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

[jammonius]

If it will make some posters who need a higher debris pile happy, I can tell you that the highest stack of debris happened to be the pile for WTC 7 that towered over the rest of the debris in the area. However, that pile is separate and distinct from what is generally referred to as GZ, namely that part of the complex where stood the Twin Towers.

WTC 7 remnant pile was about 5 to, perhaps, 7 storeys in height.

 

[WildCat]

I think your photo may be cropped version of this one:

Nope, it's still <1 storey overall. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to convince yourself.

Note in the broader frame of reference, an ambulance towers over most of the debris that is on the same plane as the ambulance is.

You see those 2 workers in the mddle of the picture about 1/5 of the way from the left? Either they're 6 inches tall or the debris is at least 7 storys tall. Which one is it jammonius?

 

[jammonius]

The two, 110 storey air columns should have produced about a 25 storey pile of debris at a minimum if the rule of thumb that some use -- 12% -- is applied to the aggregated height of the towers. Have other posters encountered that 12% rule of thumb? I'm not sure where I first may have seen it, but I think it is the source for saying there's actually 12 storeys of debris out there, with half of it being underground and with any little sliver extending 5-6 storeys, such as the exterior walls of WTC 1 and one or two other small heaps is what fuels those who are seeking to find the necessary height.

In my view, that doesn't cut it. I think the posters advocating height are being highly selective and are seeking to have the rare exception within the overall field define the height, rather than the vast flatness that was GZ.

Very few photos give an overall panorama of all of GZ in the proper lighting and in the proper timeframe -- the day of 9/11 itself, without any doubt. Here, however, is one picture that is panoramic, clearly from 9/11 (WTC 7 is still seen standing) and properly lit so that the almost all of the site can be seen for the flatland that it was.

 

[A W Smith]

Your photograph doesn't reveal much of anything and certainly does not provide a proper panorama of GZ giving perspective to that which it tries to show. I think your photo may be cropped version of this one:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/010913_5316.jpg

Nope, it's still <1 storey overall. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to convince yourself.

Note in the broader frame of reference, an ambulance towers over most of the debris that is on the same plane as the ambulance is.

look at the photo again
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc_cross.jpg

They are definitely NOT the same photo. Don't be so disingenuous.

 

[JimBenArm]

My rule-of-thumb is that if someone is crazy enough to believe that space beams brought down the towers, they aren't worth my time, as they are either too stupid or loony to argue with.
Hasn't been proven wrong yet.

 

[jammonius]

You see those 2 workers in the mddle of the picture about 1/5 of the way from the left? Either they're 6 inches tall or the debris is at least 7 storys tall. Which one is it jammonius?

One poster here, I don't know which right at the moment, has cautioned all of us about trying to read height perspective in photos. I think what you're doing falls in that category. I think the proper frame of reference is not the individuals, but the comparison of the WTC 1 lobby windows to the mangled debris right next to it. Clearly, that stack extends to at least two, to, perhaps, three stories, judging by its comparison with the lobby windows and with the WTC 7 stack also seen to the right of the one that you're referencing. I suppose, this all depends on whether it is sufficient for some if there was ANY part of GZ that was above 1 storey. What I have been saying all along is that GZ, as a whole, was 1 storey or less in height. Were there exceptions here or there, answer, yes. Anyone can see that. But, even the exceptions were all dwarfed by the height of WTC 4,5,6, none of which was more than 9 storeys in height.

I say again, it might be time to agree to disagree on this. If a few more of you want to use the word crazy and post up your self-congratulations, do so. If, by chance, there are any substantive replies or interesting new data, I will revert.

Farewell

 

[tsig]

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.

You know if you have weapons that can destroy from space why seek world domination? You already have it. Why be secretive when you have irresistible force.
force? Maybe it's like superman and his secret identity, never understood that either.

 

[A W Smith]

your referencing west street which is outside the footprint in this image. and your not even acknowledging the pile just visible beyond the smoke. open your eyes and look at the height of the pile center left and to the right, you cant possibly be that blind.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

See what I mean, EMH?

I know. And we've seen this before, time and time again; even I've been in this forum long enough to have experienced this over and over. But, my desire to render correct the portrayal of the background information is independent of who I'm responding to at any given moment. As I've said in previous threads, the conspiracy fantasists are not the only ones who read these responses. It's the lurkers and bystanders who I post for.

But, I understand your angle too, plus your frustration at information repeatedly bouncing off your opponent. It drives me nuts as well.

 

[A W Smith]

The Queen Of Outer Space

You know if you have weapons that can destroy from space why seek world domination? You already have it. Why be secretive when you have irresistible force.
force? Maybe it's like superman and his secret identity, never understood that either.

This is why



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=17819740764873010&q= queen of outer space&hl=en

 

[A W Smith]

troofer math exposed

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

The two, 110 storey air columns should have produced about a 25 storey pile of debris at a minimum if the rule of thumb that some use -- 12% -- is applied to the aggregated height of the towers. Have other posters encountered that 12% rule of thumb?

Jesus Christ your not even getting the basic math math right!! 12% of 110 is 13.2!!!

Don't tell me your adding two 110 story buildings and using 12% of that? Were they stacked upon each other as they collapsed? yes or no?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

look at the the photo again
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc_cross.jpg

They are definitely NOT the same photo. Don't be so disingenuous.

Furthermore, Jammonius, if you want to talk comparison and perspective, in the above photo note the partially intact wall. It's about 1/5 of the way from the left, and at a sharp angle to the camera, almost sideways. See it? Count how many floors of windows are in that. I see two intact, half of one on top, and at least one down among the rubble at the bottom. So at least 3 1/2 storys, right there. Now note that the pile of rubble behind it is taller than it. And remember that the further back things are in a photo, the smaller they appear, which means that pile is even taller than it seems. But even if it weren't, it's certainly taller than that 3 1/2 floor wall.

 

[A W Smith]

jammonius has absconded, until someone posts something he can refute. which may take quite awhile. Hope he ain't on a hunger strike too.

 

[Myriad]

Is it even theoritacally possible to build a weapon that while orbiting in LEO (low earth orbit) can generate enough power to turn steel into dust? For that matter, has steel ever been turned to dust right here on earth?

My bench grinder dustifies steel quite nicely. It takes about one minute, operating at about two horsepower (1500 Watts), to dustify a gram of steel. That's 1.11 x 10^-8 kilograms of steel dustified per Watt per second.

The process is not impressively efficient. Much of the power is wasted as heat, in the motor, the workpiece, and the dust. The dust further self-heats, burning in the air to white-hot temperatures, but that energy comes from the available chemical potential energy of steel in an oxygen atmosphere and so does not represent any further inefficiency of my dustifier.

Let's suppose our magic space beam weapon is a thousand times more efficient than that. (So, if my bench grinder is a mere 1/10th of 1% efficient, our weapon would be 99.9% efficient.) That would allow it to turn steel the same dust my bench grinder does, without heating up the workpiece or the dust by more than a few degrees.

Being 1000 times more efficient, this weapon can dustify 1.11 x 10^-5 kilograms per Watt per second.

To dustify 100 million kilograms of steel in 15 seconds, it would have to operate at 10^8 / (15 * 1.11 * 10^-5) = 6 x 10^11 Watts.

600 Gigawatts is:

- 289 times the peak power output of Hoover Dam
- 200 times the peak power output of the world's largest nuclear reactors
- 3000 times the power output of the most powerful nuclear-powered ships and submarines
- Almost 500 times the power needed to energize a flux capacitor.

Now, this is not an unimaginably large amount of power. But it is an impractically large amount of power for any conceivable space platform utilizing any known power generation/conversion and/or energy storage and/or energy transmission system. We're not talking about a few ultra-short pulses here. That power level must be sustained for fifteen continuous seconds. If the power is in shorter pulses of some kind, then it must be increased in proportion to the inverse of the duty cycle of the pulses (that is, the fraction of the time during which the pulsed beam is "on"). If the total beam time is shorter than fifteen seconds, then the power must increase in proportion to the time decrease.

And all of that is assuming a super-efficient dustification mechanism that's unknown to physics. One that's somehow orders of magnitude more efficient than mechanically pulling each particle loose from its neighbors, which is essentially what my bench grinder does.

And where did all the steel dust go?

And where did all those non-dustified steel beams stacked up at Fresh Kills come from?

This topic is silly any way you look at it.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[David Wong]

My bench grinder dustifies steel quite nicely. It takes about one minute, operating at about two horsepower (1500 Watts), to dustify a gram of steel. That's 1.11 x 10^-8 kilograms of steel dustified per Watt per second.

The process is not impressively efficient. Much of the power is wasted as heat, in the motor, the workpiece, and the dust. The dust further self-heats, burning in the air to white-hot temperatures, but that energy comes from the available chemical potential energy of steel in an oxygen atmosphere and so does not represent any further inefficiency of my dustifier.

Let's suppose our magic space beam weapon is a thousand times more efficient than that. (So, if my bench grinder is a mere 1/10th of 1% efficient, our weapon would be 99.9% efficient.) That would allow it to turn steel the same dust my bench grinder does, without heating up the workpiece or the dust by more than a few degrees.

Being 1000 times more efficient, this weapon can dustify 1.11 x 10^-5 kilograms per Watt per second.

To dustify 100 million kilograms of steel in 15 seconds, it would have to operate at 10^8 / (15 * 1.11 * 10^-5) = 6 x 10^11 Watts.

600 Gigawatts is:

- 289 times the peak power output of Hoover Dam
- 200 times the peak power output of the world's largest nuclear reactors
- 3000 times the power output of the most powerful nuclear-powered ships and submarines
- Almost 500 times the power needed to energize a flux capacitor.

Just for fun, can you speculate as to some other military applications that device might have?

 

[WildCat]

One poster here, I don't know which right at the moment, has cautioned all of us about trying to read height perspective in photos.

That was looking straight down at the debris, hardly a good perspective for estimating height.

What we know about this picture is that the workers I mention are in front of the debris pile. This makes them look larger in comparison to the debris in back of them. 7 stories is a conservative estimate.

 

[LashL]

At this point I think it is safe to say we are dealing with another person who suffers from a mental illness. Just like Christophera and his concrete core, Jammonius and his/her One Storey Debris Pile could turn into another 100 plus pages of reality denial. Do we really want that?

Jammonius has seen and even posted pics which show that the pile of twisted wreckage was several storeys high, he/she appears to be totally unable to process information which contradicts the delusion.

You can post as many pictures as you like, Jammonius will never acknowledge that the big piles of debris are any higher than one storey. You won't win a prize, you won't win the debate and Jammonius won't be convinced. All that will happen is you might start to feel a bit ashamed of yourselves for taunting a mental case.
.
Whatever, I'm out of this thread.

Agreed. It's the realistice thread all over again - perhaps even worse as there may be more than one legitimately mentally ill person involved in this one - but it isn't nice to make fun of the mentally ill, and it hurts rather than helps the mentally ill to pay attention to their delusional fantasies, so I am out of this thread, too.

P.S. I will still follow with interest, however, the thread from which this one was split and any threads in which Judy or like minded morons attempt to further their bogus legal claims, because doing so serves a legitimate purpose, quite aside from the mental illness that they display.

 

[jammonius]

Post # 287 Was The Best

Of all of the posts in this thread, I would nominate post #287, pg 8, as having been the single best one. I thank Elmondohummus (edmundus) for that.

It was posted at a point where it was clear that nothing further could be gained by picture analysis and it turned attention, instead, to what those who were present on 9/11 actually saw and reported with respect to height level.

There was one witness who confirmed my assessment that GZ was <1 storey; albeit, that witness said 1 to 2 storeys:

Post # 287 stated, in part:

There is one reference so far to a pile of rubble 1 or 2 stories high:

Originally Posted by Edward Cachia, p. 12
"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."

edmundus, the worthy poster, then gave his interpretation of that witness's statement as follows:

Note that he limited the scope of his statement to "in that area".

In reply to that comment, I would say that the phrase "in that area" does not necessarily mean a limitation. It is unclear as to whether "that area" means nearly all of GZ, as I assert it should; or a more narrow area, we simply do not know.

It is also unclear whether the area not covered by his statement was either higher or lower than that which he described as being 1-2 storeys. Granted, there are areas where there are peaks involving, for instance remnants that are standing on end and small stacks of higher debris. The pictures confirm these. But as to the remainder of the area not covered by Cachia's 1-2 storey declaration, it is neither more nor less arbitrary to infer that he meant to say the rest of the area was either higher or lower than that which he described as being 1-2 storeys.

Next edmundus says:

"But I've located multiple references to multistory debris areas:

Originally Posted by Stanley Trojanowski, p. 5

"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."

You know, the stack that he is referring to there just might be WTC 7. And, we know that WTC 7 did, indeed, leave behind a pile of debris that was that high. In fact, it was far higher than GZ as a whole. It is also possible he's referring to one of the few small stacks of debris that were higher than 1 storey.

Then next:

Originally Posted by Richard Weldon, p.6

"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"

I consider the above to be supportive of my contention, not the other way around, and here's why. It is clear that a main point this witness was trying to make was that he was trying to reconcile in his own mind why the area was so flat. He inferred that the debris was in (or under?) the ground, not as a way of describing height; but, rather, as a way of accounting for its absence.

Next:

Originally Posted by Fred Marsilla, pgs 6-7

"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."

edmundus acknowledges that the above is unclear re height. edmunus states:

"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 think that's correct up to a point and incorrect to state that none said it was only a single story deep because that is what Cachia said. The last quoted witness, Marsilla, also appears to be troubled by the lack of height. He took pains to give an explanation on how he inferred height after first saying, and I quote, "t didn't look like a big pile at first..." He then proceeds to try, in his own mind, to find ways of finding height where, at first, he couldn't.

It is reasonable to assert here that his first impression may have been the more accurate one. His last calculation -- 15 to 20 storeys -- cannot reasonably be considered to be accurate, in my opinion.

edmundus then states:

"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."

I disagree with edumdus' contention that something has been disproven. I hope he will continue his search re underground damage. I will return for that for sure.

As things now stand, there is no confirmation of underground damage and the photos that I posted show there was none.

 

[funk de fino]

There was one witness who confirmed my assessment that GZ was <1 storey; albeit, that witness said 1 to 2 storeys:

stundied

 

[Disbelief]

The above is syllogistic and illustrates why it is pointless to engage with that poster.

If the questions are simple, then answer them yourself.

Why not just admit you can't answer the questions? Also, you have terrible reading comprehension. I stated that the questions should be simple for you since you are so well-versed in DEW. Obviously, that is not the case and you will continue to not answer questions.