Lack of debris at Ground Zero.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

It has been postulated by Wood/ Johnson that there was a severe lack of debris at Ground Zero.

In Johnson's "9/11:Finding the Truth" talk which I attended last night this point was raised by Johnson and "backed up" by this photographic evidence -



"Look at wtc7 behind the smoke" says Johnson, "this picture was taken before wtc7 collapsed, where's all the debris? where has it all gone? Most of it turned to dust" he claims confidently.

So I decided to try and find out.

This is what I found...



That's at least more than Johnson's picture.

Then there are these...

Note the vehicles to the left dwarfed by the spread of debris.



And here...



And here...



Debris spread wide, piled up against other buildings.



Men lifted in a crane inspect a pile of debris.



Men dwarfed by debris pile



There are many more.

I asked Andrew Johnson about the "lack of debris" on the night of his talk and if it related, in his mind, to the possibilty of DEW being used.

He insisted that indeed that was the case. DEW had been used turning the towers to dust and that's why there was a "lack of debris" as seen in the picture he used to prove this as seen in the top picture.

I then asked him if he believed that there was a similar lack of debris at the wtc7 site.

He said it was debatable.

I then suggested that it is pretty untenable to suggest a lack of debris at wtc7 because there are several pictures of it in a big heap.

As seen here...



The picture above is certainly less indicative of a "lack of debris" than the one Andrew Johnson uses in his talk to suggest a "lack of debris" for wtc1 and 2...

Here it is again...




I then asked him why there would be a discrepancy between the "obvious lack of debris" at wtc1 and 2 and the "lack of debris" at wtc7 if DEW were used to bring down all three buildings as Johnson believes.

He said "they" probably used a different energy weapon for wtc7. But he wasn't sure why.

[gruts]

ah yes - the "lack of rubble"....

what judy and her fanboys tend to do is look at a few carefully selected photos which show a tiny fraction of the rubble and make comparisons between the height of the buildings and the height of the "rubble pile".

what they don't tend to do is take into account that the buildings may have been a quarter of a mile high but the vast majority of their volume consisted of thin air - as well as not considering the true radius of the debris field or the depths of the basement levels.

the twin towers contained an awful lot of empty space....



and there is actually a lot of rubble scattered over a very wide area if you care to take a look at enough photos instead of cherry picking just a few.

try these for example....

http://zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/

denying this (and deliberately avoiding the issue of the wtc7 rubble pile) seems like deliberate deception to me, and is symptomatic of judy wood's complete lack of credibilty and the overall flimsiness of the case she makes.

her idea that the twin towers were brought down by some sort of energy beam fired from orbit is just pure speculation, based on her own highly speculative claims about the "dustification" of the wtc steel, which she has derived from speculating about "lack of rubble", based on her own subjective interpretation of a few photos - and supplemented with highly dubious speculation about "toasted cars" and red herrings like hurricane erin.

can anyone seriously describe this as "scientific research"?

and how gullible would you have to be to believe the towers were brought down by space beams based on this kind of "evidence"?

incidentally, the real smoking gun here is how rapidly and secretively the steel was removed from ground zero - so believing in this "lack of rubble" theory seems to neatly let the perps off the hook for that particular crime.

coincidence?

what's much more relevant than judy wood's false claims about "lack of rubble" is the real evidence which indicates that there was no "dustified steel" in the wtc dust. all the dust samples that have ever been analysed for their content have shown iron levels from less than 1% to just over 4% - which is roughly what you'd expect given that iron makes up 5% of the earth's crust and is thus present in pretty much all the materials that the wtc buildings were made of (concrete, fibreglass, paint, asbestos and so on). if a significant proportion of the wtc steel was "dustified", there would have been much higher levels of iron in the dust....

now, as has been pointed out by micpsi - it is possible that there was "dustified steel" but it somehow separated itself from the rest of the dust and then somehow avoided landing in all areas from which dust sample have been taken for analysis - but I really do think this is rather unlikely.

and if it's true that there was no "dustified steel", then pretty much everything that judy wood is saying has to be complete *.

and funnily enough, you won't find anything about this issue on her website.

the presence or absence of "dustified steel" in the wtc dust is the most obvious, pertinent and easily available evidence for or against judy wood's theory and she avoids it completely.

you have to wonder why....

I've noticed that judy wood's forum gimps also run away from this topic like Usein Bolt with his arse on fire. just as they do whenever inconvenient truths about the bullsh1t they're peddling are being exposed.

[Micpsi]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

To say the buildings were "dustified" is more than just a little far fetched if not just purely pseudo-scientific.

There are many pictures which show masses of steel remaining at GZ instantly disproving that claim.

I know the argument then comes from the beamers that the DEW used only "dustified" certain elements enough to cause collapse but that again seems like an argumental condition too far.

That along with the fact that the rubble pile at WTC7 doesn't have the same "lack of debris" and when faced with this discrepancy the beamers will just say "oh well err..they used a different DEW to bring down 7."

Sorry. It just doesn't work for me.

Wasn't there an issue with the concrete in the WTC1 & WTC2?

I seem to remember hearing that the concrete used was of a lower grade and lighter and that may account for the masses of dust we see in the "collapse" videos?

[Stephen]

That third to last photo looks a bit dodgy. Are they all from www.drjudywood.com ? theres one or two that might not be if so please give Source: Because Judy Wood makes sure all her photos are soured when possibile.

[Stephen]

There should be a tower there infront of WTC 7 but instead we see next to nothing left after the tower turned to dust. Were is the pile of steel girders?

[Stephen]

There doesnt seem to be that much in the way of 400 storeys worth of steel in this picture. you couldnt get 10 storys of the ground with what is left in this picture.

[Stephen]

Theres not much debrie left in this photo either. Most of looks like its at ground level. But with these above shots your providing it makes it differcult to gudge how much there really is, but there should be more stuff down there.

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Thanks for your posts Stephen.

I think the point is that the suggestion made by the Wood/Johnson photo has a serious shadow of doubt cast over it when using other photos that show much much more debris than is suggested by Wood/Johnson.

I guess it's a question of perspective.

Is there enough debris or isn't there?

Perhaps we'll never know.

[Stephen]

And maybe they uesd a different kind of weapon apart from DEW? That we do not know about? I'm open to other possibility's.

I know in some pictures the rubble looks a lot but that could be down to bulking in up with all that soil.

Masive masive buildings remember and pretty much dissapeared in a few seconds.

Did Uncule Rudy ship/truck it all out by September 12th

[fish5133]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Are the Wood camp claiming there should be 400 storeys?

Why?

[gruts]

I think they're just taking the piss in a desperate attempt to avoid confronting the real evidence showing that what they believe in is a load of *.

I've done some further checking of the "evidence" on judy wood's website and there really is b* all on there that doesn't consist of easily debunkable speculation. she doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on for any of her claims.

the "Inspiring 9/11 Forum Discussions" page makes for mildly interesting reading, in that it consists of extracts from killtown's now defunct sockpuppet forum on the subjects of hurricane erin, "lack of rubble", "dustified steel", "toasted cars" etc - most of which just repeat the ususal misconceptions, logical fallacies and falsehoods that have been exposed here - but there's a few interesting comments as well.

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/inspiring_911_forum.html

I was also slightly shocked to find part of an exchange between me and ace baker on another page....

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/forums/evidence.html

then there's "the story of the official truth movement" set to music....

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/thermite1.html
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/cc/thermite2.html

sadly it doesn't include Ace Baker's inspirational power ballad tribute to judy herself....

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html

[Stephen]

[fish5133]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[Stephen]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

Another contradictory photo.




Look how high the debris piles stand at either side of the tiny people.

With this sort of evidence readily available for anyone with a PC you really do have to question the integrity of the Wood hypothesis, which afterall bases the "no debris" theory on one cherry-picked photo.

Please post any photos you find.

Supporting either side of the debate of course...

[flamesong]

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[John White]

[John White]

Btw nice thread GSTT

[sam]

[/img]

[Andrew Johnson]

Hmmm - you missed out 2 of the photos that Dr Wood had found in the various archives I SHOWED in the presentation - you can see them here:

http://tinyurl.com/911key

people walking around in the basements - all these items have been addressed. In any case, your basic position is this, it seems - Dr Wood's conclusions are incorrect. Hence, I ask again:

WHAT *DID* Destroy the WTC? Post your independent research as to what did it.

Thanks!

People who want to see what Dr Wood has done recently can see the updated page here:

http://tinyurl.com/911qtam

Hmmm looks like she is so convinced about what the evidence tells us, she has "taken it higher".

So what are you folks going to do?

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[Stephen]

[Dogsmilk]

[Dogsmilk]

[gruts]