[Split]Debris piles at GZ- split from: UL Moves For Sanctions Against Morgan Reynold
- Thread starter jammonius
- Start date
Ditto me everything above.
I think it was Rocky Marciano who used a similar tactic "Kill the body and the head dies" he would pummel the arms and torso of an opponent until he could almost push him over to win. Brutal but highly effective.
BV
I see it's been a busy day on this thread. I guess I'll start with the most recent first and try to work my way back and pick out posts, unlike the one quoted here, that advance the discussion and might benefit from a reply from me.
In the main, it appears there are two open items:
1--Ongoing attempts to make it seem as if the debris pile is taller than 1 storey, irrespective of overwhelming photographic evidence, and now, in addition a number of witness statements all confirming that the debris pile was not as high as people expected.
I think on this issue that we may need to agree to disagree. Or, maybe those who make themselves feel better by making self-congratulatory declarations concerning what they've debunked and who's crazy, etc. can go ahead and make those posts along with whatever emticons float their boat.
As for me, I don't think much is gained by making self-congratulatory statements about what is or isn't proven. I will say that more statements have been found confirming that GZ was <1 storey than I might have thought would be found; and that from people who probably didn't expect to find any.
2-Underground levels intact. In order for the 9/11 myth to have even the slightest bit of validity, it seems it is absolutely essential that there have been underground damage. Again, all of the proof that has been posted, and I mean 100% of the proof -- confusing the subway with the PATH station is not proof; or, at a minimum, failure to show the relationship of the subway station to GZ with proper maps and diagrams is simply inadequate -- has all shown that there was no underground damage.
Look, the visual evidence and the aftermath confirm that those towers were dissolved in midair. Kerosene and conventional explosives can't do that.
Let me try some additional witnesses. Actually, they're not 'additional' as I've already mentioned their names. But posters, these witnesses DESCRIBE THE BUILDIKNGS DISAPPEARING IN FRONT OF THEIR OWN EYES.
The word is "DISAPPEAR." That is the phenomenon they describe AND that description is confirmed by the absence of any subsequent debris. The two elements of the puzzle fit.
The video we all saw shows the building dissolving in midair, almost instantaneously. However, as that is a direct example of SHOCK & AWE and subsequent propaganda, most people don't believe what they themselves actually saw. They'd rather dismiss that, not even mention it, and just go with what they were told by someone in a suit on TV, probably easy to look at -- eye candy.
Next, people really want to believe there was a lot of debris. I have said the photos don't show this and the data do not show damage underground. It seems, the state of play there is to try to say the debris stack was at least 5 to 7 storeys as that seems to be a number that someone said somewhere would be the bare minimum expected for a 110 storey building, assuming another 7 or so were underground. Even that stretch is far wide of the mark because the actual number should be 220 not 110. There were 2 110 storey buildings only feet apart. Thus the resulting stack, had their been one should have been double the bare minimum number that some have tried to extrapolate.
Thus, in that respect, the failure of the conventional explanation to account for debris stands as a valid position that supports destruction by exotic means, in the form of DEW.
Here are the links to the three statements where first responders testify to the disappearance of the Towers before their very eyes:
And oh, by the way, these are merely 3 examples, there are others.
Capt Ray Goldbach
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110150.PDF
EMS Chief Zachary Goldfarb
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110145.PDF
EMS Capt Karin Deshore
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF
By the way, I have noted a tendency that I take exception to. Some posters have bad mouthed the witnesses apparently because they may not have agreed with what the witnesses said. I think that's a cheap thing to do. They were there and had a duty to be observant because that is what being a first responder entails.
Patricia Ondrovic reported on phenomena that are consistent with use of DEW and I think it is tawdry to try to downplay what she said.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
EMH,
OK, you've given me a good reason as to why you choose what to spend your time on.
Whereas you attempt to evaluate the debris pile height claim, I'd rather attack the "DEW caused a smaller than expected debris pile" claim.
Both are worthy efforts, I suppose.
Jammonious has ingnored almost all the questions directed toward DEW so far in this thread, and has invited someone to open a thread dedicated to that subject. I'd do that, but I think I've already seen that jammonious is going to dodge questions and try to muddy the waters as much as possible.
Good luck!
Greetings sts 60
I do not respond to rhetoric. I have said this before. However, as you are engaging in something like a 'double-down' on your rhetoric, seeking to bootstrap your way to a claim that you are somehow debunking Dr. Wood's claims by engaging in obvious rhetoric merits a reply.
The reply meritied here is one that explains why you are engaging in inappropriate rhetoric, which, simply means you are not asking questions in good faith, hence there's no need to answer them.
But, let me illustrate this once just so you know I'm not ignoring you; rather, I simply do not reply to rhetoric as doing so is pointless in the context of searching for actual information. That is what I'm doing; searching for and offering up information for assessment. I am not seeking agreement; merely views on what the information may be said to show.
If anything in the preceding paragraph is not clear, please revert as I think it important to have awareness of its content if you want to know what I'll respond to and what I won't, for whatever that might be worth. Please do not interpret what I'm saying here as a request to be treated differently than other posters.
Now, you start with the following rhetoric:
You said you have an SC, correct? You know damn well, then, that you're not going to find an answer to the question you posed on a goshdarn (I started to say something stronger) message board, don't you?
So, quite plainly, you haven't asked a good faith question, have you?
Beyond the rhetoric, it is not necessary for the nature of the charges Dr. Wood has made to post classified information on her website, assuming she had any such information, which I doubt.
What makes you think I'd want to discuss whether or not I have an SC on a message board? Again, you engage in rhetoric; that, and nothing more.
Restate what assumtions inform your declaration that it is necessary to have access to classified information in order to make claims about DEW? I quite frankly, do not think your assumptions, whatever they might be, are valid. However, the plain fact is that you have not stated what they are.
As you have indicated that "I am wrong" it is noted that that is a mere declaration. It is written in English, not holy script. Hence, it is nothing more than your opinion and you are welcome to it, but it sure doesn't mandate a reply from me.
I do not respond to declarations or jokes, usually; unless they're very special for some other reason. The remainder of your post consists in declarations and jokes and they are not deemed special by me.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
See what I mean, EMH?
A W Smith
Philosopher
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Jammonius:
Let me get a couple of things straight. In order for the piles to be as small as you say do you except the following?
(a) Iron workers involved in the clean up were involved in the conspiracy to some extent.
(b) The investigators that examined the debris at Fresh kills were in on it.
(c) The steel recyclers were in on it.
(d) Oh hell; Everyone that was at ground zero within the first few months was part of the cover up.
This is pretty much what you need to support your assertions.
Let me get a couple of things straight. In order for the piles to be as small as you say do you except the following?
(a) Iron workers involved in the clean up were involved in the conspiracy to some extent.
(b) The investigators that examined the debris at Fresh kills were in on it.
(c) The steel recyclers were in on it.
(d) Oh hell; Everyone that was at ground zero within the first few months was part of the cover up.
This is pretty much what you need to support your assertions.
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,963
Do you always like to ignore the basement? You do realize that's important,
It looks to me like they 'collapsed' I also saw massive pieces of debris from the exterior perimeter columns hitting the ground from the upper portions of the towers. They don't look 'dissolved' to me.
Behind a massive cloud of dust... Not the same as 'disintegrating'
I'm sorry, but steel columns don't simply 'dissolve' in mid-air.
The entire collapse of both towers took more than 20 seconds, it was by no means 'instantaneous'
What do you expect when you see the 1st ever 110 story building to collapse?
Yes most people were incidentally shocked by the sight of a collapsing 110 story building that was struck by a plane.
Covering a 16-acre area...
That's what I mean. If people don't believe what the witnesses who were there actually said, then the exercise is not one involving a search for information.
There's no further reply needed. I posted what people who were there said; and it has been dismissed. OK, go back to believing whatever you find convenient, and for whatever purpose you hold to be satisified by your beliefs. No problem and no harm, no foul.
If their statements that the buildings disappeared were metaphor, then there'd be debris left. There wasn't; hence when witnesses say the buildings disappeared, their statements can be taken as valid.
I will probably not post up any more witness statements. It seems what people who were there observed is not important here.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
Did'nt we see that in a James Bond movie?
Nope, you're not stating facts. You're seeking to buttress the common myth. I have repeatedly referred to what people who were there ACTUALLY said. I have just now responded to a post where what actual witnesses actually said was summarily disregarded as metaphor, without further comment, rhyme or reason.
Your little a)- d) ditty simply doesn't fly when what actually transpired is looked at. You're trying to buttress the seen and observed lack of debris through secondary means involving other people, other places and an attempt to label the claim there was no significant debris, as the buildings disappeared -- as per quoted witnesses -- as a conspiracy.
No, that is not at issue. Tactically, all you've done is construct your own strawperson argument and then concluded that your argument is a vast conspiracy and then you tried to attribute that argument -- the one you made up, consisting in items a) to d) as mine. They are not mine. They are yours.
A W Smith
Philosopher
We have no problem with what witnesses observed. We have a big problem with the twisted way you interpret it. It is perplexing that you are able to brush aside the entirety of their testimony only to focus on a single word cherry picked and fished out of context. This displays delusional behavior not shared by the majority of those in the civilized world. And if you cannot see that the debris pile is multi story in height in this Steve Spak photo
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc_cross.jpg
Then you really need to talk to a professional.
Did anyone tell the 9/11 truth believer the entire WTC complex was in the debris pile and dust spread around NYC. Plus in the smoke and gases from the fire.
Fact is, the WTC were 95 percent air, there is not 110 floors of stuff sitting around, there is only 5.5 floors of stuff available in each tower to cover on acre in a 5.5 story high pile of debris. And this was spread over 19 acres. Therefore the average pile would be estimated at half a story of stuff. This does not count the damage done to sub floor areas where debris could fall below ground level. Gee, some piles were several stories high due to air pockets and other ways debris comes to rest after a giant release of gravitational potential energy; in excess of 274 TONS of TNT. The falling towers energy release was like 274, 2000 pound bombs released on a small area. One 2000 pound bomb is enough to destroy a large building, we have that over 274 times on 9/11 just due to gravity. The lack of understanding of energy and gravity by this poster is staggering; but common among 9/11 truth.
So we have another failed idea being pounded into the ground by someone not capable of understanding physics when it comes to 9/11 due to some unknown bias, most likely. Does he think there is missing matter?
No missing matter at the WTC. Only problem here is understanding the real world.
Fact is, the WTC were 95 percent air, there is not 110 floors of stuff sitting around, there is only 5.5 floors of stuff available in each tower to cover on acre in a 5.5 story high pile of debris. And this was spread over 19 acres. Therefore the average pile would be estimated at half a story of stuff. This does not count the damage done to sub floor areas where debris could fall below ground level. Gee, some piles were several stories high due to air pockets and other ways debris comes to rest after a giant release of gravitational potential energy; in excess of 274 TONS of TNT. The falling towers energy release was like 274, 2000 pound bombs released on a small area. One 2000 pound bomb is enough to destroy a large building, we have that over 274 times on 9/11 just due to gravity. The lack of understanding of energy and gravity by this poster is staggering; but common among 9/11 truth.
So we have another failed idea being pounded into the ground by someone not capable of understanding physics when it comes to 9/11 due to some unknown bias, most likely. Does he think there is missing matter?
No missing matter at the WTC. Only problem here is understanding the real world.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Notice the elevation of west street. Note that the trident columns above the lobby and mezzanine levels have not been placed yet. Note the depth of the structure
Last edited:
Why doesn't someone start a DEW thread if that is what posters want to discuss? DEW is an interesting topic. I'm interested in it. I will engage in the discussion, if it is one, but not here in this thread. I have already indicated I won't likely respond immediately as I don't have time for back and forth put downs. But if people want to assess the issue of directed energy weaponry, then I suggest a new thread.
The above is a rather mixed up version of the standard explanation put out there by msm and other propaganda outlets. It's not bad. I've seen better; and, I've seen worse.
At this point I think it is safe to say we are dealing with another person who suffers from a mental illness. Just like Christophera and his concrete core, Jammonius and his/her One Storey Debris Pile could turn into another 100 plus pages of reality denial. Do we really want that?
Jammonius has seen and even posted pics which show that the pile of twisted wreckage was several storeys high, he/she appears to be totally unable to process information which contradicts the delusion.
You can post as many pictures as you like, Jammonius will never acknowledge that the big piles of debris are any higher than one storey. You won't win a prize, you won't win the debate and Jammonius won't be convinced. All that will happen is you might start to feel a bit ashamed of yourselves for taunting a mental case.
Whatever, I'm out of this thread.
Jammonius has seen and even posted pics which show that the pile of twisted wreckage was several storeys high, he/she appears to be totally unable to process information which contradicts the delusion.
You can post as many pictures as you like, Jammonius will never acknowledge that the big piles of debris are any higher than one storey. You won't win a prize, you won't win the debate and Jammonius won't be convinced. All that will happen is you might start to feel a bit ashamed of yourselves for taunting a mental case.
Whatever, I'm out of this thread.
Your photograph doesn't reveal much of anything and certainly does not provide a proper panorama of GZ giving perspective to that which it tries to show. I think your photo may be cropped version of this one:
Nope, it's still <1 storey overall. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't keep trying to convince yourself.
Note in the broader frame of reference, an ambulance towers over most of the debris that is on the same plane as the ambulance is.
Last edited: