FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Lack of debris at Ground Zero.
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Use of Dew in Streatham Vale?

Before we come to conclusions about anything, we should check the evidence. All the evidence. In the following presentation, we shall see that the evidence clearly points to top secret directed energy weapons being employed in the borough of Lambeth and this being covered up as "vandalism" and other "environmental problems" by the Streatham Vale Property Occupierss Association. As seen here.
http://www.johmard.com/SVPOA/CoH.html

On 911 we saw cars receive selective damage which it has been conclusively proved was due to space beams.

The SVPOA shamelessly labels this image



as simply "burned out car".

Really? Burned out?
Notice how it is only partially burned - why did the fire only affect part of the vehicle? How come there is still a fully inflated front tyre? Why is the bonnet mangled and pushed back like that? Why does the vehicle appear to have been partially dustified or rustified or whatever? The only possible explanation is beam weapons from space. Therefore that's what it was. Yet we're told it's simply a "burned out car".

Additional note - the graffiti in the background looks a bit like it says "NWO" - is this the NWO tagging their handiwork? Or a warning from a local DEW researcher?

On 911, we are asked



Well what did happen to these cars? Exhaustive research has failed to account for what happened to each individual vehicle on 911, why it was where it was and exactly how it got into the state it was. Yet this is surely the most important question the 'official story' should have answered. The 911 Commission Report totally failed to provide a comprehensive list of what happened to each and every car and why. Notice one car is upside down. How did it get to be upside down? Well we're not entirely sure exactly what happened to that particular car. Therefore directed energy weapons must have made it go upside down. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

So we see here -



"Dumped Car"

Why was it dumped? Why is one side of the front crimped in like that? How do we know it has been "dumped"? - Maybe they're waiting for a garage to collect it.
I cannot say exactly why that car is in that particular position and in that particular condition just from looking at a photo of it. Therefore directed energy weapons did it. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

Especially when we see clear evidence of the Hutchison effect at work in the immediate vicinity -





Note how the railings have bent outwards.



And does this look like enough debris to account for the twin towers?



So we see when we check the evidence, we are drawn to the inescapable conclusion beam weapons are being used in Streatham Vale.

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although Dogsmilk's analysis is tongue-in-cheek and heavy on sarcasm, he does make an interesting point.

Notice how easy it is to make a case with a few cherry-picked photos. That's precisely what Wood/Johnson do.

Anyone who collects a couple of photos with overturned cars in them and claims that the only way they have ended up in that position is that they were levitated by exotic space weaponry without any evidence whatsoever has to be bogus? Surely?

Stephen wrote:
sam wrote:
[/img]


The debrie pile has been mounded up and soil/landfill has been added to to increase its volume.


Prove it.

Prove that the space in which the vehicles sit isn't just what they have cleared and that the rest of the debris left wasn't as high as it appears in the photo.

Also earlier in this thread you say...

Stephen wrote:


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

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


Firstly, this quote suggests you have ignored the photos of massive amounts of debris at GZ and just clung on to the image presented by Johnson as proof of "no debris".

Also, if as you believe all the debris seen in the above photo was shipped in on trucks in a matter of hours, why do you suggest that it would be absurd to suggest that a lot of it could be shipped out by the following day?

Very poor reasoning.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogsmilk wrote:
On 911 we saw cars receive selective damage which it has been conclusively proved was due to space beams.


I'm not sure what all the song and dance from Woodywoodsdawood and Johnson are about.

If the cars were "toasted", even in NYC there are very few toasters that can handle something car sized.

Find out who needed a large number of oversized toasters delivered during September 2001, and bingo your perps are toast.

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

all this talk about toast is clearly just a deliberate obfuscation campaign to hide the real smoking gun of 9/11.

the photo in the top right clearly shows that the WTC has in fact been turned into a huge mound of cheese.



and anyone who denies that cheesification took place is obviously a gatekeeping shill.

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This debris did not exist.



Spot the tiny man in the middle of the debris that did not exist.


_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
This debris did not exist.



Spot the tiny man in the middle of the debris that did not exist.



Oh come on - don't you know soil and landfill when you see it?

_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
fish5133
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another of the so called "tell tale " evidence for something like the Hutchison effect having been rsponsible for WTCs collapse is the ongoing hosing down at Ground Zero of the debris and still ongoing in 2007 when AJ and Dr Woods visited GZ (as the photos show on the day that construction work and drilling was being undertaken). The following video either shows that
a) hosing down is a standard practice to satisfy Health and Safety requirements to control dust
or
b) the church hall in Selly Oak was destroyed by the Hutchison Effect and the hosing down is to control the ongoing effects of the Hutchison Effect

http://www.christ-church-selly-park.org.uk/demolition_video.html

_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How very irritating that this attempt to dowse Wood and Johnson in a small debris heap of scorn should be resurrected. How many hundred people seemingly vaporised, how many reduced to tiny particles of tissue samples? How much of those steel girders do pulverize (dustify's a bit cheap -pulverize is correct) before your very eyes. They're up there at the top of the buildings as they are pulverized to dust. This isn't explosives - it's radical disintegration.
For 1 and 2 it's from the top down, so as the energy lessens in the downward force, of course there's more steel, more concrete lumps, more whole body parts, - the force of the pulse lessens as its destructive force is dissipated
You're bound to be left with more whole parts towards the bottom of the structure
There's no need for toasted or flipped cars
All the images of the atomised disintegration of the towers and the huge billowing clouds of that disintegration of the towers is enough to know that something beyond explosive power was going on here
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul wright wrote:
How very irritating that this attempt to dowse Wood and Johnson in a small debris heap of scorn should be resurrected.


As usual, those who believe the Wood/Johnson hypothesis with unwavering blind faith feel that any analysis of their "theory" is somehow a personal vendetta on said proponents instead of merely an exploration of the "theory" and its validity.

Sure there are jokes and sarcastic comments from various posters but the overall objective of this thread is to analyse the claim that there was hardly any debris at Ground Zero (based on one photo) when the twin towers collapsed.

The fact that you have not accepted that the Wood/Johnson "no debris at GZ" picture at the very top of this thread is easily disproved by a plethora of contradictory photos and instead focussed only on the so called "scorn" suggests you have more than just an over emotional attachment to your belief system.

paul wright wrote:
How many hundred people seemingly vaporised, how many reduced to tiny particles of tissue samples?


Why dont you find out instead of asking those questions and present the answers here?

If DEW were used and the disintegrated bodies of those within the towers proves it, why weren't people around GZ disintergrated too or "toasted"
along with the "toasted cars"?

paul wright wrote:
How much of those steel girders do pulverize (dustify's a bit cheap -pulverize is correct) before your very eyes. They're up there at the top of the buildings as they are pulverized to dust. This isn't explosives - it's radical disintegration.


The fact is you are just repeating questions. The claim that there was a severe lack of debris at GZ, made using the photo at the top of this thread, does not stand up to scrutiny. Look at the photos to the contrary on this thread and then ask yourself why Wood/Johnson use the cherry-picked one and only that cherry-picked one.

You believe that the steel was pulverised but fail to accept the masses of steel debris spread high over a vast area as seen in many of the contrary photos.

The video does not prove the steel was pulverised or dustified or whatever. You want to believe that, so you see what you want to see.

paul wright wrote:
For 1 and 2 it's from the top down, so as the energy lessens in the downward force, of course there's more steel, more concrete lumps, more whole body parts, - the force of the pulse lessens as its destructive force is dissipated


Are you suggesting that you know exactly how the unproven use of DEW was operated? Do you have any proof at all that you can share here on this thread to back up what appears to be expert knowledge of DEW and its use on 9/11?

paul wright wrote:

You're bound to be left with more whole parts towards the bottom of the structure.


Then how do you account for those pieces being spread over a vast area? Some even stuck high up in buildings opposite the towers?

paul wright wrote:
There's no need for toasted or flipped cars


Easily debunked by googling "burned out cars" or some such.

paul wright wrote:
All the images of the atomised disintegration of the towers and the huge billowing clouds of that disintegration of the towers is enough to know that something beyond explosive power was going on here


You seem to be suggesting that just watching the video and believing the Wood/Johnson theory is enough to be right and you need never engage with any evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but this flawed approach to analysis and research is typical of the Woodite crowd.

They will just not accept any evidence which sheds light on a very flawed and ad-hoc theory.

Even if your observations were true, that does not account for the other facets of the Wood/Johnson hypothesis having little in the way of credibility when analysed by even a lay-person such as myself.

See links below.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:

The debrie pile has been mounded up and soil/landfill has been added to to increase its volume.


Sooooo.....

There was inadequate debris because of 'dustification'.
They feared people would notice.
They moved aside loads of original remaining debris.
They shipped in many thousands of tons of soil and landfill muck (in helicopters, as trucks could not drive up the debris pile to dump it)
They replaced the original debris, to give the right impression.


Perhaps the Hutchison effect or MiB light-pens were employed to freeze NYC in time while this was achieved?

They then took it all away, with MiB pens to scramble the minds of all the cleanup workers who were asking 'why the **** is this heap so full of empty baked bean tins and pizza boxes?'

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
paul wright
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 2650
Location: Sunny Bradford, Northern Lights

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
paul wright wrote:
How very irritating that this attempt to dowse Wood and Johnson in a small debris heap of scorn should be resurrected.


As usual, those who believe the Wood/Johnson hypothesis with unwavering blind faith feel that any analysis of their "theory" is somehow a personal vendetta on said proponents instead of merely an exploration of the "theory" and its validity.

Sure there are jokes and sarcastic comments from various posters but the overall objective of this thread is to analyse the claim that there was hardly any debris at Ground Zero (based on one photo) when the twin towers collapsed.

The fact that you have not accepted that the Wood/Johnson "no debris at GZ" picture at the very top of this thread is easily disproved by a plethora of contradictory photos and instead focussed only on the so called "scorn" suggests you have more than just an over emotional attachment to your belief system.

paul wright wrote:
How many hundred people seemingly vaporised, how many reduced to tiny particles of tissue samples?


Why dont you find out instead of asking those questions and present the answers here?

If DEW were used and the disintegrated bodies of those within the towers proves it, why weren't people around GZ disintergrated too or "toasted"
along with the "toasted cars"?

paul wright wrote:
How much of those steel girders do pulverize (dustify's a bit cheap -pulverize is correct) before your very eyes. They're up there at the top of the buildings as they are pulverized to dust. This isn't explosives - it's radical disintegration.


The fact is you are just repeating questions. The claim that there was a severe lack of debris at GZ, made using the photo at the top of this thread, does not stand up to scrutiny. Look at the photos to the contrary on this thread and then ask yourself why Wood/Johnson use the cherry-picked one and only that cherry-picked one.

You believe that the steel was pulverised but fail to accept the masses of steel debris spread high over a vast area as seen in many of the contrary photos.

The video does not prove the steel was pulverised or dustified or whatever. You want to believe that, so you see what you want to see.

paul wright wrote:
For 1 and 2 it's from the top down, so as the energy lessens in the downward force, of course there's more steel, more concrete lumps, more whole body parts, - the force of the pulse lessens as its destructive force is dissipated


Are you suggesting that you know exactly how the unproven use of DEW was operated? Do you have any proof at all that you can share here on this thread to back up what appears to be expert knowledge of DEW and its use on 9/11?

paul wright wrote:

You're bound to be left with more whole parts towards the bottom of the structure.


Then how do you account for those pieces being spread over a vast area? Some even stuck high up in buildings opposite the towers?

paul wright wrote:
There's no need for toasted or flipped cars


Easily debunked by googling "burned out cars" or some such.

paul wright wrote:
All the images of the atomised disintegration of the towers and the huge billowing clouds of that disintegration of the towers is enough to know that something beyond explosive power was going on here


You seem to be suggesting that just watching the video and believing the Wood/Johnson theory is enough to be right and you need never engage with any evidence to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but this flawed approach to analysis and research is typical of the Woodite crowd.

They will just not accept any evidence which sheds light on a very flawed and ad-hoc theory.

Even if your observations were true, that does not account for the other facets of the Wood/Johnson hypothesis having little in the way of credibility when analysed by even a lay-person such as myself.

See links below.


You think I was trying to present a pseudo-scientific argument there? No - just an observational one - merely the one on first observing the collapse, at the time - that the majority of the buildings turned to dust from the top.
That was clear from the start just purely through observation of the footage, not that I always believe what I see , though on the day footage appeared absurd along with what was presented
I wouldn't promote the Wood/Johnson theory as an absolute, merely that the integrity of the substance of those buildings and much of what it contained, apart from paper, disintegrated into dust
Merely from watching, everything else, at least at the top, becomes dust

I'm inclined to believe from some 8 years ago that some 4 or 500 people were vaporised with no remaining parts and some hundreds of tissue particles were stored for DNA identification
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sam
Wrecker
Wrecker


Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

paul wright wrote:

Merely from watching, everything else, at least at the top, becomes dust


And if that initial dust were merely smashed plasterboard (the third most common material at WTC and notoriously dusty when annoyed), concrete, fibre insulation and smoke, how would you be able to tell what was happening to the steel within the initial dust cloud? From watching, that is? You have X-ray vision?

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Lack of debris at Ground Zero. Reply with quote

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:
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.


based on your own pictures, there is barely ANY debris! how can you show those pictures and claim that there is lots of debris? there should have been TONS and TONS, PILES AND PILES, of steel and concrete, forming a massive debris pile! where did it all go?! where is all the debris?

amazing...

I think Dr. Judy Wood is right.

I think the nano-thermite push by Dr. Jonse and Richard Gage is meant to send the 9/11 Truth Movement chasing after a ghost. I think it is very obvious that an energy weapon did this.

Lastly, I should let you know that I recently messaged Richard Gage and AE911Truth to ask him to contact Dr. Judy Wood, and as a result, I have been removed from the Petition Signers list on AE911Truth.org, despite the fact that I have donated over $100 dollars to Richard Gage and his organization over the past several months. As of the morning of March 4th, my name was removed from the AE911Truth petition, so it appears that I have been removed from the petition simply for asking about Dr. Judy Wood. This is very concerning, because I have not done anything wrong by asking Richard Gage to talk to Dr. Judy Wood and consider her research, yet AE911Truth.org has removed me from their petition simply for asking about her once in a private email. In addition, Richard Gage has never replied to any of my emails over the past several months, not even one of them, but Dr. Judy Wood has responded to several of my emails in just the last week. Oddly enough, Dr. Wood predicted that Richard Gage and Dr. Jones would ‘blacklist’ me for mentioning her, and she was right.

Peace,

-Abe

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Into the Subfloors, the concrete pulverised by explosives and ejected over a wide area.
Even with a beam weapon where would the debris go? If it was burned in a fireball I'd expect a wonderful chemical reaction. You cannot turn matter into nothing without using or giving off a huge amount of energy.

_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'


“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”


www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:59 am    Post subject: Re: Lack of debris at Ground Zero. Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:

based on your own pictures, there is barely ANY debris! how can you show those pictures and claim that there is lots of debris? there should have been TONS and TONS, PILES AND PILES, of steel and concrete, forming a massive debris pile! where did it all go?! where is all the debris?

amazing...

I think Dr. Judy Wood is right.

I think the nano-thermite push by Dr. Jonse and Richard Gage is meant to send the 9/11 Truth Movement chasing after a ghost. I think it is very obvious that an energy weapon did this.


What's it like being in a cult?

Not only are you denying what you can see in the pictures with your very own eyes which is tons & tons of steel debris, you also fail to grasp why this thread was started in the first place...

The whole point of this thread is to point out to the Woodcult, that this picture....




...that she and her hanger-on Johnson use to conjure up in the minds of the gullible the idea that there was no debris at Ground Zero is completely cherry-picked AND utterly debunked by just simply googling.

Like this...



Can you see the tiny man?

The pictures used in this thread (apart from the cherry picked one from the Woodcult) feature cranes and debris-removing vehicles.

After failing to notice these vehicles you have missed the big question...DUN DUN DUUUNNNN - how long have they been there and how much debris has already been removed?

Just the fact that there are tons of steel debris in those pictures should be able to free you instantly from the cult you find yourself in.

Were the buildings "dustified" or weren't they?

What use is a court case claiming the buildings weren't there when the US Gov defense lawyer can exhibit picture like these?

Wood's court case is going to be a very short one methinks.

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:44 am    Post subject: Re: Lack of debris at Ground Zero. Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
based on your own pictures, there is barely ANY debris!

wow - thank you for providing us with such a vivid insight into the mindset of a judy wood cult member!

amazing....

PookztA wrote:
there should have been TONS and TONS, PILES AND PILES

well in the photos that's exactly what you can see - TONS and TONS and PILES and PILES - unless of course you are either visually impaired or engaging in full-on reality denial.

It's abundantly clear that there is a huge quantity of rubble scattered over a very wide area - and a huge quantity of "undustified" steel in the rubble.

are you also going to pretend that you can't see hundreds of non-pulverised sections of steel columns which you claim were turned to dust by a mysterious "beam weapon"?

what a joke....

what on earth are you going to tell us next - that water isn't wet?

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PookztA
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 07 Mar 2010
Posts: 73
Location: Illinois

PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was lots more debris after WTC7 fell. To see a good shot of the lack of debris from WTC1 and WTC2, check out these photos:




Wow, a whole lotta debris there from that enormous steel structured building that just "collapsed", haha.

I think for myself, so even though you guys don't agree, I respect your opinion, and I hope you respect mine too.

Peace,

-Abe

Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M1 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology

_________________
Abrahm
Spreading Psytrance & Love in the Midwest USA

Quote:

9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence http://pookzta.blogspot.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you see the cranes?

They're cranes aren't they? Not giant vacuum cleaners.

You need to put a date on the source of this pic so we can see how long they have been there for, to sweep up the dust - I mean remove the tons of debris....

_________________
http://www.youtube.com/user/bobzimmerfan?feature=mhum#p/a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
gruts
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PookztA wrote:
Wow, a whole lotta debris there from that enormous steel structured building that just "collapsed", haha.

(sigh) - as already explained earlier in this thread, the twin towers contained an awful lot of empty space. the buildings may have been a quarter of a mile high but the vast majority of their volume consisted of thin air....



PookztA wrote:
There was lots more debris after WTC7 fell.

not really - there was a neater, more compact rubble pile for sure, but that might have something to do with the fact that the design of WTC7 was completely different and - unlike WTC7 - the twin towers didn't fall into their own footprints, so debris was scattered over a very wide area.



so in answer to your question ("where did it all go?! where is all the debris?"):

believe it or not - the >90% of each building's volume that consisted of thin air was released into the atmosphere - and much of the rest of the building components were pulverised.

however, there is no evidence whatsoever that this included any of the structural steel.

that's why you can see hundreds of intact steel column sections in photos of the debris - just like in the one you posted.

here is another photo from judy wood's website that shows this very clearly....



there is no evidence for the use of DEWs in these or any other photos of ground zero.

in fact the obvious pulverisation of the rest of the building's contents and distinct lack of pulverisation of all those intact steel column sections - which stand out like a sore thumb in all the debris photos - is evidence against judy wood's claims.

and while we're on the subject, please could you explain what your "not enough rubble" speculation is based on?

judy wood's "research" on this issue consists of using her own subjective interpretation of cherry-picked photographic evidence to speculate about the "lack of rubble", and using that speculation as the basis for her wildly speculative "dustification" theory, from which she then speculates further that the twin towers must have been brought down by some sort of beam weapon fired from orbit.

it's not exactly a cast iron case is it? Rolling Eyes

it's also ironic that the same people who say that all images of planes hitting the wtc towers are fake, base their irrational claims about space beams on....a few photographs.

so are you just parroting her drivel or have you done some real research of your own?

specifically - please could you explain the method you used to calculate how much debris there should be?

and how have you estimated how much there is - taking into account the size of the basement levels and the radius of the debris field - in order to come to your conclusion that "there isn't enough"?

an analysis like this one would suffice....

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=105296#105296

and have you looked at examples of rubble piles of other demolished buildings for reference?

for example when Controlled Demolition Inc demolished the Hudson department store in Detroit (439 feet tall) back in the 1990s, the debris pile was on average 35 feet tall (ie less than 8% of the height of the building). again, you can't make a direct comparison because the building was very different and collapsed mainly into its own footprint - but it does indicate that your expectations of how high rubble piles should be after a demolition might not be realistic....

you'll have to forgive me for believing that you have no real basis (let alone evidence) for making the claim that "there's not enough rubble" - and it's just the usual argument from ignorance coupled with wishful thinking (which is the cornerstone of judy wood's "research" haha).

I await your evidence with interest....

_________________
Nyetu pravdy v Isvyestyakh i nyetu isvyestyi v Pravde
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group