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

[jammonius]

I am back on my work computer and will try to get some overlays put together today. If anyone has any aerial or satellite imagery they want inluded, let me know. I need things that are directly overhead from the site (if it is on or close to Sept 19, all the better). I have a pre-Sept. map of the WTC site I am using as a reference, and one aerial shot that is pretty good, although I haven't been able to find a date reference for it. I hope to sneak this in between "real" work, and should be able to post something tonight or early tomorrow. Thanks to all for any help and your patience.

Thank you, Hokulele,

Here's one from 9/23 that might work:

If you want, you might want to take a look at this page at Dr. Judy Wood's website to see if there are other pictures you think might work well. Most of her photos are date-referenced.

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam4.html

Of course, USCS/NOAA is also a rich source.

 

[jberryhill]

The man literally says: "... the top of the 2 World Trade tower fell more to the side than the other tower. The debris CRASHED DIRECTLY ABOVE THE TUNNEL that ran along the northeast corner of the building, crushing a section about 375 feet long." (capital letters added)

Thanks for confirming that the debris did not reach the tunnel. This is what I have been saying. There was no debris underground. Your own quotation specifically says so.

First, it says no such thing. The debris crashed directly above the tunnel. The quote does not state what the debris did subsequent to crashing.

If I understand your point, the tunnel then collapsed, and the debris remained suspended in air so as not to end up in the location of the then-subsided surface of the plaza.

One of your points, among many, is that Dr. Wood altered an attributed diagram referring to the collapse of a subway line. You justified this on the basis of your insistence that no subway line had collapsed.

You have agreed that you are wrong, and Dr. Wood is a liar.

 

[jammonius]

"...Ferrelli, [the chief of infrastructure for the subways] who walked through the damaged stations and tunnels on the 1 and 9 line last Friday,..."

The assertions in the post above this one are assine, disengenuous and unworthy of this thread.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Your engineer did not advance your claims one bit. In fact, he supported my contention there was no underground debris. At most, he's asserting a "compacting" or crush claim, not a debris claim

Pray explain how a tunnel could be collapsed by falling debris, and not have that debris fall into the tunnel, or at least into the trench formed where the earth on top would have caved in.

From the linked page:

Eighteen hundred linear feet of the tunnel damaged or filled with rubble, Cortland Street station probably destroyed," read the caption on a slide shown by the chief engineer at a meeting of the Capital Program Committee. [bolding mine]

Remember, the issue here is measurement of the height of GZ with the assertion having been made by some that the overall relatively low height of GZ could be explained away, at least in part, by assumptions about the underground being filled with debris to the tune or level of several floors or storeys -- generallly 5-6 were being claimed.

No. You are attempting to twist the statements made for your own purposes. No one has conceded that the debris pile was only one story, or attempted to "explain away" such a concession. The assertion made, rather, is that even granting for the sake of argument your claim that the debris pile was only one story tall, you would still be forced to concede that the pile was actually much taller than that, due to the large amount of debris that filled the underground area.

However, your own witness is not giving any accredation to that claim. He plainly says there was no debris by attesting that the debris must have been on top and that either its weight, or perhaps, the seismic effect, caused damage to the tunnel in certain relatively isolated areas. We have to conclude the damage was isolated because he walked through the tunnels.

Affirmed consequent. This is the same fallacy demonstrated by your photos of the uncollapsed areas of the mall. "Some of the mall was only damaged; therefore none of it was destroyed." Any bright middle-school student could spot your error if asked to do so.

Again from the linked article:

Ferrelli, who walked through the damaged stations and tunnels on the 1 and 9 line last Friday, said so much of the line collapsed because the top of the 2 World Trade tower fell more to the side than the other tower. The debris crashed directly above the tunnel that ran along the northeast corner of the building, crushing a section about 375 feet long. [bolding mine]

That is what reasonably flows from what your own source specifically stated.

No. Again, your conclusions are based on demonstrably fallacious reasoning.

ETA: I see jberryhill has made several of the same points I have.

 

[jammonius]

spitfire,

If you ask me, you're much better off if you distinguish yourself from berryhill. But hey, that's just me

I think as to the rest of your post, we're at a point of completion of the circle for at least the second time.

I assert there's no proof of any signficant debris underground. I don't think the caption on somebody's slide show presentation serves as any proof whatsoever of that claim and I'm rather surprised, quite frankly, that you would put something as weak as that is out there and let others know you're relying on it.

The photos -- of which there have been very few -- that seek to substantiate signficant debris below ground are simply not substantial enough, not good enough to prove that point.

The subway claims go along distance towards proving the opposite claim; and, in any event, no one has done a proper job of demonstrating location of subway damage, much less a correlation between that and a visual overlay showing relationship to the GZ site.

The fact is, the WTC disentegrated in midair and left next to no debris.

That is the point; and, I understand why it is necessary to deny, deny, deny it. But neither you nor any other proponent of "mucho debris" has come anywhere close to proof of claim.

If you can, then do so. One hint I will give, you're probably better off leaving out proof that relies on the title of somebody's slide show.

 

[volatile]

The fact is, the WTC disentegrated in midair and left next to no debris.

Sorry, all this time I thought you were talking about the World Trade Center. You must mean somewhere else when you say WTC, though, because, well, the World Trade Center collapsed from top to bottom leaving massive piles of rubble, metal and other material.

What WTC are you talking about?

 

[Dog Town]

The fact is, the WTC disintegrated in midair and left next to no debris.

That is the point; and, I understand why it is necessary to deny, deny, deny it. But neither you nor any other proponent of "mucho debris" has come anywhere close to proof of claim.

This is beyond WOW! You hand wave away, all the evidence presented you.
I believe there is no real debate possible, here with you. Sad really.
I think your whole statement, is you projecting, especially the "deny, deny, deny it"!

Adios!

 

[twinstead]

As a general observation, unrelated to anybody in this thread or forum of course, I assert that not only do crazy people have no idea they're crazy, but it is a prerequisite for being crazy in the first place.

Crazy people ROCK!

 

[Hokulele]

Thank you, Hokulele,

Here's one from 9/23 that might work:

Thanks! I have one I like from the USGS, and there appear to be a few others here that may work.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

The fact is, the WTC disentegrated in midair and left next to no debris.

That sort of begs the question of why there was such an extensive cleanup.

• 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day
• 17,000 tons of material were processed daily...

... At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission:
• 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed
• 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero)
• 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour

(Source: Multiple sites. This link and this one are the two specific sites holding the above information. The central link I got this all from is Gravy's site's page on the cleanup)

That's just one of the two dump sites. Most of the steel was accounted for (35,000 tons arrived at the Fresh Kills site, and 165,000 were taken directly from Ground Zero; the estimates I see of the amount of steel used in the towers lay around 200,000 tons; some of that info comes from here). The towers by themselves, minus contents, were roughly 500,000 tons apiece, from that link I've posted, so figure a rough million tons total from just the two main structures, minus contents. If you want to add WTC 7, please chime in; I don't have those figures at hand. Given their height was roughly half that of the towers, I might guess that we can conservatively say they were half the mass, but that figure's so fuzzy and has so much potential for error, I don't really want to use it save for the fact I need some figure. It might be significantly more, given that it's a differently designed building; I just don't know. But just for argument's sake, let's say 250,000 tons.

I won't even attempt to give a figure for how much contents were there.

Anyway, given that one of the two dump/recycling sites alone dealt with 1,462,000 tons of debris, I'd say that most of it was there myself; that's already more than the mass of the main towers plus our very rough guestimate of the mass of WTC 7. Now granted, I have to admit that there's some leeway in the phrase "next to no...", but to be honest, I think that leeway's being much abused in the above statement.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

That sort of begs the question of why there was such an extensive cleanup.

...and what damaged the surrounding buildings.

 

[bonavada]

...the debris must have been on top and that either its weight, or perhaps, the seismic effect, caused damage to the tunnel in certain relatively isolated areas........

That is what reasonably flows from what your own source specifically stated.

The fact is, the WTC disentegrated in midair and left next to no debris

And this is where your flow of reason becomes somewhat clogged up. Please explain how could there be a seismic effect if the falling matter is disentegrated (sic) before it hits the ground?

Oh yes BTW and everything SpitfireIX wrote, with bells on. Thanks Spit.

BV

 

[Sparky]

Most of you have far more patience than I do. It's obvious that Jammonius is a basket case - unreachable and unteachable. I've never seen anyone so casually dismiss the overwhelming photographic and graphic data you've all presented. He's like the old crazy guy on the street corner who talks to the angels - his mind is unchangeable. You should all leave the poor old kook alone and let him mutter to himself. He's harmless and he'll eventually go away.

 

[jammonius]

Reality check

Someone posted a statement containing the following quote ostensibly in support of the proposition that the subway tunnel contained debris:

"...Ferrelli, [the chief of infrastructure for the subways] who walked through the damaged stations and tunnels on the 1 and 9 line last Friday,..."

I countered that the quoted statement is consistent with there having been no debris of any consequence present.

One of the rules that it behooves one to abide in when interpreting things said or written by another is that of applying the plain and ordinary meaning to the words used.

Do posters agree with me that the meaning of the word "through" is as follows:

In at one end, side, or surface and out at the other

I've got to take some time away from this forum. While I'm away, I trust someone will look after my interests

I might be able to sneak a peek here and there and will try to catch up when I can.

chao

 

[jammonius]

And this is where your flow of reason becomes somewhat clogged up. Please explain how could there be a seismic effect if the falling matter is disentegrated (sic) before it hits the ground?

Oh yes BTW and everything SpitfireIX wrote, with bells on. Thanks Spit.

BV

BV,

Couldn't you have deduced the answer here? First, have you checked to see if there's any seismic data; and, if so, what do the data show?

Hint: Lamont Doherty

The seismic readings peaked at 2.3 on the Richter. Jarring, to be sure, but far les than one would have expected had the bulk of the steel hit the ground. It didn't

bye for now

 

[Hokulele]

This image is pretty low-res to comply with the JREF hosting restrictions (click on the image to enlarge). I do have a ginormous hi-res version (11 MB!), so if anyone with a hosting site wants pretty pictures, let me know. Please note, the post-processing used to merge the two images munged the legend, which makes it pretty hard to read, even at high-res (I was trying to preserve the aerial data). Anything that appears yellow, green, or blue are above 0, anything that is orange is below. The tan color is the road surface, and it looks like they were holding that as a benchmark (probably through CORS data). Assume then that above 0 means "above the top surface of the road" and below 0 means "below the top surface of the road", not sea level.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Most of you have far more patience than I do. It's obvious that Jammonius is a basket case - unreachable and unteachable. I've never seen anyone so casually dismiss the overwhelming photographic and graphic data you've all presented. He's like the old crazy guy on the street corner who talks to the angels - his mind is unchangeable. You should all leave the poor old kook alone and let him mutter to himself. He's harmless and he'll eventually go away.

As I've said in previous threads, this info is less for the conspiracy addict and more for people on the sidelines reading this. While it's true that the regulars here already know all this, and many know it far better than I do, we do get lurkers and new folks who've not seen these arguments before.

Sure, I'm addressing the CTist. But I'm actually aiming at the audience. If they're new to the topic, they deserve the correct information. That's why I do it. No offense to the polite conspiracy fantasists - and to me, jammonious has been unfailingly, unhesitantly polite, which I appreciate - but I'm not trying to change their minds with these arguments.

 

[jammonius]

Just before sign out time. OK, this acknowledges that I've at least peeked at Hokulele's splendid piece of work.

Thank you.

I'd like to see the high res version. Please feel free to leave me a message and I will try to respond on Monday.

By the way, on first glance, it looks like 'tan' corresponding, I gather, to road or grade level is the predominant color.

But hey, there's no mystery here, GZ was flat, posters. Deal with it.

 

[Hokulele]

That is due to the fact that most of the LIDAR data is reflecting the road surfaces outside the perimeter of the WTC site. When you do a palette analysis, the first shade of yellow is the predominant color on site. This corresponds to elevations between 25 and 50 feet above the level of the road.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Just posting to thank Hokulele for that nice graphic.