Simple Questions About the WTC-- Is This Information Available Anywhere?
(UPDATED BELOW)
It's not like it should be top secret-- unless the information is highly incriminating.
Questions:
1) To what extent were the basement levels of WTC 1 and 2 compacted or destroyed?
2) There was a PATH train that supposedly ran right under WTC2. Was this area destroyed or not?
3) There supposedly was a parking lot under WTC1. Was this area destroyed or not? I saw pictures of a parking lot in the basement area of Ground Zero once, where there were burned cars but the garage was basically intact. Was this right under WTC1?
4) How much rubble/debris was compacted in the basement levels of WTC1 and WTC2?
The reasons this is important are:
A) for accounting how much tower debris was actually left, since there seems to be a fair amount missing above ground.
B) were there open spaces under the towers, where oxygen could have flowed and promoted fires in the rubble?
Either way, it is bad for the official story. If the basement regions were relatively open and intact, this indicates a huge amount of WTC debris was missing-- indicating vaporization of tower contents by nukes. If the basement regions were totally filled with compacted debris, then this would exclude the possibility that the extended extreme heat at Ground Zero was due to below ground fires fed by basement oxygen. This would also support nukes as the cause of the extreme heat and inextinguishable fires-- the so-called China Syndrome.
UPDATE: "tetedur" at DU referred me to this:
UPDATED 2:
This diagram about the '93 WTC bombing indicates that the parking garage was NOT directly underneath tower 1.
It's not like it should be top secret-- unless the information is highly incriminating.
Questions:
1) To what extent were the basement levels of WTC 1 and 2 compacted or destroyed?
2) There was a PATH train that supposedly ran right under WTC2. Was this area destroyed or not?
3) There supposedly was a parking lot under WTC1. Was this area destroyed or not? I saw pictures of a parking lot in the basement area of Ground Zero once, where there were burned cars but the garage was basically intact. Was this right under WTC1?
4) How much rubble/debris was compacted in the basement levels of WTC1 and WTC2?
The reasons this is important are:
A) for accounting how much tower debris was actually left, since there seems to be a fair amount missing above ground.
B) were there open spaces under the towers, where oxygen could have flowed and promoted fires in the rubble?
Either way, it is bad for the official story. If the basement regions were relatively open and intact, this indicates a huge amount of WTC debris was missing-- indicating vaporization of tower contents by nukes. If the basement regions were totally filled with compacted debris, then this would exclude the possibility that the extended extreme heat at Ground Zero was due to below ground fires fed by basement oxygen. This would also support nukes as the cause of the extreme heat and inextinguishable fires-- the so-called China Syndrome.
UPDATE: "tetedur" at DU referred me to this:
(from City in the Sky,James Glanz and Eric Lipton, Times Books Henry Holt & Co. 2003)So this would support the idea that the debris was incredibly compacted, and thus no underground spaces for oxygen to flow up and fuel fires in the debris.
p. 293-294
"Lopez and Pontecorvo...were walking directly toward what had been the north tower. After a few minutes, their flashlights illuminated a solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been. At first, as the flashlights played over the rocky surface behind the columns, the mind simply could not interpret what the eyes saw: the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span. In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits. They could not be removed.
Lopez and Pontecorvo had found where the vanished floors had gone. They had not just fallen straight down. The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.
...The immense columns, at least two feet across, made of steel plate four inches thick, had suffered what looked like a compound fracture: the upper sections looked as if they had been kicked, with incalculable fury, about a foot south of the sections they were resting on....the broken columns, resting so precariously on their edges, not only rose up through the rest of the basement but also supported as much as one hundred feet of the north tower's facade that was leaning--at an angle very much like the one in front of them--against the mangled remnants of 6 World Trade Center."
UPDATED 2:
This diagram about the '93 WTC bombing indicates that the parking garage was NOT directly underneath tower 1.
posted by spooked at 11:27 AM
12 Comments:
What about the eyewitness account from Engineer Pecoraro cited several times.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_pecoraro_1
A.P.
i remember seeing a photo of the train that was basically intact in the basement of the tower - i think it was painted red. i think there was a toy store or gift shop or something there that sort of survived also.
Pecoraro's account was before the final destruction, wasn't it?
And I think I saw a picture of that train too, but was it directly in the footprint of the tower?
Spooked:
Yes, Pecoraro's account can be attributed to the nuke that was set off and timed to coincide with the alleged plane hit on top. So it was definitely before final destruction.
And let's not forget that Pecoraro's account jibe's with Felipe David's surviving the underground early nuke too, but with all his melted, hanging skin--without fire in his own words.
So I don't know of any accounts or survivors, well below, after total tower destruction. Not likely.
And if any photos or videos are claimed in the immediate aftermath, this should be viewed very cautiously.
A.P.
News accounts and articles about 9/11
never include any mention of the
possibility that small, new clear
power
was used at the WTC.
Censorship by PTB or manufactured
consent of those who control media?
Spooked:
We should not forget that we have cited one related matter here before. (I know I cited this several times in my articles.)
This is the so-called nuclear meteorite.
http://img142.imageshack.us/i/wtcmeteorite4fz8.jpg/
It has been described as having at least 4 floors compacted together into a tiny space.
Of course, this could only have been done by "extraordinarily high temperatures" and pressures.
Whether, or not, all of the rubble pile was so compacted is another matter. I have written that the yields of the micro-nukes were carefully chosen so as not to blow through and manifest themselves.
But I think this whole discussion may be pointless I am afraid. Because all the melted firemens' boots, even the dogs' boots, the flowing molten metal, etc., all indicate that something there was generating heat at a TEMPERATURE FAR HIGHER than could be attributed to any conventional, smoldering fires!
So the point may be moot--even if there were areas not compacted and having oxygen etc. and causing some type of conventional fires--such areas could not have caused temps sufficient to create flowing molten metal, weeks and months later. And wouldn't the conventional fires still need an energy source?
And we can discount the jet fuel--either never was any, or long used up. And the primer paint chips, er... I mean supernanocomposite thermite burns forever "theory" invokes a perpetual motion machine effect and can be discounted as risible, as my papers have proven.
Only the China Syndrome Aftermath could have been the energy source for heat generation of sufficent temperature and duration--until all simply reached and carted away, around the 6 month mark for deep underground fission remnants.
Anonymous Physicist
A.P.
We also need to look into the authors of the book cited above.
These are: James Glanz and Eric Lipton. They are reporters for the NY Times. I think everyone genuine now knows that that rag is totally controlled by the federal regime.
I have not, and will not, read that book. Some reviewers at Amazon note that it cites David Rockefeller as a "visionary." If only they knew, or stated, exactly how he is a "visionary."
Always examine the source. So if these authors found explicit evidence or eyewitness testimony of nukes or the China Syndrome, at the WTC, they'd never report it. Wise readers will know that this may be the point of having such people write such a book in the first place.
If in doubt, check out Wiki's piece on Eric Lipton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lipton
It notes that "The April 2009 issue of Esquire magazine listed him in its
'The List of Men: 66 Guys to Emulate'."
And 66 is a double 33, and has other connotations.
Why not a list of 57 "guys to emulate"?
The PTB showing off their "guys." And, of course, I have shown that a double 33 may specifically refer to nuclear matters. And sure enough, he has written now on a nuclear matter.
Anonymous Physicist
Dr. Griffin's recent aricle
on SCADS ("Building What?"
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20100527162010811)
is typically well written,
modest, well documented, free of
hyperbole, and very persuasive.
Anyone who is interested in WTC7
and other SCADS will no doubt be
impressed. And that includes
those of us who are well-acquainted
with the use of deep events to
subvert democracy.
Spooked:
There is more on James Glanz! He wrote, for the NY Times, a laughable piece attributing the WTC7 “collapse” to “diesel fuel.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/nation-challenged-site-engineers-have-culprit-strange-collapse-7-world-trade.html
Note that Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the New York City Housing Authority’s Emergency Services Department had called that explanation absurd, or such. He called himself “an old diesel fuel man” or such. Recall that I have written extensively on Jennings’ eyewitness testimony to the early explosions in WTC7 that I interpreted to mean that fizzled nukes went off in tandem with the (successful) nukes in the towers. Jennings of course died mysteriously a while later, and we still don’t know the cause of his death.
But apart from promoting the regime’s initial diesel fuel hangout, the above article from Glanz is none other than the one that includes fire engineering protection professor Dr. Barnett’s quote that he saw proof from partially vaporized steel beams that “EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH TEMPERATURES” had occurred in or under WTC7.
That quote then saw all the hidden intel assets come out of the woodwork to desperately try to “explain” it away, because it can only mean one thing—nukes were used to destroy the WTC7. And those who ignore Barnett’s quote and nuclear implication readily give themselves away as the undercover intel assets they are. While these types may be
expert in distraction and diversion, the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. And those who pretend that it is not, again make their true natures known, regardless of how many they may hoodwink, or how much publicity they are given, or how many books they get published.
Anonymous Physicist
P.S.: That Glanz knows all this can itself be gleamed from the following. Though rarely cited, I think, he holds a PhD in Astrophysics. And doctoral studies in Astrophysics include study of the nuclear reactions occurring in stellar cores. So he knows, or should know, what “EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH TEMPERATURES” means or implies. This itself may imply that we have MITOP again in the matter of the intelligentsia learning that the WTC was nuked by its own “government.” So the only thing we don’t know with certainty, is if Glanz fucked up in allowing Barnett’s quote, or perhaps more likely the PTB actually want a handful of us to know this—while they have their assets deny or divert from this fact. Of course, we don’t know just how the intel agencies control the MSM. For all we know, a “reporter” or “journalist” may not even see his final piece after the intel agencies do their thing. But Glanz would have known after reading it, if not before.
And this nuclear revelation from Barnett may be the reason for having Glanz later put out a 9/11 book.
Swiss-Cheese Steel from WTC7
"Swiss-Cheese Steel: Within a few months of 9/11, three professors from Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) had issued a report about a piece of steel from Building 7 that was described in a New York Times story by James Glanz and Eric Lipton as “[p]erhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.”13 Part of the mystery was the fact that the steel was “extremely thin,” indicating that the steel had “melted away,” even though “no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Another part of the mystery was that atoms in the steel seemed to have combined with sulfur “to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures,” but as to the source of the sulfur, “no one knows.”14
Describing this mysterious piece of steel more fully, an article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel” in WPI’s magazine, said:
“[S]teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies . . . reveal that . . . a eutectic reaction . . . caus[ed] intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese . . .. A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes. A eutectic compound is a mixture [involving sulfur]. . . . ‘The important questions," says [one of the professors], ‘are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?’”15
above from Dr. Griffin's article.
There's no doubt that Glanz and Lipton are controlled and are not going to let the deep truth out. But is their description of the compacted floors accurate? I tend to think it is.
Spooked:
I don't disagree with that. Indeed I posted the url for a photo of the "nuclear meteorite" which itself has been said to have 4 floors compressed into its small dimensions.
I was just indicating that there may be much more evidence that is being held back, in this matter..
Good that you posted something about the 1993 blast. Recall that I have written about that.
In particular, I wrote that when the regime admits to its wrong doings, its actual wrong doings are likely far worse.
In the 93 matter, the regime actually has admitted that its FBI agents told their undercover Egyptian spy not to use fake explosives, but to use the real ones that they would intercept and prevent--which allegedly didn't happen.
And the engineer Phil Schneider has revealed how he was shown the underground area where the 93 blast went off, and said that from the evidence (vaporization, etc.) that only a small nuke could have done that. He said he was asked to help do a better job of it with nukes, the next time, and he refused.
He was suicided (clearly murdered) some time later.
But I don't doubt there was massive compacting of remaining tower contents. It helps prove micro-nukes.
Anonymous Physicist
Post a Comment
<< Home