• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Frank Greening Refuted Easily

TruthSeeker1234 said:
http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

The Banker's Trust building is in the foreground. Each twin tower is about 3 1/2 times the size. So 7 times the BT building "falls down", and we get a crater? Look at the dark round crater where WTC1 stood. See it?

There are lots of pictures of GZ. I've done the hi-res hunt. No floor assemblies. No piles. Buildings gone.
Click to expand...
First, this picture was taken from such a high point and at such a sharp angle, that it is difficult to judge the size of the debris field or its vertical height. Even if one grants it doesn't look like a big pile, looks can be deceiving from such a height, distance, and angle. Have you subjected this picture to expert analysis of what vertical pile is revealed in it? I'd say you'd need a surveyor and/or topology or mathematics professor to really discuss this thoroughly and expertly.

Second, have you got the provenance on this photo, i.e. when was it taken? (and, preferably, by whom?) Was it taken after major deconstruction of the site began? There is very little debris dust on surrounding streets, so we know it's at least after the first heavy rain that weekend after 9/11. I also see very little smoke coming off the pile, which I believe puts it quite a while after 9/11. So, unless you can, as I say, provide provenance that it was taken before, say 10/11/01, I'll consider that date the earliest it could've been taken. Actually, it was probably taken way later than that, because it is clear from this picture that the "vestigial walls" of WTC1 and 2 that existed immediately following collapse, are no more and have therefore been cleaned up (anyone have a date on that?).

Thus, this picture (unless you show provenance and expert analysis) provides nil evidence as to the size of the pile immediately after the collapses on 9/11/01, and therefore nil evidence of how much debris was ejected outside the footprint.

Regardless of what one picture might reveal, in American Ground, an Atlantic Monthly reporter, who was at GZ for the first 6 months of the clean-up reporting on it, says: "In the end, 1.5 million tons of ruins were extracted from the seventeen acres of the Trade Center site." I've seen others quote a 1.7 million ton value. It would appear this (approximate value) is a widely accepted fact.

TS: How does this fact jibe with your statement that the towers turned to dust ("most of the mass of the towers was turned into pow[d]er, and ejected outside the footprint") and were spread all over lower Manhattan? If so, where did that 1.5 million tons in Ground Zero come from? I expect rigorous math to convince us.

Recap of requests:
1) Rigorous, expert analysis of photo.
2) Provenance/date of photo.
3) Calculations showing where 1.5 million tons of debris carted away from GZ came from, if not from Towers 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:
The hi-res hunt is from Sept 23. The NOAA photos.

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The hi-res hunt is from Sept 23. The NOAA photos.

The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Click to expand...

So you accept the pictures from the Government Agencies without question, but everything else is untrustworthy? Why then do you trust the photos? Even if we can provided you with perfect photo evidence of the pile of debris, what's to stop you from just dismissing that as manufactured, along with the "reports" you've dismissed?
 
Horatius said:
So you accept the pictures from the Government Agencies without question, but everything else is untrustworthy? Why then do you trust the photos? Even if we can provided you with perfect photo evidence of the pile of debris, what's to stop you from just dismissing that as manufactured, along with the "reports" you've dismissed?
Click to expand...

Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
Click to expand...
and yet there are no photographs of unexploded bombs, detonation cord, pre-drilled columns, star wars death rays, missiles.....
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but 99% of the photos you show are undated and uncredited. You display photos that were obviously taken weeks or months after 9/11 and pretend they from just a few days after 9/11.
 
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Yes, images can be manipulated. But, 9/11 is one of the most photographed events ever. We have many, many independent sources. Thus, the photgraphic record is the best evidence of what occurred.
Click to expand...
"Images can be manipulated," but it's "the best evidence"? Hmm...

We have many, many independent sources for the amount of debris carted away as well: contractors, Fresh Kills supervisors, firemen, policemen, ironworkers, truckdrivers, barge operators, etc. They kept count of how many trucks were carted away every day, and it is known how many tons a truck can carry. Do you think all those people are lying? Do you think they could somehow manufacture hundreds or thousands of truckloads that didn't exist, and someone wouldn't call them out on it? Bluntly, what do you think they were doing on that site for 9 months, twiddling their thumbs and counting dust motes?

Wow, you CTists sure live in a strange world.

Your saying the photo was taken 9/23/01 is not proof. Please provide documentary proof that shows when it was taken. I will accept hardcopy or online.

Even if you do, though, what does the pile on 9/23 have to do with the pile immediately after the collapses? Very little. Therefore, this picture really shows nothing about the collapse.

I see you've ignored my request for independent, expert analysis of the photo, which shows very little at that height and angle to the untrained eye. Of course, it's a moot point now, now that we know the picture was taken after much cleanup had already occurred.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The reports of 1.5 million tons of this and that are just that - reports. The whole reason for the truth movement is that we don't believe the official reports. Inventing numbers for a report is the easiest thing in the world to do.
Click to expand...

You and your friend, Judy Wood, know all about inventing numbers... don't you?
 
[trainwreck]

Trigood, earlier tonight, at work, a collegue and me were watching Bob Ross on tv (don't ask) and for fun I looked up his website. I saw something that seemed familiar, and I knew it was from this forum.

How about this, eh? :D

splashWildlife.jpg


http://www.bobross.com/

[/trainwreck]
 
Bell said:
[trainwreck]

Trigood, earlier tonight, at work, a collegue and me were watching Bob Ross on tv (don't ask) and for fun I looked up his website. I saw something that seemed familiar, and I knew it was from this forum.

How about this, eh? :D

http://www.bobross.com/art/splash/splashWildlife.jpg

http://www.bobross.com/

[/trainwreck]
Click to expand...
I got my avatar from a random Google Images search -- are you implying I stole it from Bob Ross? HarUMPH!

Actually, that's a pretty cool painting. I always wished I could paint that well. I liked that other Bob guy who was on PBS, what was his name? I think he died.

Now, I must go bye-bye and nighty-night so I can get up for churchie-poo tomorrow.

And no,I'm not chugging (is that what trainwreck means?). I'm like this naturally, ha ha ha....
 
Trigood said:
I got my avatar from a random Google Images search -- are you implying I stole it from Bob Ross? HarUMPH!
Click to expand...

No, please, no! I just thought it was funny they looked alike :)

Actually, that's a pretty cool painting. I always wished I could paint that well. I liked that other Bob guy who was on PBS, what was his name? I think he died.
Click to expand...

I don't know the other Bob. You're not confusing with Bob Ross? He died in 1995.

Now, I must go bye-bye and nighty-night so I can get up for churchie-poo tomorrow.

And no,I'm not chugging (is that what trainwreck means?). I'm like this naturally, ha ha ha....
Click to expand...

Trainwreck is just my exaggeration of [derail] :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom