FAKING THE RUBBLE

[fakers911]

Ouch... another good example. Look at the rusty bolts .. near the center of the far right side. And why is that guy in the blue FDNY jacket not wearing his mask? No wonder alot of them got sick this way...



And this one... omg!

[Terence.drew]

There is another aspect to the WTC rubble which stinks. The Height of it.

In 1998 in Detroit the J.L. Hudson Department Store fell to controlled demolition. A building with a footprint of 220 feet sides and a height of 420 feet, roughly 3 times smaller than one WTC building but of a similar girth ( and also a structural steel building).

It fell and everything went deadly ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

Quote:
When the dust cleared, a debris pile averaging 35 ft tall and as high as 60 ft tall where the tower had stood was all that remained of the venerable Detroit department store.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl ... ment-store

The images of the rubble we are looking at are seemingly dated a few days after the collapse. There are search dogs still and buckets and the entirety of the rubble.

The WTC is not a sprawling complex and the WTC buildings fell into an enclosed bowl shape.

Yet we see the footpath in a lot of the photos. People standing around with a bit of rubble behind them and recognisable footpath and road features like traffic lights etc.






So how high should the rubble be?

Given that the Hudson building left a debris mound of 35 feet on average and that it is a similar enough design has a similar footprint but is 3 times shorter, the WTC rubble pile should average over 100 feet and as high as 180 feet in parts, even allowing for some of the wreckage to collapse into the underground area.


Whats does that look like?

100 foot Viking-proof dwelling in Ireland.



100 foot lego tower.



100 foot wave (or depiction of one)



200 foot dog :lol:




If these Rubble photos were shot near the WTC they were shot months after the collapse.More than likely they are all staged somewhere and photo-shopped.
In fact there is a kind of Brokeback mountain feel to some of them so maybe they were created post 2005!

[reel.deal]

.

[hoi.polloi]

Cripes, you're right!

It's like the Shanksville airplane story. "90% went into the ground!" Very doubtful. These pictures are suspect for that alone.

Was there enough room underground for the wreckage of those buildings? Would they have really flattened out like a sprinkling of steel that settled in the shape of the buildings around them?

There is a missing set of images between the collapse and this set. Are these supposed to have been mere hours after the "attack"? If so, how is that possible?

Some of the big perps like Webfairy and her motley lot claim to have been allowed to take pictures of the machines removing such enormous amounts of steel to be turned into those Northrop Grumman military ships. Maybe those are supposed to explain the time difference.

But what kind of process was that?

[nonhocapito]

Was there enough room underground for the wreckage of those buildings? Would they have really flattened out like a sprinkling of steel that settled in the shape of the buildings around them?

For absurd as it seems, I think the official story is that most of the rubble did go underground.

Some of the pictures do show deep caves that descend within the rubble:



Not that i am taking the above picture at face-value: notice for example the perspective error in the size of the little men down in the hole (the one in the upper right is way too small compared to how narrower the beam he is standing on becomes). I am just showing that the lack of rubble on the surface was implicitly explained with it being underground.

But I think underground there would be in fact enough room, provided the whole block was sort of hollowed out...
If I should take down those building with a controlled demolition, since they are so huge, I'd make sure I first have all the room available underground to collect all the rubble.

First off, collecting rubble underground means beams and pieces are not cast around too much (damage to side structures contained). It also means the rubble is away from the eyes of the citizens. And I guess it is also technically much easier to pick pieces up from the top down, rather than trying to bring tractors and people up a huge pile to remove the pieces.

So, regardless the fakery of the pictures, I think flat rubble is a sign of demolition more than it is of fakery. Flat rubble like this is of course *impossible* with the buildings just falling down without demolition charges making room for them... but the contradiction is never brought up by those who endorse the official fable.

As to the question why did they not just simply "made up" a more credible higher pile of rubble, I think the answer is that a huge pile was not there in reality, was not visible emerging from above the screens covering the yard or at the end of the streets from afar in the city. Perhaps reality and fakery had to be consistent on that one.

[walkingwizard]

So whats up with the papers stuck on the copcars wiperarms? one thing that struck me regarding all these pics except from all the photo shop stuff, is that it almost always feels that something is missing in the pics. What i am trying to say is as if they were real you wouldnt get that feeling. The pics are too staged, i guess you could call it, even the ones that are so poorly made.

[nonhocapito]

So whats up with the papers stuck on the copcars wiperarms? one thing that struck me regarding all these pics except from all the photo shop stuff, is that it almost always feels that something is missing in the pics. What i am trying to say is as if they were real you wouldnt get that feeling. The pics are too staged, i guess you could call it, even the ones that are so poorly made.

Yes pictures of the rubble are of course fake, compositions, but for the moment I tend to believe that they are fake within certain limits, as it might not have been entirely feasible to hide the rubble completely from the city, which means that certain parts that were visible from outside (because they were sticking out, so to speak) had to be visible in the pictures, and the same goes for those that visible were not (you could not invent things that were "sticking out").

[hoi.polloi]

That's true.

It's possible that the exercise post-9/11 was even more strenuous for the perps than during 9/11 because it meant keeping a constantly vigilant guard around the area. I wonder how it all went down. Strange to think about how much people were taking something casually while the perps might have been working 24/7 to keep the situation tight and under control.

[Terence.drew]

LOL Reel.deal, brilliant.


Lets not do the work of the perps for them.

The 911 narrative runs like this; two giant buildings were hit by planes and collapsed from the top down onto the street below.

It does not say that two giant buildings were hit by planes and collapsed from the top down, AND that 90% of the building fell into an underground bunker and that is why 90% of the rubble in the photos taken a week after the collapse is missing.

The foundations were strong enough to hold up 500,000 tons of building (plus a factor of safety of probably 2 which makes each foundation good for a million tons).

The rubble is the same weight as the building minus the dust.

A typical debris mound of a steel structure building appears to be between 6 and 10% the height of the original building.
There should be a wall of debris at least 100 feet tall. There isn't. Explain Mr. Perp please?

Then we find pictures and accounts of the underground area of WTC which 'appear' to be walk aroundable and not completely squashed with rubble.

Here Kurt flashes a bit of muscle for us. (pic taken with a pinch of salt however)



If 90% ( just my guess - rubble pile 10 foot instead of 100 foot) has disappeared for whatever reason in the immediate aftermath of the collapses (Sonnenfeld's photos typically have dates like 18th or 19th September )that is another glaring omission from the 911 narrative. The Shanksville airplane story is a great analogy Hoi.

These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.

[hoi.polloi]

These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.

Well, if you removed all the water from your body - which is 70 to 90% water - you might fit in a cookie tin. Since the World Trade Center is approximately a million times larger than you, it was made of approximately 70 to 90 million per cent water. Therefore, even before the jet fuel explosion evaporated the water, there was virtually nothing composing the towers pre-attack, and the remains of the airplanes fluttered down into the pit in the form of scraps of glittering, paper-thin shards of metal, where it coalesced into steel beams and terrorist-passport shaped rubble. There are no actual beams and cheap bandanas, but they resemble them. This is why everything looks a little "off".

You are debunked, terence!

Where's my NASA ticket to Mars, Simon?

[idschmyd]

There is another aspect to the WTC rubble which stinks. The Height of it.

In 1998 in Detroit the J.L. Hudson Department Store fell to controlled demolition. A building with a footprint of 220 feet sides and a height of 420 feet, roughly 3 times smaller than one WTC building but of a similar girth ( and also a structural steel building).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

Nice squibs!

This is the problem Judy Wod was trying (quite successfully) to deal with - set phasers to 'discredit'. It was still working on me since I'd chucked out the 'lack of rubble' aspect with the rest of her bathwater.

do I trust the images enough to observe a paucity of rubble at GZ? Yea, I think so. It seems unlikely the lads would have produced bogus images of a low-rise or totally missing rubble pile to represent over 2500ft of demolished building if there had in fact been a predictably tall pile, and it would have been risky to try to hide 100ft of rubble with bogus pictures since the real pile would have been towering into the sky vulnerable to rogue and genuine photographry. So I accept the low-rise aspect of the otherwise phony and doctored images. I'm not clear why there is so little rubble, but as yet prefer the 'pre-gutted buildings' explanation to beams and nukes.

[Terence.drew]

These building were a quarter of mile high each. The idea that the rubble of these monstrosities packed itself up neatly and fit almost entirely into a much much smaller area beneath it is like me saying that last night I stood on a biscuit tin and hey presto! in a huff and jiffy I deconstructed my whole body and it packed itself into the tin with just my eyebrows and hair peaking ova the top.

Well, if you removed all the water from your body - which is 70 to 90% water - you might fit in a cookie tin. Since the World Trade Center is approximately a million times larger than you, it was made of approximately 70 to 90 million per cent water. Therefore, even before the jet fuel explosion evaporated the water, there was virtually nothing composing the towers pre-attack, and the remains of the airplanes fluttered down into the pit in the form of scraps of glittering, paper-thin shards of metal, where it coalesced into steel beams and terrorist-passport shaped rubble. There are no actual beams and cheap bandanas, but they resemble them. This is why everything looks a little "off".

You are debunked, terence!

Where's my NASA ticket to Mars, Simon?

At 20,000 dollars per Kg just to get something even into space, a waterless and trimmer biscuit tin Terence would be a lot cheaper to get up there into________ and less taxing on the R.Shack coffers!

I could then just hitch a lift to Mars on the soon to be launched and fabulously over hysteria-engineered Alex Jones Alien crafts! I might just leave my ears behind if I have to listen to him on the way though.

[hoi.polloi]

Pre-gutted buildings makes the most sense. It makes sense in light of vicsim research and no victims. It makes sense in light of no real documentation allowed. It makes sense in light of the secret bidding war for the block of buildings that Silverstein won and got insurance on. Easier to buy a pre-evacuated building rather than a contract with tons of businesses and government organizations pre-attached. Can you imagine buying a building that the FBI worked in? Yeah right!

It was hard enough for the perps to hide 7 seconds of "real time" and convince us an airplane flew by and crashed in that interval.

It would be epic win for the perps if they managed to hide a gigantic pile of rubble for weeks let alone months or years.

Actually, I am normally not willing to say something like this, but I am pretty sure it would actually be physically impossible - no way - no how. You just cannot hide that kind of thing. There was no giant 100-foot pile of rubble by the time average citizenry was allowed on scene.

What was placed there in the so-called "aftermath" was probably something like a sprinkling of maybe real debris, along with pre-cut pre-fab beams from the actual debris (or maybe pre-made in a propaganda lab in some base) put there in a post-modern artistic display of "ruin" complete with a potentially real "Beam Colosseum", a definitely real cheesy metal Christ cross made of welded-together beams which I saw physically with my own eyes in New York when I walked by Ground Zero many years later, and probably a bunch of other bizarre performance art in the wake of the actual buildings getting a Copperfield style disappearance act on the morning of September 11, 2001. Perhaps there were actors like Steve Buscemi, Daniel Day Lewis, unelected "President" George Bush or scum like Giuliani passing buckets of ice to one another, tossing a few cold ones back and wondering about just how big their next contract paychecks would be when they are rewarded with movies and TV series for posing live at the scene.

The fake photos are as invented as the broadcast imagery to control the dialogue and the visual narrative. More opportunities for subliminal messages, more opportunities to make the photos and videos seem to come from less controlled and managed sources by the simple act of crediting more people, crediting sims and pseudonyms and people in your employ/control, and more opportunities to continue their simulation with people dressed up as fire fighters and hometown Amerukins, or digitally inserted, posing with print-outs of their never-existing "loved ones" etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[nonhocapito]

What was placed there in the so-called "aftermath" was probably something like a sprinkling of maybe real debris, along with pre-cut pre-fab beams from the actual debris (or maybe pre-made in a propaganda lab in some base) put there in a post-modern artistic display of "ruin" complete with a potentially real "Beam Colosseum", a definitely real cheesy metal Christ cross made of welded-together beams which I saw physically with my own eyes in New York when I walked by Ground Zero many years later, and probably a bunch of other bizarre performance art in the wake of the actual buildings getting a Copperfield style disappearance act on the morning of September 11, 2001.

The pre-gutting of the towers, removal of furnitures, cables, machines, carpets, whatever, makes sense... But only the external structure, the core, the floors --of the two towers falling on each other-- should account for a pretty gigantic rubble pile anyway.

If we imagine that the interiors of the floors were removed in advance based on our observation of the photos (too uniform in itself, as it is made only of rusted beams and pieces of concrete), we implicitly admit that the photos of the rubble make sense as they are (except maybe for the super-imposition of "heroes" at work, and a few "dramatic" elements). Which might as well be, but in that case, we need to find a rational explanation for the disappearance of the debris that does not involve David Copperfield.

I again suggest that, as part of the controlled demolition, it is not unconceivable that enough room underground was open to fit most of the rubble into it as it fell down.

Since the towers certainly did not fell down the way we see in the videos, which is an impossibility, there is no reason to exclude that the controlled demolition had a part that included making room for the debris in the basement that extended itself five floors underground probably in the whole block.

Since after the rubble was removed from "ground zero", the whole block showed itself as being entirely under the level of the street for many feet. How would that be possible, if it was not already basically voided of structures during the demolition of the towers?

[reel.deal]

.