Significant Amounts of WTC1 and WTC2 Debris Still Missing
Greg Jenkins: “Neither of the WTC towers fell into their own footprints.”
Me: Agreed
Greg Jenkins: “A conservative estimate of the radius of the falling debris is at least 2.5 times the radius of the tower or, equivalently, a debris field 6.25 times the footprint of the building.”
Me: Yes, except the debris was NOT SPREAD EVENLY over that 6.25x footprint. The debris pile was clearly highest in the actual footprint, and then the debris piles tapered off very substantially the farther you went from the towers.
Greg Jenkins: “Using Dr. Wood’s analysis method for the WTC tower of height 1365’, but using the WTC building 7 collapse ratio of 11.5% and considering that the debris was spread out over 6.25 times the footprint, yields an average debris height of ft 25 for one WTC tower spread out over an area 6.25 footprints.
Me: Let’s slow down here. 11.5% of 1365 feet equals 157 feet. This means if WTC1 and WTC2 had collapsed straight down and all debris went in the footprint, there would be a 157 foot high pile of debris. This is clearly what was not seen, as the central debris pile was only about 25 feet for each tower. IF there was a 25 foot high pile of debris in an area of 6.25 footprints around each tower, then this would add up to the “right” amount of debris for WTC1 and WTC2, in comparison to WTC7. But this is clearly NOT the case— NOT what was seen at Ground Zero. There were NO debris piles around the footprints of the towers that were close to 25 feet high. A more reasonable accounting of debris would say there was a central footprint of 25 feet, and the remaining 5.5 footprints worth of debris had an average height of 15 feet (a generous assumption)— this adds up to 108 feet of debris in one footprint for each tower— meaning very close to 30% of the debris of each tower is unaccounted for!
Now, Jenkins tries to account for any missing debris by saying it was in unseen collapsed basement areas---
Greg Jenkins: “Partial collapses of the sub-levels could fully account for the proclaimed ‘missing’ debris.”
Me: But this is simply not the case, because WTC1 and WTC2 and WTC7 all had similar numbers of basement levels. Thus, any WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 debris in these sublevels cancel each other out and can be removed from our analysis. Now Jenkins would probably claim that there were additional sublevels OUTSIDE the footprints of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers in which debris disappeared. But there is almost no basis for this claim-- that significant debris disappeared outside into sublevel basements outside the towers' footprints-- and even if this were the case, this can only account for about (1/5) of the outer footprint areas of debris, as most of the "outer radii" where debris fell did not have sublevels into which debris could fall and not be observed. Moreover, any (putative) extra debris in outer sublevels is easily canceled out by the smaller debris piles to the west and north of WTC1, and west and south of WTC2— places where the debris piles were clearly lower than ten feet high.
Thus, at least, 30% of WTC1 and 30% of WTC2 debris is unaccounted for in the ground zero piles-- if you make a direct comparison with WTC7. Of course one argument is that this material was vaporized by nuclear blasts-- demolition via mini-nukes.
Jenkins also argues that the WTC1 and WTC2 debris was compacted more because the towers were bigger and the debris fell harder. While this has a ring of common sense, there is not so much evidence to support it. For instance, debris that fell outside of the tower footprints showed no significant compaction-- e.g. outer column triad structures that were stabbed into the street after falling from the towers retained their original form-- though presumably these fell from a huge height. I think that debris compaction is more dependent on how efficient the demolition was in blowing out the supporting structures in the tower than on the overall height. Since the WTC1 and WTC2 towers were clearly pulverized to an incredible extent, perhaps there WAS more compaction in WTC1 and WTC2 than WTC7 simply because the demolition was much more intense. In a sense, if WTC1 and WTC2 were actually compacted more compared to WTC7, then this is a good argument for demolition.
Me: Agreed
Greg Jenkins: “A conservative estimate of the radius of the falling debris is at least 2.5 times the radius of the tower or, equivalently, a debris field 6.25 times the footprint of the building.”
Me: Yes, except the debris was NOT SPREAD EVENLY over that 6.25x footprint. The debris pile was clearly highest in the actual footprint, and then the debris piles tapered off very substantially the farther you went from the towers.
Greg Jenkins: “Using Dr. Wood’s analysis method for the WTC tower of height 1365’, but using the WTC building 7 collapse ratio of 11.5% and considering that the debris was spread out over 6.25 times the footprint, yields an average debris height of ft 25 for one WTC tower spread out over an area 6.25 footprints.
Me: Let’s slow down here. 11.5% of 1365 feet equals 157 feet. This means if WTC1 and WTC2 had collapsed straight down and all debris went in the footprint, there would be a 157 foot high pile of debris. This is clearly what was not seen, as the central debris pile was only about 25 feet for each tower. IF there was a 25 foot high pile of debris in an area of 6.25 footprints around each tower, then this would add up to the “right” amount of debris for WTC1 and WTC2, in comparison to WTC7. But this is clearly NOT the case— NOT what was seen at Ground Zero. There were NO debris piles around the footprints of the towers that were close to 25 feet high. A more reasonable accounting of debris would say there was a central footprint of 25 feet, and the remaining 5.5 footprints worth of debris had an average height of 15 feet (a generous assumption)— this adds up to 108 feet of debris in one footprint for each tower— meaning very close to 30% of the debris of each tower is unaccounted for!
Now, Jenkins tries to account for any missing debris by saying it was in unseen collapsed basement areas---
Greg Jenkins: “Partial collapses of the sub-levels could fully account for the proclaimed ‘missing’ debris.”
Me: But this is simply not the case, because WTC1 and WTC2 and WTC7 all had similar numbers of basement levels. Thus, any WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 debris in these sublevels cancel each other out and can be removed from our analysis. Now Jenkins would probably claim that there were additional sublevels OUTSIDE the footprints of the WTC1 and WTC2 towers in which debris disappeared. But there is almost no basis for this claim-- that significant debris disappeared outside into sublevel basements outside the towers' footprints-- and even if this were the case, this can only account for about (1/5) of the outer footprint areas of debris, as most of the "outer radii" where debris fell did not have sublevels into which debris could fall and not be observed. Moreover, any (putative) extra debris in outer sublevels is easily canceled out by the smaller debris piles to the west and north of WTC1, and west and south of WTC2— places where the debris piles were clearly lower than ten feet high.
Thus, at least, 30% of WTC1 and 30% of WTC2 debris is unaccounted for in the ground zero piles-- if you make a direct comparison with WTC7. Of course one argument is that this material was vaporized by nuclear blasts-- demolition via mini-nukes.
Jenkins also argues that the WTC1 and WTC2 debris was compacted more because the towers were bigger and the debris fell harder. While this has a ring of common sense, there is not so much evidence to support it. For instance, debris that fell outside of the tower footprints showed no significant compaction-- e.g. outer column triad structures that were stabbed into the street after falling from the towers retained their original form-- though presumably these fell from a huge height. I think that debris compaction is more dependent on how efficient the demolition was in blowing out the supporting structures in the tower than on the overall height. Since the WTC1 and WTC2 towers were clearly pulverized to an incredible extent, perhaps there WAS more compaction in WTC1 and WTC2 than WTC7 simply because the demolition was much more intense. In a sense, if WTC1 and WTC2 were actually compacted more compared to WTC7, then this is a good argument for demolition.
posted by spooked at 6:12 PM
3 Comments:
IF there was a 25 foot high pile of debris in an area of 6.25 footprints around each tower, then this would add up to the “right” amount of debris for WTC1 and WTC2
Don't forget the two 6.25x footprints have a lot of overlap, so you would expect 50 feet of debris over a lot of this area.
wow jenkins' story includes 4 entire photos and 1 is actually a photo of a little tiny bit of wtc debris!
the photo of the mini van on fire next to the car is a good touch, especially with his explanation that the asphalt beneath the mini van was burning and started the car burning as well - unfortunately for his pile of debris calculations the whole world can look at dozens and dozens of photos of the actual wtc debris and see for themselves that there was hardly any at all.
and unfortunately for his explanation of the oddly toasted cars the whole world can look at many photos of the 1500 or so oddly toasted cars and see for themselves that the pavement under the cars had not been burnt and in fact most of the oddly toasted cars' tires had not even been burnt.
oddly means oddly, jenkins.
he should be a TV writer!
jenkins is probably NSA or some kind of deep-cover operative for the Perps...some people smell like spooks, follow your instinct...
Post a Comment
<< Home