![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris
Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'.
a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume.
b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent.
c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots.
d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument.
e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest.
f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for.
g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading.
h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here.
[1] N.J. Burkett footage (https://t.co/zafjkiKP6l)
[2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/gPoqEKBB2Z)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSQ4KbGWAAEvdzu.jpg)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris
Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'.
a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume.
b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent.
c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots.
d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument.
e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest.
f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for.
g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading.
h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here.
[1] N.J. Burkett footage (https://t.co/zafjkiKP6l)
[2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/gPoqEKBB2Z)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSQ4KbBWoAAHeLI.jpg)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris
Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'.
a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume.
b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent.
c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots.
d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument.
e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest.
f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for.
g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading.
h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here.
[1] N.J. Burkett footage (https://t.co/zafjkiKP6l)
[2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/gPoqEKBB2Z)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSQ4HU7XsAA2G8K.jpg)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows
Insight into the actual debris amounts and where it went are available in the thousands of photographs and videos from the air, from ground level, from the excavation of the site, and from damage assessments of the complex. In this post I've selected some of these to detail the extent of the damage and collapses.
These are by no means exhaustive, and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject to check the photographic evidence for themselves, if for no other reason than to fact-check MY claims…
a) To understand what debris went where, the general collapse of the towers can be seen, in VERY basic terms, as the floors collapsing down inside of the perimeter tube, with much of the perimeter walls themselves falling down and outward.
Large parts of the lower portion of the core kept standing for a while after the floors stripped on the outside, collapsing last. Pulverized concrete and other debris was partly expelled during the collapse event, creating the immense dust clouds that covered Manhattan.
b) Photographs from Ground Zero showed a large and uneven debris field, with more debris found in the directions of the façade walls of the towers, and in the direction the top portions tilted towards at collapse initiation (see the debris map attached to the previous part 7).
c) An 8k aerial photograph by FEMA is one example that gives a clear view of the debris field top-down, showing massive amounts of structural steel, including core columns, and other types of debris [1]. Height of debris piles is however difficult to see in these types of shots.
d) Photographs from the debris at the surface reveal how big the piles were, but size and scale are often difficult to gauge from the indistinct pieces of steel and concrete. There is no doubt however that the piles were in fact massive.
e) WTC 7, situated on the north side of the complex, collapsed later on 9/11. Because it wasn’t situated above the deep Bathtub, debris could not collapse into the ground. The subsequent debris pile for WTC 7 was therefore relatively larger, standing at 6-7 stories high from ground level.
[1] 8k Ground Zero aerial photograph (https://t.co/mgwrLIFSSJ)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HR7q0QhaoAA4gRb.jpg)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows
Insight into the actual debris amounts and where it went are available in the thousands of photographs and videos from the air, from ground level, from the excavation of the site, and from damage assessments of the complex. In this post I've selected some of these to detail the extent of the damage and collapses.
These are by no means exhaustive, and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject to check the photographic evidence for themselves, if for no other reason than to fact-check MY claims…
a) To understand what debris went where, the general collapse of the towers can be seen, in VERY basic terms, as the floors collapsing down inside of the perimeter tube, with much of the perimeter walls themselves falling down and outward.
Large parts of the lower portion of the core kept standing for a while after the floors stripped on the outside, collapsing last. Pulverized concrete and other debris was partly expelled during the collapse event, creating the immense dust clouds that covered Manhattan.
b) Photographs from Ground Zero showed a large and uneven debris field, with more debris found in the directions of the façade walls of the towers, and in the direction the top portions tilted towards at collapse initiation (see the debris map attached to the previous part 7).
c) An 8k aerial photograph by FEMA is one example that gives a clear view of the debris field top-down, showing massive amounts of structural steel, including core columns, and other types of debris [1]. Height of debris piles is however difficult to see in these types of shots.
d) Photographs from the debris at the surface reveal how big the piles were, but size and scale are often difficult to gauge from the indistinct pieces of steel and concrete. There is no doubt however that the piles were in fact massive.
e) WTC 7, situated on the north side of the complex, collapsed later on 9/11. Because it wasn’t situated above the deep Bathtub, debris could not collapse into the ground. The subsequent debris pile for WTC 7 was therefore relatively larger, standing at 6-7 stories high from ground level.
[1] 8k Ground Zero aerial photograph (https://t.co/mgwrLIFSSJ)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HR7qy6RWoAM7atv.jpg)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows
Insight into the actual debris amounts and where it went are available in the thousands of photographs and videos from the air, from ground level, from the excavation of the site, and from damage assessments of the complex. In this post I've selected some of these to detail the extent of the damage and collapses.
These are by no means exhaustive, and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject to check the photographic evidence for themselves, if for no other reason than to fact-check MY claims…
a) To understand what debris went where, the general collapse of the towers can be seen, in VERY basic terms, as the floors collapsing down inside of the perimeter tube, with much of the perimeter walls themselves falling down and outward.
Large parts of the lower portion of the core kept standing for a while after the floors stripped on the outside, collapsing last. Pulverized concrete and other debris was partly expelled during the collapse event, creating the immense dust clouds that covered Manhattan.
b) Photographs from Ground Zero showed a large and uneven debris field, with more debris found in the directions of the façade walls of the towers, and in the direction the top portions tilted towards at collapse initiation (see the debris map attached to the previous part 7).
c) An 8k aerial photograph by FEMA is one example that gives a clear view of the debris field top-down, showing massive amounts of structural steel, including core columns, and other types of debris [1]. Height of debris piles is however difficult to see in these types of shots.
d) Photographs from the debris at the surface reveal how big the piles were, but size and scale are often difficult to gauge from the indistinct pieces of steel and concrete. There is no doubt however that the piles were in fact massive.
e) WTC 7, situated on the north side of the complex, collapsed later on 9/11. Because it wasn’t situated above the deep Bathtub, debris could not collapse into the ground. The subsequent debris pile for WTC 7 was therefore relatively larger, standing at 6-7 stories high from ground level.
[1] 8k Ground Zero aerial photograph (https://t.co/mgwrLIFSSJ)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HR7qP3eXgAAeSoJ.jpg)
Olivia
Online
BeardMonkey
@B3ardMonkey
Joined October 2021
399 Following
252 Followers
6.3K Posts
Pinned Tweet
MH370x evidence threads overview
List of threads on the #MH370x hoax videos and the conspiracy narrative by Ashton Forbes and the MH370 x crowd.
1) The single best argument against the MH370x videos
https://t.co/XcKfvXEJhJ
For if you want just one short argument for why the videos are obvious fakes. There's a reason they ignore this completely😉.
2) Evidence the ‘Satellite’ (Gorgon Stare) video is fake
https://t.co/7Vyr2FUi0X
3) Evidence the Thermal/Drone video is fake
https://t.co/6kLHLXuUoe
4) The de-debunks examined
Part 1: https://t.co/Q0qOGFzJpH
Part 2: https://t.co/5uTxE4y2Yk
A critical look at the (incredibly weak) responses to the debunks of the videos, plus other arguments made about them.
5) The scientists themselves refute Ashton’s explanation
https://t.co/CcrSsxvDd5
A look at how the scientists Ashton uses for his narrative actually completely refute his notion we teleported a plane in 2014.
6) How Ashton gets the science wrong
Part 1: https://t.co/XbrTaGzVDs
Part 2: https://t.co/3Smzrqh3rr
A thread showing how Ashton fundamentally misunderstands and/or is clueless about the scientific fields and topics he cites in his streams, on the most fundamental levels.
7) The “Pertinent Evidence” doc examined
https://t.co/F5yrOcXbYz
A debunking of the public document that supposedly has all the proofs for the videos being real gathered over time, but as it turns out contains very little of that.
8) The “Pertinent Evidence” update examined
https://t.co/uD1E6rOgHb
A critical look at the update Ashton gave on the evidence doc in March of 2025, which shows he is still just as wrong...
The single best argument against the MH370x hoax videos
There are countless arguments and critiques to show that the #MH370x videos are fake, but even the most telling ones, such as the background cloud photo for the satellite video or the 90's VFX shot which makes up the 'zap' in both videos, have seen (albeit very weak) responses from Ashton.
There is however one argument that has proven to be (imo) the most effective in arguing against the videos' validity, and which has seen ZERO response or counter-arguments from Ashton or anyone in the MH370x crowd.
It's pretty simple and if true instantly debunks both videos:
"The plane goes below stall speed in the satellite video and is 1/3 too small, while it goes almost Mach 2 in the drone video."
The speed for the plane in the sat video is calculated from the coordinates given in the video itself. The speed in the drone video is calculated by tracking the plane against the clouds in the background.
-the argument is straightforward
-the math is easy
-anyone can verify this on their own if they want
If the math is correct this creates massive issues even if we had only one of the two videos. But at least then you'd have the option to argue that perhaps the video needs to be sped up or slowed down.
The fact that we have these two videos which can be synced up, hilariously dooms both of them, as any change to playback speed to make one video's plane speed more realistic, makes the other video even more unrealistic! There is no way around the 10x difference in plane speed.
Understandably, and knowing how Ashton operates, this argument has been totally ignored for over a year now, and no response, let alone a serious challenge has been offered. The only point raised so far is the impact of the effect of parallax from the drone movement, but as the drone necessarily flies in the same direction as the plane this only makes the problem bigger!
I welcome @ashtonforbes or anyone in the MH370x crowd to challenge this argument, but I am not going to hold my breath.
@muckleton @BenSeventy7 @OffGuardian0 So? These are completely different things, why would we expect them to have the same seismic footprint? "The wtc collapse didnt register like an eartquake" because it wasnt an earthquaker? Just saying
@muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 i can be, but wasn't here. Just pointing out the obvious. If Judy Wood wants to detail the state of collapse an amount of debris in the basement, showing 4 photographs of the post collapse basdement levels in a 500+ page book is laughable, is all
@muckleton I am going to assume you did not go through the image and identify, count, and lay them out to check whether the number makes sense?
Who to follow
It is simple things like this that always make me question why people have so much faith in their pet conspiracy theory. Just looking at the picture shows you how deceptive the outline and message is.
This is not a small mistake. This is a figure in a book. Why put trust in people that are brazingly lying to you?
@Product_007 Honest question: The fact that Wood chose to put a debris outline on this photo which clearly, clearly is WAY too small for what is there, does that not bother you?
It's not even obscured by smoke, you can just see that her outline is cartoonishly small. Why?
you dont need to break everything apart either. When the tops fell, most columns would be misaligned.
Conservation of momentum from the added mass only reduces the speed at first floor, for WTC 1 by like a few percent. And with every floor that percentage goes down.
The kinetic energy in that block, even over 1 floor, is much more than the floor can handle.
An unbraced core is relatively vulnerable to lateral forces to induce colllapse. No need to destroy or buckel every single piece of it.
Long story short, unless at the very first floor the collapse stops, it progresses in accelerating fashion assuming the falling mass grows each floor down.
You disagree?
For the longest time, that first visual contained a fourth picture. It wasn't untill I triple-checked that I noticed that in fact, dr. Judy Wood didn't use it !😁🤦♂️
Can you imagine writing a 9/11 book about the debris of the towers missing, on a location for which the question "How much went into the basements?" should be central, and not even providing enough evidence to fill a tweet with pictures?
Btw feel free to tag me for the pictures plotted in that map, i can post these if someone's really interested 👍 Most are from the Thomas Buchta collection
n) Wood’s treatment of the Concourse mall is embarrassingly shallow and deceptive.
o) She shows a mind-blowing three (3!) photographs from the mall after 9/11, all from the relatively unharmed east part of the mall, farthest away from the towers. My tweet on the mall contained MORE evidence than Judy’s entire 500+ page book!
p) If she wanted to discuss which parts of the Concourse level collapsed, photos of intact stores like Innovation Luggage and Strawberry are absolutely pointless by themselves.
q) The collapse front near Hallmark is the only somewhat collapsed area she dares show us, but Wood simply downplays the severity of the collapse and moves on.
r) Astonishingly, for the Warner Brothers store, she opts to show items that were recovered and put in storage, instead of the store itself, or the items as they were found! And yes, these photos exist. Plenty!
s) One of the three real mall photos is taken near the Strawberry store according to Wood, but is in fact taken at Hallmark. Though not that important, it shows the lack of knowledge and depth of the “research” done.
t) When plotted on a map against the known collapses on Concourse level, it becomes clear how deceptive Wood’s cherry-picked evidence really is.
u) A photo of the East Hudson loading dock under WTC 4 and 5 is shown intact, which is not surprising as we already the mall above it intact as well, as it’s roughly under the Warner Brothers store. Not only a pointless photograph, but Wood also leaves out, again, the collapse that DID happen in the ramps connecting to the dock itself.
@muckleton Every big beam in this picture that doesn't look like a checker pattern is a part of the cores that fell last. The debris fiel is COVERED with them.
If you can't see them, you don't know what you're looking at or talking about 🤷♂️
That is exactly what I stated. And also what happened. As soon as the kinetic energy from the falling block up onto the very first floor below it exceeds the shearing energy needed, the fall accelerates.
And calculations have shown that the 12 and 29 floor masses starting the collapse possessed MUCH MORE kinetic energy than needed to shear the floor below.
Not sure where you think this is going?
@muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 Btw, those mall posts are mostly from Thomas Buchta. I mapped them onto that floor plan in like an hour, of course with knowledge at hand. I have not searched extensively for more photographs.
"nah man trust me, she aint cherry-picking her data"
😁😁 Sure sure. Please explain the below visuals/points...
And point you to photographs? Have you suddenly lost your ability to use the internet? Start witht he FEMA and Thomas Buchta photo series, and the Kurt Sonnenfeld GZ videos.
You have Google, or Chatgpt. Go go go
@BenSeventy7 @muckleton @OffGuardian0 Maybe explain first WHY what was seen in the seismic record is insufficient? You folks and Judy herself keep STATING it is too small but NEVER provide a good argument for WHY.
And sorry, if you're answer is going to be the Kingdome implosion you are woefully out of your depth
n) Wood’s treatment of the Concourse mall is embarrassingly shallow and deceptive.
o) She shows a mind-blowing three (3!) photographs from the mall after 9/11, all from the relatively unharmed east part of the mall, farthest away from the towers. My tweet on the mall contained MORE evidence than Judy’s entire 500+ page book!
p) If she wanted to discuss which parts of the Concourse level collapsed, photos of intact stores like Innovation Luggage and Strawberry are absolutely pointless by themselves.
q) The collapse front near Hallmark is the only somewhat collapsed area she dares show us, but Wood simply downplays the severity of the collapse and moves on.
r) Astonishingly, for the Warner Brothers store, she opts to show items that were recovered and put in storage, instead of the store itself, or the items as they were found! And yes, these photos exist. Plenty!
s) One of the three real mall photos is taken near the Strawberry store according to Wood, but is in fact taken at Hallmark. Though not that important, it shows the lack of knowledge and depth of the “research” done.
t) When plotted on a map against the known collapses on Concourse level, it becomes clear how deceptive Wood’s cherry-picked evidence really is.
u) A photo of the East Hudson loading dock under WTC 4 and 5 is shown intact, which is not surprising as we already the mall above it intact as well, as it’s roughly under the Warner Brothers store. Not only a pointless photograph, but Wood also leaves out, again, the collapse that DID happen in the ramps connecting to the dock itself.
Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris
Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'.
a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume.
b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent.
c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots.
d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument.
e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest.
f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for.
g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading.
h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here.
[1] N.J. Burkett footage (https://t.co/zafjkiKP6l)
[2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/gPoqEKBB2Z)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 9 - (Core Arg. 1D) Refuting Wood’s argument about the debris
Now that we have seen what the expected and observed amounts of debris and collapse were after 9/11, we can dismantle the disinformation Judy Wood promotes. Most of the material on the amount of debris and basement collapses, if any, are found in the chapters on the Bathtub (chap. 5) and chapter 9, 'Where did the buildings go?'.
a) At its core, Wood faces the problem the previous post, and the thousands of photos not discussed there, make crystal clear to anyone interested: Debris on the surface and below grade is in fact in very good agreement with the expected amount of debris given material/volume.
b) Thus, to make her case, Wood relies almost completely on cherry-picking the evidence, and arguments from personal incredulity. Serious discussion on for example the basement collapses is virtually absent.
c) For the surface debris she picks a handful of photographs from locations that had relatively shallow debris fields, like parts of West street. She tends to call attention to specific parts that were not destroyed, like an ambulance, ignoring the vast amount of debris and destruction that is in these same shots.
d) West street in front of WTC 1 was literally filled with fire engines, police cars, and other vehicles, as shown for example in the N.J. Burkett footage [1]. Virtually all of these were destroyed. If there were 20 vehicles and 19 were destroyed, pointing to the one ambulance that miraculously escaped destruction amid the chaos is not an argument.
e) More egregiously, she presents the picture with an outline on the supposed debris pile of WTC 1 which doesn’t even cover half of the actual pile that can be plainly seen in the photo. Insultingly dishonest.
f) Other photos from for example the Plaza show more of the debris field, but because of distance and perspective, actual debris size is difficult to gauge unless you know what to look for.
g) In interviews she argues the only debris seen on the streets is some light aluminium cladding, which is absurd as virtually every photo of Ground Zero shows vast amount of structural steel from the façade and core of the towers. Making such points on the basis of one ground-level photo as Judy did in her 2012 GlobalBEM presentation [2] is idiotic and misleading.
h) Other photos include aerial shots which provide good overviews but have difficulty conveying the height of the debris piles. LIDAR scans sound helpful in theory but are of useless quality here.
[1] N.J. Burkett footage (https://t.co/zafjkiKP6l)
[2] Judy Wood “I don’t see any big steel beams”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/gPoqEKBB2Z)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSQ4KbwWkAA7xJe.jpg)
i) Notably, in her entire book Wood never provides any actual argument for why the debris seen is not enough. Even a simple theoretical calculation or discussion as I did in part 7 is missing. Even IF we take Wood’s word for everything she says, we have no way to judge whether it is enough or not…
j) Instead, she shows photos and adds loaded descriptions like “the building is gone”, playing on emotion and personal incredulity instead of objective assessments.
k) The massive pile for WTC 7, at 12-14% of the building’s original height, is not discussed at all in these chapters. And they directly contradict several claims she makes elsewhere. The idea the building “lathered up” until the empty husk collapsed is soundly refuted by photos of the pile.
l) Piles for WTC 3 and 4 likewise are high enough to account for the building’s materials, especially considering collapses going down the basements as well. Wood simply asserts “they went away”.
m) A much quoted percentage of building height its debris pile needs to be is 10%, which would translate to piles 2.2 and 0.9 floors high respectively. They were. How Wood still carries on arguing the buildings “just disappeared” is astonishing.
It's been fun, but I guess this has to make place for another pinned conspiracy theory post shortly. Only so much hammering down on stupidity before it get's stale. My appetite for #MH370x died off a long time ago.
If grift king @AshtonForbes ever wants to take me up on that debate challenge issued almost a year ago, I'll hapily come out of retirement 😁
But being the snowflake he is and because he knows exposing the lies would stop the flow of dollars, that is never gonna happen.
I still see other regulars continuing the good fight, I wish them well.
MH370x evidence threads overview
List of threads on the #MH370x hoax videos and the conspiracy narrative by Ashton Forbes and the MH370 x crowd.
1) The single best argument against the MH370x videos
https://t.co/XcKfvXEJhJ
For if you want just one short argument for why the videos are obvious fakes. There's a reason they ignore this completely😉.
2) Evidence the ‘Satellite’ (Gorgon Stare) video is fake
https://t.co/7Vyr2FUi0X
3) Evidence the Thermal/Drone video is fake
https://t.co/6kLHLXuUoe
4) The de-debunks examined
Part 1: https://t.co/Q0qOGFzJpH
Part 2: https://t.co/5uTxE4y2Yk
A critical look at the (incredibly weak) responses to the debunks of the videos, plus other arguments made about them.
5) The scientists themselves refute Ashton’s explanation
https://t.co/CcrSsxvDd5
A look at how the scientists Ashton uses for his narrative actually completely refute his notion we teleported a plane in 2014.
6) How Ashton gets the science wrong
Part 1: https://t.co/XbrTaGzVDs
Part 2: https://t.co/3Smzrqh3rr
A thread showing how Ashton fundamentally misunderstands and/or is clueless about the scientific fields and topics he cites in his streams, on the most fundamental levels.
7) The “Pertinent Evidence” doc examined
https://t.co/F5yrOcXbYz
A debunking of the public document that supposedly has all the proofs for the videos being real gathered over time, but as it turns out contains very little of that.
8) The “Pertinent Evidence” update examined
https://t.co/uD1E6rOgHb
A critical look at the update Ashton gave on the evidence doc in March of 2025, which shows he is still just as wrong...
@timtron2020 If the floors added to the falling mass have more potential gravitational energy than is expended separating them from perimeter and core, the total potential energy of the falling mass increases, no?
@muckleton Can you point to or highlight the exact piece you mean? I don't understand your point
Testimony from that day from people like George is not comparable to years of research and thousands of photos and videos cataloging the debris and collapse. And in fact what he said is in complete agreement with what we saw underground.
Also, if I throw my computer out the second floor it's already just pieces, what exactly did you expect in 110 floors of concrete grinder?
A logical observation, not an argument
Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows
Insight into the actual debris amounts and where it went are available in the thousands of photographs and videos from the air, from ground level, from the excavation of the site, and from damage assessments of the complex. In this post I've selected some of these to detail the extent of the damage and collapses.
These are by no means exhaustive, and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject to check the photographic evidence for themselves, if for no other reason than to fact-check MY claims…
a) To understand what debris went where, the general collapse of the towers can be seen, in VERY basic terms, as the floors collapsing down inside of the perimeter tube, with much of the perimeter walls themselves falling down and outward.
Large parts of the lower portion of the core kept standing for a while after the floors stripped on the outside, collapsing last. Pulverized concrete and other debris was partly expelled during the collapse event, creating the immense dust clouds that covered Manhattan.
b) Photographs from Ground Zero showed a large and uneven debris field, with more debris found in the directions of the façade walls of the towers, and in the direction the top portions tilted towards at collapse initiation (see the debris map attached to the previous part 7).
c) An 8k aerial photograph by FEMA is one example that gives a clear view of the debris field top-down, showing massive amounts of structural steel, including core columns, and other types of debris [1]. Height of debris piles is however difficult to see in these types of shots.
d) Photographs from the debris at the surface reveal how big the piles were, but size and scale are often difficult to gauge from the indistinct pieces of steel and concrete. There is no doubt however that the piles were in fact massive.
e) WTC 7, situated on the north side of the complex, collapsed later on 9/11. Because it wasn’t situated above the deep Bathtub, debris could not collapse into the ground. The subsequent debris pile for WTC 7 was therefore relatively larger, standing at 6-7 stories high from ground level.
[1] 8k Ground Zero aerial photograph (https://t.co/mgwrLIFSSJ)
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows
Insight into the actual debris amounts and where it went are available in the thousands of photographs and videos from the air, from ground level, from the excavation of the site, and from damage assessments of the complex. In this post I've selected some of these to detail the extent of the damage and collapses.
These are by no means exhaustive, and I would recommend anyone interested in the subject to check the photographic evidence for themselves, if for no other reason than to fact-check MY claims…
a) To understand what debris went where, the general collapse of the towers can be seen, in VERY basic terms, as the floors collapsing down inside of the perimeter tube, with much of the perimeter walls themselves falling down and outward.
Large parts of the lower portion of the core kept standing for a while after the floors stripped on the outside, collapsing last. Pulverized concrete and other debris was partly expelled during the collapse event, creating the immense dust clouds that covered Manhattan.
b) Photographs from Ground Zero showed a large and uneven debris field, with more debris found in the directions of the façade walls of the towers, and in the direction the top portions tilted towards at collapse initiation (see the debris map attached to the previous part 7).
c) An 8k aerial photograph by FEMA is one example that gives a clear view of the debris field top-down, showing massive amounts of structural steel, including core columns, and other types of debris [1]. Height of debris piles is however difficult to see in these types of shots.
d) Photographs from the debris at the surface reveal how big the piles were, but size and scale are often difficult to gauge from the indistinct pieces of steel and concrete. There is no doubt however that the piles were in fact massive.
e) WTC 7, situated on the north side of the complex, collapsed later on 9/11. Because it wasn’t situated above the deep Bathtub, debris could not collapse into the ground. The subsequent debris pile for WTC 7 was therefore relatively larger, standing at 6-7 stories high from ground level.
[1] 8k Ground Zero aerial photograph (https://t.co/mgwrLIFSSJ)](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HR7q3adXoAcr9Hz.jpg)
@muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 You're gonna love the map of the Concourse mall pictures I made, coming up
@muckleton Four times wrong.
Yes it did.
The buildings were ON bedrock
It DID vibrate
Cores aren't gone, they are visible all over the site 🤷🏻♂️
@OffGuardian0 "Stalwart defender of the Orthodoxy"
Damn, I'll take it 🤣
@muckleton Correct, stairwell B. The tower collapsed around it and that stub was the only part that survived reasonably intact
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.6M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
114.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.2M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.7M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.4M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.8M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.9M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83.8M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
75.3M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
73.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.8M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
66.2M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
65.1M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
63M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.3M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.7M followers