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

[BenBurch]

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.

This has become a farce. I'm done with it.

 

[SpitfireIX]

You're forgetting that 9/11 is a psy op.

Begging the question. What's your (non-circular) evidence for this?

Of course those who were there will say things that contradict what msm reports that "cleanup engineers" have said.

<snip>

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110437.PDF

pg.4

As noted, Wilson-DeBriano says that he didn't see the debris because he wasn't close enough. This is quite obvious from the context.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Much though I'd like to accept your proof that 7<1, nobody sane would read the quote that way. Weldon is contrasting "only 7 stories of piles" with "the two buildings". What he is accounting for the absence of, is the other 103 storeys. He's therefore implying that he found 7 storeys to be a surprisingly small rubble pile given the original height of the buildings. Your ability to reconcile this with your belief that he is stating that the rubble pile is less than a storey deep is one of the greatest triumphs of confirmation bias I've seen even on this forum.

Dave

 

[SpitfireIX]

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

[qimg]http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image87.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image99.jpg[/qimg]

Indeed, the actual statement contained in the WashPost caption, as previously quoted, said, specifically, in substance, that the below-ground levels were intact, all as more exactly quoted elesewhere. The Path tunnel was the lowest level of all. It was not signficantly damaged and did not collapse, as seen in the TWO photos posted here.

What a textbook example of severely distorting the truth by use of out-of-context quotations.

Here is the entire caption (someone please double-check my transcription). The quote and paraphrase taken out of context are bolded; the omitted portions that totally change the meaning are in bold italics:

The collapse of the World Trade Center's twin towers compacted the structures' below-ground levels and crushed portions of subway tunnels. In other parts of the World Trade Center complex, the below-ground levels remained intact, including portions of a concourse level mall, according to consulting engineers working with city authorities to assess the damage. The subterranean shopping area was one of the largest malls in Manhattan.

Further, your posted pictures of uncollapsed subway tunnels and relatively undamaged portions of the mall are no proof whatsoever that no part of the tunnels and none of the underground areas were destroyed, a point to which several previous posters have alluded.

 

[funk de fino]

Thee collapse of the tunnels and the destruction of Cortland Street station and the Path station is pretty well reported

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

The collapse of the towers destroyed or disabled portions of three subway lines: The downtown PATH (Port Authority Trans Hudson) line connecting lower Manhattan to New Jersey was disabled and its World Trade Center station was destroyed. PATH had operated a large loop under the trade center.

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.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

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.

Sophistry. How in God's name can "in that area" be taken as anything but? Why would the speaker single out that area where the Chief was standing and apply that description if it wasn't unique relative to the rest of the site?

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.

More sophistry. Not only do images demonstrate the height being other than what jammonius says, Ed Cachia's statement set a clear boundary: "... in that area".

How much clearer does the statement have to be?

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.

On the page before that quote, he references the North tower as just having fallen. That would place the timeframe well before WTC 7 collapsed.

As far as saying "one of the few small stacks of debris that were higher than 1 storey": That's an assumption, unsupported by evidence, that there were only a "few small stacks of debris" that can be characterized like that.

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.

Calling that sophistry doesn't do it justice. Weldon was not referring to a flat area and wondering where the pile went, he was describing a 7 story pile. He said "... because there was only 7 stories of piles" in reference to the Twin Towers, which were 110 stories tall. He was indeed describing much debris underground... and how there was only 7 stories left.

On top of that, this right here is a witness who's statement supports the posts earlier about debris underground accounting for more than the single story of debris you claim exists.

And furthermore, towards the issue of underground damage:

We went down there; Adrienne Walsh, myself, a guy from Ladder 10 and some other guys, they had managed to get some flashlights. We walked about two blocks in the subway tunnel and we came to a dead end, a concrete wall that apparently the building had collapsed right down into the cellar.​

Again, the oral histories refute jammonius's stance.

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.

This is not opinion, this is witness testimony. Whether the magnitude of his estimate is accurate or not is irrelevant. He is clearly stating that the pile is several stories high.

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.

Incorrect. The witness testimony and other sources have already been provided in multiple posts. Jammonious is either trying to spin them or ignore them, but the evidence has been provided over and over.

Also: Those three randomly picked sources alone does already refute jammonius's assertions. As said before, the only person making reference to a single story pile very clearly bounded his statement. Everyone else has referred to multiple stories.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm still waiting for a description for exactly how the dirt was "sprinkled" about the site.

 

[Disbelief]

I'm still waiting for a description for exactly how the dirt was "sprinkled" about the site.

I think you will be doing a lot of waiting.

 

[tsig]

This is why



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

Are you trying to say that bad acting will dominate the world? or that the choice is between domination by busty women or hunky men?lol

 

[jberryhill]

What a textbook example of severely distorting the truth by use of out-of-context quotations.

Well, you'd think the big bold headline "Subterranean Collapse" would be a challenging place to find a quote supporting the idea that there was no subterranean collapse, but Jammonius is a real trooper in that regard.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Are you trying to say that bad acting will dominate the world? or that the choice is between domination by busty women or hunky men?lol

Well, Lonewulf doesn't seem to be around, so I'll say it. I, for one, welcome our busty women overlords (overladies?).

 

[sts60]

By the way, I have noted a tendency that I take exception to. Some posters have bad mouthed the witnesses apparently because they may not have agreed with what the witnesses said. I think that's a cheap thing to do. They were there and had a duty to be observant because that is what being a first responder entails.

Have you any first responder experience? (I have.) Yes or no?

Patricia Ondrovic reported on phenomena that are consistent with use of DEW and I think it is tawdry to try to downplay what she said.

Exactly what effects are "consistent with use of DEW"? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?

Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?

 

[jammonius]

Sophistry. How in God's name can "in that area" be taken as anything but? Why would the speaker single out that area where the Chief was standing and apply that description if it wasn't unique relative to the rest of the site?

First of all, greetings again, edmundus. As you know, I appreciate your contribution to this thread, as should all posters here.

Now, about your use of the word 'sophistry.' I think that is inaccurate here. What I am, in fact, doing is drawing out inferences of meaning associated with what the witnesses have said. While you are not required to agree with the inferences, and I'm not asking you to do so, I will say that I have taken pains to only infer that which has a reasonably good chance of being consistent with what the various witnesses have said.

It is normal and natural, I think, for people to disagree about which inferences are accurate and which aren't. You and I obviously differ as to what inferences should be drawn from the statements, but that is fair game.

Now, because you contested the inferences that I drew from Edward Cachia's statement, I went back and re-read that statement again. In it, I found this little gem:

"As my officer and I were looking at the
south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a
lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit,
because we originally had thought there was like
an internal detonation explosives because it went
in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then
the tower came down."

Separate and apart from that little ditty, about which I make no further comment, let alone inference Cachia uses the word "area" 11 times in his statement.

It is clear that Cachia took refuge in a garage on West Street when WTC 2 was destroyed. He describes in reasonable detail what he experienced there. His first use of the word "area" pg 8 was used to say they needed to regroup elsewhere than the garage. I think it fair to say that the first 4instances of his use of "area" referred to the garage he was in.

Now, the use of the word "area' to describe GZ was the 5th usage. As you noted, it is at pg. 12. Also in the same sentence, reference is made to WTC 2. So it may be that by area, Firefighter Cachia meant to refer to the area where WTC 2 had stood.

Hear this: If that is the area that was 1-2 storeys, then that is, indeed, signficant, in my opinion.

How much clearer does the statement have to be?

It needn't be any clearer at all. This witness is an important source, taken at his word.

On the page before that quote, he references the North tower as just having fallen. That would place the timeframe well before WTC 7 collapsed.

I agree with your assessment that he does not appear to be discussing WTC 7.

As far as saying "one of the few small stacks of debris that were higher than 1 storey": That's an assumption, unsupported by evidence, that there were only a "few small stacks of debris" that can be characterized like that.

It's not exactly an assumption. At this point, I think I've posted up at least a dozen photos that tend to show GZ was, for the most part, 1-2 storeys. It's not as though I'm makking this up. I'm not. Granted, posters here don't agree with my interpretation of the photos, but I've posted them and explained what I think they show.

Calling that sophistry doesn't do it justice. Weldon was not referring to a flat area and wondering where the pile went, he was describing a 7 story pile. He said "... because there was only 7 stories of piles" in reference to the Twin Towers, which were 110 stories tall. He was indeed describing much debris underground... and how there was only 7 stories left.

On top of that, this right here is a witness who's statement supports the posts earlier about debris underground accounting for more than the single story of debris you claim exists.

You and I disagree sharply on Weldon and I'm not sure what we can do about that other than note that it is a disagreement.

And furthermore, towards the issue of underground damage:

Here we may need a diagram to help us out.

The subway and the PATH railway are not one and the same. We may need another poster to assist in determining where the subway tracks actually are. It is not clear whether they actually run under GZ. We know the PATH tracks are underneath GZ and we also know, from the photos I posted, that neither the trains nor the tracks were damaged. Weldon clearly says he went into the Rector Street Subway. Rector Street is some distance away, but that might refer to the line, and not to where he entered. The diagram above shows a subway outside of the confines of GZ. He says he ran into a concrete wall, which does not sound like debris. I wonder if that was the bathtub? I said "I wonder" I do not know and if someone else does, they can post it.

Thje remainder of your post just highlights other areas where you do not agree with me and I do not agree with you. However, disagreement as between you and me does not equal refutation. You haven't refuted anything. All you have done is offer a different interpretation, based on your own use of inference; or sophistry if you still prefer that word. In any event, your process here is no different than mine.

 

[ktesibios]

Exactly what effects are "consistent with use of DEW"? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?

Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?

Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

As long as jammonius and Judy provide nothing but vague claims about the "aftereffects of DEW", leaving out all details about what is relevant about the available observations and exactly how they are consistent with what, they will remain trapped in an infinite loop of circular reasoning, unable even to rise to the conspiracist's favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent. Such a whirlpool of handwaving isn't worth any attention at all.

 

[sts60]

Greetings sts 60

I do not respond to rhetoric. I have said this before. However, as you are engaging in something like a 'double-down' on your rhetoric, seeking to bootstrap your way to a claim that you are somehow debunking Dr. Wood's claims by engaging in obvious rhetoric merits a reply.

I am not "bootstrapping" anything. I am attempting to ascertain your credentials to advance certain claims which fall within my knowledge domain. In the absence of supporting evidence, such claims can be supported by appeals to relevant authority, but such authority needs to be verified. That's why I've asked you if you have relevant experience regarding certain claims. You have yet to answer those questions.

The reply meritied here is one that explains why you are engaging in inappropriate rhetoric, which, simply means you are not asking questions in good faith, hence there's no need to answer them.

No, I simply am attempting to ascertain your relevant expertise for certain claims:

You claimed that classified information "simply isn't that useful." That blanket statement must be supported by something other than your say-so. If you wish to claim personal authority as support for your answer, it is incumbent upon you to answer the question: Have you ever had a security clearance, which might familiarize you with what sort of information would generally be classified? (I have.)

You also claimed that the aftermath at Ground Zero were "not a normal effect of a hydrocarbon fire". Again, support is required for this assertion. Have you any firefighting experience? (I have.)

[Can you even explain exactly why you described the scene as a "hydrocarbon fire", given the enormous amounts of Class I combustibles present?]

But, let me illustrate this once just so you know I'm not ignoring you; rather, I simply do not reply to rhetoric as doing so is pointless in the context of searching for actual information. That is what I'm doing; searching for and offering up information for assessment. I am not seeking agreement; merely views on what the information may be said to show.

I offered up a quantitative estimate of the energy required to vaporize a small part of one of the buildings. That is not "rhetoric"; that is a numerical analysis. It refutes the claim that some sort of "energy weapon" was used. If you choose not to respond to it, I will assume that you cannot or are unwilling to support your claim.

Now, you start with the following rhetoric:

You said you have an SC, correct? You know damn well, then, that you're not going to find an answer to the question you posed on a goshdarn (I started to say something stronger) message board, don't you?

So, quite plainly, you haven't asked a good faith question, have you?

Not at all. The mere possession of a security clearance, attached to an anonymous user, is not especially sensitive. I didn't ask for and don't need details. It's a very simple matter of investigating your relevant experience for certain claims.

In any case, I'll take that as a "no". Have you anything at all to back up your claim regarding the usefulness of classified materials?

Restate what assumtions inform your declaration that it is necessary to have access to classified information in order to make claims about DEW? I quite frankly, do not think your assumptions, whatever they might be, are valid. However, the plain fact is that you have not stated what they are.

I made no such representation. I merely rebutted your claim that such information is "not that useful". That is nonsense. The weapon postulated would have to be very advanced - its capabilities and operational aspects are exactly the type of information that would be classified.

As you have indicated that "I am wrong" it is noted that that is a mere declaration. It is written in English, not holy script. Hence, it is nothing more than your opinion and you are welcome to it, but it sure doesn't mandate a reply from me.

My informed opinion is relevant. If you wish to challenge it, you are welcome to by appealing to relevant authority - your own or anyone else's - or by providing specific evidence to the contrary.

Interestingly, you reject my comments as "nothing more than [my] opinion", but my comments are made within my field of expertise, which you have made no attempt to challenge. So don't whine when I hold your declarations up to examination; it's unseemly.

 

[A W Smith]

more maps. it appears Innovation luggage was further to the east than i thought and not directly under wtc4 at all

 

[sts60]

Why doesn't someone start a DEW thread if that is what posters want to discuss? DEW is an interesting topic. I'm interested in it. I will engage in the discussion, if it is one, but not here in this thread. I have already indicated I won't likely respond immediately as I don't have time for back and forth put downs. But if people want to assess the issue of directed energy weaponry, then I suggest a new thread.

You brought up directed-energy weapons in this thread. You have repeatedly posted pictures of the Airborne Laser system in this thread to support your claims.

In post 311, I presented a numerical estimate, with supporting assumptions stated and calculations shown, which clearly demonstrate the infeasibility of your claim that such a weapon could have vaporized most of the Twin Towers. Do you, or do you not, intend to challenge my analysis? Or myriad's? Or R. Mackey's?

 

[BenBurch]

I'm still waiting for a description for exactly how the dirt was "sprinkled" about the site.

Why, they used miniature robotic helicopters, of course!

 

[sts60]

I also appreciate your reference to the above thread and post12086102. Boy was that ever b o r i n g in my opinion. There is no doubt that DEW exist and the evidence that they are found in every terrestrial venue, including orbit, is, at this point, beyond controversy even when one's sources of information are limited to unclassified sources (as mine are). I do not even want to see classified information, it simply isn't that useful.

Clearly, then, you will have no problem providing specific evidence for the existence of directed-energy weapons currently deployed in Earth orbit. What is your evidence for this claim?

 

[jammonius]

more maps. it appears Innovation luggage was further to the east than i thought and not directly under wtc4 at all

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/concoursemap.gif[/qimg]

AW,

Thanks for the diagram. It adds to the discussion. In addition to Innovation, the diagram also shows the concourse which might well be the place where those rescue (or whatever) workers were walking in the photos I posted. You khow, the ones showing no signficant damage. You also have seen the photos of the extent of destruction of WTC 4, right? It was all but leveled, leaving only a single corner of what had once been a massive, but relatively short (8-9 storeys) building.