Split Thread Judy Wood and dustification

[jammonius]

Give it up Jammonius! All I see is the steel core FALLING to the ground & not turning to "dust".

You really can't grasp the concept that you're 100% WRONG!

What is the source of your overriding concern for declaring yourself right and me wrong in connection with data that I post?

Grasp this: Do you think I would post a video segment showing something that I say is turning to dust if it was not reasonable to interpret the data in that manner and where the data are 100% the other way?

Note, too, that, yet again, there is no official explanation that any of us can rely on as to what happened to the WTC complex. None. So, at a bare minimum, don't you think it prudent to allow at least a few percentage points in favor of something that you, yourself, do not have a strong need to believe in?

Or, put it this way: Does it sadden you just a little bit -- say, 23% worth -- that no official, valid explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex was ever done?

By the way, instead of declaring the information I post up in support of propositions I'm supporting are 100% wrong, hadn't you ought to post up something that affirmatively supports your claim?

For someone who is doing next to nothing to support your assertions, you sure are "right" a lot about information that I am posting and that you are not posting.

In fact, you are engaging in a cheap trick by doing that.

For instance, here's something that intrigues me about your side. The common myth claim is that all the steel was shipped to China. Well, China is a country, to be sure, but would you agree with me the claim "the steel was shipped to China" is a tad bit vague. To whom was all the steel shipped, by whom, when, and who apid what to whom to have that done?

Is that a part of the common myth that you support? If so, on what basis do you support it?

 

[Rocket_Scientist]

Is it possible to gather solar energy from space and microwave it back to earth? Economically feasible?

Had to answer this as we just got back from my daughters girl scout international night. In a word MAGz......no. But an excellent question as compared to the tripe that Bill and jammonius are just throwing out there.

Again it all comes down to size and weight. You should see the size of the solar panels that are required for a 25Kw spacecraft bus. The space industry uses the most efficient solar cells available. The type of solar array that you're referring to would be measured in tens if not hundreds of square miles to provide that kind of power not to mention the losses involved in "beaming" it down from space. It would take years to build an array like that. Just look at the ISS and how long it took to get it built

Microwave energy is still RF energy and no matter how tightly focused the beam, the recieved energy is still going to be just a small fraction of the transmitted energy when it travels a few hundred miles. But in order for something like that to work, the solar arrays would have to be in a GEO orbit to maintain their position above the receiver, which means a 22,000 mile orbit...so even bigger losses.

I'm not even going to address jammonius's post about what someone saw up in the sky or his coy reference to "secret" or classified projects ( I know a friend of a friend of a friend who knows someone nonsense). The type of weapon that's being implied here requires power that just can't be produced on a scale that would make it portable (as in aircraft) or launchable into space. The ABL the Judy woods keeps showing as "proof" of DEWs can only punch a small hole through the very thin skin of a missle...not "dustify" steel.

 

[Thunder]

Is that a part of the common myth that you support? If so, on what basis do you support it?

how does the fact that 350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ, factor into your "dustification" theory? each tower had 100,000 tons of steel.

hmmmmmm?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

My answers are in bold:

What is the source of your overriding concern for declaring yourself right and me wrong in connection with data that I post?

Because you fail to present evidence to support your kookiness.

Grasp this: Do you think I would post a video segment showing something that I say is turning to dust if it was not reasonable to interpret the data in that manner and where the data are 100% the other way?

You have no idea how to turn something as solid as steel to dust. It's not possible in the realm of reality!

Note, too, that, yet again, there is no official explanation that any of us can rely on as to what happened to the WTC complex. None. So, at a bare minimum, don't you think it prudent to allow at least a few percentage points in favor of something that you, yourself, do not have a strong need to believe in?

There is an official explaination, it's called the 9/11 Commission Report. Either you're too lazy to read all the way through it or you just like to sit at your computer pretending to be an expert into Star Wars based weapons that don't exist.

Or, put it this way: Does it sadden you just a little bit -- say, 23% worth -- that no official, valid explanation of what destroyed the WTC complex was ever done?

What saddens me is that you are a failure to explain why you have no evidence to back up your claims. You are a failure!

By the way, instead of declaring the information I post up in support of propositions I'm supporting are 100% wrong, hadn't you ought to post up something that affirmatively supports your claim?

You supplied the photographs & I pointed out that you're not seeing the whole picture.

For someone who is doing next to nothing to support your assertions, you sure are "right" a lot about information that I am posting and that you are not posting.

And yet I used your own photraphs to prove you wrong, so I didn't need to supply any information when you did that yourself.

In fact, you are engaging in a cheap trick by doing that.

Magic has nothing to do with it. Looking with your own 2 eyes at a picture that totally contridicts your story is not magic.

For instance, here's something that intrigues me about your side. The common myth claim is that all the steel was shipped to China. Well, China is a country, to be sure, but would you agree with me the claim "the steel was shipped to China" is a tad bit vague. To whom was all the steel shipped, by whom, when, and who apid what to whom to have that done?

No, it's called RECYCLING. You know those blue trash cans they give everyone, it has a recycling symbol on it? Nothing "vague" about recycling!

Is that a part of the common myth that you support? If so, on what basis do you support it?

I support it on the photographic & physical evidence. What basis do you support your garbage?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

how does the fact that 350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ, factor into your "dustification" theory? each tower has 100,000 tons of steel.

hmmmmmm?

100,000 tons of steel from WTC 1

100,000 tons of steel from WTC 2

150,000 tons of thermite.

= 350,000 tons of iron and steel scrap.

Simple.

 

[Thunder]

100,000 tons of steel from WTC 1

100,000 tons of steel from WTC 2

150,000 tons of thermite.

= 350,000 tons of iron and steel scrap.

Simple.

u silly boy.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

elmundo

ElMondo. Get it right.

That is so illustrative of your propensity to inaccuracy; you can't even get my forum nickname correct. Yet, for some odd reason, you expect us to accept that you' re accurate about something that requires more than a quick glance to get correct.

OK, first Big Al, who has now realized GZ was flat, now, perhaps, it will be your turn. Thanks for resurrecting the last thread that used a lot of that CUNY lidar data to show that GZ was flat. In that thread, a pause was reached at a certain point when posters realized the lidar mapping was showing street level in almost all areas, except where the remants of WTC 3-6 were, and, those remant, 5 to 6 story buildings were clearly the highest structures remaining, by and large.

The photo you have relied on in post #180 is not dated. It shows, I believe a pile that was created by the cleanup process, and not present in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Instead, the following is a truer representation of the flatness of GZ:

http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/DEW/dewpics/Image276.jpg

Saying it was undated is a weak cop-out. Here is that image again:

Look in the lower-left corner of it:

Note that the firefighters are gathered around a stretcher bearing a dead body. That dates to to a point early in the cleanup before they brought in the heavy equipment. So no, your attempt at an excuse failes; the debris you see in the background was indeed in its post-collapse state, but prior to significant cleanup efforts. As is also proven by the fact that the firefighters are still present in their turnout gear, demonstrating that they were present for firefighting duties too.

More photos demonstrating the height of the pile:

And why would the cleanup crews create multistory piles of steel during cleanup when the goal was to get the debris to the various recycling sites? That is just a silly, silly cop out you gave.

Also: No, the LIDAR data conclusively proves that GZ was not flat. Again, from the previous thread, since nothing has changed since 2008 when you were first told this:

• Here, Spitfire demonstrates that you have no ability to interpret the LIDAR data properly:
  

  Although the key is illegible, I will take your word that the color gradations go from -25 to 100 and that there are 5 colors. OK so far? So that means each color has an undifferentiated range of 25 ft, still OK? That means, then, that simply within each color, your chart measurement has a possible error of from 1 to 25 ft.

  
  No, it absolutely does not mean this. You have misunderstood, conveniently, the purpose of the color-coding. The boundaries between colors are like contour lines on a topographical map; they merely indicate that all of the areas of a certain color fall into a range of heights. This should be clear from looking at the map, as there are significant details easily discernible within each band.
  
  In fact, according to an article from Point of Beginning, from March 28, 2001, the accuracy of LIDAR surveys at the time was within ± 2 ft, and possibly better depending on conditions.
  
  

  Note, if the entire chart is only showing 125 ft, of which only 100 is above 0, the chart contains a built in error rate of 25%
  
  That is useless information, in my view.

  
  The above belies a gross misunderstanding of the interpretation of engineering data. First, "error rate" refers to the frequency of errors within a data set. The term you want is "accuracy." Second, as has been noted, even if the accuracy were ±25% (which it isn't, as discussed above), the chart would still indicate that the debris pile for 1 WTC was at least 75 ft tall Additionally, the "entire chart" shows over 1000 feet of altitude; the color bands near the surface are the narrowest because that area is of the most interest.
  
  

  What those of you who need this chart to work for you might do, is correlate specific areas of it to some of the better photographs posted on earlier pages of this thread. This assumes, of course, that there exists a genuine interest in knowing the height of relevant areas of GZ.

  
  How this chart aligns with a map of Ground Zero is obvious, because the outlines of the remains of most of the buildings is obvious. And as for "need[ing] this chart to work," it's quite clear that you are the one who desperately needs it not to work, as it utterly destroys your one-story debris pile fantasy.
  
  

  Perhaps all of us can step back here and ask ourselves whether, within this thread, there exists sufficient data to advance the state of knowledge on the issue of GZ's height?

  
  Wishful thinking. The evidence presented is overwhelming; however, you clearly need to pretend that there's still room for debate.

• Myriad gives more explanations about the LIDAR data:
  

  This was mentioned in passing by WildCat much earlier in the thread, but I don't think anyone paid enough attention to it.
  
  LIDAR mapping was used at Ground Zero after 9/11 to create (and then continuously update) extremely precise and accurate maps of, among other things, the rubble pile heights.
  
  A National Geographic column explains:
  

  Additional LIDAR views showed color-coded heights of the damaged structures and the constantly shifting rubble piles. This information helped officials know how tall debris-removal cranes needed to be.

  
  (On might ask, why would officials need this information if the debris were no more than a story high? Any crane can reach a height of one story. Fortunately, there's no need to engage in such speculative, albeit convincing, questioning. The maps themselves exist and can be examined.)
  
  A CUNY publication explains the project in more detail, including its background in pre-9/11 digital mapping work, and how the new technologies it had developed were put to use in rescue and restoration efforts. I recommend this fascinating article for anyone who hasn't read it yet.
  
  Images generated from some of the maps themselves are now part of the collection of the Library of Congress. Posted here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/911-maps.html. Of particular value is the post-September-11th flythrough visualization video (link is about halfway down the page, on the right side). This is based on the same LIDAR data used to plan rescue operations, locate and repair damaged utility links, and plan debris removal. Note that in some areas the rubble is relatively flat, and in others it's piled many stories high.
  
  CARSI's Web site, including current personnel and contact information, and links to other publications and media reports, is here: http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~carsi/.
  
  Directly from that site, the height of the rubble piles on 9/19/01: http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~carsi/INDEX/CURRENTAFFAIRS/exhibit/lidar_sep.htm. It shows that the top of the rubble piles (NOT counting still-standing structures) relative to the surrounding street level reaches the 75-100 foot elevation range in both tower footprints. Note also the regions of negative elevation, especially in the plaza area where the pre-9/11 elevation was about 30 feet higher than the surrounding street level -- which is certainly not possible without damage to the underground structures in those areas.
  
  More images and renderings here: http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~carsi/
  
  This is unambiguous and decisive evidence of large debris piles.
  
  No claims of lack of large debris piles require any rational consideration whatsoever unless they address this evidence.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Myriad

• Holulele also adds her professional expertise to refuting your claim
  

  OK, here are a few more images that will hopefully clarify the scale of the debris. All three images are of the southwestern corner of the site, with WTC 2 to the right, one end of WTC 3 in the middle, and the southern skybridge off to the left. Downloading the images to your computer may make them easier to view. The first image shows the aerial photo of the area of interest (click to enlarge).
  
  Note the skybridge makes a clear landmark to help determine size, location, and scale. The next image is the same section of aerial data with the LIDAR TIN overlay.
  
  This is to give a sense of perspective and to verify that the portions of the images I am discussing are in fact oriented and located correctly. The last image shows the same area in the LIDAR TIN.
  
  Again, the skybridge can be clearly seen. The color of the top of the skybridge is the pale yellow (not any shade of brown), and you can clearly see that the middle of the elevation range across the debris pile inside the footprint of WTC 2 matches this shade, and covers almost half the area of the footprint. This means that almost 50% of the WTC 2 debris pile was between 50 to 75 feet above street level. This corresponds to a (very) rough conservative estimate of 21,500 sq.ft * 60 ft = 1,290,000 cu.ft. of material for just half of the area of the pile.
  
  ETA: I should clarify, half of the area of the pile above street level. I refuse to enter the debate about debris below street level. /ETA
  
  Also note that you can see the blue areas that most likely represent the outer wall panels and the remnant of the core which fall in the 150-200 feet above street level range.
  
  One last thing I should point out here that can help in estimating the size of the debris pile is the average slope across WTC 2's footprint. When estimating slope from survey data (regardless of the type of survey), there are a few things you can check. For the purposes of this image, we only need one of these methods which is to look at the width of each elevation band.
  
  For example, when you look at the skybridge, the color changes from the tan of the road surface to the pale yellow of the top of the bridge in a short horizontal distance. There are a few TIN faces that show the mustard yellow color that represents elevations between 25 and 50 feet. The outer wall panels jump from tan to blue almost instantly. Both of these areas are in extremely steep slope, pretty much vertical.
  
  On the other hand, when you look at the tan area around the skybridge, there are hardly any changes in color, with just the occasional face in orange, meaning the area is fairly flat. You can see a few bumps in the tan areas of the TIN, which most likely correspond to the construction, emergency, and other service vehicles on the site (all less than 25 feet tall). Just think, a full-sized truck is barely a pimple at this scale!
  
  The debris pile within the footprint of WTC 2 has bands of color including the mustard yellow (25-50), pale yellow (50-75), bright yellow (75-100), and culminates with the greens and blues of the core remnant. Measuring these bands (they average 40 feet in width) and comparing them to the elevation ranges gives us a slope of about 62.5%. Considering the steepest road grades you will typically encounter are only about 12% (with a few as much as 20%), this is a huge, steep pile.
  
  The site at Ground Zero was not flat.

  I am glad you appreciate the modest effort I have put into analyzing those images, and I am also glad that you realize the absurdity of the < 1 storey claim for the debris pile at WTC 2. Kudos for appreciating how the data clearly demonstrates the 75+ foot claim in several areas of the site (the bright yellow areas) and admitting that 8 storeys is a number much closer to reality for large areas of the site. It is a shame that people who have been following this discussion from the beginning may still fall into the error of believing the nonsensical claims that the site was "flat" and most of the building materials were "missing". It is good to see that you agree that the volume of material remaining on site was huge by any reasonable standard.

It was very clearly demonstrated that the peak heights were not merely buildings 3 and 6, but in fact were around WTC 2. The data very clearly, unambiguously refutes your claim. QED, the matter was settled, you are simply trying to resurrect an already falsified claim.

I suppose next someone will get the bright idea that, "oh wait, all of the debris was in the sub-basements." You, however, know better, don't you elmundo. I have already posted up photos of the intact mall which was on the 1st sub-basement level (i.e., the highest). I have already posted both photographs of intact stores, of people freely walking around that 1st subbasement and a map of the stores, haven't I elmundo.

The subbasements were shown to be severely damaged. From my June 2008 post to you:

That is false. The subbasements were relatively undamaged. There was no signficant collapse of those floors.

Your statement is absolutely, utterly incorrect. All evidence points to the opposite, that the subbasement levels were heavily damaged, and that there was significant collapse of those floors.

Visual surveys indicate roughly 50% of the seven-level basement structure of the World Trade Center is now rubble as a result of the impact of the collapse of the twin 110-story towers...

...
"A significant part of the south tower fell in and collapsed everything," says Joel L. Volterra, an engineer with Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, the city's local engineer on the bathtub.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20011008b.asp

When the twin towers collapsed, the falling structures demolished most of these supporting slabs. Portions of the permanent basement slabs crushed when the twin towers collapsed into the WTC basement.

http://www.deepexcavation.com/casestudies4.html

Much of the tower debris that had crashed into the basement could not be removed before the 3-ft-thick walls were pinned back because, in many places, the compacted debris had replaced the floor slabs that supported the walls.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/ENR/20020401a.asp

The primary challenge facing workers below ground is how to remove debris from the WTC's 16-acre basement without tipping over the Center's slurry wall...

... When the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed down, so too crumbled the six supporting floors, "so the slabs are not there, the floors are not there, but the debris is doing what the floors used to do," says Daniel Hahn, senior associate engineer at the consulting company Mueser Rutledge."

http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html


Other sources:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B00E2D61E3DF937A35751C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B04EEDD143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

The testimony from recovery and debris-clearing workers onsite was that there was indeed significant collapse of not just the basement levels, but of debris into the WTC "tub". The final height of the debris pile is the height of the underground portion of the debris pile plus the portion which is above ground. Ergo, if you insist that the segment above ground was one story tall, you are admitting that the debris pile was multistory.

I have already posted both photographs of intact stores...

You posted a single image, and was forced to retract your claim that it demonstrated it was intact. Remember?

Here, for rank starters, then, is the Warner Bros. Store that was located on the first sub-basement level -- that is, the level closest to the surface, right underneath the towers -- what debris?

It takes a series of photos to illustrate the nature of the underground levels at the WTC; and, here for starters is an overall depiction, providing the basic elements of the all important "bathtub" that encompassed the WTC to keep it dry. Had it been damaged -- it wasn't -- the site and much of lower Manhattan would have been flooded:

1-Slurry walls form water-tight bathtub.
2-PATH rail lines pass under WTC 2.
3-Even cracks in the bathtub would allow water inside.

jammonius:

That picture of the Warner Bros. store is actually at hanger 17 at Kennedy airport. Sorry.

http://www.amny.com/news/local/groundzero/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,17616.photogallery?coll=amny_news_local_groundzero_util

I will say this, I did not know the Warner Bros. Store items were in hangar 17. Thanks for that information.

You were forced to retract the claim. Furthermore, we gave further evidence that the basement levels were in fact collapsed; see my 2008 post to you quoting engineers above.

Your argument was already defeated back in 2008.

 

[jammonius]

ok. 100,000 tons of steel were in each tower. according to FEMA and a 9-11 Truther site, 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from GZ.

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

dustification? what dustification? they found enough steel to account for all the towers and WTC 7.

I challenge the validity of the source of the above information. Weighing of steel is a fairly exacting task. When and how was that done?

And, compare the weighing assertion with this contradictory information:

"The New York Times reports that “some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts” believe the investigation into the collapse of the WTC is “inadequate” and “are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.” Experts critical of the investigation include “some of those people who are actually conducting it.” They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power, inadequate financial support, and little staff support. Additionally, it has been prevented from interviewing witnesses and frequently prevented from examining the disaster site, and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. The decision to recycle the steel columns, beams, and trusses from the WTC rapidly in the days immediately after 9/11 means definitive answers may never be known. [New York Times, 12/25/2001] Incredibly, some of the steel is reforged into commemorative medallions selling for $30 apiece. [Associated Press, 1/30/2002] "

Moreover, the information above, though helpful, tends to overstate the issue of remnant steel.

The main point here is that there was never an adequate investigation, such that claims about what steel was removed, when, how, let alone how much, are inherently unproven and speculative.

On the other hand, the photographs show that GZ was flat.

 

[A W Smith]

air

more air

Even more air

 

[TJM]

I think it's important to state for the record that this thread has, among other things, a wookie arguing against the existence of the Death Star.

 

[bill smith]

I don't know if you've seen this huge slow loading zoomable picture of CZ and surroundings. Have a look at the footprint of WTC1 guys.

http://www.stopgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/10/sat_photo_911.jpg the big brother

Well if that one doesn't load maybe this one will...

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg The baby (slow loading)

These fantastic links do actually load. they may just need a litle more time. Maybe open the big one in a tab and leave it to load. It's worth it. Photo from 23.09.2001

 

[dtugg]

Judy Wood is ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy.

 

[beachnut]

Hey posters, beachnut believes there's meaning to the claim that the two tallest buildings in the world (when built) were made of 95% air.

beachnut, you do realize you are engaging in a dire form of misleading propaganda in your 95% air claim, don't you?

beachnut. Please do better next time.

And I suppose they were struck by alleged jetliners that were solid missiles, rather than hollow aluminum tubes, right?

I am an engineer, and you can't rent out space taken up by parts of the building, each floor was only 4 inches thick and thin steel pans, and below, trusses spaced out.

The WTC were 95 percent air, if you want to challenge it, produce your failed truther math; make my day.

You can't rent space inside of solid steel. Sorry you were wrong again, but you must be use to being wrong after 8 years of failure and spreading moronic delusions and idiotic ideas. Good luck

How thick are 110 4 inch floors?

37 feet tall!~ NEXT Life take math! Math is good, 911 truth is stupid.

Why were the WTC designed with a massive core and clear floors!? To rent more space! Why does Rice play Texas? What happen to our education system? I hope you are not from the US, not that I wish this terrible plight on another country.

The best part about your failure is a photo proves you forgot to think and look before you leaped. What is 5 percent of 110 floors????

5.5 stories high, like 50 feet

Got math?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I think it's important to state for the record that this thread has, among other things, a wookie arguing against the existence of the Death Star.

LMAO AJM!

I can't help it that Jammonius thinks he's Empire Palpatine & that he said that the steel turned to "dust" because he bases his assumptions on a Sci-Fi movie like Star Wars.

I like Star Wars too but I know where fantasy & reality are. And clearly Jammonius is still stuck on fantasy! There are no Death Star based weapons in space, & I don't care how much Judy Wood or Jammonius says they "exist".

And to add fuel to Jam's fire, Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in 1977 & Lando Calrission blew up the second Death Star in 1983. So the Death Star didn't exist in 2001!

 

[bill smith]

I have steen the steel distribution estimated as follows. 22.500 tons core columns. 37,500 tons perimeter walls and 40,000 tons crossbracing and other uses.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

PS. Further photographic evidence of basement level collapses

Some other images demonstrating the damage to the underground areas. Again, from the 2008 thread where jammonious failed to learn anything:

This took all of 1 minute to find on google:

and this:

ETA: in case you can't tell, that's a path train.

 

[Thunder]

I challenge the validity of the source of the above information.

on what grounds? because the total tonnage of steel removed from GZ destroys your "dustification" hypothesis?

that is not how a true scientific-skeptic works. sorry charlie.

you're following the rules of pseudo-skepticism.

 

[Hokulele]

And how tall should the debris pile have been?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I think it's important to state for the record that this thread has, among other things, a wookie arguing against the existence of the Death Star.

Boy, he's gonna be in for a big surprise when he gets to the Battle of Yavin!

 

[A W Smith]

I challenge the validity of the source of the above information. Weighing of steel is a fairly exacting task. When and how was that done?

http://www.hugoneu.com/includes/pdfs/Speech-11-28-2001.pdf