Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

carlitos said:
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.
Click to expand...

carlitos,

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
Click to expand...

Wait. I'll match your anecdote with one of my own on the quoted assertion. I was there at about the same time and what you were allowed to see was a fence. Nothing extended above the fence. There was a crane, with a hose that was squirting some substance on a downward arc, not unlike that shown here:

ht_09ffcotten%20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg


At the end of the crane, by the hose nozzle, someone dressed up like a firefighter was perched in a chair, presumably aiming the nozzle. I remember the person's face had an orange tint. Unfortunately, I fear for that person's long term health. He was not in a good position.

I also remember thinking, but only fleetingly, "where's the pile, this place is flat."
 
jammonius said:
Are you really defending that source, Big Al? Is that what you are relying on as proof?
Click to expand...

Hunter College (one of the fine units of the New York State University system) runs a Geophysical Sciences department. Their services were used to map Ground Zero in order to get a handle on the size of the pile. You couldn't ask for a better source.

I suspect that jammonius doesn't have much familiarity with a University of any sort. How can someone have so much arrogance and ignorance in one head.
 
jaydeehess said:
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:
Click to expand...


jaydeehess,

Permit me to offer a comment here. You demand next to nothing in the way of proof of assertion from Big Al. His comment does not prove anything concerning the almost complete and total flatness of ground zero.

Were you to exercise the same extreme degree of skepticism towards Big Al that you put forth in connection with the actual pictorial evidence that confirms GZ was flat, you would be livid that Big Al is trying to prove something with rank speculation and no sources and no visual proof at all.

Face it jay, you want to believe GZ was a huge pile because it is necessary to believe that in order to support the common myth.
 
BigAl said:
Hunter College (one of the fine units of the New York State University system) runs a Geophysical Sciences department. Their services were used to map Ground Zero in order to get a handle on the size of the pile. You couldn't ask for a better source.

I suspect that jammonius doesn't have much familiarity with a University of any sort. How can someone have so much arrogance and ignorance in one head.
Click to expand...

Prove your assertion with quotes from your college newletter, Big Al. Your student publication is not an authoritative source; and, in any event, you haven't shown anything from it that proves what you claim it proves.

Of course, here amongst people who tend to want to believe there was a huge pile at GZ, you aren't being asked to prove your claim.

But, just for kicks, why don't you quote the newsletter and show us what it says re the height of GZ?

I here assert that it does not prove the claim you are attributing to it and I further assert GZ was flat as shown in the photos I have posted in this thread.
 
jammonius said:
jaydeehess,

Permit me to offer a comment here. You demand next to nothing in the way of proof of assertion from Big Al. His comment does not prove anything concerning the almost complete and total flatness of ground zero.
Click to expand...

This is from the text you failed to read under the WTC height data image you refused to look at. Notice the "accurate to six inches" bit.

http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/geonews/october2001.pdf

September 11-Researchers began at 7 pm on the day of the attack,
assisting the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) by printing 54" by 70" cartographic maps from the NYCMap database. Specifically, these maps contained building "footprints" (outlines of buildings, street centerlines, curb lines, etc.) This is a planimetric or blue-print uperimposed over the original ortho-rectified photograph of the area. Once completed, these maps were delivered to bunkers at the temporary
command center at the policy academy.

September 13-Daily Flyovers of the WTC site took
aerial photographs of the debris surface, yet in printing
out these new ortho-rectified images, a good portion of the
images were smokecompromised, and thus it was
difficult to get a good idea of what the site looked like. It
was at this time that LIDAR was suggested as a way to
penetrate the smoke. September 15-The first LIDAR
dataset is produced from the EarthData International
flyovers. LIDAR measures the time it takes for a laser
pulse to travel to the ground and back. Not only
can LIDAR penetrate the smoke, but global positioning
instruments on the plane give the locations coordinates and
elevations, producing 3-dimensional dataset accurate
to within six inches. A grid of about 100,000 points spaced
about a yard apart is produced, and then analyzed by
CARSI. Colors were used Since September 15, LIDAR
Click to expand...

Were you to exercise the same extreme degree of skepticism towards Big Al that you put forth in connection with the actual pictorial evidence that confirms GZ was flat, you would be livid that Big Al is trying to prove something with rank speculation and no sources and no visual proof at all.

Face it jay, you want to believe GZ was a huge pile because it is necessary to believe that in order to support the common myth.
Click to expand...

The pile wasn't huge (as in high.) two acres of WTC tower footprint were spread over about 24 acres of open plaza.
 
In reference to hurricane Erin(2001)

Bill, did you notice that Judy Wood debunks herself on her own site?

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/erin/CNN_Erin.html
She writes:
Hurricane Erin track. Hurricane Erin was the closest to NYC on 9/11/01. Why didn't we hear about this in the morning news?
Click to expand...

and then posts a CNN weather report on Erin dated(bolding mine)
"September 11, 2001 Posted: 7:30 AM EDT (1130 GMT)"
A weakening Hurricane Erin with top winds of 90 mph headed north Tuesday, away from the United States on an arching route also expected to spare Canada
Click to expand...
It caused nothing more than large swell and greater tides to the N.E. USA. It dropped a moderate amount of rain on the south coast of Newfoundland. It did not even do any damage to Bermuda which it grazed when it was at its strongest.
 
jammonius said:
jaydeehess,

Permit me to offer a comment here. You demand next to nothing in the way of proof of assertion from Big Al. His comment does not prove anything concerning the almost complete and total flatness of ground zero.

Were you to exercise the same extreme degree of skepticism towards Big Al that you put forth in connection with the actual pictorial evidence that confirms GZ was flat, you would be livid that Big Al is trying to prove something with rank speculation and no sources and no visual proof at all.

Face it jay, you want to believe GZ was a huge pile because it is necessary to believe that in order to support the common myth.
Click to expand...

Is the world flat? Nope! So why do you think that Ground Zero would be flat when alot of witnesses who were there said that the pile reached 6 stories in most places? Kind of rules out your "flat" theory about 9/11 doesn't it??
 
jammonius said:
carlitos,



Wait. I'll match your anecdote with one of my own on the quoted assertion. I was there at about the same time and what you were allowed to see was a fence. Nothing extended above the fence. There was a crane, with a hose that was squirting some substance on a downward arc, not unlike that shown here:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_09ffcotten%20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg

At the end of the crane, by the hose nozzle, someone dressed up like a firefighter was perched in a chair, presumably aiming the nozzle. I remember the person's face had an orange tint. Unfortunately, I fear for that person's long term health. He was not in a good position.

I also remember thinking, but only fleetingly, "where's the pile, this place is flat."
Click to expand...

You were a month tardy. This aint flat, This is what it looked like on the 17th of September 2001
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_01.jpg
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
carlitos,



Wait. I'll match your anecdote with one of my own on the quoted assertion. I was there at about the same time and what you were allowed to see was a fence. Nothing extended above the fence. There was a crane, with a hose that was squirting some substance on a downward arc, not unlike that shown here:

[qimg]http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ht_09ffcotten%20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg[/qimg]

At the end of the crane, by the hose nozzle, someone dressed up like a firefighter was perched in a chair, presumably aiming the nozzle. I remember the person's face had an orange tint. Unfortunately, I fear for that person's long term health. He was not in a good position.

I also remember thinking, but only fleetingly, "where's the pile, this place is flat."
Click to expand...

And you only address the anecdote, an afterthought that I added after the important part of my post. How ... surprising.

Again, if you refuse to claim anything about that day, it's going to be tough for me to discuss this with you.

As to your particular claim about GZ being flat in October, 2001, you are either mistaken, lying or crazy. Not to mention, you appear to be unaware that there were 6 or 7 stories of hollow basement below ground level.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
jaydeehess,

Permit me to offer a comment here. You demand next to nothing in the way of proof of assertion from Big Al. His comment does not prove anything concerning the almost complete and total flatness of ground zero.

Were you to exercise the same extreme degree of skepticism towards Big Al that you put forth in connection with the actual pictorial evidence that confirms GZ was flat, you would be livid that Big Al is trying to prove something with rank speculation and no sources and no visual proof at all.

Face it jay, you want to believe GZ was a huge pile because it is necessary to believe that in order to support the common myth.
Click to expand...

jammonius, permit me to comment as well.


The Hunter College study was done by people who actually know what they are doing. I do not know if the entire study exists online. That may be why Al has not posted the study itself but rather a news letter report about it.

Even if you were correct there is still a 7 storey below grade volume that would have been filled with debris.
We know for certain that the below grade volume was packed with debris.
As pointed out as well the debris was spread over 24 acres which is 12 times the footprint of the towers.
The towers were 90% air by volume. so if you kept it within the original footprint you could compress all the material that makes up one storey (at 3 meters each) into a pile 30 centimeters high. Spread it over 12 times that area and you can compress one storey to a height of 2.5 centimeters(that's essentially 1 inch )
Even if only half of the building was in the below grade volume the low limit on the height of the 'pile' above ground would be less than 150 centimeters(or 5 feet).

So, it all comes back to your own personal incredulity.
 
Jammonius states:

I also remember thinking, but only fleetingly, "where's the pile, this place is flat."
Click to expand...

ht_09ffcotten%20_wtc_100212_ssv.jpg


But then again he must be blind not to notice the pile in the background where the smoke is coming up from. Or he choose the ignore what we all see in the picture's background! He only produces the foreground image only & never the background image in his mind.
 
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I think these photos will breathe life back into the ' dustifiction' argument if that's what you mean. You surely didn't think it had gone away did you ?
Click to expand...

what percent of the steel and concrete do you believe was turned to dust?
 
parky76 said:
um, I was down there. some parts of the pile were a good 10 stories tall.
Click to expand...

Then it's settled, Jammonius is a lying sack of (use your imagination)! He's telling everyone here that GZ was "flat", it's like saying that there were pink elephants in the debris along with the flying monkies who flew themselves into the Towers.
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Then it's settled, Jammonius is a lying sack of (use your imagination)! He's telling everyone here that GZ was "flat", it's like saying that there were pink elephants in the debris along with the flying monkies who flew themselves into the Towers.
Click to expand...

flat? like you could lay a lazer on the ground and it would shoot all the way across to the World Financial Center?

fascinating. truthers say a lot of retarded things. this is why their "movement" is nothing more than a whisper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom