Where did that 1/4 mile high building go?

[rodin]

The rubble is at ground level.



Substantial sections of the lobby perimeter wall were not hit by falling debris.



Judy Wood has been much discredited by the 'sensible' wing of the 911 truth movers. But since they line up behind a Utah Mormon with a very dubious pedigree, though a great line in selling his story, perhaps we have done her a disservice.

Points in her favour

1) Way the best and most intriguing set of 911 shots on the web
2) First person to point out the freefall collapse, now one of the strongest pieces of forensic proof of CD
3) One or her researchers was mysteriously killed. (You don't kill your own agents)

I think most likely micronuke-powered NDEW(s) in situ were used. But what are these things?

http://www.rense.com/general79/myst4.htm

Whatever, I am sure thermite was not the only material/method employed on 911. The lack of rubble is absolutely obvious from the above photographs

[John White]

[jfk]

[rodin]

@ John

Was Woods not first out of the blocks with the freefall calculations? I thought she was?

There is no rubble in the basement either. The contrast between the WTC7 rubble and WTC1 & 2 is off the scale! 1/4 mile high building - pretty much gone up in smoke

I know NDEW is not her choice of weapons. I still have a hunch some kind of microwave weapon was used, and that it was probably nuclear powered.

The Zebuhr incident has a likelihood of being connected to 911 > 50% IMO. It happened during a time of stress in the movement.

More later

[marky 54]

i just see and hear the same stuff repeated over and over as though the last lots of conversations and people pointing out the errors in conclusions and assumptions never happened at all.

the same errors are then reapeated and somehow that should be enough to convince people.

[rodin]

[John White]

[marky 54]

[John White]

[rodin]

[John White]

I really dont see the question of the towers collapse as a "Wood vs Jones" paradigm: thats totally false IMO, neither of them have a monopoly, they have parts of the puzzle at best

And whilst I respect your view that Wood's been misrepresented, do you also accept that Jones's theory has been deliberately misrepresented by Wood? (and other "no planes" type theory (I:E: unknown technology did it!) supporters?)

[rodin]

[Stephen]

What about this, I dont see any chunks of concrete?

[Stephen]

And this.

[gruts]

[Stephen]

[rodin]

[KP50]

[rodin]

[chek]

I think at this point it's worth adding some numbers to get a
better idea of what height of wreckage is 'expected' to put
Wood's 'where did it go' question into at least some sort of perspective,
even if they're only quick back-of-a-fag-packet style calculations.

"(If) each tower was made of 100,000 tons of steel and had a
total weight of 500,000 tons..."
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam2.html

"Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been
hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel
has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly
send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey."
N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

As far as the total amount of debris is concerned,
it's beyond me to calculate here how much dust flowed
away from the destruction so I'll just concentrate on the
amount of steel for now.
Most of the identifiable debris seems to be steel.

Taking 200,000 tons as a total figure for both Towers,
"carbon steel has a density of (1000 kg/m3) = 7.85
or
490 lb/ft^3 (The Manual of Steel Construction)"
http://efunda.com/materials/alloys/alloy_home/steels_properties.cfm

200,000 tons x 2240lbs = 448,000,000lbs /490 = 914,286ft^3 = 97.05ft cube

So gathering it all up, we'd have a solid steel cube almost 100ft per side.

The debris map, which I believe originated with FEMA but I got from
Jim Hoffman's site shows that the majority of the wreckage landed
within a radius of 2.5 times the building - with most
(the red striped areas) ejected out from the faces.



Only using the major red striped areas, this gives a debris
footprint of approx 6 times the area of a Tower, which at:
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sq ft x 6 = 259,584sq ft x 2 = 519,168sq ft
Dividing that square footage figure into our steel cube (914,286 ft^3)
gives us a depth of 1.76 ft. of solid steel entirely on the surface.

Foundation (the bath tub)
An 800- x 400-foot foundation box, 65 feet deep and with
3-foot-thick retaining walls, was under more than half the
World Trade Center complex, including the Twin Towers
and the adjacent hotel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html

Given that:
1. large if unspecified quantities of debris filled areas of the
sub-basements that themselves have a total volume of
20,800,000ft^3 (800ft x 400ft x 65ft);
2. the wreckage is not uniformly spread;
3. there are overlapping debris fields from each Tower;
4. the debris isn't entirely composed of steel;

what we see in the photos below and gruts' photo above
doesn't look that deficient or missing much material to me.

Perhaps someone can point out if there's a flaw somewhere
in the above calcs before my estimation of
Judy 'where'd it all go?' Wood and her selectively
chosen 'edge of the destruction' photos plummets any further.

Ground Zero wasn't called 'the pile' for no reason.

[gruts]

thanks for the info chek - perhaps you should forward it to judy wood? you never know, she might learn something....

I believe her email is lisajudy [at] nctv.com

[chek]

[alwun]

compare:



with:


leaving many people puzzled as to where the concrete debris actually went.

cheers Al..

[chek]

[marky 54]

im pretty sure this is the exact same arguement that has been discussed and errors in the claims pointed out before.

why do people just repeat the same claims with no new evidence being brought forward to challenge what was previously concluded?

i could understand if some new information had come to light, but its just the exact same claims with the exact same conclusions, but then why would the conclusions change when the so called 'evidence' has'nt?

[fish5133]

Chek. Think your steel volume calculation might not be correct given that the main steel core columns were actually box section from the photos ive seen. So the volume of steel would need to take into account the void in the box section
Another consideration is the bulking factor of loose materials. Loose materials take up a greater volume before they are compacted

I did start a simplified calculation of volume which I cant find but it would be something like

Total surface area of external tower facades x avge notional thickness

A single floor area (inc concrete, ceiling floor screeds and carpets/tiles x nr floors x avge thickness

Internal steel core columns 47nr x total building height x avge notional cross section area of box column

Allowance for internal walls per floor x nr floors

Allowance for fixtures and fittings % of each storey volume.

Allowance for air handling ducting in ceiling space

(excluded everything in all basements levels as only talking about debris pile.


The simpler method is that of experience knowing what rubble ,buildings do leave when they collapse or controlled demolitioned
IMO the debris pile is only a small piece of evidence compared to the free fall speed , manner and explosive nature of "collapse" . The huge dust volumes are important though even if it was concrete floors or plasterboard walls.

[rodin]

Chek

Thanks 4 yr eforts. Maths I thinkis correct, but debris field is not 'solid Steel' I doubt it is 5% steel. Heres why.

The beams do not stack as on a supermarket shelf. They are radomly arranged as per a bonfire. Compare the density of a bonfire with a solid block of wood. 5:1? 10:1? That area I think from my days of bonfire building.

Lets say 5:1. But then, the beams themselves are not solid extruded rods. they are hollow boxes, and H-Beams. H-beams occupy about 4x the space of a solid bnlock same weight. So - the debris field visible should be about 20 times the volume you calculated.

Here is your likely culprit for taking out some of that mass especially people, concrete etc. Prolly a number of these or similar devices, maybe with thermite cutters.

Pay attention to the effect of WATER on the radiation residue

http://www.vialls.com/nuke/bali_micro_nuke.htm

[chek]

Thanks for the feedback Fish and Rodin.

As I said, these figures aren't set in stone so much as thrown out to establish some sense of scale.

One thing that I think has been misunderstood is that I didn't calculate volume of debris per se, so much as give us a starting figure based on the generally agreed weight of steel.

I appreciate that the random wreckage pattern is far from being easily identifiable as the 21" thick steel ingot that would account for all the steel that should have been there. However, contrary to the impression that Judy Wood is trying to create, there were massive piles of debris in the main fields, though not at the edges as she seems careful to suggest, such as with the covered walkway and other selectively chosen photos.

And there's a lot more compression under the weight of a million tons of rubble as compared to say a domestic bonfire. Also bear in mind I discounted the basements which had to be dug out, and most of the side areas of the plaza.

It may surprise you Rodin to know that for a long time I was a secret - and not so secret -nuke fan myself, using the same sites. I'm sure I discussed it in some of my earlier posts here. But I made a decision after the Wood schism and the subsequent Scholars' break up that every conventional avenue should be exhausted twice over before being seduced into the far easier realms of speculation concerning 'unknown' technologies.

Since making that decision I'm more convinced now than at the time that the events at the WTC can be understood and accounted for without resorting to 'magic' solutions, where every hard question can be side stepped by being 'unknown'. And being mindful of the sheer amount of disinformation emanating from the Wood faction has only confirmed my suspicion that they don't make bargepoles long enough. Plus her fans make me despair for the world as it might be were Wood-type logic to prevail.

I came across some debris shipping records on another forum a while ago. At the time I wasn't concerned about 'missing material', but maybe I should see if I can find them again and see what they tell us in the context of this thread.

[rodin]

I went through a period of not taking too seriously Sherman Skolnick and Joe Vialls, but the more I read and see happening the more what they said does not seem so outlandish - more insightful and ahead of the curve.

Joe Vialls was also almost certainly the whistleblower in this story

[rodin]

I think Vialls makes a strong case for Bali Micronuke. It would be interesting to check his technology details with industry insiders. Point is - if used @ Bali then they are common ordnance, and obvious choice for massive structures. SADM means small atomic DEMOLITION munition. I mean, it says what it does on the tin!