Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

There's no basement in WTC 7

BigAl said:
That's because much of WTC collapsed into the 7 basement levels that WTC7 didn't have. WTC7 was built on existing infrastructure and as far as I've ever heard had no basement levels.

The height of the WTC pile was also reduced because much of the debris from the towers was spread over about 24 acres of open plaza.

The rubble from WTC7 was constrained on three sides by buildings that survived. The streets that separated them were decidedly narrow two-lane roads.
Click to expand...

bill smith said:
How did the rubble get in there Al ? After all the hole to the basement was plugged by the building stump right until the very last second wasn't it ? Just like a cork in a bottle ?
Click to expand...

What basement pee wee? 7 had none.

 
<<Sighs>>

Is this where the TM is going now?

Claiming that transmission towers are made of aluminum and denying that the rubble was packed into the basement levels of the WTC towers?
 
jammonius said:
Prove your assertions and source your claims. As is typical of common myth defenders, you assume all you need do is make lame assertions that don't require proof.

I here assert that you cannot prove your claim and you will not do so, no matter what. At most, you will continue to use tricks and deception to avoid having to provide proof. Among the tricks used typically in this kind of situation is that of attempting to shift the burden of proof. You, and those like you, almost never offer up proof and when they try, the result is pathetic.

Post your proof, Big Al.
Click to expand...



Where to start with someone with so much ignorance and so much arrogance.

Here's a survey taken days after 9/11 that shows the exact height and expanse of the WTC rubble.



Here's a picture of the WTC1/2 debris pile extending well outside the 16 acres of WTC plaza. New Yorkers will tell you that the street that is underneath that rubble is West ST and it's about 6 or 8 lanes wide. The WTC rubble extended a similar distance in the other three directions.



The FEMA document shows 7 lower levels below WTC1 and 2. I walked several floors deep almost daily on my commute. Many New Yorkers did.


As for how rubble collapsed into the basements levels, read Report from Ground Zero and 9 Months at Ground Zero for details or better yet, talk to someone that worked on the pile. I have.



WTC7 was built on top of an existing electrical substation. There was no basement level.

What was WTC 7?
The original World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) was a 47-story office building located immediately to the north of the main World Trade Center (WTC) complex. Completed in 1987, it was built on top of an existing Con Edison substation and located on land owned by The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
Click to expand...

The NIST WTC7 report makes no mention of a basement.

 
jaydeehess said:
<<Sighs>>

Is this where the TM is going now?

Claiming that transmission towers are made of aluminum and denying that the rubble was packed into the basement levels of the WTC towers?
Click to expand...

How many floors of the 110 above-ground levels do you think ended up in the six underground levels ? Will your answer be embarrassing for you ? lol. Will you answer at all ?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Prove your assertions and source your claims. As is typical of common myth defenders, you assume all you need do is make lame assertions that don't require proof.

I here assert that you cannot prove your claim and you will not do so, no matter what. At most, you will continue to use tricks and deception to avoid having to provide proof. Among the tricks used typically in this kind of situation is that of attempting to shift the burden of proof. You, and those like you, almost never offer up proof and when they try, the result is pathetic.

Post your proof, Big Al.
Click to expand...
:i:
Prove your assertions and source your claims. As is typical of common myth defenders, you assume all you need do is make lame assertions that don't require proof.

I here assert that you cannot prove your claim and you will not do so, no matter what. At most, you will continue to use tricks and deception to avoid having to provide proof. Among the tricks used typically in this kind of situation is that of attempting to shift the burden of proof. You, and those like you, almost never offer up proof and when they try, the result is pathetic.

Post your proof, jammonius. You are the one making extraordinary claims that conflict with known physical laws of scale and physics.
 
A W Smith said:
That's building Seven, it had no basement to collapse into, Also the velocity of the collapse when it hit the ground was less than the towers because it had less distance to accelerate. Less than half that of the towers. Not to mention, two different types of collapse, Top down versus from near the bottom up.
Click to expand...

Prove your assertions and stop making a priori declarations. Those who defend the common myth have, if anything, a higher burden of proof than those who challenge it.

I feel sorry for you, nonetheless. You are running up against the fact that there is no official explanation for what caused the destruction of the WTC. You cannot support your speculation; and, speculation is all that you are engaging in.

This situation will become both relevant and apparent once any real attempt is made to put KSM on trial. The prosecution will have the burden of proving what happened and they will have no official, reliable source for establishing what happened on 9/11.
 
jammonius said:
Prove your assertions and stop making a priori declarations. Those who defend the common myth have, if anything, a higher burden of proof than those who challenge it.
Click to expand...
burden shift logical fallacy
I feel sorry for you, nonetheless. You are running up against the fact that there is no official explanation for what caused the destruction of the WTC. You cannot support your speculation; and, speculation is all that you are engaging in.

This situation will become both relevant and apparent once any real attempt is made to put KSM on trial. The prosecution will have the burden of proving what happened and they will have no official, reliable source for establishing what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...


not priori declaration. its a physical fact. less distance = less velocity. 104 mph vs 141 mph (at 70% freefall acceleration) also wtc towers had more mass above them to the tune of 63 more stories to do more compaction.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
You cannot support your speculation; and, speculation is all that you are engaging in.
Click to expand...

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

This situation will become both relevant and apparent once any real attempt is made to put KSM on trial. The prosecution will have the burden of proving what happened and they will have no official, reliable source for establishing what happened on 9/11.
Click to expand...

You can say that all you want. It doesn't make it true.
 
BigAl said:
Where to start with someone with so much ignorance and so much arrogance.

Here's a survey taken days after 9/11 that shows the exact height and expanse of the WTC rubble.



Here's a picture of the WTC1/2 debris pile extending well outside the 16 acres of WTC plaza. New Yorkers will tell you that the street that is underneath that rubble is West ST and it's about 6 or 8 lanes wide. The WTC rubble extended a similar distance in the other three directions.



The FEMA document shows 7 lower levels below WTC1 and 2. I walked several floors deep almost daily on my commute. Many New Yorkers did.


As for how rubble collapsed into the basements levels, read Report from Ground Zero and 9 Months at Ground Zero for details or better yet, talk to someone that worked on the pile. I have.



WTC7 was built on top of an existing electrical substation. There was no basement level.



The NIST WTC7 report makes no mention of a basement.

Click to expand...

Your first source references a college newsletter of some sort. Why are you engaging in this sort of deception? That source says nothing whatever that can contradict the photo evidence I have posted up.

Your source makes no claim that could conceivably contradict the photographic proof that GZ was flat.

You are failing here and failing miserably. Your other references are to FEMA and NIST, both of which do not offer up anything that can be considered reliable that would contradict the photos I have posted showing GZ was flat.

I have talked with, met with, interviewed people who "walked across ground zero prior to the destruction of WTC 7." They acknowledge they could walk across it as is shown here:

ht_fdny1820_11_100212_ssv.jpg


And that the impression of height, as shown here, is false:

Old%20Glory%20over%20Ground%20Zero.jpg


You appear to be engaging in nothing other than desparate obfuscation.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Prove your assertions ... Those who defend the common myth have, if anything, a higher burden of proof than those who challenge it. ...
Click to expand...
You have no valid idea what happen on 911 so you make up lies. The Photos prove gravity collapse and you failed to take physcis or engineering to clear up your ignorace on the topic.

If only you could stay on topic.

But the truth is you have to prove your assertions since the reality story of 19 terrorists killing 8 pilots and flying the planes into buildings at a 75 percent of plan, which beats your trying to prove you story by 75 percent.

Was 911 too complex for you to grasp? 19 guys take 4 planes and crash them into large, the largest buildings they could find. The biggest skill was cutting pilot's throats by coming up from behind. Flying 757/767 is easier than getting you on topic!

8 years of failure with off topic posting of delusions, this is your legacy, your evidence free tilting at windmills.

How many photos have never been released? many


Show the photo of the flat WTC 1 and 2 cores being flat. The photo you posted was near WTC 5 and 6 as they fought the fire from the street, not from the core of 1 and 2, so you failed so far.

Do you support Judy's dustified steel nut case idea?
 
Last edited:
still confused here

jammonius, I didn't have the pleasure of discussing this with you previously. Here is my last-chance effort. If you are "claiming" something...anything at all, please state it. Preferably in the appropriate thread. As of now, I have no idea at all what you are attempting to "prove," because you refuse to tell me. This seems odd.

We are discussing photos. You seem to think that these photos prove something. What is that?

Paraphrasing Horatius from another thread - You came here, to the JREF, to try and convince me of your idea. But you won't even explain it to me. Why are you doing that? You aren't convincing me of anything with this behavior. We have people pushing all kinds of ideas here; why should I be interested in yours?

Anyway, it's up to you.

ETA - I was at Ground Zero in early October, 2001. They had been working for 3 weeks, and ground zero was still not even close to being "flat" at that time.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Lame burden of proof shifting and endless demands for more proof, without posting up anything at all to prove the common myth.

Your post is, to put it kindly, a poor example of its kind. One would have thought that a more refined approach would be forthcoming.

Do better next time.
Click to expand...

You talk the talk Jammonius, but you can't walk the walk because you know you're a liar & a fraud.

Without evidence to back you up you've got nothing!

Truthers are punks who have no desire to have an historical education about world history, which is their main downfall!
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
How many floors of the 110 above-ground levels do you think ended up in the six underground levels ? Will your answer be embarrassing for you ? lol. Will you answer at all ?
Click to expand...

The building as a whole is 90% air in volume, bill. One could, in theory, put the entire structure in a volume equal to that of 11 of its stories.
The debris however was spread out beyond the foot print of the building as illustrated in the aerial photo that Al posted the link to. This shows, among other things, several floors of the perimeter columns lieing outside the footprint.

So, 7 stories below grade and several stories above grade and a significant percentage beyond the original footprint of the building. I have no problem with this accounting for all of the material used in the construction of the towers.

How embarrassing for you.

ETA: It also must be embarrassing to claim that it is strange that no MET charts show the massive hurricane threatening NYC when in fact on 9/11/01 the skies over NYC were clear and the wind very light.

I don't live on the east coast. Tell me, is it common for people to get worried about storms so far out in the Atlantic that they do not even produce clouds on the nearest N.American shores?
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Your first source references a college newsletter of some sort. Why are you engaging in this sort of deception? That source says nothing whatever that can contradict the photo evidence I have posted up.

Your source makes no claim that could conceivably contradict the photographic proof that GZ was flat.
Click to expand...

You didn't look at the height data in that newsletter, did you? It's exactly what you asked for.

As I say before, where to start with someone with so much ignorance and arrogance.
 
twinstead said:
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.



You can say that all you want. It doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

twinstead,

Let's assume for the moment that your attempt to level both sides in this discussion, making them equivalent, is a proper thing to do. Even assuming you've succeeded in doing that, for purpose of this discussion, that does not bode well for those who support the common myth.

The fact is, there is no official, valid explanation for what happened on 9/11. The absence of a reliable explanation of the event is an astonishing fact and one that lends itself quite well to the assertion that 9/11 was a false flag op. It is a fact that what happened has not been explained.

It is also a fact that the common myth explanation requires a complete and total breakdown of almost all known countermeasures; the ability of a few people in caves to outwit the entire military apparatus of the United States; the ability to pilot and navigate, from over the horizon, widebody jetliners based on a few hours training in puddle jumpers; just to name only a very few of the mind-boggling factors we are required to accept as a given in the common myth. The complete and total suspension of disbelief and of critical thinking is required to accept a myth that has not ever been shown by an authoritative investigation to be true.

That state of affairs should not be acceptable in a democratic, educated society.

Moreover, we remain vulnerable to other and more deadly attacks on us in the absence of awareness of what happened, followed by a proper determination of who did this to us.

At present, we do not have an official accounting of either what happened or of who did it. We are not likely to make progress determining who did this to us until we figure out what happened.

I am here searching for common ground. The desire to defend the common myth is understandable. Most of us want to think we can believe that 19 Arabs with boxcutters did this because that is neat, simple and gives us an enemy we can understand.

The problem is, that explanation does not make sense and has not ever been proven to be true.
 
jaydeehess said:
The building as a whole is 90% air in volume, bill. One could, in theory, put the entire structure in a volume equal to that of 11 of its stories.
The debris however was spread out beyond the foot print of the building as illustrated in the aerial photo that Al posted the link to. This shows, among other things, several floors of the perimeter columns lieing outside the footprint.

So, 7 stories below grade and several stories above grade and a significant percentage beyond the original footprint of the building. I have no problem with this accounting for all of the material used in the construction of the towers.

How embarrassing for you.
Click to expand...

The greater plaza was 12 times the footprint of the towers. If spread evenly, the debris of the towers would just be a modest pile.

WTC7 is more of a pile because it had a power substation on the street level. They don't compress so good.
 
jammonius said:
twinstead,

Let's assume for the moment that your attempt to level both sides in this discussion, making them equivalent, is a proper thing to do. Even assuming you've succeeded in doing that, for purpose of this discussion, that does not bode well for those who support the common myth.

The fact is, there is no official, valid explanation for what happened on 9/11. The absence of a reliable explanation of the event is an astonishing fact and one that lends itself quite well to the assertion that 9/11 was a false flag op. It is a fact that what happened has not been explained.
Click to expand...


jammonius has just changed the topic after having his but kicked on the nature of the WTC debris pile.

Of course he can't produce any support for this topic, either.
 
BigAl said:
You didn't look at the height data in that newsletter, did you? It's exactly what you asked for.

As I say before, where to start with someone with so much ignorance and arrogance.
Click to expand...

Are you really defending that source, Big Al? Is that what you are relying on as proof?

By the way, you have provided a link to a pdf document that contains what 12 pgs in newsletter format, most of which pertain to the activities of students.

Earth to Big Al: Your source is invalid as proof of the height of the debris at GZ.

If you claim otherwise, then post up relevant portions of actual text that will at least show posters here what you claim as proof. You have not done that. Further, I am surprised you'd offer up a student newsletter as proof of an important claim about what happened on 9/11.

A student newsletter!:eye-poppi
 
BigAl said:
The greater plaza was 12 times the footprint of the towers. If spread evenly, the debris of the towers would just be a modest pile.

WTC7 is more of a pile because it had a power substation on the street level. They don't compress so good.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Al.
The assertion that the amount of debris is not consistent with the material used in the towers is laughable. But then we are dealing with people who believe that J.Wood is onto something.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom