![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
253 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.
@timtron2020 Sorry misread that. But how can it be anything but that binary choice assuming a relatively homogeneous construction per floor?
It could only deccelarate if the falling mass would shed mass
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 Anything but answer the argument at hand, I get it 😘
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)
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 Keep changing the subject. Everyone can see you have no answer for my arguments. Zero 🤣👍🏼
"Hey look over there, seismic something something"
"Hey look over here, billiard ball something something"
😂🤦🏻♂️
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)
Who to follow
This post has almost 150k views in a day. The algorithm promoting this type of nonsense is exactly how the populace gets less educated over time.
72 angles capturing the plane, but sure let's go with what the tinfoil twitter lady says 🤷🏻♂️🫠
https://t.co/hTM6aSfijo
My theory on it all… There were no planes crashing into WTC buildings that day at all.
The planes they said crashed actually existed but were landed elsewhere, recordings of phone calls to loved ones were made, then the crew and passengers were killed.
I’ve never met anyone personally who was involved in any of it and haven’t heard anyone in initial audio and video recordings or in radio and TV interviews that they actually saw the planes. Those initial recordings on the actual day are the most telling.
@WicoValk Agree, completely off. Doesn't change the fact the planes brought the buildings down though 🤷🏻♂️
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 More distractions. Address my arguments if you want anything out of me.
https://t.co/2fOOiLtG23
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 I destroyed her arguments. Address it, don't post distractions
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 I destroyed her arguments. Address it, don't post distractions
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 I destroyed her arguments. Address it, don't post distractions
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)
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 just stating stuff isnt evidence. I showed you mine show me yours, prove me wrong https://t.co/cMY4KtQS0h
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 prove me wrong boys! It's your only possible next step. If I'm such a clown you can easily point me to where my photographic evidence fails my argument
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 What reporters said in the heat of the moment has no bearing on reality. Where in my post is my argument not correct? https://t.co/cMY4KtQS0h
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 prove me wrong boys! It's your only possible next step. If I'm such a clown you can easily point me to where my photographic evidence fails my argument
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 prove me wrong boys! It's your only possible next step. If I'm such a clown you can easily point me to where my photographic evidence fails my argument
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 the debris from GZ, as detailed in my very evidence heavy post suggests, yes, they did. Respond to that.
(Gish Gallop to seismic signals incoming)
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
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)
@BondGetsItDone @muckleton @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 put your money where your mouth is, and show me where my argument is inferior to Wood's. Less talking, more action, you can do it
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
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)
@muckleton @BondGetsItDone @OffGuardian0 @BenSeventy7 prove me wrong boys! It's your only possible next step. If I'm such a clown you can easily point me to where my photographic evidence fails my argument
https://t.co/hYEGzLRayL
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)
I looked at the actual evidence. It showed Wood and her twitter lackeys clowns 🤷♂️
Prove me wrong by commenting on my posts detailing exactly all the evidence Wood ignores. Point me to where my arguments, supported by photographic evidence, instead of bare assertions such as Wood does, fail.
You won't, I know James.
https://t.co/0Pc4wXnytD
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)
In this final post detailing what exactly Judy Wood has to say about the collapses and debris at Ground Zero after 9/11, she really shows us her colours. If you thought the Concourse mall discussion was bad, buckle up.
In a 500+ book supposedly all about the "evidence", Wood manages to reproduce 1 picture from the deeper Bathtub basement levels. Yes, you read that right. One.
The remainder of the argument is ignoring the actual evidence, while downplaying even what is seen in that one picture.
v) Wood’s case can only be made if the debris in the basements is ignored. Which is exactly what she does. If Wood’s overview of the above ground Concourse mall was bad, the material on the lower basement levels is beyond embarrassing.
w) Wood generally appears clueless about the overall state of collapse in these levels, and none of the actual evidence is discussed, such as laid out in part 8C [3] .
x) Facts like the tower footprints being completely packed with debris to bedrock are nowhere to be seen. I wonder why…?
y) Literally the only other part Wood zooms in on, out of the entirety of the basement levels, are the PATH cars at B6. But as usual, she cherry-picks one (1!) photograph to weave her entire narrative.
z) The ONLY useful photo that is post-collapse and pre-cleanup, and potentially shows any collapse damage, is however printed the size of a post-stamp in her book and flanked on both sides by a picture of the intact pre 9/11 and reconstructed station [4].
aa) The photo shows a person on a platform next to the recovered PATH train. In the background, if you know what to look for, you can barely spot the collapse front.
bb) Every other photo from below ground is either from pre-9/11, or well into demolition such as the removal of the PATH train cars.
cc) Photos from the emptied out Bathtub and reconstructed PATH terminal provide general information, but zero evidence on the collapses and debris.
dd) Nothing on levels B2/B5 from directly after 9/11 is shown. No debris, no collapse, no PATH mezzanine, nothing. Dozens of photographs are available, but Wood hides it all from her readers.
ee) Astonishingly, Wood argues that “If [the towers] had slammed to the ground, there would have been over a million tonnes of debris left [...] That didn’t happen.” [5] , which is refuted by the fact that between 1.5 and 1.8 million tonnes of debris was reported to be removed from the site.
ff) A sentence about estimates made before the clean-up to argue this figure is only theoretical crumbles at the slightest of scrutiny. The amounts of debris was measured during processing as well, and for example the Bureau of Waste Disposal notes in an annual report how 1.46 million tonnes of debris was brought to Fresh Kills by truck and barge [6].
--------
Sources:
[3] Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows (https://t.co/0Pc4wXnytD)
[4] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010) – chapter 5 “The Bathtub”, page 55
[5] Judy Wood “…over a million tonnes of debris…”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/58gJjHuj79)
[6] DSNY annual report (2003) (https://t.co/243j0XuYJz )
![B3ardMonkey's tweet photo. v) Wood’s case can only be made if the debris in the basements is ignored. Which is exactly what she does. If Wood’s overview of the above ground Concourse mall was bad, the material on the lower basement levels is beyond embarrassing.
w) Wood generally appears clueless about the overall state of collapse in these levels, and none of the actual evidence is discussed, such as laid out in part 8C [3] .
x) Facts like the tower footprints being completely packed with debris to bedrock are nowhere to be seen. I wonder why…?
y) Literally the only other part Wood zooms in on, out of the entirety of the basement levels, are the PATH cars at B6. But as usual, she cherry-picks one (1!) photograph to weave her entire narrative.
z) The ONLY useful photo that is post-collapse and pre-cleanup, and potentially shows any collapse damage, is however printed the size of a post-stamp in her book and flanked on both sides by a picture of the intact pre 9/11 and reconstructed station [4].
aa) The photo shows a person on a platform next to the recovered PATH train. In the background, if you know what to look for, you can barely spot the collapse front.
bb) Every other photo from below ground is either from pre-9/11, or well into demolition such as the removal of the PATH train cars.
cc) Photos from the emptied out Bathtub and reconstructed PATH terminal provide general information, but zero evidence on the collapses and debris.
dd) Nothing on levels B2/B5 from directly after 9/11 is shown. No debris, no collapse, no PATH mezzanine, nothing. Dozens of photographs are available, but Wood hides it all from her readers.
ee) Astonishingly, Wood argues that “If [the towers] had slammed to the ground, there would have been over a million tonnes of debris left [...] That didn’t happen.” [5] , which is refuted by the fact that between 1.5 and 1.8 million tonnes of debris was reported to be removed from the site.
ff) A sentence about estimates made before the clean-up to argue this figure is only theoretical crumbles at the slightest of scrutiny. The amounts of debris was measured during processing as well, and for example the Bureau of Waste Disposal notes in an annual report how 1.46 million tonnes of debris was brought to Fresh Kills by truck and barge [6].
--------
Sources:
[3] Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows (https://t.co/0Pc4wXnytD)
[4] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010) – chapter 5 “The Bathtub”, page 55
[5] Judy Wood “…over a million tonnes of debris…”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/58gJjHuj79)
[6] DSNY annual report (2003) (https://t.co/243j0XuYJz )](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HSV03NqWEAAaLWe.jpg)
That concludes the most important argument from Wood, and yet surprisingly the least amount of evidence she presents for virtually any of arguments.
Anyone honest who has read her book and is also familiar with the available evidence, such as presented in parts 7 and 8, will have to come to the conclusion that Wood offers a laughably inadequate review of the debris at Ground Zero.
She ignores over 95% of available evidence, cherry-picks pieces to construct a false narrative, offers no serious argument either from theory or practice, and deceptively withholds contradictory information from her readers. Smoke and mirrors, instead of honesty and integrity.
I have said in the beginning that after this argument, you can basically stop reading, because the entire DEW plot hinges on there not being enough debris.
As I have painstakingly detailed, there was. Enough debris on the ground and in the basements, and almost exactly what we'd expect from our theoretical calculations in part 7. For anyone genuinely interested, it is suprisingly easy to find more evidence in my tweets than Wood's entire 500+ page book.
Wood's 'Missing Debris' argument fails miserably on every front.
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)
v) Wood’s case can only be made if the debris in the basements is ignored. Which is exactly what she does. If Wood’s overview of the above ground Concourse mall was bad, the material on the lower basement levels is beyond embarrassing.
w) Wood generally appears clueless about the overall state of collapse in these levels, and none of the actual evidence is discussed, such as laid out in part 8C [3] .
x) Facts like the tower footprints being completely packed with debris to bedrock are nowhere to be seen. I wonder why…?
y) Literally the only other part Wood zooms in on, out of the entirety of the basement levels, are the PATH cars at B6. But as usual, she cherry-picks one (1!) photograph to weave her entire narrative.
z) The ONLY useful photo that is post-collapse and pre-cleanup, and potentially shows any collapse damage, is however printed the size of a post-stamp in her book and flanked on both sides by a picture of the intact pre 9/11 and reconstructed station [4].
aa) The photo shows a person on a platform next to the recovered PATH train. In the background, if you know what to look for, you can barely spot the collapse front.
bb) Every other photo from below ground is either from pre-9/11, or well into demolition such as the removal of the PATH train cars.
cc) Photos from the emptied out Bathtub and reconstructed PATH terminal provide general information, but zero evidence on the collapses and debris.
dd) Nothing on levels B2/B5 from directly after 9/11 is shown. No debris, no collapse, no PATH mezzanine, nothing. Dozens of photographs are available, but Wood hides it all from her readers.
ee) Astonishingly, Wood argues that “If [the towers] had slammed to the ground, there would have been over a million tonnes of debris left [...] That didn’t happen.” [5] , which is refuted by the fact that between 1.5 and 1.8 million tonnes of debris was reported to be removed from the site.
ff) A sentence about estimates made before the clean-up to argue this figure is only theoretical crumbles at the slightest of scrutiny. The amounts of debris was measured during processing as well, and for example the Bureau of Waste Disposal notes in an annual report how 1.46 million tonnes of debris was brought to Fresh Kills by truck and barge [6].
--------
Sources:
[3] Debunking dr. Judy Wood 8 - (Core Arg. 1C) What the actual evidence shows (https://t.co/0Pc4wXnytD)
[4] ‘Where Did the Towers Go?’ (2010) – chapter 5 “The Bathtub”, page 55
[5] Judy Wood “…over a million tonnes of debris…”, GlobalBEM presentation (2012) (https://t.co/58gJjHuj79)
[6] DSNY annual report (2003) (https://t.co/243j0XuYJz )
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)
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Angel & Sheytan Kütahya
Seen from Turkey
bob
Seen from France
TANTE STW
Seen from Singapore
Rเเสงเเดง
Seen from Singapore
ALFIEPOV📍LOS ANGELES 💗 DM COLLAB
Seen from India
marcos
Seen from Switzerland
Gay Cum HD
Seen from Canada
father
Seen from Indonesia
İda Beyi
Seen from Mexico
สะกิดหน่อย
Seen from Thailand
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
✨
⭐
💫