WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

reply to post by LaBTop

there are videos and photo's in Mrs Wood's video, where you can see how high the debris pile in fact was

I have had just about enough of you. Are you saying the picture I presented is fabricated? Are you saying that There is a more relevant picture that I have skipped that shows higher rubble? Where is it? Are you saying that Dr. Judy Wood has more accurate evidence? The photo I presented came from the Dr. JW site.

You have done this several times now. Remember your Disney cartoon? Your graph was better than my Disney cartoon. Sir, look very closely. THEY ARE THE SAME GRAPHS FROM THE SAME SOURCE.

I will only respond to your future posts if they are sensible. Do not think That I am going away. I have a lot more to say. Perhaps others will join the debate.

Page 44 :
www.davidicke.com...

Originally Posted by gamolon View Post
400,000 cubic yards?

The buildings were 208' x 208'. The core was 133' x 87'. So for one concrete floor we get 208' x 208' x 4" (.33') which gives us 14277.12 cubic feet of concrete for one floor.

We then have to take out the core area. That's 133' x 87' x 4" (.33'). That equals 3818.43 cubic feet. So the total area of concrete for one floor equals 14277.12 cubic feet - 3818.43 cubic feet giving us 10458.69 cubic feet of concrete per floor.

10458.69 cubic feet per floor times 110 floors equals 1150455.9 cubic feet of concrete in one tower.

1 cubic foot = 0.037037037 cubic yards.

So 1150455.9 x 0.037037037 cubic yards = 42609.4777351683 cubic yards.
42609 cubic yards to your 400,000 cubic yards. For one building.

Even if a took the entire floor to be concrete INCLUDING all of the core we get 208' x 208' x .33' (4") which equals 1570483.2 cubic feet. Convert this to cubic yards and we get 58166.044 cubic yards.

If we stacked all 110 floors of 4" concrete on top of each other we still only get a pile 36.3 feet high. (LT : about 11 meters high, and that's how high that pile looked to me, maximum, in all pictures/videos)

Anyone have any corrections? Any mistakes I am making? Please point them out. I'm not seeing 400,000 cubic yards of concrete for one tower.

So lobuk.

Where'd you get the 400,000 cubic yards of concrete for one tower?

I just calculated covering 47 of the largest box columns (36" x 16" perimeter area) all the way up 1360' high in 6" of concrete. I know those box columns changed to "I" beams, so I am being generous.

Even if they did that, and add it to 4" thick floors for the ENTIRE floor (even through the core), I still only get 70381 cubic yards.

You're saying that one tower was 18% concrete?

That's saying you could have created a block of concrete the same dimensions of one tower (208' x 208') and it would be about 245' high? That's just a bit over 20 floors (12' floors).

Where am I wrong?

Gamelon's calculations are right, I checked them.
Lobuk took it from here :
911research.wtc7.net...
(Time to redact a few of your pages, 911researchers)

Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.

They give no back-up calculations on how they came to stand by that figure...go figure!
It came solely from the poster "plaguepuppy" where they quoted from.
That 400,000 cubic yards concrete figure is totally wrong.

Aside from this issue, did all these people forgot the several inches high/thick DUST carpet over the whole south tip of Manhattan? And a great deal of the dust that sank into the Hudson River out of that huge dust plume blown over it?
Don't you think this accounts for a GODDAMN LOT OF CONCRETE AND DRY-WALL DUST ?

Thermobaric bombs just do exactly that, turning concrete into DUST.
They instantly "blow-up" the office spaces. And thus turn the above and below concrete floor slabs to DUST. Since the vertical pressure of an exploding thermobaric gaseous device has time to build up (in milliseconds) against the resistance of two steel slabs full of concrete, while the horizontal pressure bleeds off through all the window spaces.

Well, just what we saw, white rings of explosive smoke, spitting out of all windows all around one or two floors, while getting repeated, in sets of floors, lower and lower, until the ground levels. Just to make sure that the collapses did not get stuck, and big chunks of buildings were left standing, ready to be examined by those they still not controlled by the planners of 9/11.

reply to post by LaBTop

Of course there are much more YT videos that take their time to film that pile from real street levels in the adjacent streets. Your screen-shot or whatever, was shot atop that pile.

You have clearly stated that my picture was a screen shot. How do you know this? Why do you not present the screen it was shot from? Do you expect readers of your thread to accept your statements without evidence? I can present evidence, the source. As I said, it comes from Dr. JW site. Do you see it circled in red? Go to the site and drag and drop it to your desktop. And make it your screen saver. If some one claims you got it from a screen shot, you have the evidence that I have given you to show they are wrong.

The fireman is standing on top of a pile of debris. Any one can see that. The pile he is standing on is no more high than the first story of WTC 6, if that. That is NEAR GROUND LEVEL as I said in my caption.

Your continued objections to my evidence are dead wrong. Most of your statements (like your screen shot claim) are opinion with no evidence. You must surely think ATS members have no sense.

Yeah there are lots of YT videos that show the real pile. I am going to watch them. See you later.
Here I found one. Is this what you mean? They are not walking on a pile. They are in the street.

reply to post by leostokes


"THEY ARE THE SAME GRAPHS FROM THE SAME SOURCE. "

That's the problem, those two are what we call Disney cartoons, to shut the masses up.
Did you have a good look at my seismic posts? Did you see the real LDEO graphs?
Did you see the data referred to in there? Where is that in your two Popular Mechanics graphs, offered to them by who?

And LDEO omitted also a lot of extra information, to be able to compare these seismograms to earlier ones in the same strata. You need to contact them on at least peer level, to be able to seriously criticize their conclusions, after studying their full data records. And NIST has pressed them to withdraw their earlier publications and rearrange the times on their seismograms of 9/11. To make it even worse however, now the main events their timestamps did not fit the seismograms at all anymore.

leostokes
reply to post by LaBTop

 

and here :
nl.wikipedia.org...

I have already quoted this page to you, sir. The first sentence says Richter = energy. Now you quote it to me saying it says something else?

You did not include the links! You just quoted some short text, from Wiki you wrote. Without any link attached.
I gave you the two Dutch Wiki pages and the English Wiki page. Did you notice the far better explanations in those texts? F.ex. under the header "Berekening".

That firefighter stands on the combined debris piles of WTC 1 and 2.

Are you sure this photo is from after the collapse of WTC 1, the north tower, so, after the second collapse?



Start to read from this post number 823 on, further down the following posts. I fully agree with this (banned there btw) poster "gamelon" on this debris subject, and a lot of other posters are pure pricks.

I repeat after him, imagine that all floors of one tower were 4 inch thick concrete, overall.
No subtraction of the core areas their full blocks of elevators, taking up nearly all that space, making it mostly defunct of concrete, so nearly concrete-empty.
If piled on top of each other, the 110 floors worth of concrete alone, would make a neat stacked pile of floors, 7.7 to 11 meters high.

You can read from poster "amandareckonwith" her pro-Wood post #876 on page 44, that the rubble pile was about 6 meters high where the firefighters flag-raising photo was shot.

Can you imagine that when that neat stack of 110 concrete floors stacked up inside the footprint of each tower, is now, as in reality, spread out over these 300 meter wide circles, that quite a lot of those meters will be dispersed over that huge area? And partly dispersed as DUST all over south Manhattan and the Hudson River. Several inches high on streets, roofs and window rims.

Like in this drawing, see post 902 on page 46 by gamelon :

i238.photobucket.com...



Don't you find it suspicious, that that same poster "amandareckonwith" offers us that LIDAR image of VERY ROUGH heights (the color green shows heights of 0 to 30 meters high) of the rubble pile here in her post #876 ?


But does not offer the much finer heights picture, that she addresses in the same post, but did not collect, to show us? Much more detailed images with relative height accuracy around 11.8 inches. NOT ZERO to THIRTY meters....in one color!

By the way, this is the same post where I got that 6 meter height from :

The flag-raising photo was made shortly after 5 p.m on September 11, 2001. He was standing under a pedestrian walkway across the West Side Highway, which connected the World Trade Center to the World Financial Center at the northwest corner. Franklin said the firefighters were about 150 feet away from him and about 20 feet (6 m) off the ground, while the debris was about 90 feet beyond that.
en.wikipedia.org...

Have a look again at this big photo in post #902 of the northwestern part of the debris field, with that red cadre in it, then you see how much debris was spread out there at the southern tip of WTC 6:
i238.photobucket.com...

And here a dust diagram from "gamelon" his Photobucket files :
i238.photobucket.com...

Fiberglass/Rockwool 45.1 %
Plaster/Concrete 31.8 %

edit on 22/12/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/12/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

Then we have poster "amandareckonwith" her post #877, the Stairwell B post.

Firefighter Jay Jonas : That’s what was going on. And right around the three-hour mark, all of a sudden, a beam of sunshine hit the stairway. I looked and said, “Guys, there used to be 106 floors above us and now I’m seeing sunshine.” They’re like, “What?” I said, “There’s nothing above us. That big building doesn’t exist.”

i191.photobucket.com...


110 minus 106 is 4 floors, times 3 meters per floor, is 12 meters height of position or rubble height? It seems to be half of that, 6 meters high rubble.

They were nearly in the exact center of that picture, in the closed-off part of that stairwell, to the left of that open part of it with that elevator space, full with debris. If they had hid in that portion, they would have been grinded to death. Some very lucky people in there. WTC Police officer Kim with some female office workers survived there too. Listen to his story too.

So, want photographic proof that the concrete wasn't all pulverized to microscopic fragments? Here it is. Not only are there chunks, but the rest looks more like sand than fine dust. Note the absence of suspended dust in the air.

www.uwgb.edu...


Now go read meticulously the explanations of this professor Dutch :

Vaporizing the World Trade Center

Steven Dutch, Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Wisconsin - Green Bay
www.uwgb.edu...

All your questions and solutions you came up with regarding Mrs Wood's theories, are countered there. And lots of calculations to chew on, try to understand what he explains, and see him as your next hero.

If the volume of building materials was 200,000 cubic meters and the total volume of a tower was 1.65 million cubic meters, then building materials occupied 12% of the volume of the tower. 88% of the tower was air. That's what buildings are for - to enclose the largest open space with the least material.

That saves me a lot of typing.

reply to post by LaBTop

Are you sure this photo is from after the collapse of WTC 1, the north tower, so, after the second collapse?

Are you sure that is the Verision building? Vesey Street? WTC 6? Where is the North Tower?

Is the intersection Vesey and West? Is this place within your 300 meter radius of debris? 150 meter radius? 120 meter radius?

reply to post by leostokes

Can we agree that there was rubble scattered around? Can we agree that some piles of rubble were high. Can we agree some were low. Can we agree that if we see a pile of rubble that is 12' high that every one will acknowledge that it is 12' high? Can we agree that we are not trying to trick each other by hiding or falsifying evidence? Can we agree that our goal is to find evidence and not to just win an argument? If we can agree on these things might we then proceed to investigate the evidence in a more productive manner?

Given that we agree then here is a valid question. Can we find a place in the regions surrounding the buildings where we see debris falling in an identifiable place and then look at that place and examine the rubble? If we can agree that this plan is valid might it not settle the issue of the volume of rubble?

Yes we can. We have videos of debris falling off the west face of the North Tower. The dimensions of that face are 1,300 feet tall and the base is 200 feet plus. Thats a lot of debris. One fourth of the total of the four faces. We do not see all of it in the video. Our view near the ground is blocked by dust. But we can project from the part we do see to guess at the part we do not see. We can scale it up in our imaginations. This allows us to get a sense of what should be on the ground.

Can we agree there should be rubble in a pile at the base? Can we agree that it should stack up into one of the high piles? The picture of the base of the west face is good evidence. Using the 8 story WTC 6 as our scale, the rubble appears to be no more than one story high.

reply to post by LaBTop

You did not include the links! You just quoted some short text, from Wiki you wrote. Without any link attached.

When I click your english wiki link I see the same sentence I previously posted. Why don't you try it? Its easy. You will not have to go to some new site and bring in extraneous data.

reply to post by leostokes

The Richter scale and the others is meant to indicate the energy of the shaking ground.

No. It's meant to indicate the amplitude and duration of the waves. Which combined can be calculated into the total energy exerted.

In my sentence above I say Richter = energy. You give three answers. Your first one is no. Your meaning is clear: Richter does not mean energy. In your second sentence you give your definition of Richter which is clearly not energy. Your second answer is no. In your third sentence you say yes, it is energy.

We are at a turning point in this debate. I need you to use fewer words. I need you to answer this "yes or no":

Is the Richter scale meant to indicate the energy of the earthquake.

Nuke blasts have an Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Was there any evidence of an EMP?

Neutron bombs were developed to kill people without destroying property, how would a neutron bomb cause the towers to disintegrate?

The DEW postulated by Dr Judy Wood PhD could cause any type of matter in the universe to be present at the WTC, that is, any isotope of any element.

To the best of my layman understanding, the DEW works along these ideas:

Matter is made of energy, energy that is balanced in an equilibrium of forces that cause it remain in a state of matter.

Given E = MC^2, a very large amount of energy is balanced into any particle of matter. A very small disturbance at at the atomic level could cause the balance to be lost and matter to lose its normal state.

An interference pattern, made by some number of different electro-magnetic wave frequencies, could make an almost infinite number of subatomic energy spikes, and some of the energy spikes would always line up exactly with the targeted material.

Energy spikes at exactly the right place on an atomic structure could decompose it into energy, or change its physical properties or cause it to metamorphose into another atomic particle, or some other phenomena we have no idea about.

The DEW would work more like a match to flammable material than an overpowering force.

Think about induction. A conductor is moved within a magnetic field-- current is created in the conductor! That discovery is only 200 years old. No wo/man on Earth knew of that phenomenon for 1000's of years, and it was there all of the time.

Think about gravity. We take it for granted, but no one knows what it is. We only know what it does to stuff in our lives.

The DEW is consistent with

1 The blasts in the basement. the towers were no longer grounded electrically
2 The weak seismic signal
3 The coincident magnetic field shifts measured in Alaska
4 The unraveling of the building material
5 The car metal damage
6 The intact--still standing-- sub basement
7 The cubic miles of "dust"
8 The small footprint and short debris pile

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Nuke blasts have an Electro-Magnetic Pulse. Was there any evidence of an EMP?

drjudywood

You already know about The coincident magnetic field shifts measured in Alaska

reply to post by Semicollegiate

The DEW postulated by Dr Judy Wood PhD could cause any type of matter in the universe to be present at the WTC, that is, any isotope of any element.

I guess you know Dr. Judy Wood invented the new word "dustification" for the phenomenon seen in the videos where falling steel structures trail dust. Apparently, many never hit the ground.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

The DEW postulated by Dr Judy Wood PhD could cause any type of matter in the universe to be present at the WTC, that is, any isotope of any element.

The old name for that is alchemy? Do you know of the Hutchinson effect? woodhutchinson

reply to post by Semicollegiate

The weak seismic signal

I have a lot of posts on this above in this thread. The Seattle Kingdome was a controlled demolition with a lot of data collected and reported. The collapse produced a Richter number of 2.3. The largest seismic reading at WTC was also 2.3 for the north tower. It was only a surface wave. The duration of the shaking was roughly 8 seconds. Since gravity would require 9.2 seconds for a bowling ball dropped from the standing North Tower to hit the ground, the seismic reading implies the ground stopped shaking before the building finished "falling".



My posts start on page 10.


I am not a DEW person nor a controlled demolition person. I am a dustification person.

reply to post by LaBTop

floors of thin steel columns and beams

These must be the thin steel columns you refer to.

reply to post by LaBTop

Probably the Kingdome's underground was also not the same as that in New York too.

The Kingdome was sitting on soil and not bedrock like the North Tower. The Kingdome soil will absorb energy. This means the Richter reading of 2.3 is surely lower than if the KD were on bed rock which absorbs less energy.
This means that the NT seismic event was even smaller compared to the KD.

The 911Dataset Project
Crowdsourcing 9/11 information distribution.

3,390,827,142,995 bytes (3,158 GB) (3 TB) in 254,822 files
Information posted here is available via Bittorrent.
( This project is user supported )

Start f.ex. with :
[9] FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld - Ground Zero Photos.
552 files, 684MB.
[93] NISTreview.org FOIA Photographs of WTC Site.
381 files, 58MB.
[113] WTC Disaster Site Images.
935 files, 110MB.
[114] WTC Disaster Site Images.
5,246 files, 180MB.
[115] WTC Disaster Site Images From The Airborne Visible-Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS)
54 files, 5,913MB, (6GB).


uTorrent

µTorrent (Windows, Mac) Not open source but free to use. Quick, light weight and easy to use with good support in their forums.


BitTorrent HOW-TO :
911datasets.org...

Links to more information about Bittorrent :

A Beginners Guide to Bittorrent
BitTorrent basics
The protocol explained (for the geekier crowd)
For those of you who are visual learners: a great graphic visualization for how BitTorrent works.


Issues :
The torrent is ginormous and I lack the space on my hard drive to host it!

This is a common misconception, said in another way: If the torrent is X GB then you need X GB free on your hard drive to download it.

This is only partly true. Many of the torrents here are tens or hundreds of GB. If you want to download all X GB then you do need X GB free space on your hard drive, but if you just want a single smaller file that is contained in the torrent you can instruct your bittorrent client to only download that individual file. For example, if there's a 900GB torrent, and inside it is 5MB file that you want, you only need to download the 5MB file. How to do this varies between bittorrent clients. Inside your bittorrent client, there will be a spot that allows you to browse the file structure of the torrent and see the name and size of each file. You can pick a file to focus on and the bittorrent client will attempt to download that file first.