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

[sts60]

Here, also is a nearly horizontal shot of that pedestrian walkway:

"Nearly horizontal"? Are you claiming that the picture looking down on the walkway was taken at approximately the same altitude as the walkway?

 

[Hokulele]

Can someone put some sort of grid over the above so that we can then quantify what parts are 1,2 etc. storeys in height?

As I look at it, the largest amount of area is <1 storey, followed next by 1-2 stories. The pedestrian walkway clearly tops out in yellow, however the yellow is not easy to see. the entire area next to that walkway is clearly beneath it, as is a substantial percentage of all else shown.

There's nothing the matter with using a quantitative approach here. I suggest we let the numbers settle this once and for all.

As you yourself noted in the second image from your response to my analysis, the area around the skybridge was indeed at road surface level as it was outside of the main building footprint. Thank you for linking that image as it shows perfectly how only the cleared access areas were less than one storey, and the previously acknowledged 8 storey debris pile was the one of the main features within the site itself.

I am attending a meeting this rest of this week, so will not be able to generate any new images until next week, but here is a little bit of quantification on the LIDAR data. In the clip from the LIDAR image showing the skybridge, the band of mustard yellow inside the outer wall remnants to the right of the picture (25-50') is roughly 40 feet wide, the band of pale yellow that matches the shade of the skybridge (50-75') is also roughly 40 feet wide, and the band of bright yellow (75-100') is roughly 40' in diameter. This would make the portion of the debris pile that is higher than 50' about 120' in diameter, or roughly the length of the average house lot in Hawai'i. A double lot of mangled building remains almost 75' high in just one tiny corner of the WTC site.

 

[jammonius]

"Nearly horizontal"? Are you claiming that the picture looking down on the walkway was taken at approximately the same altitude as the walkway?

Just look at the pictures you find most revealing, LIDAR data you find most appropriate, and state the conclusion you're comfortable with.

If, in your view, no part of GZ was <1storey and if no part was 1-2storeys and no part was > 7 storeys, fine, so be it.

I have stated my conclusion based on the data and I'm sticking with it; to wit:

Much of it is <1storey, the majority of it is <storeys, including the <1storey component and a few places are somewhat higher up to, perhaps 3-4 storeys but they are a small fraction of the total. The remnant walls are, in a few instances almost as tall as the8 storey buildings that they, the walls, previously dwarfed by a factor of over 100 storeys.

Ergo: GZ WAS FLAT.

I believe my own eyes.

Others, using either similar or dissimilar methodology are free to conclude that GZ was 50 storeys, 40,30,20,10 whatever. If that is what they see, then that is what they see.

We are, as nearly as I can tell, at impasse on this.

Further, those who assert underground accumulation have failed and failed utterly to prove it. Small wonder, the claim is false.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Just look at the pictures you find most revealing, LIDAR data you find most appropriate, and state the conclusion you're comfortable with.

Your omission of an intermediate step between looking at the pictures and stating a conclusion is significant here.

Dave

 

[sts60]

Just look at the pictures you find most revealing, LIDAR data you find most appropriate, and state the conclusion you're comfortable with.

I conclude that you did not answer my question.

You said that the picture of the pedestrian walkway was "nearly horizontal". Do you claim that it was taken at approximately the same altitude as the walkway?

 

[jammonius]

sts,

Look at the picture and other data yourself and form your own conclusions, please. You are not the designated inquisitor and I am not the designated answerer. You're playing games, in my view, seeking, ultimately, between the lines, up front, out back and elsewhere, always and ever to declare yourself right and me wrong.

Do you suffer from low self-esteem?

I know you think I have never yet said or written anything in this thread that is correct.

Earth to sts:

We know that you do not think that jammonius can say anything that is correct.

OK, we get it.

Now, if you have some observations you want to make about the flatness or the elevation of GZ, do please make them.

We know that you do not think jammonius can say or do anything that is correct here. You disagree with jammonius. You do not think the claim that GZ was flat is correct and, in the other thread, you do not think DEW destroyed the WTC.

You are opposed to my making those assertions and wish I wouldn't make them. Well, guess what, I am going to make them and I am willing to engage in dialogue where you post up your reasons and I'll do the same.

I've always said I do not engage in rhetoric.l

If you want to say that it is error to refer to the pedestrian walkway as being horizontal or nearly horizontal, do please say so and skip the rhetoric.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You are not the designated inquisitor and I am not the designated answerer.

That's rather an erroneous view of your position in society. The vast majority of people, if it were suggested to them that the Twin Towers were destroyed by directed energy beam weapons, would suspect the sanity of the person making the suggestion, as witness the fact that even the majority of the truth movement appears to regard your faction as disinformation agents. Since your wish is for the majority of people to agree with your point of view - and if it isn't, one could wonder why you're bothering to articulate it - you are placing a requirement on yourself to convince others of your beliefs. That means that your beliefs will inevitably be questioned in great detail; and however much you try to question the beliefs of others, few of us are likely to care much about responding because the effect of failing to convince you of your errors is trivial. Therefore, you will inevitably either find yourself in the role of designated answerer, or fail to achieve your purpose, or both. Refusal to play twenty questions, as you like to term it, is to guarantee your own failure.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here, also is a nearly horizontal shot of that pedestrian walkway:

If you want to say that it is error to refer to the pedestrian walkway as being horizontal or nearly horizontal, do please say so and skip the rhetoric.

Caught in a lie, jammonius. You said the shot was nearly horizontal when it clearly wasn't. You weren't talking about the walkway.

Dave

 

[Drudgewire]

Caught in a lie, jammonius.

Well color me shocked.

 

[A W Smith]

sts,

Look at the picture and other data yourself and form your own conclusions, please. You are not the designated inquisitor and I am not the designated answerer. You're playing games, in my view, seeking, ultimately, between the lines, up front, out back and elsewhere, always and ever to declare yourself right and me wrong.

Do you suffer from low self-esteem?

I know you think I have never yet said or written anything in this thread that is correct.

Earth to sts:

We know that you do not think that jammonius can say anything that is correct.

OK, we get it.

Now, if you have some observations you want to make about the flatness or the elevation of GZ, do please make them.

We know that you do not think jammonius can say or do anything that is correct here. You disagree with jammonius. You do not think the claim that GZ was flat is correct and, in the other thread, you do not think DEW destroyed the WTC.

You are opposed to my making those assertions and wish I wouldn't make them. Well, guess what, I am going to make them and I am willing to engage in dialogue where you post up your reasons and I'll do the same.

I've always said I do not engage in rhetoric.l

If you want to say that it is error to refer to the pedestrian walkway as being horizontal or nearly horizontal, do please say so and skip the rhetoric.

Nice dodge. you know STS caught you in a lie so you resort to ad hom. That second photo you assert

Here, also is a nearly horizontal shot of that pedestrian walkway:

clearly is NOT. the camera is 15 stories or more above the roof level of the walkway in the distance. If it were "nearly horizontal" you would not be able to see the roof surface. You were caught in a lie yet admonished STs and directed him to compare LIDAR data. which was not at all relevant to the question he asked you.

 

[phunk]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1508348583677942a2.jpg[/qimg]

Can someone put some sort of grid over the above so that we can then quantify what parts are 1,2 etc. storeys in height?

As I look at it, the largest amount of area is <1 storey, followed next by 1-2 stories. The pedestrian walkway clearly tops out in yellow, however the yellow is not easy to see. the entire area next to that walkway is clearly beneath it, as is a substantial percentage of all else shown.

There's nothing the matter with using a quantitative approach here. I suggest we let the numbers settle this once and for all.

I think jammonius might be a little color blind w/ the shades of yellow, so let me assist. Maybe if I'm bored later I'll do the rest of the gz map.

The area between the red and blue is in the 25-50 foot range.
The area between the blue and green is in the 50-75 foot range.
The area in the green is in the 75-100 foot range.
This does not fit any definition of the word flat.

Looks kinda like a duck heheh.

 

[BenBurch]

Well color me shocked.

Is that tan, or teal?

 

[Mancman]

There's that 1 storey debris pile in the footprint of WTC 1:

Hey, waitaminute. It's actually 8-9 storeys. Wow, jammonius's entire premise is entirely wrong and has been from page 1? Thank god I had this revelation.

 

[phunk]

denial incoming in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Alt+F4]

I assert that I am highly satisfied that the essential contention that GZ was flat has been fully substantiated.

You are 100% wrong.

 

[Drudgewire]

Is that tan, or teal?

More of a chartreuse, really.

 

[A W Smith]

more data mapping by university of Florida
http://www.alsm.ufl.edu/research/wtc/WTC.htm

 

[Mancman]

Some more pesky reality:

Gallery of high resolution images:
http://911.yweb.sk/galleries/nasekana-ocel.php

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I assert that I am highly satisfied that the essential contention that GZ was flat has been fully substantiated.

It has not been substantiated, it has been refuted. Refer to the relief maps constructed by Hokulele.

At most, the 1 storey contention has been shown to amount to 2 storeys in a few areas. However, that was not the point in the first place. The pictures are not inaccurate and the LIDAR data confirms, rather than contradicts the way I have analyzed that material.

LIDAR data confirms the pile rose to several stories above the ground. Again, refer to Hokulele's relief map, and the other ones provided earlier.

As I've said all along, the proof actually is in the visual evidence. The capacity to argue with it can continue ad infinitum as far as I'm concerned. But the fact remains that 2 110 story buildings, plus an additional 22 storey building were reduced to next to nothing, very clearly amounting to <1 storey in many areas, up to 2 storeys in a specific areas that can be seen and in a few outer wall remnants.

The fact remains that witness testimony, photographic evidence, and articles in periodicals all contradict your assessment. They all speak to the truth of damage existing underground as well as the debris piles exceeding 1 or 2 stories.

If you think otherwise, you are not looking at the evidence we've provided.

There's no further need to belabor the underground issue. The photos show there was no damage and the witnesses confirm this in many particulars. The subway damage assetions are highly inconclusive and have not even been specifically delineated for location purposes.

Incorrect. None of the evidence says that, all say the opposite. Refer to my ealier posts regarding articles about the damage done to the underground areas. And refer to other poster's images documenting such damage.

One remaining issue to be dealt with, I think, is to make note of the difference in demands for proof as between those of us who contend GZ was flat and that there was no underground damage, on the one hand, with those who contend otherwise.

Contention? You have been shown basic evidence and given basic measurements. Those are facts, not arguments. You are the one presenting a contention, and it's an incorrect one at that. Read the previous posts. We've provided witness statements directly contradicting your claim of GZ being a single story, as well as articles discussing the damage done underground. We've provided imagry directly contradicting your claim of GZ being a single story, as well as your assertion that there was no underground damage. And we've provided laser measurements contradicting your claim of GZ being a single story.

I think it fair to say that in all these pages there have been 2 or perhaps 3 pictures showing some underground damage in some subway, somewhere. The photos are narrow in scope and highly inconclusive. Yet, those who rely on them have treated them as though they are conclusive and confirming of the broad claim that there were some 5 to 7 storeys of underground damage. Those photos don't show that at all.

They show enough. Combine them with articles from engineering publications and witness testimony and you have proof that underground damage occurred.

But, the one advantage that side has is that there is a very strong 'wish' to find something, anything, no matter how puny, weak or insubstantial to justify that claim.

That describes you.

Add to that the tendency to try hard to confirm the official version of events and we have the makings of a sefl-fulfulling claim that is based, largely, on the emotional need to avoid having to reckon with the fact that the official version of events is simply untenable.

It is not. You've yet to prove that it is.

Also: No one here gives a damn about "official story" vs. "unofficial". We all go where the evidence leads us. When eyewitnesses describe underground damage and tall rubble piles, when photographs illustrate underground damage and debris piles exceeding 1 or 2 stories, and when articles lay out the scope of underground damage, we follow that trail. And nothing else. If the government's "official story" was that GZ was flat, we'd be presenting the same evidence in rebuttal. It doesn't matter what "officials" say, it matters what witnesses seen and documented, and what people measured.

The fact of the matter is that measurements alone, viewable in the LIDAR images, prove that the rubble piles were greater than 1 or 2 stories.

The information here does not provide sustenance for that emotional need.

Kudos to hokulele for being among those who relies less on emotion and more on reason.
I do not have a monopoly on reliance on reason, either. Accordingly, there are some areas of GZ that are yellow; i.e., 2 storeys. My problem may have been to overemphasize the word 'flat' that is accurate in a general sense, irrespective of a few exceptions. Once again, there are some 2 storey areas of debris and the outer wall remnants are as tall as the largely intact WTC 5,6 buildings at their peak. That would be about 8 storeys.

You ignore the data for WTC 2 in that statement. Hokulele's imagry shows that the pile not only shows heights approaching 100 feet, but also shows the gradient. It was a steep and tall pile. Somehow, you ignore this.

Simply stating over and over that Ground Zero is flat does not make it so. Making that statement in the face of all the imagry, LIDAR, witness, and journal published evidence to the contrary is denying reality. The fact of the matter is, your assertion that the rubble pile is flat has been disproven through many different angles, and by several separate yet converging bodies of evidence. Denying this is speaking in contradiction to the truth.

-----

Lurkers, newbies, and other readers: Pay particular attention to Hokulele's LIDAR/photo overlay above, Myriad's posts #419 and #424, Wildcat's post #126 which started the whole LIDAR subtopic. That alone refutes jammonious's assertions of debris pile height. In regards to testimony about underground damage, refer to my own post #189, where I link several articles directly mentioning such. That by itself refutes jammonious's claim, but we have photographs from posted by various people which also by themselves illustrate the damage.

And there are still many other excellent contributions from other forum posters, such as R. Mackey and several others refuting the directed energy (i.e. "beam weapon") claim. The point I'm making to new folks and non-participants is that jammonious is making claims that are absolutely contradictory to all evidence. We've provided that evidece; you can trace back through the thread to see for yourselves. His attempt to say that various pieces buttress his claims are ridiculous on their face, especially when all those pieces actually contradict him (see his suggestion to me to read the NYTimes Oral Histories; in a quick, initial, and incomplete readthrough, I discovered nothing that supported his claims, but multiple statements that refuted him. And I haven't even read them all yet, but I still found that his own submission of evidence in this debate actually supported the opposite of his argument). And not only do his arguments contradict reality, he's also not choosing to address the core substance of the evidence we present in his denials and his attempts to explain away what we present. In short, he's wrong. And although he denies that he is, other posters here have clearly demonstrated the opposite of what he contends.

This isn't a mere assertion. We have demonstrated that he's wrong, where he's wrong, and how he's wrong.

So why do we do this, considering his refusal to see reality? Well, as I've said before, and even in this very thread: We're putting the information out there for anyone to see. It doesn't matter if it doesn't convince a fantasy addict; there's no convincing those people. What matters is presenting the correct information for everyone else to see, especially those who come to these threads without any background knowledge about 9/11. You're who we're talking to.

 

[sts60]

sts,

Look at the picture and other data yourself and form your own conclusions, please. You are not the designated inquisitor and I am not the designated answerer. You're playing games, in my view, seeking, ultimately, between the lines, up front, out back and elsewhere, always and ever to declare yourself right and me wrong.

Do you suffer from low self-esteem?

My self-esteem is not at issue. I asked you a very simple question. When you said "a nearly horizontal shot of that pedestrian walkway", did you mean that the camera taking the picture was at approximately the same level (or height, or altitude, if you prefer) as the walkway?

I know you think I have never yet said or written anything in this thread that is correct.

A chronic problem with your posts is that often your claims are too ill-defined to discuss; also, you frequently misrepresent statements and scenarios offered by other posters - as you have done below with mine.

Earth to sts:

We know that you do not think that jammonius can say anything that is correct.

OK, we get it.

Not the case. I'm sure you can say correct things.

Now, if you have some observations you want to make about the flatness or the elevation of GZ, do please make them.

I've largely stayed out of the flatness/elevation issue. I'm just trying to understand what you meant in your reference to that picture, and I asked you a simple clarifying question.

We know that you do not think jammonius can say or do anything that is correct here. You disagree with jammonius. You do not think the claim that GZ was flat is correct and, in the other thread, you do not think DEW destroyed the WTC.

You are opposed to my making those assertions and wish I wouldn't make them.

Straw man. You are welcome to say whatever you think. In fact, I wish you would say more about what you think - that's why I asked you the question. Also, kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Well, guess what, I am going to make them and I am willing to engage in dialogue where you post up your reasons and I'll do the same.

I've always said I do not engage in rhetoric.

Then why two lengthy posts going on about motivations and recapitulating your other statements and whatnot, instead of simply answering my question?

If you want to say that it is error to refer to the pedestrian walkway as being horizontal or nearly horizontal, do please say so and skip the rhetoric.

Again, I would ask you to kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I certainly did not say or imply such a thing, and I am at a loss as to how any competent English speaker could unintentionally misapprehend my question's meaning so badly. It's a very straightforward question:

When you said "Here, also is a nearly horizontal shot of that pedestrian walkway", did you mean that the camera taking the picture was approximately at the same level as said walkway? If not, what exactly did you mean?