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

[jammonius]

The photos in posts 553, 555 & 558 fully substantiate that the debris at the WTC was from 30 to 100 high. Case closed.

Thanks Jammonius for starting this thread which gave forum members a place to post those photos.

I thought we had pretty much agreed that this was the reference tool that we all felt comfortable with:

As such, that graphic in no way supports the contention that the WTC was from 30 to 100 high. I have already analyzed the graphic. 50% of it is at street level or 0'. Another 30% of it is at 25' <50'. So, no, your 'case closing' declaration is false.

 

[DGM]

I thought we had pretty much agreed that this was the reference tool that we all felt comfortable with:

[qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg[/qimg]

As such, that graphic in no way supports the contention that the WTC was from 30 to 100 high. I have already analyzed the graphic. 50% of it is at street level or 0'. Another 30% of it is at 25' <50'. So, no, your 'case closing' declaration is false.

How many of the clean-up workers have you spoke to personally. That would be the best way to get a handle on the conditions at the site, right?

 

[jammonius]

Yeah gosh, what could have caused the destruction of WTC3?

[qimg]http://mobilization.com/911/pic3.jpg[/qimg]

Oh, thousands of tons of steel falling hundreds of feet impacted the building. Mystery solved!

This is yet another good example of how those who seek to justify the common version of events will rely on only the most tentative, inconclusive, even contradictory photos to salvage the common myth.

WTC 3 is not being destroyed in the above photo. Rather, some debris is sliding right by it. Yet, in the end of the event, there was no debris outside of the footprint of WTC 3. That is one of the areas that was flat.

But this also illustrates that in supporting the common explanation of events, you don't need much proof. Just say anything and post any photo, no matter how inconclusive, and then make a declaration of infallibility.

OK, we know the social need to validate the common version of events is quite strong. I have said that, many times. However, by engaging in denial of reality as blatant as this example, you run the risk of missing out on what it means to be a fully conscious human being.

Think, people, think for yourselves. Or, in any event, do please give consideration to doing so.

 

[jammonius]

Again I ask, if, as you state, WTC7 was destroyed with DE weaponry why wasn't it also "disintegrated in mid-air"? Why did WTC7 (considerably less massive than either tower) leave the highest pile?
Please answer.

BV

I will dialogue with you about this, but I am not going to spoon-feed you. If you are interested in the matter, then you're going to need to be proactive in finding the answer. If your not interested in finding the answer, then, chances are, you are merely engaging in rhetoric. You know my position on rhetoric. I don't play that game.

You might want to find out what you can about the calibration aspect of DEW. They can be variously tuned for lethality effects, materials interactions and so on.

WTC7 obviously came down differently than WTC 1,2. But, there was more time to calibrate and a frame of reference in connection with the outcome of the destruction of 1 and 2. I'll grant you the 7 destruction was disguised a bit. However, the clue that I consider important is that the interior part of the WTC7 pile shows complete pulverization occurring, as you know, in about 7 seconds.

More study of 7 is needed and is ongoing. The PTB are having an extraordinarily difficult time trying to craft an explanation that would pass the smell test. As you know, affirmation of the standard version of events is so very important to a lot of people who simply do not want to consider that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Yet, the destruction of wTC 7 was such a blatant bit of fraud and so obviously not at all related to any so-called attack by 19 Arabs w/ box-cutters that, to this day, there's been no viable explanation of the event.

And, when one comes out that seemingly supports the official version of events, I suspect that version will be challenged.

 

[Myriad]

Given the combined height of 2720' for just WTC 1,2, a debris stack of 30' represents approximately 1% of that total. I assert, therefore, that it is descriptively accurate to refer to GZ as flat.

You should have made it clear at the outset that when you use the word "flat" you are invoking not its normal English meaning of level and horizontal, but rather an alternative meaning of your own invention, something like "considerably more level and horizontal than what used to be there, which happened in this case to include two of the tallest buildings in the world."

While you might have had some objection from silly language purists about what the point is of redefining the word "flat" in that way, you'd have not gotten much disagreement about the fact that by your definition of "flat" (which I'll refer to as *flat), Ground Zero was in fact *flat.

Because, you see, we already knew that what was left at Ground Zero was much less tall than the intact towers had been. That is why we say that the towers "collapsed" rather than, for example, that they "shrank a little," "turned purple," or "grew taller." To collapse is to become *flat.

The problem with this for your theory is, the fact that Ground Zero was *flat is entirely consistent with collapse caused by airplane impacts and fire, or in fact any collapse scenario whatsoever. So, it turns out that this entire thread was an unnecessary waste of your time, as the *flatness of Ground Zero provides no evidence for your claims. That waste could have been avoided had you disclosed and explained your definition of *flat much sooner.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[phunk]

I thought we had pretty much agreed that this was the reference tool that we all felt comfortable with:

[qimg]http://phunkadelic.org/duck.jpg[/qimg]

As such, that graphic in no way supports the contention that the WTC was from 30 to 100 high. I have already analyzed the graphic. 50% of it is at street level or 0'. Another 30% of it is at 25' <50'. So, no, your 'case closing' declaration is false.

Of course a lot of it is street level. The picture is of a wider area than the pile. If I took a picture of you standing in a field could I claim that you were only as tall as the grass?

 

[jammonius]

Of course a lot of it is street level. The picture is of a wider area than the pile. If I took a picture of you standing in a field could I claim that you were only as tall as the grass?

Wait a minute. It sounds like we've got a semantic issue here. GZ is the entire area, not just one or another 'pile' that might be found in it. Keep in mind, 2720' of buildings in just the 2 towers stood there. We shouldn't even be talking about isolated piles; that we are doing so proves my point--that GZ was flat.

The entire area within your graphic is within GZ. That is confirmed by the location of the pedestrian walkway seen at the outer edge of it.

So, come on phunk, let's let the data do the talking; your data, that is. Your own data show that GZ was flat.

 

[bonavada]

You might want to find out what you can about the calibration aspect of DEW. They can be variously tuned for lethality effects, materials interactions and so on.

ETA: Moved To DEW thread


BV

 

[ElMondoHummus]

(Snipped for brevity)
7--Or, to use my word "flat" when one considers that what had stood there had been 1360.' This brings up another point. The word "flat has a context. The context is before and after destruction of the Twin Towers and other buildings in the WTC complex. Just the towers alone aggregated 2720'. But, since the graphic in question only covers one of the towers, I wouldn't quibble if some were to insist that the height of only one should be used for context purposes. Mind you, a fair claim can be made that since the two towers were so close one to the other, it's proper to use the 2720' as a reference. If one does so, then that means a 99% reduction. I think if something is compacted to 1% of its former height then, by comparison, what remains is freakin' FLAT. Even if you halve that, you still get a reduction down to 2% of its prior height and that is still FLAT.

8--The claim is 75' for the area between blue and green and it is, I would say, about 15%.

9--5% accounts for the peaks.

Nope, posters, that graphic reveals a flat GZ IMHO.

Of course, I completely agree that when you include the state of Kansas as an integral part of Manhattan, Ground Zero can be considered as being flat.

It is a pleasure to see that you admit that the debris piles must have been 8 storeys, and that only by including the surrounding roads and structures, many of which were not inside the perimeter of the WTC block (such as the skybridge), can one make a claim of lack of grade over the "site" as defined by one with an agenda. I am grateful for your help in identifying these types of misrepresentations generated by the charlatans within the Conspiracy Theory ranks. Without your clever insight on the types of arguments one would make if one was fully committed to a theory with no factual support, I would never have thought of this approach.

Many thanks!

Wait a minute. It sounds like we've got a semantic issue here. GZ is the entire area, not just one or another 'pile' that might be found in it. Keep in mind, 2720' of buildings in just the 2 towers stood there. We shouldn't even be talking about isolated piles; that we are doing so proves my point--that GZ was flat.

The entire area within your graphic is within GZ. That is confirmed by the location of the pedestrian walkway seen at the outer edge of it.

So, come on phunk, let's let the data do the talking; your data, that is. Your own data show that GZ was flat.

This is from an earlier post you made, #19 in this thread:

As I said above, the debris pile was less than 1 STOREY in height. The above photo clearly shows the base or lobby level of the exterior wall of WTC 1 and the debris field is plainly lower than that, pretty much all across the GZ site.

It has been demonstrated that the debris pile(s) are much more than 1 storey in height. The LIDAR imagry shows this. And now, by selecting the areas outside the perimeter of the WTC block, you are now trying to claim that Ground Zero is flat? Your claim was that the towers were reduced to a pile measuring less than one story.

It is dishonest to point at areas between the rubble piles as proof of your contention. That is not what you were referring to in the beginning; in fact, that excludes the areas you yourself specifically were referring to. Recall, your claim was that the buildings themselves were reduced to piles less than 1 story. That is your original statement, as demonstrated by the post quoted above. Anyone can click on it and see what you originally wrote. Hokulele's work demonstrates that this contention is not so, that the piles are far from flat. So does the LIDAR work Myriad and Wildcat pointed out. So why are you backing away from your original claim? Because the argument you cite above doesn't address the piles measuring up to 100 feet tall with 60+ degree slopes.

 

[jammonius]

You should have made it clear at the outset that when you use the word "flat" you are invoking not its normal English meaning of level and horizontal, but rather an alternative meaning of your own invention, something like "considerably more level and horizontal than what used to be there, which happened in this case to include two of the tallest buildings in the world."

While you might have had some objection from silly language purists about what the point is of redefining the word "flat" in that way, you'd have not gotten much disagreement about the fact that by your definition of "flat" (which I'll refer to as *flat), Ground Zero was in fact *flat.

Because, you see, we already knew that what was left at Ground Zero was much less tall than the intact towers had been. That is why we say that the towers "collapsed" rather than, for example, that they "shrank a little," "turned purple," or "grew taller." To collapse is to become *flat.

The problem with this for your theory is, the fact that Ground Zero was *flat is entirely consistent with collapse caused by airplane impacts and fire, or in fact any collapse scenario whatsoever. So, it turns out that this entire thread was an unnecessary waste of your time, as the *flatness of Ground Zero provides no evidence for your claims. That waste could have been avoided had you disclosed and explained your definition of *flat much sooner.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I disagree with your limitation on the meaning of the word 'flat.' As a source for substantiation of my disagreement with you, please see definition # 6 at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

The word flat specifically connote landscape issues where items previously standing thereon have been felled.

Given the apparent seriousness of tone of the above quoted post, one would have thought that you might have referenced a dictionary before declaring improper word usage had occurred.

Apparently you did not do so, myriad.

That is too bad.

So, as things stand, my usage here is clear and correct and vetted by a dictionary source. Furthermore, I assert that it is not only clear and correct to use the word 'flat' it is also necessary to do so. The reason why it is necessary is that we know that with respect to 9/11, people simply do not believe their own eyes. I've alluded to this issue of 'social denial' as it might be called before.

Those who call attention to 9/11 as a false-flag operation are not merely dealing with the limits of language, they are dealing, as well, with a deep seated emotional need that prevents people from questioning the authorities that have power over them.

The norm is for people to 'go along and get along.'

Please cease and desist from trying to derail this discussion in the manner of questioning word usage. It is hard enough as it is to get people to come out of the emotional fog that 9/11 has engendered.

Thank you in advance, myriad,

jammonius

 

[jammonius]

This is from an earlier post you made, #19 in this thread:



It has been demonstrated that the debris pile(s) are much more than 1 storey in height. The LIDAR imagry shows this. And now, by selecting the areas outside the perimeter of the WTC block, you are now trying to claim that Ground Zero is flat? Your claim was that the towers were reduced to a pile measuring less than one story.

It is dishonest to point at areas between the rubble piles as proof of your contention. That is not what you were referring to in the beginning; in fact, that excludes the areas you yourself specifically were referring to. Recall, your claim was that the buildings themselves were reduced to piles less than 1 story. That is your original statement, as demonstrated by the post quoted above. Anyone can click on it and see what you originally wrote. Hokulele's work demonstrates that this contention is not so, that the piles are far from flat. So does the LIDAR work Myriad and Wildcat pointed out. So why are you backing away from your original claim? Because the argument you cite above doesn't address the piles measuring up to 100 feet tall with 60+ degree slopes.

You are generalizing in a context where the specifics are known. There is no way, in my view, for you accurately to claim that "t has been demonstrated that the debris pile(s) are much more than 1 storey in height. The LIDAR imagry shows this."

The Lidar show no such thing. Instead, the Lidar show a virtual flat-land where 110 storey buildings had stood. That is the point. Sure, there are exceptions to the overall flatness, just as there are exceptions to the height of waves in a calm sea and, since Manhattan Kansas is not broad enough, there are exceptions in the cosmic background radiation that pervade the universe. That doesn't detract from that fact that that background radiation is considered to be an all pervading constant.

Ok, there's room for semantic disagreement; nothing wrong with that. But, in attempting to hold onto the standard version of events, we have seen in this tread that some will vascillate back and forth between arguing for the specific, then for the general, then for how high is high, followed by how low is low, what is street level and what isn't.

It now appears that people are trying desparately to draw the line on the flatness of GZ at around 30'.

Posters, 30' where there had been an aggregated building structure of 2720' for just two of the destroyed buildings means you are dealing with a flatland, could a few more of you but begin to realize it.

The destruction of GZ was complete and total and that outcome, rendering it a flatland, could not possibly have come about as a result of the standard explanation.

And, therein lies the difficulty. People are hard pressed to confront the fact that what they have been told about what caused the destruction of the WTC complex is a flat out falsehood.

That was a false flag operation reaching the most hideous, vile and despicable level ever to have occurred. And it happened right here in the U. S. of A.

Deal with it, posters.

 

[jammonius]

Do posters recognize that I am completely satisfied that the Lidar data confirm the claims I made?

There should be no surprise in this respect. Those who say otherwise are relying on this Lidar data that shows all that remained of a 22 storey building and a 110 storey one. A small area of pile peaks at what, 75' maybe? But all else is flatland. That is what the image shows.

The area depicted is not that large. The entire image covers less than a quarter of GZ itself and within the area covered, most of it is street level. 0' flat.

I wonder if posters realize that not one word in the preceding 2 sentence paragraph is in any way inaccurate or exaggerated at all?

 

[Drudgewire]

People are hard pressed to confront the fact that what they have been told about what caused the destruction of the WTC complex is a flat out falsehood.

It's like rayeeeeaaaain on your wedding day...

 

[sts60]

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?

 

[phunk]

The Lidar show no such thing. Instead, the Lidar show a virtual flat-land where 110 storey buildings had stood.

No, actually, it does not. It shows big heaping piles of debris where the buildings once stood, and the only flat areas are well outside the footprints of the buildings.

Look at bonavada's image again that has the building footprints outlined. Where the buildings once stood, the minimum height is 25 feet, with large areas above 50 feet and 75 feet and even peaks over 100.

And why do you keep referring to the combined height of the buildings? They weren't standing on top of each other before the collapses, and the piles weren't on top of each other afterwards.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You are generalizing in a context where the specifics are known. There is no way, in my view, for you accurately to claim that "t has been demonstrated that the debris pile(s) are much more than 1 storey in height. The LIDAR imagry shows this."

The Lidar show no such thing. Instead, the Lidar show a virtual flat-land where 110 storey buildings had stood. That is the point. Sure, there are exceptions to the overall flatness, just as there are exceptions to the height of waves in a calm sea and, since Manhattan Kansas is not broad enough, there are exceptions in the cosmic background radiation that pervade the universe. That doesn't detract from that fact that that background radiation is considered to be an all pervading constant.

Absolutely, positively incorrect. The LIDAR data shows clearly that the piles reach 100 feet in height. Those are the piles where the towers stood. Saying otherwise is ignoring the data. Your "view" is incorrect, and stands in contradiction to the facts.

Ok, there's room for semantic disagreement; nothing wrong with that. But, in attempting to hold onto the standard version of events, we have seen in this tread that some will vascillate back and forth between arguing for the specific, then for the general, then for how high is high, followed by how low is low, what is street level and what isn't.

You are the one vacillating. The rest of us here have been saying the same thing over and over again: The debris piles were well in excess of a story tall. There is no ambiguity in what everyone here has been saying. You are the only one attempting to obfuscate.

It now appears that people are trying desparately to draw the line on the flatness of GZ at around 30'.

Posters, 30' where there had been an aggregated building structure of 2720' for just two of the destroyed buildings means you are dealing with a flatland, could a few more of you but begin to realize it.

In selecting 30 feet, you are ignoring the piles themselves, which again, as shown in the LIDAR maps earlier, reach 100 feet in height. No one else here is limiting themselves to just 30 feet; as far as I can see, we're all talking about the debris piles themselves. Those are the piles you now choose to ignore in favor of surrounding areas, much of which is outside the tower's perimeter (and in contradiction to your post #19, where you specify the debris piles).

I can say that western Wyoming and Colorado is flat, if I ignore the Rocky Mountains. But their presences guarantees it's anything but. You can say GZ if flat if you ignore anything that is non-flat - such as the debris piles - but you are arbitrarily excluding the very thing that disproves your thesis.

The destruction of GZ was complete and total and that outcome, rendering it a flatland, could not possibly have come about as a result of the standard explanation.

Not only have you not proven this, you haven't even tried to explain the faults in the "standard explanation". You simply dismiss it. That's intellectually inexcusable.

And, therein lies the difficulty. People are hard pressed to confront the fact that what they have been told about what caused the destruction of the WTC complex is a flat out falsehood.

That describes you more than anyone else here. You are hard pressed to confront the fact that your thesis about energy weapons and a supposedly flat pile of debris are flat out falsehoods. They are demonstrably wrong, as we have shown in previous posts.

That was a false flag operation reaching the most hideous, vile and despicable level ever to have occurred. And it happened right here in the U. S. of A.

Deal with it, posters.

You provide zero proof of this. All conspiratorial hypotheses put forth by conspiracy peddlers to date have been answered and disproven. To say that there was a false flag operation, you must prove that there was one. This requires evidence. You ready to submit any that substantiates this supposition?

-----
The piles were not flattened, nor reduced to a single story or two in height. This has been demonstrated over and over again. This has been measured. Those measurements have been provided. You choose to ignore them and point to areas between the piles to make your point. Again, the bottom line is that, in saying the debris piles at Ground Zero are less than a single story - which is what you said in earlier posts in this thread - you ignore the debris piles themselves to make that point. If that doesn't stand as one of the silliest abuses of logic in this forum, I don't know what does.

 

[Disbelief]

jammonius, how tall should the debris at GZ have been?

 

[Travis]

jammonius, how tall should the debris at GZ have been?

Yes, Jammonius, how much should be in the six level basement and how much should be protruding higher? Please explain the logic and/or calculations behind your answers.

 

[Myriad]

I disagree with your limitation on the meaning of the word 'flat.' As a source for substantiation of my disagreement with you, please see definition # 6 at:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/flat

The word flat specifically connote landscape issues where items previously standing thereon have been felled.

Fair enough. You, however, should have made it clear much earlier on that you were using the word "flat" in an unusual sense, one not touched upon until definition 6 at the above reference. When using an ordinary word in an unusual sense, it is customary to say so, and it is also customary not to then use arguments that imply that you are using the word in one of its commonly understood senses (see definitions 1-3, above link).

For instance, if you're using "flat" to mean "thrown down, laid low, or level with the ground, as fallen trees or buildings" and someone claims Ground Zero was not flat, then a response like, "Oh, by 'flat' I meant the buildings have fallen down, which you can clearly see from these photographs because the buildings are not standing" would have clarified the point and led to effective communication and ultimately agreement. Instead, you made false claims about no debris being piled more than a story high, photographs being deceptive, and so forth -- all unnecessary obfuscations and digressions, if all you really meant to say was that the buildings had been "thrown down, laid low, fallen" which we could all have immediately agreed with and moved on.

Please cease and desist from trying to derail this discussion in the manner of questioning word usage.

When the entire topic of the thread is your claim that the Ground Zero debris is flat, clarifying exactly what you mean by "flat" is in no way a derail. It is in fact the only way to hope to continue to discuss the topic in any (literally) meaningful way. Nonetheless, if you disagree, you may report my posts, as attempting to derail threads is not permitted by the Membership Agreement.

The reason this is important is that we already knew that what was left at Ground Zero was much less tall than the intact towers had been. We already know that the towers were "thrown down," "laid low," and "fallen." (They were not in this case, as fallen trees might be, "level with the ground," as the LIDAR measurements show.) That is why we say that the towers "collapsed" rather than, for example, that they "shrank a little," "turned purple," or "grew taller." To collapse is to become "thrown down," "laid low," and "fallen" -- that is, (by definition 6) flat.

The problem with this for your theory is, the fact that Ground Zero was (by definition 6) flat is entirely consistent with collapse caused by airplane impacts and fire, or in fact any collapse scenario whatsoever, or any means whatsoever that they might have become "laid low," "thrown down," and "fallen." So, it turns out that this entire thread was an unnecessary waste of your time, as the (by definition 6) flatness of Ground Zero provides no evidence for your claims. That waste could have been avoided had you disclosed and explained which of the 55 or so alternative meanings of "flat" you were using much sooner.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[jammonius]

Absolutely, positively incorrect. The LIDAR data shows clearly that the piles reach 100 feet in height. Those are the piles where the towers stood. Saying otherwise is ignoring the data. Your "view" is incorrect, and stands in contradiction to the facts.



You are the one vacillating. The rest of us here have been saying the same thing over and over again: The debris piles were well in excess of a story tall. There is no ambiguity in what everyone here has been saying. You are the only one attempting to obfuscate.



In selecting 30 feet, you are ignoring the piles themselves, which again, as shown in the LIDAR maps earlier, reach 100 feet in height. No one else here is limiting themselves to just 30 feet; as far as I can see, we're all talking about the debris piles themselves. Those are the piles you now choose to ignore in favor of surrounding areas, much of which is outside the tower's perimeter (and in contradiction to your post #19, where you specify the debris piles).

I can say that western Wyoming and Colorado is flat, if I ignore the Rocky Mountains. But their presences guarantees it's anything but. You can say GZ if flat if you ignore anything that is non-flat - such as the debris piles - but you are arbitrarily excluding the very thing that disproves your thesis.



Not only have you not proven this, you haven't even tried to explain the faults in the "standard explanation". You simply dismiss it. That's intellectually inexcusable.



That describes you more than anyone else here. You are hard pressed to confront the fact that your thesis about energy weapons and a supposedly flat pile of debris are flat out falsehoods. They are demonstrably wrong, as we have shown in previous posts.



You provide zero proof of this. All conspiratorial hypotheses put forth by conspiracy peddlers to date have been answered and disproven. To say that there was a false flag operation, you must prove that there was one. This requires evidence. You ready to submit any that substantiates this supposition?

-----
The piles were not flattened, nor reduced to a single story or two in height. This has been demonstrated over and over again. This has been measured. Those measurements have been provided. You choose to ignore them and point to areas between the piles to make your point. Again, the bottom line is that, in saying the debris piles at Ground Zero are less than a single story - which is what you said in earlier posts in this thread - you ignore the debris piles themselves to make that point. If that doesn't stand as one of the silliest abuses of logic in this forum, I don't know what does.

Please consider this in the nature of a 'placeholder.' I cannot reply in full at the moment; and, even if I could, it appears we are at the point of impasse where I say the data that we've agreed to use as a reference point confirm GZ was flat and where others say it confirms there were peaks here and there and thus assert GZ was not flat.

In general, then, it might be said that this is a dispute centering on whether the overall landscape is defined by its majority characteristic -- which is flat -- or whether it is defined by the occassional peak that was always acknowledged, by me, to be present. After all, this is an issue that was based on visual evidence; on an assessement centering on the query: What do you see?

I have already painstakingly indicated that just on the basis of the seminal piece of agreed on information in this thread, that the majority area in that very image is at street level 0'. No one can deny that. Instead, the claim has been that the absolutely flat part isn't close enough to the building footprints. That, however, is a dodge. The image is entirely within the area called GZ and not otherwise.

Moreover, in percentage terms, the next largest area is at the <25' range, which fits right into the 1-2 storey range.

In fact, it is remarkable here that not one poster is troubled by the plain as day, obvious fact that there is a clear and direct proportional dynamic here. The higher up you go, the less material there is. In other words, peaks are quite plainly the exception and flatness is quite plainly the rule.

The majority area and the preponderant characteristic of GZ is that it is flat and it is foolhardly to argue otherwise.

However, it is emotionally necessary to do so. I understand that and I have named that condition. People need to protect themselves from the emotional strain associated with coming to grips with the fact that GZ was destroyed to too great a degree for it to have been caused by a simple plane hit, kerosene and gravity.

The entire left half of the image is flat. The next largest area is about 25'.

But w've done this. The issue is this:

Look at the information that you, yourself, have said is reliable and meaningful.

LOOK AT IT