[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
I, too, had noticed that he had apparently been blessed with a very rare (for a truther) case of good manners...
Jammonious said:
... up to right about here.
ETA: Of course I think he just did me a favor by providing evidence to substantiate my previous remarks.
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
ahem
Actually, no. A seismic reading of MR 2.3 corresponds to energy of approximately 2.8 tons TNT equivalent. The overall energy of collapse is about 100 tons TNT, of which roughly half was expended destroying the structure as it collapsed, meaning the remaining 50 tons TNT kinetic energy coupled to the ground with about 5 or 6% efficiency.
This is exactly what we expect.
Regardless, as you've already been alerted, I (among others) have rigorously demonstrated that orbital weapons technology of this scale exceeds the capabilities of our space programme by several orders of magnitude, even if the beam weapon itself is utterly refined. I've worked spacecraft design studies. I showed you my work. You ignored it completely. Tsk, tsk. Besides, if the New World Order is so vastly advanced, then no such stunts would be required -- they'd just announce they were taking over, and none would dare oppose them.
I also submit that, since the only lively conversation around (apart from Unsecured Coins punking Alex Jones) involves a space beamer, this is further evidence that the Truth Movement is stone dead.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Not to mention the fact that we Astronomers would know right where such a weapon was at all times. We routinely have satellites messing up our images, and anything that HUGE would be a BIG problem at times.
Sure we'd likely not get anybody to admit it exists, but there would absolutely be unofficial TLEs published for it, and it would be an open secret that "Orbital Object X" was the biggest thing orbiting the Earth other than the moon and larger than the space station. There would be web sites devoted to letting people know when and where they could see it!
Absolutely correct, except for one minor detail. According to my calculations, under the absolutely most optimistic assumptions possible, the combined mass of the two WKBWoD spacecraft would be about 30% the mass of the ISS. Using more realistic assumptions, it would be much larger than the Space Station... but, agreed, smaller than the Moon.
Last edited:
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
Absolutely correct, except for one minor detail. According to my calculations, under the absolutely most optimistic assumptions possible, the combined mass of the two WKBWoD spacecraft would be about 30% the mass of the ISS. Using more realistic assumptions, it would be much larger than the Space Station... but, agreed, smaller than the Moon.
In any case, we would see it. We see the spysats after all! And if they could obscure where those were they would, because if a country of interest knows when the next camera pass is, they can cover over things until its done...
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
If anybody wonders what a TLE is; http://celestrak.com/
sts60
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 4,107
I'll just chime in with a reference to the Heavens Above web site, which is a dandy tool for looking up predictions for satellite passes, such as the ISS.
I agree that there is no way at all to hide such a weapon in orbit. It would be a striking naked-eye object using R. Mackey's most generous assumptions. The solar array farm needed for such a thing would cause some dazzling sightings. Or, you could use a nuclear reactor... well, no you couldn't. No space reactor even remotely powerful enough has ever been built, let alone flown.
And, let's not forget that you couldn't hide the launches needed to loft such a thing anyway. Well, there's many things you couldn't hide about it, so I suppose it's merely an exercise in piling impossibility upon fantasy anyway.
I agree that there is no way at all to hide such a weapon in orbit. It would be a striking naked-eye object using R. Mackey's most generous assumptions. The solar array farm needed for such a thing would cause some dazzling sightings. Or, you could use a nuclear reactor... well, no you couldn't. No space reactor even remotely powerful enough has ever been built, let alone flown.
And, let's not forget that you couldn't hide the launches needed to loft such a thing anyway. Well, there's many things you couldn't hide about it, so I suppose it's merely an exercise in piling impossibility upon fantasy anyway.
Hokulele,
Anyone ever nominate you for the role of Solomon? It seems it would be fitting. You've confounded all of us here by saying the perdominant color on site is the first shade of yellow, corresponding "to elevations between 25 and 50 feet above the level of the road" because that puts the level at somewhere between 2 to maybe 4 storeys.
Of course, your assessment -- and it is one that carries weight -- is based on being able to look at the high resoluton version, whereas, here in the thread, we're limited to what can come through via the image function.
OK, let me request this. Can we breakup the image into, say, 4 quadrants so that we can say what color and level appear to correspond to the footprint areas for WTC 1 and 2 respectively, I think that would be helpful.
Finally, I think it fair to say that even though the LIDAR analysis does not resolve the dispute this thread was having, it is certainly fair to say that the 25-50 ft range is, if anything, a lot closer the 1 storey contention I am making than a lot of posters would have thought possible.
In a certain sense, I can claim vindication of the position I am maintaining on the basis of this data.
For, certainly, there are areas within GZ that are < 1storey in height even though they may not appear to Hokulele to be predominant.
As usual, Hokulele, thank you for your excellent post and work in this respect. It advances the state of the art of this discussion by at least an order of magnitude.
Last edited:
I have repeatedly said that Hokulele's assessments here carry great weight because he is doing the LIDAR work and doing it with diligence.
Hokulele's assessment that the predominant color is 'yellow' corresponding to 25-50ft in elevation can be looked at with a little more specificity, though. We can see, for instance, that the WTC 7 pile peaked in the yellow zone. We can also see yellow in other specific areas. However, we do not see a lot of yellow right in the center of GZ. There, the color denotes a flatter surface, based on what can clearly be seen here:
Hokulele's assessment that the predominant color is 'yellow' corresponding to 25-50ft in elevation can be looked at with a little more specificity, though. We can see, for instance, that the WTC 7 pile peaked in the yellow zone. We can also see yellow in other specific areas. However, we do not see a lot of yellow right in the center of GZ. There, the color denotes a flatter surface, based on what can clearly be seen here:
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
"...read the caption on a slide shown by the chief engineer at a meeting of the Capital Program Committee."
For the second time, not only is the information that you place so much reliance on inherently vague, it is also based on a stupid source -- namely a 'slide' caption.
It is vague because there is no further differentiation of how much of the 1800' was damage and the degree of damage is not specified?
The location of the damage is nowhere to be stated or articulated?
There is no quantification of how much was damage and how much was rubble?
There is no differenbtiation of, let alone description of the rubble? NOte: We refer to remnants from the destruction of the WTC as "debris" not "rubble."
Your information, then, is inexact to the point of being useless for purposes of trying to confirm that 6 storeys of debris were underground.
Look, I have now definitively proven that you cannot substantiate the claim that there was any significant WTC debris in the underground levels. I have also now defintively reduced the above ground debris pile to 2 to 4 storeys and that is on the basis of accrediting Hokulele's interpretation. I have also shown that yellow is not, in fact, the predominant color in the midst of GZ. Rather, the predominant color there is in the tan range corresponding, as I've said all along to 1 storey.
The information is compelling and it confirms the accuracy of the claim that GZ was flat.
s/he. I stand corrected.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Hee hee, thanks SpitfireIX. Yes, I am "she", but that's OK. Anonymous nature of the Internet and all.
Jammonius, I need to clarify a couple of points, then I will tackle some additional graphics to demonstrate. Please be patient, as these may take a while.
The predominant color, in terms of horizontal area (square feet or meters) within the perimeter of the GZ site is the first shade of yellow. This is in contrast with the area outside, which is primarily tan. However, the vast majority of the slope area and volume (cubic feet or meters) is in the piles located along the south and west quadrants of the site (the original tower footprints). These are up to 200 feet in height, as you can see some blue coloring in several locations.
I will attempt to put estimates for these figures (height, area, and volume) based on the LIDAR data in my next post.
Hokulele,
Once again, your information is data-driven and therefore worth pursuing. As I look at the slivers of blue, I have a hunch they correspond to the remnant outer walls. We know those were some7-8 stories tall because they matched the height of WTC 4,5,6, each of which were 8-9 storeys in height. Clearly, the chart is very accurate in showing the outline and proper color for WTC 4,5,6. As you know, those buildings are in reverse order when read clockwise. The upper left, or NE building is 6, next 5 and the little remnant square is all that remained of WTC 4. Beyond that is the blue Customs building that is not a part of GZ, as such. And, in between that and the other blue structure is the debris pile for WTC 7 that tops out in the yellow range.
The tan colors, one tan the other a combination of tan and, maybe, khaki, even tending towards green each correspond to heights lower than that covered by the color yellow, correct?
In any event, I would say that tan and khaki cover the majority of GZ, in terms of percentage of area.
Regards,
ps
How can the high res version be gotten?
Once again, your information is data-driven and therefore worth pursuing. As I look at the slivers of blue, I have a hunch they correspond to the remnant outer walls. We know those were some7-8 stories tall because they matched the height of WTC 4,5,6, each of which were 8-9 storeys in height. Clearly, the chart is very accurate in showing the outline and proper color for WTC 4,5,6. As you know, those buildings are in reverse order when read clockwise. The upper left, or NE building is 6, next 5 and the little remnant square is all that remained of WTC 4. Beyond that is the blue Customs building that is not a part of GZ, as such. And, in between that and the other blue structure is the debris pile for WTC 7 that tops out in the yellow range.
The tan colors, one tan the other a combination of tan and, maybe, khaki, even tending towards green each correspond to heights lower than that covered by the color yellow, correct?
In any event, I would say that tan and khaki cover the majority of GZ, in terms of percentage of area.
Regards,
ps
How can the high res version be gotten?
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
That is indeed a great site.
Now, you MIGHT be able to launch from the middle of the Indian Ocean far, far from the shipping lanes if you had a launcher such as Sea Dragon.
Sadly, though, we never developed Sea Dragon, and so there is no heavy lift launcher that is launchable at sea.
In fact, right now only the Shuttle comes even close to being able to loft the sorts of payloads you would need.
And the thing would absolutely have to be launched as a unit or be self-assembling on-orbit or you would also need a covert MANNED launcher as well. Which we ALSO don't have.
So, it is not even theoretically possible to launch the apparatus this insane jerk expects us to believe has been operational since before 2001, nor can you hide it in space, nor is it feasible in the first place!
Three strikes, she's OUT!
I don't know who you folks think you're fooling with the construction of your hypotheticals about why certain configurations of DEW are impossible, and then concluding that Dr. Wood must, therefore, be wrong. Dr. Wood has not proposed the hyptheticals, you have.
Moreover, in trying to knock down your own strawperson constructs, you haven't even referred to publicly availble information on space military resources or where that information can be found.
For instance, the Air Force Space Command, that has been OPERATIONAL for more than 25 years has not been referenced once in the various posts that seek to suggest the impossibility of DEW in earth orbit.
Moreover, in trying to knock down your own strawperson constructs, you haven't even referred to publicly availble information on space military resources or where that information can be found.
For instance, the Air Force Space Command, that has been OPERATIONAL for more than 25 years has not been referenced once in the various posts that seek to suggest the impossibility of DEW in earth orbit.