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

LeoStokes :
You said this to me above.

Learn to openly admit your mistakes, I do that all the time. I have no problem at all with that.

Are you a speed-reader who stumbles over words, or not wanting to see them, or what else do you mean with such a childish quotation?


This was not enough for you ?

I admit I am now sure the Ambulance photo was shot from a place southwest of the former NT its footprint ruins.

LaBTop said above:

those were already towed away cars left there in flocks

You are saying the cars in this lot are all toasted and hauled to this lot by tow trucks?

LaBTop
reply to post by leostokes

 

It comes down to this :

"Because the fireman appears to be very close to ground level. And the debris does not even hide WTC 6. "

Yup, WTC 6 was an 8 stories high building, that's about 24 meters high.
And the debris circle had a 300 meters diameter for each tower.
Go have a look at the posted videos and photos in your own linked-to Mrs Wood-bashing thread somewhere in its 30est pages, there you find all explanations and calculations.

As usual you will not do that, force me to re-examine all those pages again, post links and drawings, let me loose my precious time, and so all these debates go on, and on.

By the way, was I right on your toasted cars subject, or not ?

Learn to openly admit your mistakes, I do that all the time. I have no problem at all with that.

edit on 22/12/13 by LaBTop because: Typed By, instead of by the way.

You give a long detailed explanation above about how you mistook the North Tower for the South Tower. I am not interested in your excuse. I would like a short admission you were wrong.

Circle the three tow trucks for me.

You win. They are all tow trucks, err, cars, err Mrs Woods shopping cars.

Get it into that hard head, that it is not at all of any importance what you or I see, the main thing sticking out from that early morning emergency-parking-lot color photo is the fact that no colleagues will park their cars in such a manner, 3 by 5, bumper to bumper, side to side.
That can only be done by tow/hauling trucks. Who are in a hurry and who know that they must handle the available space as economically as possible, so, stick them together.

And of course these same cars were burning (see b/w photo) AFTER both towers collapsed and sprayed all kinds of flammable debris over that lot. If not, then there were still smoldering cars from the plane impacts in between them, which ignited the rest.

leostokes
LaBTop said above:

those were already towed away cars left there in flocks

You are saying the cars in this lot are all toasted and hauled to this lot by tow trucks?

edit on 24-12-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

No, YOU really really WANT them to be toasted, to fit your delusion.
I only tell you they were towed there, they were the already damaged ones from the plane impacts and the building materials that fell down because of that. Evidenced by the way they were towed and placed there.

You're just teasing me now, that's quite clear. That's dangerous behavior around this forum.
And I do not let anger get me, so forget that too.

reply to post by LaBTop

Are you a speed-reader who stumbles over words, or not wanting to see them, or what else do you mean with such a childish quotation?

What childish quotation? Where is it?

reply to post by leostokes


Let me see.
You admitted Mrs Wood's photo from the Verizon building corner was a bit exaggerated, regarding the there according to her, logically to have been appearing, lots of heavy debris and thus high debris piles , which were in fact absent, also for real logical reasons, as I showed you.
And then directly in the next sentence you changed the subject and went on a long typing tour.
So you find my explanation inappropriate?


While I explain to you that the shady top corner of WTC 5 seems not to fit all 3 pictures I offered?
I thought you were the guy who searches feverishly for anomalies in on-line 9/11 pictures, just as Mrs Woods?

And the fact that the Ambulance photo seems to be shot with a long lens from a spot far away from the former western NT facade is important in the discussion with you about the heights of the debris piles.
It looks as if shot from nearby, but it is not.

Just enlarge my nr2 and nr3 photos on the last page 15 and you will find an AWFUL lot of core columns, beams, exterior column sets (Vierendeel triple columns) and myriads of other partly cut debris pieces. IN FRONT of the now gone, western facade of the NT.

leostokes
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Are you a speed-reader who stumbles over words, or not wanting to see them, or what else do you mean with such a childish quotation?

What childish quotation? Where is it?

See top post.

Can we stop discussing anything regarding Mrs Wood's website?
Her site reflects the way her brain's working, chaotic.

PS : www.davidicke.com...

www.davidicke.com...

She entitles this thread "missing materials"...have a look at Figure 28... a tree has crashed into the corner of a house, and all the bricks are on the ground...how mysterious is this? What materials are missing?

Dr. Judy's analysis only means something to her...because no one else in the world understands what the f# she's saying.
Thank you. She applies the same logic to her 'toasted cars' argument, ie: none. Wood asserted that the cars were burnt in a particular location. Evidence has been presented, possibly on this thread, to show that the cars were moved after being damaged by falling debris. There's a glut of solid evidence to disprove her wild claims. All she does is present pictures and make ridiculous claims. It's this which causes me to doubt the integrity of her credentials.

LaBTop
reply to post by leostokes

 

Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

I do not agree with a lot this above professor brings up, his comments regarding toasted cars look reasonable to me however.

This following photo is from the same lot, when you enlarge the photo by pushing Ctrl+ untill it no longer gets bigger, you will see at least three tow or haul trucks pushing or pulling burning cars in that row of already toasted cars. The photo by the way comes from dr Judy Woods website :
drjudywood.com...



I do not know when this photo was taken :

drjudywood.com...


drjudywood.com...


I advice you to read not only page 26 but all the 77 pages of that pro and con link you posted yourself, it's quite amusing.

And if you or I see tow-trucks in that b/w picture is of NO importance at all for this subject. These TRIPLE PARKED cars were already towed there as your own color picture above, clearly shows.

Note to the interested readers:
The OP of this thread says above that there are 3 tow trucks in the picture. He is saying this to support his view that all the cars in the lot arrived by towing. He is trying to counter those who see the evidence differently.

But there are no tow trucks. I have asked him 4 times in my replies to back up his assertion. He has not done this. Read his above answers to my requests. He says more than once that he sees them.

Why would he present his evidence this way? I can guess but I will not.

In response to my 4th request, instead of giving evidence of his assertion, he now says tow truck evidence is of no importance. Like I am the one who brought it up! The above post of the OP shows who brought it up.

I post in this thread because I want to debate "dustification". When I started my own thread the boss of the forum closed it. After the closing of my thread, the boss allowed this OP to start his thread. I will continue to post in this thread with any responsive member.

www.davidicke.com...

#1330
macgyver1968

Gammy has shown that Patrol car 2723 was damaged near the WTC...this image-A shows that :



It was later moved to clear the streets. As shown by this image-B :



Dr. Judy would have you believe that the police car was damaged on the FDR street. It wasn't.

Have a damn good look at image-A. The red arrow indicates this is the same building as in your sunny 9/11 morning picture, with the already towed and packed-together-there cars in that emergency parking lot.

Image-A also shows a burned down police car, in front of that emergency parking lot, on the other side of the street where your photo shows all those panicked office workers standing in between plane impact and collapses.
The left front tire is even burned away.
This is a night photo from 9/11.
That car was burned THERE on its parked spot after the collapses. See the light debris behind its rear tires. It was not towed there, and possibly the driver opened his front door to flee for the falling debris. Wise guy, when we see the effect it had on his patrol car.

Do you now believe that BURNING debris did get all the way till that building? Do you see the amount of DUST covering that street, much further than that "toasted"police cruiser?

Are you still believing her "toasted" cars HOAX ?

So, yes, let's rest our case against that chaotic website. And concentrate on the REAL EVIDENCE :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by LaBTop

And the fact that the Ambulance photo seems to be shot with a long lens from a spot far away from the former western NT facade is important in the discussion with you about the heights of the debris piles.
It looks as if shot from nearby, but it is not.

I agree the camera angle distorts distance. I have also looked for other pictures trying to pinpoint the vehicle, with negative results.

Thats not the point. Let me help you out. We have been debating a long time about the lack of rubble. I spent considerable effort setting up a procedure whereby posters could find a common ground for agreement. My plan was to argue that the base of the west face of the North Tower was a place we could all agree must contain more than average rubble. Then I concluded with a picture of this area of focus that shows the debris no more than one or maybe two floors high using WTC 6 as the scale. Thats good evidence. You opposed my evidence energetically. Then for further evidence I showed the ambulance. I hesitated to use the vehicle as my first example because I could not pinpoint its location due to the camera angle. You made lengthy posts disputing my evidence. Then you made a serious mistake. You said the vehicle was at the South Tower. I sympathize with you because I also suspected at first it might be the ST. Then I revealed your error with the red triangle pictures. Here is the point. I have come a long way in proving there is not enough rubble. You admit your mistake about the ambulance. Now be generous and admit you were wrong about the rubble also. Thats the point.

Yes I now think Dr. JW exaggerated the lack of debris. But, you know what, I sometimes do that too. So I forgive her that and continue to study her evidence.

reply to post by leostokes

Note to the interested readers:
The OP of this thread says above that there are 3 tow trucks in the picture. He is saying this to support his view that all the cars in the lot arrived by towing. He is trying to counter those who see the evidence differently.

Note to eventually still interested readers:

"He is saying this to support his view that all the cars in the lot arrived by towing."

NO. I AM NOT.
The way they are stacked bumper to bumper and door to door beside each other CLEARLY proves that.
AND the way the long single line of damaged cars were parked in the sunny early photo, UNBURNED YET.
After the collapses, the ONLY thing that changed, was that then a lot of them caught fire.

Simple explanation, simple truth.


And then I see at least two tow trucks trying to haul away burning cars, I repeat it again, look downwards under that smoke column in that b/w picture. I see the light rail on top of the black tow truck cabin, and the lowered back.

Which is however not at all of any importance for the debunking of Mrs Wood's early morning picture of that emergency parking lot and all those panicked office personnel on the adjacent street, the same one where you see that BURNED/toasted police cruiser 2723 left there, after/during collapses.

Get it? Burned bread is another word for toasted bread. Simple as that, no more.

Stop moaning about what you can't see and I can.
Admit at last that that early morning Mrs Wood picture just shows hauled away and parked CLOSELY TOGETHER there, cars. Which started to burn AFTER/DURING both collapses through falling burning debris. As shown by police cruiser 2723.
What is so difficult to comprehend about that?

reply to post by LaBTop

Gammy has shown that Patrol car 2723 was damaged near the WTC...this image-A shows that :
It was later moved to clear the streets. As shown by this image-B :
Dr. Judy would have you believe that the police car was damaged on the FDR street. It wasn't.

I have seen that evidence already. I agree Dr. JW is wrong to say there is no evidence of toasted cars being towed to FDR. We have solid evidence that ONE toasted car was towed. But I am not going to join the gang that asserts therefore every toasted car in New York was Towed immediately. You seem to say this in your

And as soon as possible, all these wrecks shattered all over the streets were towed away to further away street sides, and parking lots, to make room for emergency vehicles and then those big cranes and bulldozers.
I am afraid that advocates from "the burned car mystery" forgot to check most photo's their date stamps, most of these were photographed in their new parking places in the days after they were towed there. They were even stacked to make more room available for the insurance inspectors that had to check which owners were to be paid for their loss.

Sweeping generalizations like yours (and Dr. JW's) are suspect.
I am expecting to find Dr.JW somewhere admitting she is wrong about FDR. It has been a long time but so far negative. Nobody is perfect. Even me.

I admire people who admit their mistakes. I suspect those who do not.

reply to post by leostokes


That sounds a LOT more reasonable.

So, your (taken from Mrs Wood) lack of debris thesis, I opposed with two links to prof. Dutch his website, and I added another page of him later. I typed : "That will save me a lot of typing".

How come you do not counter his evidence that you exaggerate greatly the LACK of debris?

reply to post by LaBTop

The way they are stacked bumper to bumper and door to door beside each other CLEARLY proves that.

This is your thread. Why do you not try to contact some of the people at Embassy Suites for eye witness evidence? That would be easier than pushing ATS members to take your word you see 3 tow trucks.
Do you not see that you are assuming the cars were towed?? Some one with another point of view might say the placement is far too neat to be done by a tow truck and that proves the owners parked them. You have proved nothing, sir. You have merely given your opinion. That will not work here.

reply to post by LaBTop

How come you do not counter his evidence that you exaggerate greatly the LACK of debris?

You are an impossible person to reason with. I did not say "greatly". I said "sometimes". If you misquote posters you risk bad comments. You just exaggerated to discredit me.
I have proved lack of rubble with evidence. You have countered with mistaken facts. Then you misquote. You are also devious in your posts to cover your faults. You avoid issues with extraneous matter. You do not answer questions directly.

Is the richter scale intended to indicate the energy of an earthquake. Simple question? Yes or no will do.

About your "dustification" misconception.
Have you looked at that French demolition WITHOUT explosives, I posted now already so many times, that's my Evidence nr1 video ? See inside my REAL EVIDENCE link a few posts above.

Do you see the immense DUST clouds rolling towards the camera position?

Huge buildings as the Twin towers collect dust on every inaccessible place over decennial time-spaces.

Then, when some evil people plan to get rid of those Asbestos infected giants, and plan to do it as hideous as can be, they chose Thermobaric explosives.

And one of the positive effects for these devils, of these kinds of explosives, is the dustification of all concrete. See that video I posted where the Russians explode one above some lonely concrete high rises, and show at the end of the video the huge tapestry of pure cement DUST covering a square mile around them now lost buildings.

TB's have brisance/shattering powers of over 20,000 meters per SECOND !

Not one HE explosive comes even near that kind of shattering power. RDX which can be used to cut through thick steel columns have to be attached on the column. HE's come to perhaps 9,000 m/s and are SOLIDS.

A TB cloud will "embrace" all columns in the space where the TB"s first gaseous cloud is dispersed, and then the cloud gets electrified, and then ignited and thus it explodes with 20,000 meters per second forces.
The encircled steel CORE columns will SHATTER like glass, then the explosive gaseous cloud will expand further in that WTC floor space and shatter both the floor and ceiling concrete plates, and then bleed away through all those windows all around the four sides of that floor. There the explosive speeds have already bled down to perhaps 4 to 5,000 m/s.
And that's what you saw, dustification of all concrete floors, white explosive dust spitting out the windows all around the four facade sides of two or three floor spaces in both WTC towers at collapse initiations.

They used Thermobarics, as simple as that.

No DEW, No neutron weapons, no thermite/mate, no expansion powders, just good old TB's, just as in Oklahoma City, the same kind of devastation, shattered concrete columns much too far from the patsy truck bomb.

reply to post by leostokes


You are by far the most dense person on this board to argue with. That's my honest opinion about you, and you may have any opinion about me. Case closed.

I lost count on how many times I had to post this same information for members who do not take the time to read what is offered.
And then discussion with these type of one-sided people becomes very tough.

911research.wtc7.net...

Since the main collapses, a major concern has been if strong shaking affected the structural stability of nearby buildings. Earthquakes of ML 2.3 are not known to cause any structural damage in buildings. In the eastern U.S. that threshold is believed to be close to or above ML 4 to 4.5. It is more reasonable that most of the effects of those collapses on adjacent structures and people were related to the kinetic energy of falling debris and the pressure on buildings exerted by dust- and particle- laden air mobilized by falling debris. It had, except for temperature, an effect very similar to pyroclastic ash flows that descend slopes of volcanoes. The seismic shaking associated with the impacts and the main collapses probably was small compared to those other energetic processes. The following order-of-magnitude-estimates of energies involved corroborate this interpretation.

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J.

Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves.

Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.

The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2 x 109 J. That associated with the combustion of 50 to 100 tons of fuel in each aircraft is roughly 1012 J, most of which was expended in the large fireballs (visible in TV images) and in subsequent burning that ignited material in each tower. Less than a millionth of the fuel energy was converted to seismic waves.

Now Professor Won Young Kim, has an email address: [email protected]
Professor Terry Wallace (Acknowledgments section in above link) used to have a public email address too.
The day I published it on this site, his email got blocked for public view and addressing...Let's see how long this one survives.

That's how your "Golden Cage Society" operates. No whips anymore for the loan-slaves, but just subtle cutting off from real information sources. Then you can return to your boom-boxes and shallow TV entertainment.

PS :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
That is a JESUIT award. You find them a lot at crucial intersections in landmark events in history.

Ask Prof. Won-Young, how he explains the atomic clock timebase position of the Cianca photo time-stamp (the first dent in the WTC 7 eastern penthouse roof) on his also atomic clocked (by me edited) WTC 7 collapse seismogram.
Ask him also where his revised January 2006 text made for NIST has ended up. I can not find it anywhere anymore. It disappeared also from NIST's 9/11 websites.
I am highly interested in the reasons why NIST felt the need to vanish all 9/11 seismic publications from their websites. Except the above information from the first week after 9/11, published then by prof. Won-Young.

Now this is a daring task for pit-bull trained young or old, honest old-school JOURNALISTS.
Get to the heart of that seismic scam at NIST, and I'll guarantee them the same fame as the Watergate duo. (Woodward &?)