported.

The state of play, as I see it, is that the claim GZ was overall <1storey still stands. The one witness that has been found so far -- that I found -- neither confirms it nor refutes it, but does say he didn't see one. I repeat, rhetorically, if he couldn't see one because of "smoke" then how high could it have been in any event? I reply, rhetorically, not very high. Thus, on balance, I think the witness is more supportive than not of the <1storey claim.

 

[Arus808]

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

the entire Downtown Honolulu, ala Moana Beach and Waikiki Beach areas are built up on swamps and marsh areas; filled in by dredging the bottom of the ocean and bringing up all the silt, sand, and coral onto the land.

Dig 15 feet in Downtown Honolulu, and you;ll hit water.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Okay. So far, 13 references to the word "flat":

• 2 about Flatbush (the neighborhood in Brooklyn)
• 5 in regard to flat tires
• 2 mentions of doing a flat-out run (or running flat out)
• 1 about a flatbed truck
• 1 saying "flattened cars"
• 1 saying fire hoses had gone nearly flat
• 1 in reference to a floorplan and a "flat section" of a building
• 0 in reference to the Ground Zero debris field

Also, I've so far discovered in excess of 130 references to "story" or "stories":

• I didn't count how many I discarded because they were part of the word "history"
• There is one reference so far to a pile of rubble 1 or 2 stories high:

  "I remember seeing Chief Visconti very visibly upset, standing on a pile of rubble. It must have been a story or two high in that area."

  Note that he limited the scope of his statement to "in that area".
• But I've located multiple references to multistory debris areas:

  • "The tower ladder was in front of Six World Trade Center, I guess, because it was just north of the pedestrian bridge. We couldn't put it out. It was five or six stories high, the debris, I'm going to say."

  • "At this point I finally realized that where the two buildings had gone, because there was only 7 stories of piles, I realized they must have all collapsed into the ground"

  • "Debris was incredible, how much of it was across the street. You couldn't even tell the street from the sidewalk. It didn't look like a big pile at first, but you realized it later on because it was a gradual outlaying of material. It gradually increased in height as you went along, so it was like climbing a hill, you really don't know how high you are until you are up there.
    
    Q. The perception wasn't real till you saw firemen standing on the pile. You could barely see them.
    
    A. Barely see them.
    
    Q. Then you have a perception of the mass that was there.
    
    A. How deep it was. And how high it is. I mean you were actually standing sometimes 15, 20 stories up. It wasn't that much of a fall, because there was a lot of material along the way."

  Granted, there's disagreement regarding the exact height, but note that none of the testimonies I've quoted so far have portrayed the GZ debris field as being only a single story deep.

I'll continue with searching through the testimonies, but so far - and I'm forced to say, not surprisingly - the testimonies jammonious has attempted to use to buttress his/her argument actually contradict it. I've already located those 3 testimonies discussing the height of sections of the pile, so with that, jammonious is already disproven. At this point, it's simply a matter of demonstrating to what degree he/she is incorrect.

I'll start looking for references to underground damage soon. That was the other claim jammonious made in regards to the responder testimony.

 

[bonavada]

You start out challenging, in an around about way, MY use of assumptions, then you simply substitute your own. Fair enough.

I don't see where I assumed anything, only dissected the relevant parts of Wilson-DeBrianos statement, as you suggested. W-dB says, quite unequivocally, that he couldn't see engine parts, body parts debris etc. The reasons he gives for this are his distance from that and that his vison was obscured by smoke. There is no ambiguity there.

Near my mothers house there is a footbridge. Occasionally I look down to the river on a summer morning and the valley floor is covered in a dense fogbank, the bridge is "gone". However I may still walk down knowing I can cross the river without getting wet. It seems by your reasoning though that the bridge, while obscured by fog, doesn't exist. It seems also that a person could spend a lifetime looking for a clear path through the fog all the while only needing to realise you should turn around, open those pretty, tightly screwed-up eyes and LOOK.....

BV

ETA Jammonious, I don't want to sidetrack this disscussion. Please feel free not to reply to this post, please address ElMondoHummus' excellent points above.

 

[bonavada]

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:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/5445.jpg

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/wtcinlobby1.jpg

Oops I think your double standards are showing. The first picture you refer to (below) was taken after clean-up operations had progressed at GZ. This is proven by the picture underneath of the same area (albeit from a different aspect) taken prior to yours where it can be seen that debris is clearly piled up higher. Using the lobby pic as a scale I could safely deduce that the debris pile there reaches heights of perhaps 15 metres above street level. How many storeys does that equate to?

Your pic.

Pre-clean up

Lobby scale

​

BV

 

[jammonius]

Okay. So far, 13 references to the word "flat":

• 2 about Flatbush (the neighborhood in Brooklyn)
• 5 in regard to flat tires
• 2 mentions of doing a flat-out run (or running flat out)
• 1 about a flatbed truck
• 1 saying "flattened cars"
• 1 saying fire hoses had gone nearly flat
• 1 in reference to a floorplan and a "flat section" of a building
• 0 in reference to the Ground Zero debris field

Also, I've so far discovered in excess of 130 references to "story" or "stories":

• I didn't count how many I discarded because they were part of the word "history"
• There is one reference so far to a pile of rubble 1 or 2 stories high: Note that he limited the scope of his statement to "in that area".
• But I've located multiple references to multistory debris areas:
  Granted, there's disagreement regarding the exact height, but note that none of the testimonies I've quoted so far have portrayed the GZ debris field as being only a single story deep.

I'll continue with searching through the testimonies, but so far - and I'm forced to say, not surprisingly - the testimonies jammonious has attempted to use to buttress his/her argument actually contradict it. I've already located those 3 testimonies discussing the height of sections of the pile, so with that, jammonious is already disproven. At this point, it's simply a matter of demonstrating to what degree he/she is incorrect.

I'll start looking for references to underground damage soon. That was the other claim jammonious made in regards to the responder testimony.

Finally!!!

OK, this is all I have requested; namely, that posters take seriously the available information -- photos, videos, statements, charts and so on -- you are doing that and you're doing it admirably.

I will later assess the statements you've located and I hope other posters will join in on this process. It's better than hurling insults back and forth, I think. I will be away most of the day and cannot undertake a review of the statement content you've provided so far EXCEPT to say that what you have found appears to me (I said "to me") to be, on balance, more supportive of the position that GZ was <1storey than it does the multi-storey claim.

Keep in mind, we know that this volume of material has to be accounted for:

 

[jammonius]

Oops I think your double standards are showing. The first picture you refer to (below) was taken after clean-up operations had progressed at GZ. This is proven by the picture underneath of the same area (albeit from a different aspect) taken prior to yours where it can be seen that debris is clearly piled up higher. Using the lobby pic as a scale I could safely deduce that the debris pile there reaches heights of perhaps 15 metres above street level. How many storeys does that equate to?

Your pic.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748484cfeab58f59.jpg[/qimg]

Pre-clean up

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748484cfeab94fae.jpg[/qimg]

Lobby scale

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/8748484cfeabc7818.jpg[/qimg]
​

BV

I think you're nit-picking here. No matter how you slice it, the debris pile does not go any higher than, at most, the midpoint of those lobby windows anywhere; and, the mean or median height is, in my view of the photos, not that of others, no more than about 1 storey. I am here reporting on what I see in the photos.

I have to stop now, will return later. Gotta go.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Finally!!!

OK, this is all I have requested; namely, that posters take seriously the available information -- photos, videos, statements, charts and so on -- you are doing that and you're doing it admirably.

I will later assess the statements you've located and I hope other posters will join in on this process. It's better than hurling insults back and forth, I think. I will be away most of the day and cannot undertake a review of the statement content you've provided so far EXCEPT to say that what you have found appears to me (I said "to me") to be, on balance, more supportive of the position that GZ was <1storey than it does the multi-storey claim.

Keep in mind, we know that this volume of material has to be accounted for:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/1di7_TwinTowers.jpg

Thank you. Now, what do you have to say to the fact that, so far, research shows that the responder testimony says other than what you said it did?

 

[peteweaver]

Well the towers were 90 % air, and much of the material pancaked as they collapsed.

Demo Dave Griffin, who worked on removal of the debris said:

For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet.

A real player video of his interview at ground zero during the cleanup can be found here (towards the bottom of the page):
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

 

[Travis]

How tall is the lobby again?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

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.

This is a totally specious argument on your part based on an unsupported supposition by you. Why wouldn't they be removing debris in any great quantity? You can't rescue someone with 50 tons of debris on them.

Obviously, (as noted below), you have really no clue on the size and capacity of a dump truck. 120 loads is nothing. A standard dump truck nominally holds 15 yards. With heavier materials such as debris, concrete, etc, trucks are generally loaded no more than 10 yards max due to weight limits on bridges and roads. Keep in mind, that a yard is actually a small quantity of material. W typical wheel loader has a 3.5 yard bucket and will fill a dump truck with three scoops.

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.

A typical highway building project can run from 500 to 750 loads a day.

Look at the trucks with the yellow engine/hoods:

Look carefully at those trucks. Compare the size of them to the low-boy and the flat bed tractor trailer rigs. Compare the size of the trucks to the single axle truck on the other side of the street. Compare the size of these to the cars, vans, and other equipment in the picture. These are clearly only 5 yard trucks.

Based on the color of the material, I would suspect that these trucks are carrying asphalt. I can easily imagine that a number of staging areas were constructed in the open, grassy areas surrounding the site. (you can see one such area set up in the turning lane in that very picture.)

In any case, you have no proof that what is in those trucks is anything other than a normal construction material, asphalt.

 

[BenBurch]

Measuring (crudely) from the people in that picture, that lobby is over 100' tall.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

jammonius

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


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?

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.

What? LOL. It is your theory. You support it.

Answer the question please.

What sort of construction equipment would be required to "sprinkle" dirt about the site?

 

[jberryhill]

Could it be that the reason for eliminatiing the phrase "THE SUBWAY TUNNEL COLLAPSED" is because NO SUCH COLLAPSE COULD BE CONFIRMED?

Altering the image, while maintaining attribution to the Washington Post is dishonest and wrong.

Showing pictures of an unidentified section of tunnel does not render the Washington Post image to be incorrect.

Sorry, but the honest thing to do is to note that the source-attributed image was altered, and that text was redacted, or to use your own diagram.

To show that image and to represent it as having run in the Washington Post is a lie. Period. There are no two ways around that.

But you continue to make up ancillary lies to support the primary lies.

http://www.ny1news.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=5&aid=82202

Before 9/11, there was actually a station there. The Cortlandt Street stop on what was then the 1 and 9 lines. But the collapse of the World Trade Center destroyed not only the station, but also a portion of the tunnel itself.

The MTA rebuilt that segment of tunnel and eventually plans to reopen the Cortlandt Street station, though by then the tunnel will be back underground.



http://www.planning.org/features/2002/newyork.htm

The destruction of 1,900 feet of subway tunnel also disabled the New York City Transit 1/9 IRT subway line south of Chambers Street. The Cortlandt Station on the N and R lines was disabled as well.


There is extensive documentation of the subway tunnel collapse, which you deny in order to justify Dr. Wood's dishonest undisclosed redaction of an image she sourced from the Washington post.

 

[A W Smith]

4 storys visable beyond lobby.

Look past the windows in the lobby shot which I have enlarged. And tell me how many storys I have circled in black on the structure beyond the lobby. And that is to the height of the lobby bow tie connection alone!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Look past the windows in the lobby shot which I have enlarged. And tell me how many storys I have circled in black on the structure beyond the lobby. And that is to the height of the lobby bow tie connection alone!

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

Once again, I must caution against this type of comparison. Just as telephoto lenses compress depth of fields, wide angle lenses exaggerate it. Without knowing the focal length of the lenses used to take the photograph along with the size of the negative, these types of comparisons are useless.